HC Deb 04 August 1869 vol 198 cc1253-82

[Lords.] COMMITTEE.

Order for Committee read.

MR. BRUCE

said, he should not press this Bill at so late a period of the Session if it did not appear to him that there was a strong desire on all sides that at least its leading principles should become law. It would be recollected that the Bill had been originally introduced in that House, but was subsequently withdrawn in order that it might be brought forward in the other House, where it had been fully discussed and met with general approval and support. He had carefully examined the Amendments which had been placed on the Paper, and it appeared to him none of them were in any way opposed to the principle of the Bill; the greater part of them were intended to give it increased effect, and some of them might be adopted with advantage. The main objects of the Bill wore the supervision of criminals, and a proper system of registration in order to secure the recognition of previously-convicted offenders when brought up for trial. Other provisions were introduced of more or less importance, but, so far as he was concerned, he should be well pleased if the Bill left the Committee giving power for the effectual supervision of "habitual criminals" and their registration. He wished it to be understood that the Bill was not brought forward on account of any sudden or alarming increase of crime, though he admitted that there had recently been some increase. It was gratifying to find, on examining the records of the last thirty years, that crime, on the whole, had rather diminished, and during the last ten years it might be said to have been stationary—not relatively to the population, but positively. While we had increased in wealth and in population, and while the chief increase in both had taken place in towns, crime had decreased. Among the causes of that decrease of crime, the greatest was undoubtedly emigration, which, by relieving the labour market, diminished poverty, one of the great incentives to crime. Another cause was the spread of education; for ignorance and crime went together. As to this, nothing could be more striking than the testimony of their criminal records. Out of every 100 criminals only thirty-five could read or write, and only three could read and write decently well, while only one criminal out of every 500 could properly be called well educated. In addition to these causes there had been a progressive and improving system of repression and penal legislation. Of late years great attention had been paid to this subject, and the present system of prison discipline had undoubtedly produced beneficial effects. The average number of convictions for indictable offences in England and Wales during the ten years ending 1867 was 18,661, or 1 in 1,125 of the population. For the year 1868 the numbers were 20,091, or 1 in 1,085, being an increase of 1,430, or 7'6 per cent. This increase was no doubt due, in a great extent, to the great depression in our commerce and the pressure of poverty. But it could also be shown that it was not due to that cause alone; it was to some extent owing to our past legislation, especially to the operation of the Act of 1864. That Act was passed in consequence of the Report of a Commission of very able men, who, having thoroughly considered the subject of transportation and penal servitude, satisfied themselves that the short sentences of three or four years were insufficient to produce the great objects of punishment — namely, to deter and reform offenders. The rule then laid down was, while transportation itself was abolished for the future, that wherever a sentence of penal servitude was passed for the first time it should never fall short of five years, and where the criminal had been previously convicted of felony the sentence of penal servitude should not fall short of seven years. The effect of that Act, he had no doubt, had been in some respects good, but its effect in another way had been very remarkable. In 1863—which was not the highest year, but a fair average—the number of persons sentenced to penal servitude was 3,071, and in 1868, a year of unusual crime, the number sentenced to penal servitude was only 1,939, showing a decrease of 1,132, and this obviously arose from the unwillingness of Judges in a great many cases to impose a sentence of penal servitude for seven years, while yet they would have been willing to impose sentences of three or four years. There was a very extraordinary variation in the number of twice convicted felons in different places who were sentenced to penal servitude. Thus, in 1868, at Bristol there were 54 per cent of twice-convicted felons who were sentenced to seven years of penal servitude. At Bedford only 24 per cent were so sentenced. Here were a few other instances. In Cumberland there were 47 per cent, in Dorsetshire 40 per cent, in Nottinghamshire 40 per cent, in Durham 38 per cent, in Norfolk 21°1 per cent, and in Derbyshire 16°1 per cent of twice-convicted felons sentenced to seven years of penal servitude. The effect had been necessarily to increase the number of offenders, and very grave offenders, at large. Of the increase of 1,430 in the year 1868, the larger portion—over 1,100—were the graver crimes, such as burglary, house-breaking, breaking into shops, robbery with violence, and larceny. Of this increase 646 cases occurred in Middlesex alone. The causes were general, such as long-continued depression of trade, or special, such as the greater number of criminals at large under the operation of the Act of 1864. In four years previous to 1864 the penal servitude sentences in Middlesex averaged 24°4 per cent of the total convictions; in 1868, only 16°2 per cent received this sentence. Thus, in 1868, 454 persons received sentences of imprisonment averaging fifteen months each in lieu of penal servitude, which they would have received previously to 1864. It could be proved that, under the operation of the Act of 1864, during the last three years, 635 of the worst class of criminals had been, in consequence of the aversion of the Judges to impose long sentences of penal servitude, allowed to return to their old haunts and habits, without any supervision, in excess of the number who would have been so let loose previous to 1864. In all England 836 persons were annually sentenced to terms of imprisonment, averaging fifteen months, who would, before 1864, have been sentenced to penal servitude. Had they been sentenced to penal servitude, not only would they have been withdrawn from society for a greater length of time, but when they returned to society they would have been under the supervision of the police as holders of licenses; whereas, those previously convicted persons, under the existing law, were turned loose on society without any supervision at all. It seemed obvious, therefore, if they were to continue the legislation of 1864, which he admitted had produced good effects, that it would be absolutely necessary to supplement it, as was proposed by this Bill, by placing persons twice convicted under a system of supervision, and by depriving them of that presumption of innocence which every other person in this coun- try enjoyed. This would make the proof of dishonest practices more easy against them than against persons who had not been previously convicted. What was proposed by the Bill was this. With respect to convicts it would add but little to the existing legislation; it only made the law a little more stringent. What it did provide was a more complete