HC Deb 04 May 1854 vol 132 cc1223-6
MR. F. SCULLY

said, he wished to call the attention of the hon. Under Secretary of State for the Home Department to the case of George Brown, at Bow Street Police Office, last Thursday. It appeared that that person had been convicted of felony three or four years ago, and sentenced to seven years' transportation. At the expiration of seventeen months' imprisonment at Dartmoor Prison he was liberated on licence and sent back to Edinburgh, and after three months he was convicted of another crime and brought up to Bow Street. In this case a point arose in reference to the conduct of the police towards convicts after their liberation. It was stated by the prisoner that the authorities of Dartmoor Prison sent him back upon licence to the scene of his former disgrace, where he failed to get employment, and that wherever he went he was a marked man, in consequence of the police informing those who employed him of his previous character. The result was, no confidence was placed in him. Since then two letters, one from the chaplain of the City Prison, and another from the chaplain of York Prison, had appeared in the Times, both stating that it was the practice of the police to give information to the employers of liberated convicts. He, therefore, wished to ask the hon. Under Secretary for the Home Department, if convicts liberated with licences under the Act 16 & 17 Vict. chap. 99, were usually ordered to be discharged in the place where they committed the crimes for which they were convicted; if he was aware that the police were in the habit of informing the employers of such liberated prisoners of their previous character; whether they have any authority for doing so; and if he would lay upon the table of the House copies of the instructions relating to the discharge of convicts with leave of licence, and the rules and regulations of the police force in regard to such prisoners, after their liberation?

MR. FITZROY

said, in reply to the first question of the hon. Member, he had to state that the option was given to the person discharged under licence, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of last year, to name the place where he wished to go, and where, according to his statement, persons were able and willing to give him employment. Inquiries were then made on the spot as to the correctness of the statement, and, if it were found to be correct, he was permitted to go to the place so named. The circumstances under which the convict on licence went were these:—In the first place the expenses of his carriage were paid, provided that the place selected by him was not further from the prison than the place from which he had been committed; in the next place, some provision was made for his subsistence during the journey, and he was also entitled to the full amount of his earnings received during his time of servitude, for which a post-office order was given him. He likewise received a complete suit of clothes, suitable to the condition of life in which he was to be placed. In the case to which allusion had been made, Brown received for his earnings 5l 6s. 6d., and for his railway journey to Edinburgh, where he was conveyed at his own request, 2l. 3s., with a small sum besides to subsist on during his journey. So far from the statement being true, that he made repeated attempts to obtain employment, which had been frustrated by the police hunting him out and giving information to his employers, an account which he (Mr. Fitzroy) should read from the newspaper in which the charge originally appeared, would show the real state of the case. It was founded on further investigation upon the spot, and he could vouch for its truth, having received the substance of the statement from the sheriff, to whom it was furnished by the superintendent of police. After hearing it, the House would be, no doubt, of opinion that, instead of this liberated convict being deserving of sympathy, he had been guilty of a gross imposition— With reference to the paragraph in our supplement (quoted from the Times) regarding the case of the returned convict Brown, we have made some inquiry into the facts of the case. The usual practice of the police has always been to give full effect to the wishes and intentions of the authorities by jealously guarding against any interference in respect to parties liberated after imprisonment or under 'leave of licence,' which could prevent possibly their obtaining or continuing in honest employment. As regards the case of George Brown, we find that he was neither seen nor heard of by the police from the time that he was transported in 1850 till he was apprehended in Edinburgh on the 17th of March last, on the information of persons whose property had been stolen here. He was then identified by the criminal officers, and it was ascertained that he had been in Edinburgh about a month, and had committed several thefts within that period. His sister, a respectable woman, with whom he lived during those few weeks, and her neighbours, state, that when he came he had 4l. or 5l., received, as they understood, from the authorities, and that he neither sought for nor obtained employment, but was drunk almost every day. He might add that this man pleaded "Guilty" to four offences, and his own statement to the superintendent of police was, that he never tried to obtain employment, but remained in drunkenness during the whole time after his liberation. With regard to the second question, instructions were issued to the police to regard these men in no other light than other convicts whose term of imprisonment had expired. They were not placed in a superior condition.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, this was not a question as to the character of Brown, but as to the principle on which the Home Office acted in this important matter. He therefore wished to know whether the Home Office, in carrying out this new system, gave any instructions that the men so discharged should be sent to the places where they had before lived, and whether the police were instructed to give information to any person disposed to employ them of their previous habits of life?

MR. FITZROY

said, he regretted if he had not made himself intelligible to the House. There were no special instructions whatever given to the police in respect to their conduct towards these men liberated under licence. They were exactly in the same position as liberated convicts who had completed their term of confinement. No special instructions were given to the police with regard to them. On leaving prison they were asked where they wished to go, and the choice of the place depended on themselves. In the event of the place chosen not being further distant from the prison than the place of conviction, they were sent there, with their railway or other fare paid. They had the option of remaining where they pleased.