§ Order read, for resuming adjourned debate [24th November] on Amendment proposed on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
§
Which Amendment was—
In page 5, line 6, to leave out Part II. of the Bill."—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'whether,' in page 5, line 7, stand part of the Bill."
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,) Leeds, W.It will be convenient to the House, I think, if in regard to the Amendments I have put down I make a short statement. I recognise that strong and genuine objection has been taken to certain portions of Part II. of this Bill, and I recognise that all the more readily because of the friendly consideration which the House has given to the Bill. The Amendments which I have put upon the Paper are to meet the main objections which underlay the speeches on the last occasion of my hon. and learned friend the Member for North-West Durham and the Member for Mayo. First of all, as to indeterminate sentences, it is objected that the termination of those sentences must necessarily rest in the discretion of the Secretary of State. In the second place, thereby, too much responsibility was given to the Home Secretary and the Prison Commissioners. Thirdly, that the sentence should not in any case be an indeterminate sentence. Of course, the indeterminate sentence as originally proposed had been seriously curtailed, but I have never denied that the reservation in Clause 12 still allowed the Home Secretary to continue the sentence indeterminately. Therefore I have put down Amendments to meet these three points. Instead of proposing 110 that the sentence should be during the King's pleasure powers will be inserted giving authority to the Court to sentence to preventive detention for a maximum of ten years and a minimum of five. I hope the House will agree that these Amendments meet the root objections which have been expressed against Part II. of the Bill and that they will accept them in the spirit in which they are offered and will give friendly consideration to the clauses.
§ MR. BELLOC (Salford, S.)I gather that for five years a sentence may remain indeterminate?
§ MR. GLADSTONEThat is so.
§ MR. BELLOCAnd a sentence of three years penal servitude may be followed by a five years minimum of indeterminate imprisonment?
§ MR. GLADSTONEPowers are specially reserved to the Home Secretary to remit, if he thinks fit, the five years minimum or any part of it.
§ * MR. LYELL (Dorsetshire, E.)said the Home Secretary had made an extremely interesting announcement. The Amendments were put down on objections raised by the hon. Members for Durham and Salford, which he thought were not stated in altogether a very fair way. The hon. Member for Salford's theory of punishment was that when a person had committed an offence he ought to purge his crime. He told them that that theory was some 3,000 years old, and went right down to the roots of all human society, and added that after enduring his punishment, the criminal should be free again. That meant that they were to have a sort of nicely graded vengeance meted out for every single offence, and that they were to have this vengeance, by a sort of judicial system, distilled drop by drop and measured out in regular doses for each offence. The hon. Member believed in this system, and, at the same time, said the system proposed by the Home Secretary was barbarous. When it was a question of barbarity in punishment, the boot was altogether upon the other leg, and the word would be very 111 much more fitted to the idea of the hon. Member for Salford. He was not prepared to argue on the abstract question, as to whether the community had the right to punish. There had been some great criminal judges who absolutely denied that there was any such right, and said that punishment lay with a higher authority. But the community at least, had a right to protect itself in the only possible way, by deterring from crime. They knew the circumstances which had caused the Bill to be brought in. Crime in general was on the decrease, as might be proved by statistics, but professional crime, habitual crime, recidivity was on the increase, as was proved by the statistics of such crimes as burglary and housebreaking, which were essentially professional crimes, and not the results of pecuniary or momentary temptation. The theory underlying the Bill was that punishment was no longer to fit the crime, but was to fit the criminal, and to achieve that they must start upon something in the nature of a study of criminal psychology. He was sure the hon. Gentleman would not deny that all modern science was steadily lowering the barrier which had hitherto existed between crime and disease.
§ MR. BELLOCI should deny that absolutely. It is the worst piece of charlatanism that we suffer from.
§ * MR. LYELLwas sorry to hear the hon. Member make such a statement. Did he deny that there was now a very large number of people in asylums who fifty or even thirty years ago would have been in prison? More and more every year offences which used to be treated as crimes, were treated as mental diseases by confinement in asylums. They desired that that treatment should be carried still further. He was not very sure that he agreed with the Home Secretary in proposing that under all circumstances indeterminate sentences should be preceded by a minimum period of three years penal servitude. He knew the arguments put forward in support of it, but he should like the Judge to have power, when dealing with one of these habitual offenders, who was suffering so not so much from a tendency to professional crime as from 112 weakness of will—one of those people on the borderland between criminal impulse and a diseased mind—to give a sentence of detention in one of these asylum prisons without the necessary preliminary of three years penal servitude. He hoped his right hon. friend would reconsider the point. The hon. Member for Salford had complained that this was simply a matter of the protection of property, and he was thinking of the professional criminal who burgled in Park Lane and carried off miniatures or enamels. But why should not the person who owned enamels be protected from the professional criminal? Then he thought those who raised objections to the Bill forgot that there were robberies from the poor as well as from the rich. All the burglaries committeed by professionals were not committed in Park Lane. Again, a good many offences which he thought might be treated in this way by indeterminate sentence were not offences against property. There were such things as offences against children, which ought to be treated more or less as cases of mental disease rather than of criminal impulse. Here was surely a case where long periods of detention, in such asylums and prisons as might have a recuperative effect upon moral character in eliminating, as far as possible, evil impulse, in building up will power if it had degenerated, were proper. Besides the habitual criminal, the weak-willed criminal who had not the resisting power to stand up against temptation or impulse to crime, they had what was known as the professional criminal who deliberately preferred a life of crime and spent his time during occasional incarceration in planning and perfecting intended crimes which he meant to commit when he came out. That was the most dangerous fellow. That was the class which they desired to see dealt with severely, because it was the class for whom our present system had admittedly broken down. They could not go back on the old system of long terms of penal servitude. The system of short sentences had broken down because it did not have a deterrent effect on this particular kind of man. Sometimes people objected to that and said that in the old days the system of barbarous sentences, immensely long, with execution for all 113 felonies, was not deterrent. But that was not because it was not sufficiently severe, but because the criminal had in all cases a very good chance of escaping, because the whole science of the detection of crime was in its infancy. It was 100 to 1 against his being caught, and savage punishment was meted out to a man who was caught. Nowadays the science had advanced so much that a criminal had a much better chance of being caught. He did not think the professional criminals, who had no intention of reforming, were a very big class. Some time ago Sir Robert Anderson threw ridicule upon the advertised statement of a burglary insurance company that there were 70,000 thieves known to the police, but said that if he, as head of Scotland Yard, could be given power to shut up or control the actions of seventy individuals whose names and addresses he could give, he would make an enormous diminution in the criminal statistics of London. To show what was the attitude of these men when in prison: on one occasion an English minister was visiting an American prison, and was shown a man of very good education who seemed to be capable of much better things. He entered into conversation with him. The man said: "You come from England, do you not?" "Yes," was the reply. "And you are fond of fox-hunting?" "Yes." "When you go out and get a fall do you make up your mind never to mount a horse again?" "No." "Well, I am in the same position. I have had a mighty bad fall, but as soon as I am better I shall go out hunting again." As long as a man adopted that attitude and that frame of mind he should not be allowed to go out and prey upon society. He desired that the movements of that man should be controlled instead of being subjected to the cruelty of penal servitude, and as long as that man continued in that frame of mind society should have the right to protect itself against him. They might apply in such cases the test of restitution. In an enormous number of cases a man was brought up, tried, proved guilty up to the hilt, and sentenced, and although he knew he might get a remission of his sentence if he would state what had become of the stolen goods, he absolutely declined. As long as a man declined to say what he had done 114 with the proceeds of the robbery or refused to name the receiver, it was perfectly impossible for anybody to suppose he had arrived at a determination to lead an honest life. In the case of a habitual offender who had received an indeterminate sentence or a kind of detention which would be inflicted under this Amendment, he thought the detention should last to the maximum of ten years where the man declined to assist in the restitution of the stolen property. It was because he believed the Bill was not a method of barbarism but represented a great advance that he supported the retention of Part II.
§ MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square)I desire to support the compromise which the Home Secretary has indicated upon the Amendment of my hon. and learned friend below the gangway. I think the logical issues were well stated in the controversy between the hon. Member for Tyneside and Mr. Chesterton. The hon. Member for Tyneside was arguing that prison treatment of criminals should be of the curative kind and prisons should be akin to hospitals. That view was stoutly contested by Mr. Chesterton, who said—
Supposing I send my maiden aunt to a hospital to be cured of deafness. I ascertain after six months by conversation or the firing of a gun whether a cure has been effected or not. But if I send her to prison to be cured of ill-temper I do not know whether her temper is worse than her gaolers'.This sums up the extraordinary position of the issues in this matter. In theory, were we all perfect, and if all gaolers were perfect, the original proposal for indeterminate sentences would be preferable. I am sure no one could possibly guarantee absolute security under such a system, and I think we might go as far as the Home Secretary has offered to go. I thoroughly agree that you have not to consider rich people only in this matter, and I know that many of our Judges when dealing with cases of theft or burglary from the houses of the rich do not consider the crime so grave as where the houses of the poor are concerned. I can say from a long experience, that immense hardship and injustice is caused by the continual robbing of small 115 things from small people, and it is absolutely necessary to protect this class of poor people from the depredations of these men. We want to put a stop to that, and that is one of the great things that would be put a stop to. Another advantage is that this proposal would strike at the root of the most dangerous system of crime which exists, namely, the trained receiver. If it be made a condition of release to a prisoner that he explains with truth the persons by whom stolen goods are received, that would strike at the very root of crime. We should do more good by the conviction of one receiver than by the conviction of a score of ordinary criminals. Those are two immensely good results we are likely to get from this Bill. For these reasons I desire to express my entire approval of the system of indeterminate sentences as limited by the proposal of the Home Secretary.
§ MR. J. M. ROBERTSON (Northumberland, Tyneside)said he did not think the question of indeterminate sentences had been exhausted by the analogy used by the right hon. Gentleman. It was a question of adapting means to ends. There had been hospitals for lepers, and there were hospitals for the segregation of people with infectious diseases, and as the advantages of segregation became better known there would be more and more segregating of people who were afflicted with highly contagious diseases. In all these cases means should be taken to ends, and one end was the protection of the community and not merely the cure of the prisoner. Surely the first and last object ought to be the protection of the community. [Cries of "No, no."] That was the whole issue between the two schools of thought. If they were going to send a person to prison in order to mete out a certain measure of retaliation it was proceeding on the principle of the Chinese who punished crime by so many blows with a bamboo, some with five blows and some with ten, using bigger bamboos for the higher scale, and in more serious cases banishing the prisoner so many leagues from the capital. It was time the community took this subject in hand, and disregarded traditions which were more than 3,000 years old, and belonged 116 to the Stone Age. His hon. friend the Member for South Salford pleaded prescription for that practice with a confidence which he had never seen before. The system of punishment by retaliation and vengeance, having no regard to the person, was one of the most imbecile ever associated with criminology. The whole principle was that, the good of the community and the safety of the community being the end in view, the treatment of the offender was subsidiary to that; but inasmuch as the cure of the offender was one of the best means of protecting the community they should also look to the cure of the offender; but, first and last, they should protect the community. When he first investigated this subject it was on the score of humanity, and he was concerned to find some more rational basis for action than the present system in order to get rid of the enormous amount of cruelty that existed. That cruelty had gone on year after year, and his hon. friend had never moved a finger in regard to it. Let them take the case of the ordinary criminal. The principle underlying the indeterminate sentence was that not only would they detain the bad criminal for a long period, but also that the man who was not a bad criminal would get out sooner than under the present system. The principle had two sides. It was not only the protection of the community against bad offenders, but the protection of the community from the long detention of the offender who was not dangerous to it. Under the present system a man was tried by a Judge who had regard solely to the offence. Surely the theology of his hon. friend the Member for Salford should make him take into account the state of mind of the criminal, if retaliation was to be retaliation, or if vengeance was to be vengeance. The present system could not take account of his state of mind. It could at most take account of the tact whether an offender had committed a first offence or was a young offender. An offence which would be the same in the eye of the law, might be committed by two men, though from the psychological point of view the two offenders might be as wide as the poles asunder in point of culpability. One man might have erred 117 under motives that were hardly to be called criminal, and the other might be one of the worst of his species. Under the Roman system of retaliation for crime both were alike. It was undoubtedly true that modern science was coming more and more to see that crime ought to be treated not as a disease, but as something to be handled as they handled a disease—that was by a scientific prophylactic, and in a spirit devoid of vengeance or retaliation. He should have expected his hon. friend to acknowledge the real differences in respect of the mental condition of offenders. In regard to the question of mental condition, the issue did not turn upon the acceptance of anything like identity in the offence. The hon. Member for Salford failed and must tail to justify the present system, even it they took all criminals being what he called responsible persons. Putting the insane problem out of sight, and putting all criminals on the same footing, still the system of mechanical retaliation was unsound. The system could not be made intelligible. They could not rationally decree vengeance for a given amount of wrong doing.
§ MR. A. DEWAR (Edinburgh, S.)said he supported this measure, but wished to direct the attention of the Home Secretary to two points which might render this clause inoperative or not suited to the object at which he was aiming. He understood that it was the desire of the right hon. Gentleman that all dangerous criminals should be detained beyond the ordinary term of imprisonment with the view to curing them. But not only was some kind of curative treatment required for the criminal who had committed a great crime, but also for the offender who repeatedly committed small crimes. He remembered a case before a Criminal Court in which a woman fifty years of age was charged with an offence of a class of which she had been brought up so frequently that she had spent twenty-six years of her life in prison. She had had seven years penal servitude the last time, and it was clearly a case where the woman ought to be detained. The Judge took a merciful view of the case and would not send her to penal servitude; 118 he sent her to prison for a month or six weeks.
