HL Deb 12 May 1881 vol 261 cc253-8

(The Lord Chancellor.)

SECOND READING.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that as he desired to remove considerable misapprehension on the subject, he would say something both as to the reasons for the introduction of the measure and the provisions which it contained. It was a Bill to increase the powers now possessed by the police authorities with regard to the recovery of stolen goods, and to make other provisions calculated to discourage the receiving of such goods, and to facilitate their recovery. He thought that everybody would admit that this was desirable. It had frequently occurred that very valuable property which had been taken by robbery had never been traced, a fact which showed that the law in its present state was less efficacious in assisting in the discovery of stolen property and throwing difficulties in the way of thieves than it should be. The police authorities of the Metropolis having communicated with those in various parts of the country elicited a unanimous opinion that further legislation was necessary, and that such a Bill as that before their Lordships would give increased facilities for checking the evils complained of. He was told that at present there was no real check on the receivers of stolen goods, and no actual facility for the recovery of goods which had been stolen. For that state of things he did not throw blame on anybody, but it was necessary to find a remedy. A very respectable trade, the pawnbrokers, were, it appeared, greatly alarmed at this Bill, as if it were directed against themselves. When its provisions were carefully looked into it would be found that, though some amendments might be desirable, there was no ground for that alarm. The first set of provisions were perfectly general; the second applied to second-hand dealers; and the third to second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. The pawnbrokers as a body were a highly respectable body of men; but, of course, in so numerous a class there must be some persons less scrupulous than others, while some who were scrupulous might unwittingly receive articles which had been stolen. He had seen it stated in a printed circular which professed to give reasons why the Bill should not be passed, that its provisions were based on the idea that pawnbrokers and receivers of stolen goods were identical. That was an error into which certainly neither he nor Her Majesty's Government had fallen. No one could be more sensible than he was of the high character of the pawnbrokers generally, and of the high standing of many of them, and nothing could be further from his intention than to throw any slur upon them. It was, however, certain that even the most upright pawnbrokers might sometimes take in pledge articles that had been dishonestly obtained, without knowing that they had been so obtained; and that all pawnbrokers should be exempted from the operation of the Bill was a suggestion which they themselves could not expect to see realized. Ire had had great satisfaction in receiving a deputation, who very ably represented them. That deputation had made many suggestions; and, as he was not desirous of unnecessarily harassing the trade, he proposed, if their Lordships were pleased to read the Bill a second time, to pass it through Committee pro formâ, for the purpose of having it reprinted with some Amendments, founded on those suggestions, which he was willing at once to introduce, and afterwards to have it re-committed to a Select Committee, which would have power to take evidence, so that every opportunity might be given to those who were interested to show how they would be affected by it. The main alteration made in the existing law by the first part of the Bill was in respect to search for stolen goods. At present it was necessary, in order to obtain a search-warrant, that a police-constable should state on oath reasons for believing that articles stolen were in the place proposed to be searched, and should specify what those articles were; and the magistrates did not like to grant such a warrant without proof of a primâ facie case, which it was often impossible to establish before search. The 3rd clause of the Bill would enable a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to grant a special warrant on the oath of an officer of the police, being an inspector, or an officer of equal or superior rank to an inspector, that he had received information, from which he believed that stolen articles—without specifying them in detail—were in a particular place. On the authority of this warrant the officer could search, and on discovery of the property and on proof that the person in possession of it had reasonable grounds for believing it to have been stolen, and had, nevertheless, made no communication to the police, penalties would be inflicted. In this respect the Bill did not go beyond the provisions of some local Acts already passed—the Glasgow Police Act, for instance. The provisions of the 4th and 5th clauses rendered it penal to deface or alter goods purchased or received by a person who might have some reason to suppose that they had been stolen. Gold and silver articles were not to be melted down within three days of the time of purchase. The 8th and 9th clauses had reference to the assistance in recovery of stolen articles to be given by pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers, and to the duty of those classes of traders to answer the inquiries of