system of registration. The present registration, although it did some good, was ineffectual, inasmuch as it failed altogether to trace the prisoner in his movements from one part of the country to another. He was obliged to report himself; but if he failed to do so on leaving a town there was no trace of him from that time forward. The object of the Bill was to secure a complete record of the movements of every convict under supervision, by means of a central registration, so that information might be given to the police if any license-holders should have j removed without notice. The number of j persons holding a ticket-of-leave in this country might be taken in round numbers at 1,500 men, and 450 women. The average length of their licenses was one year and seven months. With respect to those who had received a sentence of penal servitude for the first time, and who could hardly be classed as "habitual criminals"—persons committing generally some great commercial fraud and sentenced at once to penal servitude —the supervision would only last during the period of the original sentence; but those previously convicted would be placed under the supervision of the police for seven years longer. This class would be liable to be summoned to give an account of themselves, and to show that they were not gaining a livelihood by dishonest means. They would also be subject to be apprehended, and, in case the offence were proved against them, they would be sentenced to imprisonment, or if found by any constable in any private or public place under circumstances of suspicion, or if found by any private person on private property, not being able to give a proper account of themselves, they would be subjected; to a year's imprisonment. With respect to those sentenced twice previously, it was proposed that they should in all cases receive sentences of seven years' penal servitude, and, after the end of their detention, be subjected to the supervision of the police for the remainder of their lives. He admitted there might be objections to dealing in this manner with '' habitual criminals," but he had no doubt a man convicted three times was an "habitual criminal." There was a strong probability that for every detected crime he had committed ten undetected ones. In such cases society was justified in taking vigorous measures of repression. With regard to this class of criminals he thought the law had hitherto been too lenient, and it was time that society should arm itself with more effectual weapons against habitual crime. He had little faith in the moral effect of the ordinary imprisonment of an offender who had been living a life of crime. On the other hand, a long sentence of penal servitude had this effect—it broke up the habits of the criminal, separated him from his old associates, accustomed him to vigorous labour, while means were put within his power of returning to a life of honesty and industry; and, as a matter of fact, those moans were frequently and successfully resorted to. He had seen a classification of prisoners made in a pamphlet, published by one who had himself suffered six years' penal servitude for his guilt in a commercial fraud; and which seemed to be trustworthy. That calculation was that 10 per cent of all the prisoners convicted were persons who, under some strong temptation, had fallen into a great crime, and were therefore severely punished, but who were not, nor likely to become "habitual criminals." Of the remaining 90 per cent 40 had no other intention than to return, at the expiration of their sentence, to a life of crime, and were wholly irreclaimable. Of the remaining 50 per cent he believed that most were susceptible of good influences—that they were generally persons of weak wills, not utterly depraved; and that if they fell into good hands they might be reformed. That, he might add, accorded very much with the experience of the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society. Now, in such circumstances, what ought the Legislature to do? He was aware of the difficulties to be encountered in dealing with this important question; but it seemed to him that what they ought to aim at was to give encouragement and assistance to the reclaimable, but with respect to the hopelessly irreclaimable to hunt them down without mercy. He did not say that this Bill was the best that could be devised for such a purpose. Our criminal legislation had been tentative and progressive; it had made improvements from time to time, and experience might prove that still greater improvements might be made hereafter. The discussion of this very Bill had led to a large number of suggestions which could not, perhaps, be embodied, in immediate legislation, but were deserving of serious consideration. He would especially refer to a valuable paper on the subject, written by Mr. Henry Taylor, in Fraser's Magazine, in which he advocated a life of imprisonment for those criminals who had been shown to be irreclaimable. The remaining provisions of the Bill related to questions of minor importance. It contained stringent provisions against vagrants, and against those who kept lodging-houses, beer-shops, and other places of public entertainment which were the resort of thieves. It was also proposed to deal severely—though he thought not with undue severity—with receivers of stolen goods. Any person previously convicted, before or after the passing of that Act, who should be found in the possession of stolen goods would be presumed to be guilty unless he could show to the contrary. And it was also provided that if any person had been convicted of that offence it should be lawful to prove against him that other stolen goods had been found in his possession. There was also a clause not strictly germane to the Bill, but required by the necessities of the times— one imposing a more severe punishment than could now be assigned for assaults on the police. At present the penalty for an assault on the police was even less than for an assault committed on an ordinary person. The Bill gave power to fix the penalty at six months' imprisonment, with or without hard labour, instead of one month's imprisonment or a fine of £5. These were the principal provisions of the Bill. He believed it to be one— he would not say of pressing necessity or peculiar urgency, but one which would have a most useful effect in diminishing crime throughout the country. The evil of crime was not so much in the direct loss it occasioned, by the plunder committed, as in the fact that the offenders constituted schools of crime in which the young and ignorant were entrapped; and it seemed to him right and just that the Legislature should arm society with the means of repressing those evils. He had been anxious not to carry this repressive legislation further than was strictly necessary, and he was glad to find from the Notices of Amendments which had been given, that those who propounded them were in favour not of narrowing or weakening but of enlarging the principle of the Bill. He moved that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, and he hoped their discussions in Committee would be so businesslike that they would make rapid progress with the measure.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, he was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that this Bill was not of pressing urgency, for it seemed to him that its being most urgent was the only justification for pushing it forward for its first discussion just as the House was rising for the holidays.