§ MR. GLADSTONEThat is a point I spoke about on the Second Reading and also in Committee. I tried to show clearly that the cases I had in my mind were those committed by dangerous professional criminals, and that we could not undertake within the scope of the scheme to deal with that large class of offenders who were guilty of small petty crimes. I entirely agree with my hon. friend that that is a class who ought to be dealt with, and I hope they will be dealt with. As regards the mental condition of offenders, that is a matter which we cannot get within the limits of the scheme. This is an experiment and I hope the other one will follow.
§ MR. A. DEWARsaid that an offender who frequently committed small offences sometimes received a sentence of five or seven years penal servitude. He thought such an offender should have prolonged detention in a place where the treatment I would be partly punitive and partly curative. But under the proposal in the Bill as it stood they would not succeed in getting a person like that into the curative prison. He thought such offenders ought to be sent there. He was certain that there would be more hope of doing good among that class by that means. He did not know whether under subsection (2) they would get one of that class into a house of detention, because there were two things to be proved before a man could be sent there. First of all, he must have been three times previously convicted and, secondly, it had to be shown that he had been persistently living a criminal life. It was easy to prove previous convictions, but how were they to prove to the satisfaction of a Judge and jury that a man had been persistently living a life of crime? The only competent evidence of crime would be in the previous convictions, and he was quite certain that no Judge would allow a charge of crime to be brought against a man except upon indictment. In Scotland, a crime could not be proved against a man unless he was charged on indictment with the crime. Therefore, proof of three previous convictions 119 would not be sufficient for what the right hon. Gentleman wanted. Something else was required. That was evidently to be the statement of a policeman that the man had been associating with criminals and that he was not a respectable man. He ventured to say that no Judge would allow evidence of that sort unless special power was given in the Act. He did not see any proposal to give that power.
§ * MR. RADFORD (Islington, E.)expressed the hope that the Home Secretary would not accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh. If he did so, it would introduce into the Bill another element, namely, the evidence of the police as to what they thought was a persistent life of crime. The speech of his hon. friend the Member for Tyneside would have been convincing if he had been referring to a measure to substitute preventive detention for the penalties whim were at present provided by law. But he was left unconvinced, as they were not dealing with a measure for preventive detention simply, but for superimposing that system on the top of the existing one. The hon. Member for East Dorset had stated that the Bill mainly concerned a very small number of hardened and well-known criminals. The hon. Member's speech would have been more appropriate if it had been delivered in support of a privilegium or special law to deal with well-known criminals, whose names might be scheduled to the Bill, but it did not appear to be a convincing argument in support of this measure. When in a previous debate the Home Secretary made a speech explaining Part II. of the Bill the House largely sympathised with him in his condemnation of the futility and cruelty of the present system. If this Bill which introduced the system of indeterminate detention had been accompanied with an entire revision of the penal code, then this part of the measure would have deserved careful consideration and support. But when they had added by the Bill to all the different periods of imprisonment and penal servitude which might be given by the Courts to habitual criminals this indefinite period of from five to ten years, the case was altered. The Home Secretary in urging 120 the Bill on the House on a previous occasion had told them that it was a merciful measure; but if it was to be regarded as merciful he felt tempted to ask what was justice. It would be nothing else than perpetual imprisonment. It might be that that was a right remedy for the habitual criminal, and he was not prepared to say that it was not. He had not had the advantage of sitting on the Committee that dealt with, the details of the Bill, but he had heard nothing in the House which justified them in thus increasing the severity of criminal legislation. His opinion was that the Bill would have the effect of making short sentences long, although the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary assured them in a speech the other day that it would not have that effect; and that there were safeguards against that. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that there was the fiat of the Public Prosecutor, the discretion of the Judge, and finally the discretion of the Home Secretary. He was afraid that these safeguards would not be effective. What could the Public Prosecutor do? He could only ask a clerk in his office to look up and see whether against a particular prisoner there were three certificates of previous convictions, and if he found that that was the case he granted his fiat. Therefore, he regarded that safeguard as purely nugatory. The Home Secretary's argument as to the Judge's discretion was that when the Judge before whom the prisoner was tried knew that there were previous sentences of penal servitude against him he would reduce the preliminary sentence in view of the longer subsequent period of detention. He was not at all sure that that was likely to be the result. It was common knowledge that some of our Judges passed sentences which could only be described as savage, and he thought it was not unlikely that such Judges would have an added pleasure in giving long preliminary sentences to be followed by the longer indeterminate period of detention. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, some Judges had continued to give long sentences without any serious interruption by the Home Secretary. So that the check of the Judge's discretion was uncertain and ineffective. Moreover, the increased power given to Judges would aggravate the 121 existing evil of the inequality of sentences. It was said that the Home Secretary would be ready as soon as a prisoner had shown any signs that he would henceforth lead an honest life, to set him free. But it was well-known that it was the men in prison who had the best character and who knew how to get the highest marks, who were often the very worst scoundrels in the whole crowd. In speaking of the discretion of the Home Secretary he desired to say that it should be received with the greatest respect; but they could not but recognise—there was no use in talking cant about it—that the Home Secretary was really the mouthpiece of the official machine. He could not be anything else. He replied to Questions put by hon. Members in the House by reading answers which he often did not understand—[Cries of "Oh!"]—and which had been furnished to him by his officials.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid he did not see in what respect the argument which the hon. Gentleman was now putting forth, had anything to do with the Bill before the House.
§ * MR. RADFORDsaid he understood that what they were discussing was that the period of indeterminate detention of a prisoner was subject to be reduced by the Home Secretary. Now, the Home Secretary had on a previous occasion informed them that he would intervene to reduce the period, when there was an opportunity on report of the behaviour of the prisoner for doing so. To him it seemed that the effect of the Bill would be to make short sentences long, and that the safeguards mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were illusory. He, therefore, could not see his way to support this part of the Bill.
§ MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)said he was delighted with the speech of the Home Secretary, but he failed to see perfect agreement between the speech and the Bill. If the Bill had carried out the speech then he would not have troubled the Home Secretary by speaking at all; but would simply have applauded him and voted with him. But he failed to see in the Bill the fulfilment of the beautiful promises the right hon. Gentleman had laid down. There was nothing 122 to show that the preventive detention would be less severe than ordinary penal servitude, and he hoped that the Home Secretary would move some Amendments making it different from ordinary imprisonment. Punishment was supposed to benefit people, but as a matter of fact, as the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted, punishment was not as curative as it was supposed to be. If the Home Secretary proposed to substitute a period of detention for a period of penal servitude, then he would have his hearty support; but he could not agree to superadd a period of detention to a period of three years penal servitude, which was in itself a terrible and awful sentence. Such measures as this were intended in the first instance for the protection of society, and he wished to put himself in the position of a man whose house was being robbed by one of these professional criminals. He did not mind much if anybody burgled him—indeed he should be very glad if his goods were burgled, because he was fully insured if that benefited anybody much. But if a burglar rushed at him with a dagger, as one did at a friend of his, or with a pistol, and inflicted a serious wound, it would be very little satisfaction to him to know that the burglar would undergo a long term of imprisonment and an additional period of preventive detention. He would much rather that the punishment should be excessively mild than that it should be so severe as to induce a wrongdoer to adopt violent methods in the hope of avoiding capture. Therefore, looking at the matter from the point of view, not of criminologists, not of Judges, not of the Home Secretary, who had great ideas of reforming criminals, though probably in this he would not be very successful, but simply from the point of view of the householder, who did not want to be damaged by a rough man, he would be willing to let burglars take his goods so long as they went away quietly. He hoped the Home Secretary would avoid doing anything which would make the desperate criminal more desperate still if that was the effect the Bill would have.
§ MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)said that as his Motion to leave 123 out Part II. of the Bill was mainly directed against the indeterminate period of detention, and as his right hon. friend the Home Secretary had assented that that proposal should be abandoned or greatly modified in other directions, he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)said that by this Bill a person who had had three convictions for the commission of a crime recorded against him, would render himself liable to new and additional penalties. By the Bill it was also provided that the person should be subjected to the new penalties for three previous convictions but that the last of the three might have taken place before the passing of this Bill into an Act. That was retrospective legislation of the worst possible kind. He understood that the Secretary of State said he accepted the Amendment and the next one, and therefore he would say nothing more.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 5, line 7, to leave out the word 'whether.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word whether' stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. GLADSTONEwas understood to say he accepted the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
'In page 5, line 7, to leave out the words 'before or.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid the next Amendment in his name was merely a drafting one.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 5, line 8, to leave out the first word 'a,' and insert the word 'the.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. PICKERSGILL, in moving to omit the words "and the Court passes 124 a sentence of penal servitude," said he desired to raise the issue to which attention had already been called in the course of the general discussion. Under the Bill as drawn a sentence of penal servitude must necessarily precede the period of preventive detention; that was to say the only avenue—if he might so express it—to this period of preventive detention was a sentence of three years penal servitude. If he might say so, he was very much surprised that the Home Secretary should persist—if he proposed to persist—in that provision, especially after his speech the other night. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman condemned in terms quite as strong as he himself could use the demoralising effect of the penal system, and yet the Home Secretary was now proposing that prisoners should have a period of this demoralising treatment as a preliminary to the reformatory method, which was to follow under the name of preventive detention. Upon what ground did the right hon. Gentleman found this extraordinary proposal? The right hon. Gentleman said that this part of the Bill was only intended to hit the dangerous criminal, but where was that in the Bill? There was nothing whatever about the dangerous criminal in the Bill. It was substantially provided by the Bill that any person who committed a series of petty larcenies might render himself liable to the penalties of the measure. He would not say anything about the Judges of the High Court, but they knew very well that Quarter Sessions throughout the country constantly passed sentences of penal servitude upon criminals who had never committed anything worse than a very small larceny. If that was so, it was perfectly clear that the Home Secretary's object in limiting this Bill to the dangerous criminal would not be attained. His hon. friend across the gangway a little while ago referred to a case in his experience of a woman who had stolen garments from a clothes-line and had persisted in that course of crime for some period. That woman would be liable to the penalties of this Bill. There was nothing whatever to limit it to the dangerous criminal, and as a matter of fact, as he had already said, Quarter 125 Sessions passed sentences of penal servitude for these very small crimes. Apart from that, however, if they passed this Bill in its present form the effect would be that any Court who believed preventive detention and held that it was a good thing, would be compelled to pass a sentence of penal servitude, in order that reformatory treatment might come into effect. He could not conceive anything more—he would not use strong language, but at all events such a course was totally opposed to the principles of our criminal law as it imposed a rigid rule. These rigid rules used to exist in our criminal law, but they existed no longer, and for many years past the tendency had been to make our criminal law elastic and give great discretion to the Court. It might be in some cases right that a criminal should undergo a period of penal servitude or imprisonment before a reformatory treatment was entered upon, but surely they were not going to lay it down that a sentence of penal servitude must on all cases precede the period of preventive detention. He could not think that this particular provision would commend itself to the general feeling of the House. He begged to move.
§ * MR. LYELLseconded the Amendment, and said that the part of the proposals of the Government it dealt with ran directly contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill. The spirit of the Bill was the abolition of imprisonment and to entrust a very great and important discretion to the Judges, but just at the moment they were doing that, the Government were taking a large and integral part of it out of the Judges' hands by laying down this rigid rule, that under all circumstances penal servitude was to be a necessary preliminary for the kind of imprisonment which his right hon. friend contemplated in one of these new establishments. He believed that there were many cases, and that indeed in most of these cases of professional criminals with which they were dealing, three years penal servitude would come into play, but that was no argument for taking out of the hands of the Judge the discretion and saying that three years penal servitude should be a preliminary 126 before preventive detention was tried at all. In a great many cases it would compel the Judge who desired to impose a term of preventive detention, against his wishes and what he felt was right in order to meet the case, to pass a sentence of three years penal servitude. It was a crushing and cruel sentence, but in many cases he might feel compelled to impose it, but on the other hand, he might think that a prisoner ought to be dealt with by this preventive detention, and was exactly the kind of case which this system was designed to meet, and in this case the Judge might feel that it would be a barbarous thing to sentence a person to three years penal servitude, and would not inflict it. Therefore, the very kind of treatment which they wanted to give would not be brought into play, because the Judge could not bring himself to impose three years penal servitude. All they asked for was that the Judge should have a discretion in the matter, and be left to exercise his judgment as to whether he would or would not give a sentence of that kind. He hoped his right hon. friend would, at all events, be able to give them some kind of explanation of the matter. He begged to second.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 5, line 9, to leave out the words 'and the Court passes a sentence of penal servitude.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'and the Court passes a sentence of' stand part of the clause."
§ MR. ADKINS (Lancashire, Middleton)said there were many considerations which would possibly lead the House to reject the Amendment. The proposals in the Bill were of considerable novelty, and the modifications made by the Home Secretary at any rate changed his attitude from one of great suspicion to one of considerable hopefulness. It was most important that the new method of sentencing people who were sent to the maximum term of imprisonment should only be tried first in a comparatively small number of cases and in regard to comparatively few types of criminals. If they limited it to those who had 127 already been convicted of penal servitude they would limit it to those who were, in the opinion of the Court, habitual or dangerous criminals, but if they accepted the Amendment and allowed the Court to submit a man to this preventive period of detention without sending him to penal servitude, or, to carry it to its logical conclusion, without sending him to imprisonment first, they would then in his judgment, be leaving too much to the discretion of the Home Office and neglecting that aspect of crime which was penal as well as remedial. From the point of view of one who was sympathetic towards the new proposal and anxious to keep it within definite limits he supported the Government scheme and opposed the Amendment. He did not believe it would lead to savage sentences, nor did he think it would lead to persons being kept in confinement for an undue period. On the contrary, he thought for the Court to sentence a man to three years penal servitude and afterwards to the less severe form of punishment and detention would lead to a reduction of the sentences which were now sometimes too heavy, while on the other hand, he was certain that the new method ought to be tried, first of all, only on criminals who had deserved and received specific punishment for a specific crime, and only when the punishment they had received in the form of penal servitude indicated, as it would do in most cases, that the persons were so far habitual criminals who, in the interests of society and their own good, should be sentenced to this secondary detention. The mover had not alluded to that and to the restrictions contained in the Bill, such as the sanction of the Public Prosecutor and the facilities for criminal appeal, but he was sure the House would bear those in mind.
§ MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he had on the Paper an Amendment almost identical with that of the hon. and learned Member for Bethnal Green, and he hoped that the Home Secretary would entertain the proposal. He thought his hon. friend who last spoke was under a misconception. It was not a condition precedent to passing this punishment that men should have suffered from penal servitude. The condition precedent was, that that 128 man should have been three times previously convicted of a certain class of offence, which might, it was true, have been punished by penal servitude, but might, on the other hand, have been punished by a very trivial measure of imprisonment. He was perfectly sure the right hon. Gentleman had an open mind on this question, and he was going to appeal to him by means of a concrete case which everybody who had to do with the administration of justice knew to be extremely frequent in its type in this country. He meant the frequent appearance before a tribunal, on an indictment, of persons who had been convicted of the trivial offences—using the words in a comparative sense—of larceny or false pretences, or of embezzlement or of some cognate offence, and who had been sentenced to three months imprisonment, six months imprisonment, eight months imprisonment continuously. He meant cases in which, if they went back through a long period of years, they would find these unhappy people brought before the tribunals. One would never dream, unless it was in some very exceptional case, of sending these persons to penal servitude, and one kept on giving them short sentences. They gave them a short sentence. He did not quarrel with that view. Personally, he thought sometimes it would be possibly better for their own sakes, as well as for other people, if they were sent to penal servitude. But then came this benevolent Bill, which said in effect that they should reclaim such an individual and sentence him to a period of detention, and that an entirely new reclamatory method should be adopted to bring him back as a proper member of civil society. When they came to examine the Bill they found, however, that as a condition precedent to this reclamatory process the man was to be sentenced to a term of penal servitude of not less than three years. The Home Secretary seemed to think that this was necessary to settle the man's mind and bring him to a proper condition for the reclamatory process. But, unfortunately for the Home Secretary, the Bill introduced quite a different method. It introduced the Borstal system which had no such condition precedent necessitating a man's 129 serving a term of three years penal servitude. The right hon. Gentleman might retort that the Borstal system was not for old offenders; that it was only for tainted persons, and not for those who were steeped in crime. But why should the right hon. Gentleman allow this obstacle of three years penal servitude to lie between the Judge and the unhappy prisoner? He himself might wish to send a man to school and give him an opportunity of being reclaimed. If it were not for this new Act—for he supposed it would be a new Act—he would give a man six months' imprisonment, and there would be an end of it; but now he would want to reclaim him and give him the benefit of this new treatment. But he should hesitate, and he thought many other humane men would hesitate, before accepting the condition precedent of sending a man to penal servitude for three years. Let there be a term of imprisonment, twelve months, six months, or it might be only one month, and then let them try the new method. He really thought the right hon. Gentleman was defeating the object of this Bill by insisting on this term of penal servitude.
§ MR. GLADSTONEexpressed his gratification at the fact that the beneficent side of this measure was now becoming apparent, and he recognised In the Amendment and the speeches in support of it a desire to extend the good effects of this method to another class. The class they proposed to deal with was another class than that to which his hon. and learned friend referred. The class the hon. Gentleman had in his mind was that with which they were all familiar which came up on indictment time after time for offences for which terms of three, six, or eight months imprisonment were imposed, small offenders. That was a class with which he was anxious to deal. It was a large class and numbered at this moment some 60,000 persons, who were wandering about the roads and cities in a state of semi-vagrancy and crime, sometimes stealing, sometimes begging, but never leading an honest life. In this Bill they proposed to deal with a class which might number as many as 5,000, and it was proposed to build an extra prison which 130 would accommodate something like 500. The whole of that prison would be required for the class of person they desired to deal with. If the class his hon. and learned friend had in mind was admitted they would have to recast the Bill altogether. The difference between penal servitude, imprisonment, and preventive detention must be maintained. If he acted on his hon. and learned friend's proposal the old criminal who made some pathetic appeal to the Judge might be sent red-hot from crime to the society of persons in preventive detention. Preventive detention did not represent the punishment for the particular offence with which a man was charged. The man on whom it was imposed would have an accumulation of previous convictions, and it was not desirable to deal with him in respect of his particular last offence. If the Amendment were adopted and a Judge used the power of sending a man straight to preventive detention, the effect would be that instead of adapting Camp Hill to this special purpose he had spoken of, the discipline and treatment there would have to be levelled up to that of ordinary prisons. His idea of that place was that there should be less rigour than in an ordinary prison, and that the prisoners should be encouraged by the knowledge that they could get out on reasonable guarantees?
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid his hon. friend knew that guarantees either by word of mouth or in writing could not be said to be worth very much. They had to judge of a prisoner by his conduct, whether he honestly tried to learn some branch of work while he was in prison, how he conducted himself, and how he was prepared for a fresh career. That would be in the nature of a guarantee, but a guarantee, either oral or written, he confessed would not have any very great weight. He would further ask the House to consider the inequalities which would be set up if this Amendment were passed. His hon. friend must remember that there would be hundreds of men indicted and sent to penal servitude who would not be proceeded against as habitual criminals. 131 Take the case of a full-blooded young man who committed some atrocious crime, and was sentenced to ten years penal servitude. He did not say that the sentence would be unjust, still the young man might not be an ordinary criminal, but one who had committed some atrocious offence in a moment of sudden impulse. In such a case it could not be said, perhaps, that he was a thoroughly bad man, but he would be sent to prison for the full ten years. Then there was the detestable man who had been convicted over and over again of the meanest and worst offences, and who came to be indicted for some act of felony; he made a piteous appeal to the Judge, who, not seeing the distinction which was being made between the two cases, sent him to ten years penal detention. This man, who had lived a villainous life, who had preyed on society, who perhaps had not the slightest wish of his own motion and initiative to reform himself, would come under comparatively mild treatment, totally unsuited to his case; while the other man who had committed one awful offence was—quite properly—undergoing the tremendous punishment of ten years penal servitude. If they adopted this Amendment he undertook to say that they would get serious irregularities and inequalities in the dispensation of justice. Of course, when a Judge had a prisoner before him who was indicted for a particular offence, and was also charged with being an habitual criminal, first of all the accused would be convicted of the particular offence, and then the charge against him on the ground of his being a habitual criminal would be heard. If the jury convicted him on that charge as well, then the Judge would have to proceed to sentence him in regard to the particular offence which he had committed. Of course, the Judge would take the two kinds of detention into consideration. He would know that he must sentence the man to no less than three years penal servitude, and could sentence him to ten years detention or not less than five. But he would consider the case of the man in regard to the nature of the offence and so forth, and then he would proceed to sentence him to so many years penal servitude 132 and so many years detention. His hon. friend the Member for Durham had said that his speech on the Second Reading was inconsistent with the Bill. He did not agree. What he had said was that long sentences of penal servitude were often cruel, but he had not said that of all sentences of penal servitude. As a matter of fact, he thought that hon. Gentlemen should know that the present system under penal servitude was not what it was ten years ago. It was much more humane. Perhaps they did not know to what extent the rigour of penal servitude had been altered, though he admitted it was bad enough still. This Bill was supposed to modify that system still further by this proposal of penal detention, which would enable the Judge to give a much shorter term of penal servitude. He did not hesitate to say that the general effect of the Bill if it passed into law would be greatly to shorten the average sentence of penal servitude.
