SECOND READING. (Hansard, 1 February 1887)

§ MR. HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)
I will not, Mr. Speaker, detain the House more than a few minutes in moving the second reading of this Bill. It will be within the recollection of many hon. Gentlemen that of late years the use of revolvers by burglars has greatly increased and added a fresh terror to the midnight marauder. To my knowledge there have been at least four murders by burglars in the last nine years, and, within that period also, 13 policemen and five private persons have been wounded in London by burglars' firearms; while 18 burglars have escaped arrest by the use of firearms, and on 14 burglars firearms were found. I therefore know of 52 burglars who have in recent years carried revolvers with murderous intent, and there must have been twice as many more of whom nothing is known. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was Home Secretary, the matter of preventing this serious crime was for long under consideration. The Metropolitan Police were consulted as to their being themselves armed with revolvers for their better protection in their dangerous duties. But with a courage which always distinguishes them, and also a lively sense no doubt of the danger of making a bad shot, and the possibilities of legal difficulties, the Force generally were unwilling to be provided with firearms. Various remedies have been suggested in many quarters—the imposing of a tax upon revolvers, and the registration of owners or of purchasers. But I doubt the practicability of any of these proposals with a weapon in such common possession as a pistol. The gun trade, too, labours under sufficient disadvantages already, owing to foreign competition, without having any additional taxes imposed upon it. At the same time, if the Government will undertake to introduce a measure which in a more effectual way than that proposed by the Bill is calculated to check the public danger in question, I have no wish to 480 press it against them. I hope, however, that they will allow the Second Beading to be taken, and postpone its Amendment to the Committee stage, if they think any Amendment necessary. The object of the Bill is to deter burglars from carrying any firearms, and especially revolvers. I need not say that no man commits burglary by accident; and if a burglar carries a revolver, it is his intention to save himself from arrest, or to secure his object by murder or attempted murder. To protect him from the consequences of this intent, if carried into execution, but still more to protect the public and the police against such scoundrels, is the object of my Bill. The Home Secretary may possibly contend that he does not see why daggers, jemmies, and other formidable weapons should not come under the same category as firearms. But surely, Sir, revolvers are the weapons which can only be carried for no other purpose whatever than to protect life or to take it. Their use is limited to this purpose; and although I shall be glad if the scope of the Bill can be usefully enlarged, it is, I submit, no reason for resisting an attempt to check the felonious use of firearms, that it does not go far enough. The matter has been brought particularly and painfully under my notice as Director of Criminal Investigations; and I feel sure that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby wore present, he would join in urging the House and the Government to consent to take at least some stop in checking the felonious use of firearms without subjecting the general public to inconvenience. I need hardly tell the House that a minimum punishment on guilty persons is no new thing to the law. The Statute 24 & 25 Vict., c. 100, s. 61 subjects persons guilty of a certain offence to a minimum punishment of 10 years' penal servitude. It is far more necessary against would-be murderers than against simple rustics, who are the principal offenders against the Statute I have quoted. The House, too, will remember that penal servitude for life is already the maximum punishment for burglary. The only now point in this Bill for the Better Prevention of the Felonious Use of Firearms—the Second Reading of which I have now the honour to move—is the minimum sentence. I feel convinced 481 that it will act as a deterrent against murder, and, at the same time, give a sense of greater security to the public. On these grounds I respectfully ask for the support of the House.

§ MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)
I desire to offer the most strenuous opposition in my power to this Bill, not because I have any sympathy with murderers, but because I believe it to be wholly unnecessary. I believe it would fail to fulfil the expectation of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent), that it would afford no protection to the public, inasmuch as burglars are not likely to be deterred by the punishment proposed by the hon. Member, for they are a class of men who would not be deterred by any consideration whatever, not oven by the consideration of saving their own lives. Again, firearms are not carried by the burglar for the purpose of taking life. The weapon is carried when on his depredations, either for the purpose of frightening people, or of protecting himself, and not with the premeditated intention of committing murder. Therefore, I think the term of penal servitude held out by the Bill would be extreme, and that it does not meet the case. I repeat that I do not believe that the Bill, if it became law, would deter the midnight marauder or burglar from carrying firearms, or afford any protection whatever to the public beyond that which it has from the law already; and, therefore, on the ground that it would be both unnecessary and ineffectual, I desire to offer my opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member that it be read a second time.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)
I shall detain the House at this late hour for a few minutes only in saying a few words on this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent) appeals to me to do what I should be very glad to do if it were in my power—namely, to amend this Bill. But I find in that a task of great difficulty, for if I were to amend that portion of it which provides the minimum punishment of 10 years' penal servitude for the felonious use of firearms, there would be nothing 482 left in the Bill which would be operative at all. My hon. Friend says with perfect truth that there is no new principle in the Bill but that minimum of 10 years' penal servitude. Already the burglar who carries no weapon is liable to penal servitude for life, and the Judge is able to give 10 or five years' penal servitude, or two years' imprisonment only; but this Bill will leave no alternative to the Judge but to give 10 years' penal servitude in the case of any individual who may be in the possession of what the hon. Member for South Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor) has described as a natural and innocent implement for his own protection. I think minimum sentences are bad in principle, and I cannot, therefore, give my assent to what is proposed in this Bill. I have known juries struggle against convicting men, in order to avoid a sentence of the kind, and in the teeth of evidence to find them guilty only of the attempt. No one can doubt, and I suppose my hon. Friend does not doubt, that any Judge who knew that an individual had carried a revolver, with the intention of committing murder, would give him more than 10 years' penal servitude. But why is the burglar, who carries a long Spanish knife, for instance, which he means to use, to get off with two years' imprisonment with hard labour, while the man who carries a revolver is to have 10 years' penal servitude? The proposal of the Bill is simply to impose a particular punishment on one class of offenders which is no worse than another class. Again, as my hon. Colleague reminds me, the only minimum punishment known to our law was repealed in 1875. I cannot, therefore, admit the principle contained in the proposal of my hon. Friend, believing, as I do, that it is far better that the Judges should determine the punishment of offenders according to their own judgment in each particular case; and, that being so, I am compelled reluctantly to oppose the Motion of my hon. Friend for the second reading of the Bill.

§ MR. HOWARD VINCENT
After the observations of my right hon. Friend I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.