MR. BRUCE

explained that he had meant to say that it was not more pressing now than it had been for the last ten or twenty years.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, it was most necessary before so important a Bill passed into law that it should receive the most ample discussion; yet it was brought forward when three-fourths of the House had left town. It had been said that the other House were reduced to merely recording the decisions of that House; but now the tables were turned, and on the subject of this Bill the House of Commons were asked simply to record the decisions of the House of Lords. Very few of those hon. Members who had the experience necessary for the proper discussion of this question remained, and there could only be a mere semblance of debate. Changes in the criminal law should be made carefully, completely, and, if possible, permanently. This Bill introduced several novel principles into our criminal law and greatly extended and developed old ones. Among the new principles, it gave the police power to arrest a man without warrant on the suspicion that he was not earning an honest livelihood. Another new principle was that in certain cases it threw the onus of proving his innocence upon the accused, while another consisted in a new test of crime which was to be punished as habitual. Among the developments of old prin- ciples it made the handing a man over to the surveillance of the police a part of his sentence — not, as heretofore, a condition of suspended punishment. There were only three principles on which punishment could justly rest—the incapacitation of the criminal, the reformation of the criminal, and the deterring from a repetition of the crime. The first was the object of our punishments of hanging and transportation. The main idea in those punishments was to get rid of the criminal. It is the right principle in punishing the incorrigible. But we carried, it out too far in secondary punishments to save ourselves from more troublesome treatment. Fortunately, we suffered from that selfish view. Transportation was found to close our colonies against our emigration which was the best remedy for poverty — and poverty was the chief cause of crime. When transportation was no longer available, and it was found necessary to keep our criminals within our own shores, the necessity of reforming our criminals was recognized. In carrying out this principle in punishments, however, two great mistakes were made. In the first place, the new plan was confused with the old idea of putting criminals out of the way, and they were accordingly sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, similar to the old terms of transportation. Upon this point he was at issue with the right hon. Gentleman. He disapproved these long imprisonments, and was horrified to hear the right hon. Gentleman's approval of the opinion of Mr. Henry Taylor, that after a second conviction for felony—and they all knew what slight crimes were included in that category—a man might be imprisoned for the rest of his life. If this idea were carried out a great part of the population would soon be in prison; and this was to be supplemented by a wholesale system of police surveillance, so that another considerable portion would be in a state of out-door imprisonment, tied, as it were, by the log to the police. Society would be, in fact, mainly divided between warders and wards, and the latter would be a heavy burden maintained by the remaining industry of the country. The next mistake in carrying out the principle of reformatory punishment, was the attempt to educate criminals in prison—a bastard kind of education which would fail of both penal and reformatory effect. All the old reformers of our criminal law, Howard, Bentham, Mackintosh, Romilly, and Peel, kept in view that education should precede punishment, which should be the corrective of violated laws; but the Acts of 1853, 1857, and 1864, under pretence of supplying in prison the education which had been omitted, simply translated to home servitude the system of transportation. If we had, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, a class of "habitual criminals," well-known to the police, the sooner stringent measures were taken to break it up the better. Any mistake, however, in carrying out this intention would only aggravate the evil, because if the Bill were made too stringent it would simply lead to evasion. Let them fairly try the principle of supervision by drawing a distinction between imprisonment and tutelage. If kindness was the idea of supervision in the process, let it be done by instruments of kindness, and not by the officers of punishment. The first change to be made in the Bill was to take the supervision of criminals who wore let out of prison from the police and intrust it to the benevolent societies which devoted their efforts to this special purpose, and could and did carry it out much more successfully. The proper supervision was not that which would be exercised by the police, who would only watch the occasion when they should cleverly lay hold upon a man that they might put him in prison directly he went wrong again, but a supervision which helped him out of the way of prison and police, and enabled him to find for himself an honest livelihood. The criminal class looked upon the police as their natural foes, while the police regarded them as their natural prey. He did not believe in the right hon. Gentleman's 40 per cent of incurable criminals. The Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies, at an extremely small outlay, had got 90 per cent on their discharge into employment. He was acquainted with two of these societies, and from his experience of Birmingham and of Staffordshire, he felt convinced that the right hon. Gentleman's was a darker view than need be taken. These societies, by an Act which he was the means of passing, were enabled to draw upon the county rates to the extent of £2 a man, yet even this limited sum ex- ceeded four-fold the requirements of the Staffordshire Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society which had to do with the "black country," notoriously one of the most criminal districts of the kingdom. The only drawback was that these societies were not sufficiently numerous to provide for the whole country at present; but where they existed the Bill might give power to the chairmen of quarter sessions to commit prisoners on their discharge to their care. The Chief Commissioner of the Police in London was aware of the use of these societies, and by a memorandum of March 5, he proposed to avail himself to the utmost of their services. But the memorandum of the Chief Commissioner put the cart before the horse. He put discharged prisoners into the hands of the police in the first instance, who were to hand them over to the society afterwards, whereas the process should be reversed, and the society should hand over a discharged prisoner to the police only when they were unable to get him to take to honest employment. His only fear was lest the use of the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies by the Government might be injurious to the action of the societies themselves. The difference between London and the country was however great, and it appeared that in the metropolis a special class of the police—men selected for tact and judgment — were employed for the purposes of supervision, while in the country no such class could be set apart; and the prisoners under supervision might suffer from the country police what could not occur in London. He feared that this scheme of supervision was too closely drawn from the experience of Ireland, where there was not the same class of thieves, possibly not the same plunder to prey upon. On the other hand there was in Ireland a better organization of police, and it was easy to carry out the registration of their criminals with the aid of the police centre in Dublin. With regard to Clauses 9 and 10, the main principle in the eases they referred to should be that of deterrence by fear of pain. There was no better motive to appeal to. For the reformation of such offenders they must no longer look to prisons but to the coarser and more bitter medium suited to the disease, if they reasonably sought a cure. In Clauses 9 and 10, however, as drawn, the repetition of the principle of deterring from crime was carried, out to an outrageous extent, which was certain to defeat itself, for they provided that every man who had been twice convicted should undergo seven years' police supervision in addition to his sentence. Major Fulford, the governor of Stafford County Prison, put to him the case of a lad who had been convicted of some small theft under the Summary Felony Act, and who, through some accident of drink, might be convicted of something else before he arrived at years of discretion. He might afterwards go to work steadily and marry. Major Fulford says— Such a man is not a thief professionally, and would do well if let alone. But by Clause 9 he is to be made liable at all hours for seven years to be harassed by a policeman, and doubtless in some cases goaded into offending, when, of course, the policeman's word would be good against his.