§ MR. ATHERLEY-JONESWhy?
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had just stated the reason, namely, that there was this penal detention, which, being of a very different kind, would, whenever it occurred, lead the Judges to shorten the terms of penal servitude which they would otherwise give. Of course, he was not entitled to speak in any way for the Judges, but he believed it was a well-known fact that a great many Judges had during the past few years refrained from imposing these long sentences of penal servitude, for the simple reason that they believed that it was too drastic a punishment to which to subject men for long terms. He, therefore, adhered to the opinion which he expressed on the Second Reading of the Bill. He would only remind the House that three of our Colonies, certainly two of them, had got Acts providing for something like indeterminate detention, and that in those cases they found it necessary to have a preliminary period of punishment by imprisonment. He could only say that this matter had been most carefully considered, and it was quite impossible for him to give way. If they were forced to give way on this point of a period of preliminary 133 punishment, he was bound to say that it would be necessary to withdraw this part of the Bill.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)said he must appeal to the Government to reconsider this Amendment, which, as he understood it, really covered the next Amendment as well, and his hon. and learned friend would probably be equally content if the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend the Member for Durham was accepted. The text of the Bill in regard to penal detention made it a condition precedent that the man should be sentenced to three years penal servitude. Having regard to the interests of the Bill itself, he submitted to the right hon. Gentleman that this was a most unwise proposition. From the account they had heard it was very difficult to follow what the object of Part II. of the Bill was, but they learned now that the idea of the Government was that there should be a particular prison accommodating some 500 prisoners, where there should be a certain kind of treatment for the purpose of reclaiming the offenders. That was the general idea. The treatment was to be less severe than that of penal servitude, and the idea was to enable a man to have a fresh start in life. What class of prisoner was likely to get the benefit of this treatment? The Bill as drawn was far wider than the right hon. Gentleman thought. It not only dealt with habitual and dangerous and violent criminals, but it dealt also with people who were simply engaged in petty larceny. If, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in view of penal detention the Judges passed shorter sentences of penal servitude, then he submitted that it would be an undesirable result of the Bill. The criminal who committed violence ought to go to prison for a long time, but the class of persons who would be sent to this penal detention he imagined would be the class who did not use violence, and who had not been guilty of the very serious crime indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. It would be the class of offenders that habitually committed small crimes who would be sent to penal detention. Perhaps they might have the case of a young man of 134 twenty-two or twenty-three, who had five previous convictions of false pretences of a determined character since he was of the age of sixteen. He had been through the Borstal system twice, and there were four offences against him. That type of young man who wrote letters suggesting that he should go back to the Borstal system might well be dealt with under this Bill. But before that could be done, although he was only twenty-one or twenty-two, he would have to be sent to penal servitude to start with, thus doing away with all the good they hoped to do. If they wanted to deal with that class, the obvious thing was to pass a short, sharp, deterrent sentence, and then send them to these houses of detention for whatever term the Judge thought fit. The Home Secretary was stopping practically the most useful part of his Bill if he did not leave it to the discretion of the Judge whether the offender should be sent to prison or to penal servitude. Probably the House did not realise how the rigour of penal servitude had been remitted during the past few years. In many cases, though worse from the point of view of length of time, it was nothing like so severe as the sentence of eighteen months or two years. One of the hardest sentences that could be passed was two years hard labour. Such a sentence one hoped never to be passed, though it was sometimes passed. Could anything be worse in the case of a prisoner of that kind than to sentence him to the semi-mitigated treatment of penal servitude for the first three years and then the more mitigated treatment of the labour colonies for ten years afterwards. For the sake of the Bill itself, discretion ought to be given so that the Court should not in every case have to pass this three years penal servitude, which in a large number of cases would be a very mistaken sentence even when they wished to punish the man effectively before sentencing him to preventive detention afterwards. The safest thing for those in favour of the Bill would be to allow the fullest discretion to the Judge.
§ * MR. BYLES (Salford, N.)said that in spite of the very copious exposition of the Government position on the point raised 135 by the Amendment he was unconvinced, and he would appeal once more to his right hon. friend whether he did not feel now that a considerable body of opinion in the House desired a modification of the clause. He could not see why, if they determined to take a man and alter his life and try to turn him out an honest man, they should not begin the job at once instead of degrading him by another three years penal servitude. He did not believe they could ever send a man to prison and turn him out as good a man as he went in, though they might make him worse. Prince Krapotkin, who had wide prison experience, a writer for whom he had great respect, called prisons universities of crime. It was because he held those views that he had been very desirous to support the Bill, contrary to the opinion of many friends with whom he associated. The right hon. Gentleman had given hypothetical instances of two men who had been sentenced to penal servitude. The first was a young man who perhaps committed his crime upon impulse and was sentenced to ten years. The other was an old and arch-offender who had been up time after time and served many terms. He should say the young man would be like the old one if they kept sending him to penal servitude. They created these habitual offenders by successive periods of penal servitude. Probably the first crime was committed on impulse. It was a mere accident that many honest men in the world had never once committed a crime. Having once committed a crime and served a term in prison they were ten times more likely to commit another. He hoped the question would be approached with a feeling of real sympathy for these criminals. They had very often a great deal of good in their nature. He held that there were many worse men out of prison than some of those who were in. The object was to bring these men back to be good and useful members of society. He urged the right hon. Gentleman not to insist upon giving one more long period of three years penal servitude to the man they were going to try to reform.
