§ SIR HOWARD VINCENTI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if his attention has been called to the recent Return concerning the application of The Probation of First Offenders Act, 1887, in 1894, 1895, and 1896, and to the fact that while at the Worship Street and West London Police Courts, mercy was exercised under the Act 605 times in those three years with only 42 relapses into crime, it was never once employed at Bow Street or Lambeth, and while it was used at Manchester Borough Sessions 376 times, and with satisfactory results in all but 48 cases, the return from Birmingham Petty Sessions is absolutely blank; and, having regard to the importance of bringing about as much uniformity as is possible in the administration of the Criminal Law, if he will consider the advisability of issuing a circular similar to that of Mr. Secretary Matthews, dated 25th April, 1892, calling the attention again of Judges, Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, Recorders, and Petty Sessional Courts to the Act?
§ * SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYYes, Sir; the return in question was issued from the Home Office. The reason why the return is blank in the case of the courts mentioned is that the magistrates at those courts prefer to act under Section 16 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, which gives them practically the same powers as the Probation of First Offenders Act, without requiring them to proceed to a conviction or to fix a period within which the person charged must come up for judgment if called upon. In fact of the 35,000 persons discharged in 1895 as first offenders, only 4,000 were dealt with under the Probation of First Offenders Act, the remainder under Section 16 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked to which of the Courts the right hon. Gentleman referred?
§ * SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYThose mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, Bow Street, Lambeth, and Birmingham.