MR. BRUCE

The supervision would be of that special character which is provided by the clause itself.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, the fact stated by the right hon. Gentleman did not remove his objection to the clause. Then, under Clause 10, every person convicted for the third time must be sentenced to seven years' penal servitude and to supervision for the rest of his life. Now, a felony might be anything, from murder to taking an apple off the ground. The Recorder of Birmingham had pointed out that at quarter sessions, where minor offences were tried, the chairman would be compelled to sentence many prisoners, for a very light offence under such circumstances, to seven years' penal servitude. "The schedule of crimes," he added— Is most confused, grouping large and small together, and omitting graver offences, such as embezzlement. In fact the terms felony and misdemeanour require re-definition. The Recorder said that if this Bill had been law sixty-one prisoners would have been sentenced to seven years' penal servitude last year in Birmingham alone, and 3,570 in the whole of England during the same time. Fixing a minimum rate of punishment by law, instead of leading to uniformity, had always led to evasion. With regard to clause 14, he must say that there the deterrent principle had been deserted just where it was wanted. The sole test of a punishment was whether it was likely to put a stop to the repetition of the crime. Judged by this test they ought, by all experience, to introduce some amount of corporal punishment for stopping the brutal assaults committed by men whose very acts showed them capable of no other check. His own Act for flogging garrotters had signally succeeded, and dispersed the arguments used against it. Major Fulford, in a paper on this subject, said— Clause 14 will not stop a single offence in the way of brutal assaults. This class sees no terror in imprisonment. Now is the time for insisting on all persons convicted of brutal assaults, or with knives, being whipped. What higher motives than fear of pain have you for men who half kill their wives and jump on the bellies of policemen, and on the smallest provocation use their knives, which is becoming more common every day? The Times police reports contain three or four brutal assaults on policemen daily. In France such assaults are never heard of. The root of most of the crime that filled our gaols was the habitual drunkenness and disorderly conduct by which men got sent to gaol for the twentieth and even fiftieth time. When they were wearied of drunkenness and crime they went willingly back to prison, for "there the weary were at rest." The treatment of these men bred a general contempt for the law. He agreed that some such Bill as the present was necessary to break up bands of "habitual criminals," but two essential improvements were necessary in it—one that the use of the police in supervision should be postponed until after the action of the Prisoners' Aid Societies failed, and the other was the greater adoption of the deterrent principle in Clauses 9 and 10, and making the law more efficacious in cases where corporal punishment alone would appeal to the motives of criminals wholly brutalized. With these remarks he would not move the Amendment which stood in his name for referring the Bill to a Select Committee for the purpose of substituting a Discharged Prisoners' Aid Agency throughout the kingdom, to which, instead of the police, the supervision of certain criminals might be intrusted, but would consent to the Bill going at once into Committee, when he hoped to introduce some Amendments now, reserving other points for another Session.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he was very anxious to go into Committee on the Bill, and thought it would be better to discuss the points raised by his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley) when they came to the clauses. The main object of the Bill was to get some unity of inspection of "habitual criminals" throughout the country. He was glad they were not legislating on. this subject under the pressure of any panic, but after full consideration and additional experience of the existence of a class of "habitual criminals." His right hon. Friend said that the Bill would introduce novelties into their legislation, but he could not quite agree with his right hon. Friend upon that point. The supervision of license-holders had been in existence for some time, and the Bill would only carry it further to those who belonged to the class of "habitual criminals," and who went on living in a course of crime. Objections had been made to the clause throwing the proof of innocence on the accused; but it should be remembered that the system had long been applied in various branches of industry in the North of England, as, for example, in the case of those employed in the worsted, silk, and other manufactures. Persons found in the possession of property called ''waste'' were obliged to show how they came into possession of it; and after 6 o'clock in the evening any person found carrying "waste," even in the public thoroughfares, could be called upon to prove where he got it, and in default was liable to a penalty of £20, and a long term of imprisonment. The present Bill was only an extension of that principle. No one was more ready than himself to acknowledge with gratitude the services of the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies, but his right hon. Friend himself admitted that they did not exist in sufficient numbers in the country to enable the House to hand over to them the care of discharged criminals. They were volunteer societies, and they could not be created by an Act of Parliament. The moment you gave them the character of a Department of the State they would lose all their energy and efficiency. It was the energy and earnestness of men like his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley) which gave to these societies their value. Where they existed he had no doubt the police would be only too glad to make use of them. The fact was that the police wished to be relieved from the surveillance of discharged pri- soners and to know that they were getting their living in an honest career. As long as the license-holders were getting on well they never went near to annoy them or to give information about them, but were ready to assist them in getting work. There was a good deal of force in the objection raised by his right hon. Friend to the clause which subjected men to seven years' penal servitude, and he should also be glad to assist him in doing anything in reason to prevent those brutal assaults on the police which were at present so frequent.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that he had done all he could to dissuade the House, some years ago, from sanctioning the abandonment of transportation, that best of secondary punishments, that most effective process of reformation. He then foresaw that the necessity for arbitrary measures of internal administration must arise from the aggregation of discharged convicts in this country. He had known many instances in which convicts had been unable to get employment, and had found the doors of society shut against them, and he looked with great suspicion upon a measure which would deprive these criminals of the primary right of every Englishman that he should be held to be innocent until he had been proved guilty. He consequently deprecated this great anti - constitutional change in the fundamental law of this country. By this attempt to ostracize those who had more than once lapsed into offences, many of which were not of a serious description; to create out of these an element—a separate, in fact, a servile class—would in time produce a state of feeling the reverse of satisfactory. Parliament would run the risk of changing the temper of large bodies of their fellow-countrymen towards the law and its administration. At this advanced period of the Session the measure, if passed at all, ought to be limited, he thought, to the very smallest amount of change.