§ MR. CURRAN (Durham, Jarrow)in supporting the Amendment said he was sure the authors of the Bill were strongly desirous of making it effective in the direction of preventing crime. He did 136 not think penal servitude tended to reform criminals, but to harden them and make it more impossible to bring them back to decent behaviour. He felt, therefore, that the Borstal system should be applied in a great many cases where penal servitude was applied to-day, and the more penal servitude was minimised and the Borstal system adopted, the sooner they would get to a better method of dealing with crime. An official of Portland prison had informed him that the five, ten, or fifteen years convict when he was released was given a railway ticket to the place where he was arrested, and not infrequently he shook hands with the official who bought his ticket and said he would soon see him again. That proved that long terms of penal servitude tended to degrade men to the extent that they became hardened, and when they came out of prison they intended to follow the same profession. The Home Secretary had made a strong point of the people who were tramping the country—the wayward tramp who committed petty larcenies. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman took into serious consideration the conditions that created that class of petty criminals. There were many men now who being thrown out of employment were tramping from place to place. Even respectable men of that class were liable to fall into the crime of petty larceny and might be convicted once or twice. They were the victims of their environment and the creation of industrial conditions, and to allow any Judge the privilege of sending them to penal servitude would have a tendency to increase and not to minimise crime. He hoped the Home Secretary would, by the adoption of some such Amendment as this, make the present system of punishment more humane, because in spite of all alterations and improvements it was still harsh, degrading, and brutalising. He hoped the Amendment under these circumstances would be adopted, so that the Bill would be made in the true sense of the term a Bill for the prevention of crime.
§ * SIR W. J. COLLINS (St. Pancras, W.)said he gratefully recognised that the Home Secretary had abandoned the indeterminate sentence by the Amendments 137 he had placed on the Paper. The question they had now to consider was whether there should be a discretion with the Judge or Chairman of Quarter Sessions to administer that preventive detention or penal servitude or only the preventive detention after the term of penal servitude had been served. He hoped the Home Secretary would make a concession in that direction. If the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the Report of the Committee of 1894, over which he presided, he would find they recommended that preventive detention in lieu of penal servitude was contemplated, and he would, therefore, by accepting the Amendment, be bringing this Bill into accord with that Report. That Committee recommended a new form of sentence for long periods of detention during which the prisoners would not be treated with the severity of first-class hard labour or penal servitude, and the authors of the Report he had alluded to suggested an alternative system by way of preventive detention. There was a precedent in the case of the Inebriates Act, which provided that—
The Court may in addition to or in substitution for any other sentence order that the prisoner be detained for a term of years.The right hon. Gentleman said that in two of the Colonics they found the precedent of penal servitude first, with preventive detention afterwards. In America, however, there was no such precedent. By the courtesy of the American Ambassador he had been allowed to look up the practice in the States of America, and he had concluded that if the Amendment giving a minimum and maximum sentence and letting out the prisoner on parole[...]t some period after the minimum sentence had been completed were adopted they would be establishing very much the same system as they had in America. From information he had gathered, he understood it was erroneous to say that the Elmira system had penal servitude in the first instance and a period of detention afterwards. The American precedent did not favour the principle laid down in this Bill. He could find no report in favour of this preventive detention following a period of penal servitude, except in some of the papers of the Chairman of the Prisons Commission. In 138 no independent Report of any Commission or Committee had that been recommended. He hoped the Home Secretary would be guided by his own Committee and not by any bureaucratic recommendation. He hoped the Judge and the Chairman of Quarter Sessions would be given discretionary power to adopt penal servitude or preventive detention, or so much of the one or the other as they might think suitable in each particular case.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he could not understand the action of the hon. Member who had brought forward this Amendment in view of the fact that they were opposed to Part II. of the Bill. That had now been modified by the alteration which the Home Secretary intended to move limiting the period of detention to ten years. Even with that modification he could not understand why hon. Members who, a few nights ago, were utterly opposed to this detention period should now turn round and require that operation to be enlarged. If the Amendment were carried, any person previously convicted on indictment three times would be liable to be sent to detention under this clause. He was going to support the Home Secretary, whose speech seemed to him to be the only logical one he had heard on the point. The right hon. Gentleman had chosen what was practically an experiment. They did not intend to apply the Borstal system to old offenders, and that was the answer to the argument used by the hon. Member below the gangway, who wished to do away with all punishment for crime and substitute the Borstal system, which was only meant to apply to youthful offenders who had committed one or two offences. Before any prisoner could be subjected to this treatment he must have been convicted not only for three previous crimes, but also for the fourth crime, and he must be sentenced to a term of penal servitude. If, five or six years hence, they found that this experiment had been successful, that would be the time to come forward and move this Amendment. They were being asked to alter the whole criminal law and punishments and substitute something which was at present both novel and new, which might be successful, 139 but which [...]o person had any reason to suppose would be successful or would fail. The hon. Member for Salford said that penal servitude was a degradation, but he did not think it was. As a matter of fact, it was the crime which was the degradation, and not the punishment. The result of all this would be that instead of inflicting a severe penalty upon a man who deserved it, they would be trying by a side issue to get for the habitual criminal, not the proper punishment and a period of detention afterwards, but a new form of punishment which, as far as one could tell, was not likely to have a deterrent result if given without any other form of punishment. He would have very much pleasure in supporting the Home Secretary, and he should support him in the division lobby against his own friends.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said he was strongly in favour of the Amendment, although by the right hon. Gentleman's concession he had been converted from a very firm opponent into a very strong supporter of the Bill. It seemed to him that the Judge ought to have discretion, having heard all the evidence as to the character of the person he was dealing, with, to send him to some term of imprisonment before sending him to preventive detention and a determinate period. He did not wish to be unreasonable, and he recognised the Bill as one which deserved the warm support of everyone interested in the improvement of the prisons of the country. It had been pointed out that this clause was intended to deal with criminals of a very atrocious character, and assaults on young children were alluded to. His view was that people who committed such offences, or at any rate who committed such an offence twice, ought to be locked up for the rest of their lives. There had been no answer given to the statement of the hon. Member for Durham that the clause as it stood applied to a totally different class of offenders, namely, those who were habitual criminals of a very dangerous character. The whole burden of the speech of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire dealt with questions of larceny and small thefts, but anyone 140 who had studied the administration of the criminal law must be aware that offences against poverty were dealt with in far too harsh a spirit, and the criminal law was much too mild in regard to atrocious offences. For offences against property sentences were perfectly scandalous, and people were frequently sent to long periods of penal servitude for small thefts and robberies. He knew of one case where a poor old woman had spent twenty years in prison for repeated offences for small larcenies, and on one occasion for a small offence she was sent to seven years penal servitude. After-wards, the Judge was so horrified by his own severity that he reduced the sentence to six years. Looking to all the circumstances, he thought a Judge should have power to send a person direct for preventive treatment if he was convinced that it was desirable that the prisoner should be for a long period locked up and at the same time should not be subjected to penal servitude. The Home Secretary had drawn a dreadful picture of the injury which would be done to his new prison—and he quite sympathised with his view—as to what would be the result of sending a shocking criminal, red-hot from crime, into a body of men who were to some extent well advanced on the path of reform. He thought that ought to be a matter left to the discretion of the Judge, and any Judge who was such a fool as to commit to these new institutions a man whose whole life had been a series of revolting offences ought not to be allowed to sit on the bench. A prisoner whose life had been one rather of misfortune than of serious and wicked crime, never got the chance at all. An hon. Member had described the case of a prisoner who, on leaving Dartmoor, shook hands with the warder and said "I hope we shall soon meet again." A vast body of habitual criminals never got a chance at all, because no decent people would associate with them, they could not get any employment, they were pursued and watched by the police, and they soon sank hopelessly back into their old haunts simply and solely because they could not do otherwise. That was the class of person who might reasonably be sent straight to the detention prison. He did not wish to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman. On the contrary he 141 wished to suggest a compromise, namely, that for three years penal servitude he should substitute six months imprisonment. He thought the provision as to three years penal servitude would prevent many Judges from attempting to use
§ this new system perhaps in cases in which it might do the greatest amount of good.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 164; Noes, 95. (Division List No. 433.)