constables. By the Pawnbrokers' Act of 1872, pawnbrokers were under an obligation to keep books, with particulars of the pledges received by them. This Bill extended that obligation to second-hand dealers in precious metals. They were also empowered by the Act of 1872 to hand over to the custody of the police any person whom they suspected of offering stolen goods for sale or in pawn; but that Act contained no indemnity to them in case the person suspected should prove to to innocent. It was proposed by this Bill to give such an indemnity, and the 11th clause gave compensation to pawnbrokers and others for loss of time, and the expense they might be put to in giving information. Secondhand dealers were to be required to take out a licence, which, in the first instance, was to be obtained on the certificate of a justice; and by Clause 14 it was enacted that no second-hand dealer should purchase an article from a child under 12 years old, or from a person appearing to be intoxicated, or employ any person under the age of 16 to receive goods. Similar provisions to these were already in force as to pawnbrokers. By Clause 15 it was provided that where a pawnbroker was convicted of an offence punishable under the Pawnbrokers' Act of 1872, or this Act, and had previously been convicted of the same or any other offence under either Act, or where a second-hand dealer was convicted of an offence under this Act, and had previously been convicted of the same or any other offence, the Court before whom he was convicted might direct his licence or certificate to be endorsed with a record of the conviction, and if any conviction had been endorsed against him within five years previously might direct his licence or certificate to be forfeited. It had been represented to him that, as that clause stood, it was too severe, as the previous conviction under the Pawnbrokers' Act might be for noncompliance with regulations in some matters of detail not seriously affecting the public. He therefore proposed to amend it by providing that the former penalty must have been over £5, which would exclude penalties for any but serious and repeated offences. There were three other clauses of great importance, which he could not help thinking were those which chiefly alarmed the pawnbrokers. It was proposed in the Bill that after any conviction, either under the Pawnbrokers' Act, or this Act, or the Public Stores Act, a Court might direct the person convicted to be registered, the effect of which would be to put him under certain specified restrictions, and the commission of any further offence would entail further restrictions. It had been represented that some of those restrictions were of a kind which, if applied to pawnbrokers, would make it impossible for them to carry on their business. He thought, on consisideration, that the objects of these clauses would be sufficiently attained, without extending them to pawnbrokers: he intended, therefore, to limit them so as not to include pawnbrokers. There was also a provision as to the liability of agents and servants of pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers, which he thought would be found useful. By Clause 22 an appeal to Quarter Sessions was given where a fine exceeding was imposed; and Clause 23 provided that a conviction for any offence under this Act should not after five years be receivable in evidence against the person so convicted. He would only add, in conclusion, that the Bill was conceived entirely in the public interest, to facilitate the recovery of stolen property; and, looking to the fact that its provisions would be examined by a Select Committee, he trusted their Lordships would now give it a second reading.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that the Bill his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had introduced might be accurately described as being of the same class as another Bill which he would bring forward shortly—namely, as an effort on behalf of a Department of the Government to increase its powers, and consequently to diminish, in a corresponding degree, the rights and privileges of the other subjects of Her Majesty. Everybody knew that Departments of the State often conceived it to be for the interest of the public that their powers should be increased; but it was their Lordships' duty to watch vigilantly proposals of this kind, and to see that they were not adopted without careful inquiry. The public necessity of this Bill rested almost entirely on the evidence of the police authorities. He had great respect for the police as a body; but a Bill to give the police so much more power required some other testimony of its necessity. This Bill had given great alarm to that very respectable body of traders, the pawnbrokers; but he was glad to find from the observations of his noble and learned Friend that the representations of that body had had some effect with him. If his noble and learned Friend had proposed to push the Bill through the House in its present form, he should have felt it his duty to say that their Lordships ought to examine the evidence in its favour with great care; but as it had passed from the hands of the Criminal Investigation Department—where he supposed it originated—to his noble and learned Friend, who was willing that it should be considered by a Select Committee, he need not detain their Lordships further than to express his opinion that the wisest course would be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.