MR. T. CHAMBERS

said, that while agreeing with most of what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles Adderley) he disagreed with the proposition that the only test of punishment was whether it was or was not an adequate means of suppressing crime. He believed it was quite possible to invent a punishment which would put down a crime, yet at the same time demoralize a community. The administration of the criminal law was one great instrument of moral instruction, and the moment any principle was adopted which had a tendency to lower the moral tone of the community a mischief was done which far exceeded in importance the advantage gained in the suppression of individual crimes; and anything vindictive in the administration of the law, or anything degrading in the punishment inflicted, had a tendency, he maintained, to lower this moral tone. There was a great deal to be said in favour of the present measure; but he thought it was in very strong contrast with former portions of our criminal legislation. Happily, it was not pressed forward now under any sense of panic, though when first suggested and introduced something very like a panic prevailed on the subject of crimes accompanied with violence. But what were the facts? By the official Returns, extending from the years 1863 to 1867, it appeared that a steady diminution was occurring. Offences against the person had diminished 18 per cent between those years; offences against property accompanied with violence had diminished 11 per cent; offences against property without violence had diminished 5 per cent; forgery and offences against the currency had diminished 21 per cent; burglary, house and shop-breaking, and attempts to commit those offences had diminished 13 per cent; robberies by persons armed and in company, and simple robberies had diminished 10 per cent; and larcenies to the amount of £5 from a dwelling-house, larcenies from the person, larceny by servants, and simple larcenies had diminished 5 per cent. The significance of these statistics was increased when it was remembered that this diminution of crime, actual, though not very large under all those heads, had occurred in the face of a constant increase of population, and during several years of great trade depression, when a very large portion of the community in London was thrown out of employment and left to depend either upon the public rates or upon plunder for subsistence. Hence, although some measure, passed in a spirit of moderation, might be desirable for dealing with criminals, there was nothing at present in the shape of enormous increase of crime calling for the application of extraordinary remedies. He had taken some pains to ascertain the actual state of things with regard to those whom the Bill called "habitual criminals." He found that the total commitments in Middlesex in 1867, male and female, were 23,431; of these 1 in every 5½ had been committed once previously; 1 in every 15 had been committed twice before; 1 in every 37 three times; 1 in every 43 four times; and 1 in every 70 five times previously. So far there had been a rapid falling off, but now there was an equally rapid rise again. One in every 55 had been committed six or seven times previously; 1 in every 60 had been committed eight or nine times previously; and 1 in every 27 had been committed upwards of ten times. The House would be surprised to learn that the turning point in these different ratios was due to the commitals of women. In Middlesex there was, unfortunately, a very large depraved class; these women were continually getting drunk or committing assaults, and for these offences they spent half their time in gaol, and so swelled up the figures rapidly. But such items ought really to be left out of the calculation when they wore considering whether these Returns furnished any justification for so strong a measure as that now before the Legislature. For the reasons which he had just given, he entertained very grave doubts as to the necessity or propriety of such powers as were given by this Bill; but, recommended as it was by Her Majesty's Government, he did not feel justified in resisting it. To the 10th clause, however, that which obliged the Judge to inflict a sentence of seven years' penal servitude for the third conviction, he was decidedly opposed. Many cases would suggest themselves whore this would be attended with very great hardship. A boy, for instance, stole a bun; some years afterwards he stole a red herring; and, finally, two years later, he stole a piece of cheese. Could it be seriously proposed that for this third offence he was to suffer seven years' penal servitude? If so, the character of the administration of justice would be gone; the jury would shudder at the consequences of their own verdict, and on the very next occasion would deprive the Judge of the opportunity of passing a sentence which they believed to be extreme. Anybody familar with the practice of our criminal courts could tell very well what would happen. The counsel for the prisoner would be sure to acquaint the jury with the minimum punishment that could be inflicted on the prisoner if they found him guilty, and the jury in the teeth of the facts, would thereupon acquit him. It was not a very logical, nor yet a satisfactory proceeding; but such was the rough mode in which, by means of our judicial process, and the feelings with which juries were animated, legislation was corrected that went beyond what equity required.

MR. HENLEY

said, the Secretary of State for the Home Department could not be surprised if considerable discussion arose upon this measure. Upon the second reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman postponed his statement, and since then he has circulated a Paper containing Amendments which enlarged the scope of the Bill ten-fold. As the measure came down from the House of Lords its operation was confined to this country, but the Amendments extended it to Ireland and Scotland. Moreover, the provisions of the Bill were originally limited to license-holders—that was to say to persons who had been convicted and sentenced to penal servitude; but they were now applied to all persons who, having once been convicted of felony, were again convicted, without reference to the period of time that might have elapsed, or to the nature of the felony of which the person might originally have been convicted. The Bill had now attained dimensions rendering it impossible to say to what number of persons it would probably apply. On this point the right hon. Gentleman him self had given no information; his speech was confined to license-holders and per sons sentenced to penal servitude. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that 50 per cent of the existing license-holders were irreclaimable—

MR. BRUCE

No; that 10 per cent were beyond all suspicion, and that of the remaining 90 per cent 40 were irreclaimable.

MR. HENLEY

As to those that were irreclaimable, he said his object was to "hunt them down." But had the right hon. Gentleman considered with what risk this process was attended, and how many of those who would otherwise be reclaimable he would drive into the ranks of the irreclaimable while engaged in this process of hunting down? Look at the magnitude of this question. The hunting-down system was to be brought to bear on reclaimable and irreclaimable alike, for the police could make no distinction. He should have looked with apprehension on the principle as applied to license-holders simply; but when it was extended to all persons convicted of felony, what chance had they of escaping from the terrible position in which they were placed? In this country, where the struggle for existence was so great, it was enormously difficult at best for a person once tainted with crime to find means of gaining an honest livelihood, How vastly those difficulties must be increased by the operation of this Bill As to the clause in the Bill naming a fixed sentence of seven years' penal servitude, he thought it a very great mistake. He was old enough to recollect the time when the capital punishment for horse-stealing being done away with, the punishment substituted was transportation for life without power of abatement. What happened? The Judges who charged the grand juries made all sorts of suggestions to them about finding bills for receiving instead of stealing, knowing that if the man was convicted of stealing they would be obliged to pronounce a sentence which, under the circumstances, perhaps they felt to be unjust. He recollected this as well as if it had only occurred yesterday; all sorts of suggestions were made with regard to proof and the sufficiency of evidence, as to which previously there had never been a doubt. That was the way in which extreme legislation always defeated itself. Difficulties were raised, and passed on from Judges to jurors, and so to all parties concerned; and the end was that instead of persons being convicted and undergoing a reasonable punishment, great numbers were acquitted and received no punishment at all. This Bill introduced several new and objectionable principles; of which not the least objectionable was that persons would in future be punished on suspicion, and not on proof. The Bill was introduced by a Liberal Government, and he was sorry for it; for he believed that if the principle that a man was to be convicted not upon facts proved, but upon what was called reasonable suspicion were once adopted it might soon get a pretty wide extent, and the first principle of justice would be broken down and destroyed. What proof had been given to the House that this system of police supervision had been attended with advantage in the countries where it had been long practised? He did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman could bring forward any such proof. On the contrary, the evidence which was given before a Committee on the subject of Transportation some sixteen or seventeen years ago left upon his mind the impression that no advantage resulted from this system of supervision. He could hardly conceive a more extravagant power than that which it was proposed to put into the hands of the police. "It is not every man who is born a huntsman," and catching thieves was a particular trade. Accordingly, to give to men who had no natural aptitude for it all those extraordinary powers was a proceeding of very doubtful wisdom. Thieves knew the police quite as well as they knew the thieves; and the result of the new system, he feared, would be to diminish rather than to stimulate the repression of crime. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the great number of criminals in London; but he (Mr. Henley) had carried away from a perusal of the judicial statistics the impression that, for every policeman in London there were a man, a woman, and a small boy—surely not an extravagant number for them to watch. He fully agreed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) as to the value of re-formational efforts after the criminals were turned loose, and he greatly wished that system could be extended. He did not, however, agree with another right hon. Friend as to the more frequent use of the lash, and did not believe it would have the effect anticipated. Neither did he see the advantage of the power proposed to be conferred on the magistrates; for, without any reflection upon them, he thought that, in eases of assaults upon the police especially, persons accused were more certain of an impartial trial before a jury. He greatly regretted that a measure of such great importance as this Bill should be pressed at the end of the Session, when very few Members were in town, and with such important Amendments proposed to be introduced as those to which he had called attention. By one of these Amendments the expenses, instead of being defrayed by the public purse, as proposed when the Bill left the House of Lords, were to be thrown upon the local rates. He hardly thought that a fair proposal to make at this late period of the Session.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

said, he thought the Bill a very valuable one, and he hoped they would now go into Committee, when any objections to it which were capable of being urged might be removed.

MR. HADEIELD

said, he objected to the Bill as a departure from the more humane tendencies of the criminal legistion of recent years. Our criminal jurisprudence had been too severe; it was not framed on the principles of mercy, or with the object of reclaiming offenders. The late Governor of Wakefield Gaol supported this view. He believed that the principles of the Bill were repugnant to the English people, and he wished some one would move its rejection, that he might have the satisfaction of voting against it.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 struck out.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Power to apprehend holders of license on suspicion).

MR. STAPLETON

moved in page 2, line 1, to leave out "and whom he suspects of getting a livelihood by dishonest means." He should move at the end of sub-section 1, to insert— " And any chief officer of police having reason to believe that any convict who is the holder of any such license as aforesaid is getting a livelihood by dishonest means may authorize any constable or police officer, in writing, to take such convict into custody and bring him before a justice of the peace or other competent magistrate as aforesaid. The word "suspects'' carried us back to the very worst times of the French Revolution; whereas the substituted words of his Amendment '' has reason to believe" were taken from an Act brought in by Lord Campbell when Lord Chief Justice. [Mr. BRUCE intimated that there would be no objection on the part of the Government to abandon the word "suspects."] He also desired to throw the responsibility of the arrest on the chief officer of the police force instead of leaving it to the rank and file.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he thought that the words '' has reason to believe" would be preferable to the word "suspects."

MR. BRUCE

said, he had no objection to the change suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy). He was extremely anxious that this Bill should have the good opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley); and therefore he wished to relieve that right hon. Gentleman's mind of all apprehension of dangerous consequences being likely to result from it. He had obtained from the Chief Commissioner of Police a Return of the number of license-holders in the metropolis. While the metropolis contained one-seventh of the whole population of England and Wales, it contained a larger proportion of the criminal population of the whole kingdom. The number of persons at present holding licenses was 2,000; and yet it appeared, from a document furnished to him by the Chief Commissioner of Police, that the number of license-holders whom the metropolitan police could lay hands upon under this Bill was only twelve.

MR. HENLEY

observed that he had said very little about license-holders. As they were persons at largo before the expiration of their sentences, there would be no reason to complain of their being under the surveillance of the police.

MR. BRUCE

said, he hoped to be able, at the proper time, to convince his right hon. Friend that in the case of persons who had already sustained long periods of imprisonment there would be no grievance any more than in that of the license-holders.

MR. STAPLETON

withdrew his Amendment, and moved to leave out "suspects of," and insert "has reason to believe to be."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BRUCE

moved, in lines 2 and 3, to leave out "a justice of the peace or other competent magistrate," and insert "two or more justices of the peace or a stipendiary magistrate."

MR. M'MAHON

moved after "if," to insert "it shall appear from the facts proved before such justices or magistrate that there are reasonable grounds for such belief." As the clause stood the magistrate would have no discretion if the holder of the license were not able to give negative evidence.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

proposed in page 2, line 14 at end of clause, to add "or if such justice or magistrate prefers not to assume the responsibility of so acting he may commit such holder of a license for trial at the next quarter sessions, there to be dealt with as above provided." He feared that some magistrates sitting alone would hesitate to take upon themselves the responsibility of acting on the clause as it stood.

MR. BRUCE

said, he thought that after the alterations made in the clause the Amendment was unnecessary.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

said, he would not press the Amendment against the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman. As a justice he should not hesitate to act on the clause himself. He had seen in The Times an account of a man who some years ago was convicted of burglary and murder, and sentenced to be hung. Through the kindness of some Home Secretary the sentence was commuted, the convict was sent to one of the colonies, and at the end of four years received a ticket-of-leave available only for the colony. He returned, however, to this country, and after going on well for some time got again into the hands of the police. Now, he could not think it a hardship on a man like that to be under the surveillance of the police.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 (Penalty for breach of conditions of license).

MR. BRUCE, in moving a verbal Amendment, said, he believed that the supervision of the police was most useful to the convicts themselves. These persons had themselves borne testimony to the delicacy and kindness of the police. He had received a communication from the Chief Director of Prisons which stated that in 475 cases of revoked licenses there had been only six in which the license-holders complained, and only two in which they had alleged oppression on the part of the police. Again, he was informed that out of 3,000 cases which had come before the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society there were only two in which the parties said they had been oppressed by the police. Besides, this clause would get rid of that which license-holders had complained of as harassing and vexatious, and as operating so as to prevent their obtaining and retaining employment. He alluded to the requirement that license-holders should report themselves monthly to the police.

MR. BOUVERIE

pointed out that under the clause license-holders could be punished for breaches of conditions inserted in the license by the Secretary of State without the sanction of Parliament.

MR. BRUCE

said, he would, at a subsequent stage, introduce words providing that all conditions inserted in licenses by the Secretary of State should be laid before Parliament.

Clause orderedto stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 (Register of holders of licenses).

MR. BRUCE

said, that by this clause, as he proposed to amend it, provision would be made for the registration of criminals. At present it might, and frequently did, happen that a person who had been convicted of six, eight, or ten felonies was put on his trial for another offence, and was tried and convicted without the Court being aware of the previous convictions. This was very likely to happen in the case of tramps who had been convicted in different counties. If this clause were agreed to there would be a complete register of criminals—that was, criminals convicted of the graver classes of offence. As the clause stood the register would only include holders of licenses. The right hon. Gentleman then moved in lines 25 and 26, to leave out from "convicts" to "them," in line 27, both inclusive, and insert "criminals."

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought that, owing to the imperfection of our classification of crime, the proposed register would not be a very reliable record in respect to the real character of the offences. To pick up from under a tree and carry away a half-rotten apple was felony; so that the name of a person who had been convicted of that offence would be recorded on the register as that of a person who had been convicted of "felony." He believed that the want of information in the case of previous convictions was owing in a very great degree to the parsimony of the Treasury in cutting down the expenses of gaol officials coming to give evidence on such points.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he thought that in the interpretation clause the "criminals" to be registered might be described as persons who had been convicted of crimes set out in the Schedule of the Bill.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

asked whether persons convicted of assaults would not be registered. He thought it would be well to include them?

MR. BRUCE

said, they could not extend the registration to assaults. He agreed with his right hon. Friend that it was an anomaly to have an offence like that of picking up an apple classed with the heinous crimes which were also included under the head "felony;" but he was afraid that if Parliament held its hands in the matter of registering criminals till we had a proper classification of offences the community would suffer severely. He thought that Parliament would, feel itself obliged to leave to the Executive the regulation of details like that of registration.

MR. BOUVERIE

asked if there was to be a register kept of every person that committed any kind of misdemeanour?

MR. BRUCE

said, he would consider the question whether words might not be introduced which would more accurately define the system of registration.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 (Returns for purposes of register).

MR. BRUCE

proposed, after line 42, to add as a separate paragraph— All expenses incurred in any place in carrying this section into effect with the sanction of the authority authorized to allow charges on the funds for the maintenance of the police in that place, shall be deemed to be part of the expenses of such police, and be defrayed accordingly.

MR. HENLEY

said, that notice of this Amendment had been given only two days ago. The expenses to which the Amendment related ought not to be very largo; but the principle involved in the Amendment was an important one, and it ought not to be adopted at a period when there was not time for its consideration. As the register was for the benefit of the country at large, and as London would derive more ad-vantage it than any other place, the Returns ought not to be a charge on local funds, but ought to be paid for out of moneys provided by Parliament.

MR. BRUCE

said, that as there was a contribution of one-fourth towards the police in the counties and boroughs, the cost of the Returns would not be thrown entirely on local funds. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) that the Returns ought not to cost much; but the way to secure economy in the matter was to make the charge in the main a local one.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Person twice guilty of felony and not punished with penal servitude to be subject to the supervision of the police).

MR. BRUCE

said, he was anxious to meet the objections that had been raised to this clause, and to mitigate its stringent severity in the cases of boys or young persons who might have committed two very trivial offences which, under the present law, were regarded as felonies. He therefore proposed to insert the following words after the word "not" in line 19:— Unless the court by or before whom he is tried, for special reasons to he stated by the court, declares that a less punishment is to be awarded to him.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, the object of the right hon. Gentleman might be more simply secured by the insertion of the words "unless otherwise declared by the court," in place of" whether so declared by the court or not."

MR. BRUCE

accepted the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and withdrew his own Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

moved to insert the words after "seven years," "or such less period as the court shall direct."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

asked, whether the previous convictions must have taken place before a court of quarter sessions?

MR. BRUCE

answered in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 (Person thrice convicted of felony to be liable to be taken up if found under suspicious circumstances).

MR. BRUCE

said, great objection had been taken to this clause, and undoubtedly great hardship might result from it. He would, therefore, suggest to the Committee to consider whether they would give the Judge the power to remit the sentence of seven years' penal servitude, or whether they would omit the portion of the clause relating to it. A Judge already had power to inflict a sentence of seven years.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, he thought it would be better to leave this part of the clause as it stood.

MR. COLLINS

thought the retention of the words would indicate the intention of the Legislature that this sentence should be the rule and not the exception.

MR. T. CHAMBERS

moved the omission of the first part of the clause down to the words "seven years."

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

said, he hoped the words would not be struck out, because they would do something to produce uniformity in sentences.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, that if this fearful sentence were absolutely imperative, it would be a powerful argument with counsel in addressing the jury against conviction.

MR. DICKINSON

said, the sentence depended on a third conviction. After conviction, as a matter of form, the two previous convictions would be proved, and therefore the matter would not be brought before the jury.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he thought it most desirable that the words should be omitted. There would be many cases where, even in the case of a third conviction, seven years would be too severe a sentence.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11. (Amendment of sect. 4 of the Vagrant Act, 5 Geo. 4, c. 83).

MR. STAPLETON

opposed the clause.

MR. BRUCE

said, the object of the clause was to remove a difficulty with respect to a class of persons who were reputed to be thieves, and were well known to the police. They were watched by the police; they were seen going about attempting to pick pockets; there was no moral doubt of their intention to commit crime; and yet, unless they were taken in the act of attempting to pick a pocket or commit a theft, the magistrate had no power to inflict punishment. The intention of this clause was to give the magistrates more summary powers than they at present possessed. The cases contemplated by the clause arose mainly in the towns, and would for the most part come before stipendiary magistrates.

MR. T. CHAMBERS

said, that the clause in effect provided that a person reputed to be a thief might be convicted without evidence; no act or acts were to be proved at all.

MR. HENLEY

said, the wording of the clause was a matter of considerable importance, for the phraseology would be looked to by magistrates convicting persons under the preceding sections of the Bill. The clause spoke of the "general circumstances of the case," and he should like to know what they could be if they did not include the acts of the person. It could not be meant that a man was to be convicted of a substantive offence on account of his character; in an ordinary way a person was not convicted unless there was proof of an act which led to a presumption of guilt.

MR. BRUCE

said, there had been cases in which a person had been seen to put his hand into the pocket of another, and yet, because he abstracted nothing, and theft was not completed, the magistrate could not convict.

MR. COLLINS

said, the object aimed at was to shift the burden of proof in some cases. Instead of speaking of the "known character" of a man, he would say a person "previously convicted," and with that Amendment the clause would be a valuable addition to the Bill.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, it was impossible to define the acts which should induce a magistrate to believe that a man intended to commit felony. The words must be general, and the magistrate must be left to form a judgment from the circumstances of the case. It would be an improvement to say that a man should have been already convicted instead of speaking of his known character. He would suggest the omission of the word "general" before the word "circumstances."

DR. BREWER

said, that both pickpockets and shoplifters often went in gangs, and that increased the difficulty of obtaining convictions.

MR. BRUCE

assented to the Amendment to leave out "general" before "circumstances."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 (Penalty for harbouring thieves &c.; 25 & 26 Vict. c. 101, s. 337).

MR. DIMSDALE

said, he wished to call attention to the necessity of inserting words to amend the law relating to night houses, so that such houses should be deemed disorderly without the necessity of proving that women were found entering or going out of thorn with men. He moved, in line 7, after "thieves," to leave out "or," and he would move, after "reputed thieves," to insert "or prostitutes."

MR. BRUCE

said, he could assure the hon. Member that the proposed Amendment would not carry out his object; and he must point out that the subject the hon. Member proposed to deal with did not come within the province of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13 (Burden of proof in eases of receiving stolen goods).

MR. AMPHLETT

said, he thought a hardship would be inflicted if a person who had once been convicted were in all future time compelled to prove his innocence if charged with receiving stolen goods. He moved, in page 7, line 1, after "is," to insert "within five years of the termination of the period of punishment awarded on such previous conviction."

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he would not object to the clause, if prisoners were enabled to give evidence on their own behalf on oath.

MR. AMPHLETT

said, he would withdraw his Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) would consider it on the Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. G. YOUNG)

proposed that in case of a person charged with receiving stolen property, "evidence of such previous conviction shall be admissible as evidence of his knowledge that such goods had been stolen," leaving it to him to prove the contrary.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. STAPLETON

said, he wished to introduce words giving the same power to the police to search for stolen goods as they had to search for obscene prints; but rendering it unnecessary for them previously to go to a magistrate for a warrant to search. He begged to move, in line 19, after "him," to insert— Any constable or police officer may, if authorized so to do in writing by a chief officer of police, enter any house, shop, warehouse, yard, or other premises in search of stolen goods, and make such search, and seize and secure any property he may believe to have been stolen, in such manner as he would be authorized to do if he had a search warrant, and the property seized, if any, corresponded to the property described in such search warrant: Provided, That in every case in which any property is seized, the person on whose premises it was at the time of seizure, or the person from whom it was taken if other than the person on whose premises it was, shall, unless previously charged with receiving the same knowing it to have been stolen, be summoned within three days before a justice of the peace, or other competent magistrate to account for his possession of such property and such justice or other magistrate shall make such order respecting the disposal of such property as the justice of the case may require; and it shall be lawful for any chief officer of police to give such authority as aforesaid in the following cases:— First, When such premises are at, or have been within eighteen months of, the time of such search in the occupation of any person who has been convicted of receiving stolen property or of harbouring thieves. Second. When such premises are at the time of such search in the occupation of any person who has been convicted of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty, and punishable by penal servitude or imprisonment. And it shall not be necessary for such chief officer of police in giving such authority to specify any particular property, but he may give such authority if he has reason to believe generally that such premises are being made a receptacle for stolen goods.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 struck out.

Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.