143| AYES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Armitage, R. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Hedges, A. Paget | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Henry, Charles S. | Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland |
| Barker, Sir John | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Higham, John Sharp | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Seely, Colonel |
| Beale, W. P. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Ha'w'k, B. |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Holland, Sir William Henry | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt | Idris, T. H. W. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Illingworth, Percy H. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Branch, James | Kekewich, Sir George | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Kerry, Earl of | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Brycc, J. Annan | Lambert, George | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Lamont, Norman | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Lehmann, R. C. | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Buxton Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Cameron, Robert | Maclean, Donald | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | M'Callum, John M. | Toulmin, George |
| Chance, Frederick William | M'Crae, Sir George | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Clough, William | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | M'Micking, Major G. | Vivian, Henry |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Marnham, F. J. | Walton, Joseph |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Massie, J. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Cox, Harold | Masterman, C. F. G. | Waring, Walter |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Menzies, Walter | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Cross, Alexander | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Whitbread, Howard |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Mond, A. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Montague, Hon. E. S. | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Morrell, Philip | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Myer, Horatio | Wiles, Thomas |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Napier, T. B. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Essex, R. W. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Williamson, A. |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Nicholls, George | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough) |
| Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John | Paul, Herbert | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Paulton, James Mellor | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye | Younger, George. |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington | |
| Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Pretyman, Ernest George | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Hall, Frederick | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cark, N. E.) | Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Bowerman, C. W. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Bowles, G. Stewart |
| Balcarres, Lord | Boland, John | Butcher, Samuel Henry |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hodge, John | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Horniman, Emslie John | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Houston, Robert Paterson | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Jenkins, J. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Collins, (Sir Wm. J. S. Pancras, W. | Jowett, F. W. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Kavanagh, Walter M. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Radford, G. H. |
| Crean, Eugene | Kilbride, Denis | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Crooks, William | Kimber, Sir Henry | Reddy, M. |
| Delany, William | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E. | Renton, Leslie |
| Dillon, John | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Lundon, W. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Lupton, Arnold | Roche, John (Galway, East) |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Rowlands, J. |
| Feil, Arthur | Macdonald, J. R. (Lecester) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Macdonald, J. R. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Stanley, Hn. A Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Field, William | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Fietcher, J. S. | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Forster, Henry William | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Glover, Thomas | M'Kean, John | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent |
| Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Meagher, Michael | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | |
| Halpin, J. | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Pickersgill and Mr. Curran. |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) | |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
Bill read the third time, and passed.
§ MR. LUPTON moved to omit the word "further" from the provision that the Court "may pass a further sentence ordering that, on the determination of the sentence of penal servitude, he be detained etc." He said that this was one of a series of Amendments to enable the Court, having sentenced a man to three years penal servitude, and having come to the conclusion that he was an habitual offender, to commute the sentence to one of detention for a period not exceeding, ten years. The Amendment got over one of the objections which the Home Secretary had to the previous Amendment, namely, that by inserting the word "imprisonment" they would add a great many more than he proposed to make room for to the cases where the offenders might be detained. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted this Amendment, that objection would not arise, because it would only be men who had been sentenced to three years penal servitude who would be sent to a place of detention. The only difference between the Home Secretary and himself was as to the expediency of sending a criminal red-handed to a place of detention. The place of detention was not described in the Bill, and they could only imagine what sort of place the right hon. Gentleman intended. But if the 144 place was to accommodate 500 or 600 people, it would have various wards, and some of these might be wards to which the red-handed prisoner might be sent for one, two, or three months before he was put under the curative process. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that the system of penal servitude had failed; he said in his speech the other night that 80 per cent. of those in the prisons had been there before. Why had it failed? None of the habitual offenders were men of great ability, or they would commit their robberies in a cleverer way, and they would be living in fine houses and driving in carriages. They were men of weak minds, and the present system of punishment weakened their minds still more. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was singularly unfortunate in advising that there should be, first of all, three years of the weakening process under a system where the prisoner was treated as a slave and had no initiative of his own. They were, first of all, going to make the man worse before they began to reform him. Why insist that the man they were going to cure should suffer the horrible sentence of penal servitude before they began to cure him? The right hon. Gentleman said that these prisoners who had been sentenced to punitive penal servitude 145 were also to be sentenced to preventive detention, but that meant that they were going to make the prisoners worse and more dangerous burglars instead of doing anything to reform or improve them. He hoped the Amendment would meet the difficulty he had put. The prisoners when tried and convicted by the jury would be sentenced by the Judge to three years penal servitude, which penal servitude would be commuted in the case of an habitual criminal to preventive detention. There would then be some chance of curing him, which there would not be if he was first sentenced to the three years torture of ordinary penal servitude. He begged to move.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton)seconded.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 5, line 13, to leave out the word 'further.'"—(Mr. Lnpton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word further stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. GLADSTONEthought the Amendment would make the proceeding purely nonsensical, and he could not accept it.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid the Amendment he now moved was one of which he had given notice and had already explained to the House.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 5, line 15, to leave out the words 'during His Majesty's pleasure,' and to insert the words 'for such period not exceeding ten nor less than five years, as the Court may determine.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ *MR. RENTON (Lincolnshire, Gainsborough) moved to substitute the word "penal" for the word "preventive in Clause 9." He thought that "preventive detention" was somewhat vague and would not be understood by the outside public. After all, an unfortunate person who was enduring this sentence was to be considered a felon by this clause, and 146 he was, by another clause, directed also to be considered as a convict. For these reasons he thought it would better and much clearer to substitute "penal" for "preventive."
§ MR. ADKINSsaid that although preventive detention only meant to prevent persons from committing crime, he was anxious that persons under preventive sentence should have treatment which would have a fairly remedial effect. He wanted a sharp, even acute distinction drawn between the treatment of old habitual offenders and the treatment of those who for preventive reasons were subjected to a treatment which was predominantly remedial.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 5, line 16, to leave out the word 'preventive,' and insert the word 'penal.'"—(Mr. Renton.)
§ Question proposed, That the word 'preventive' stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid that it was a mere matter of opinion as to whether the word "penal" or "preventive" was the more accurate word to use in the clause. He, however, would consider whether they could not invent a word which would meet the views of his hon. friend the Member for Middleton.
§ SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)said that he himself could not see how they were to distinguish between "penal servitude" and "preventive detention." He thought it would be exceedingly inconvenient to have a term which looked like "penal servitude" which latter conveyed a certain sinister meaning in the minds of some people. But on the whole he himself liked "preventive" instead of "penal."
§ MR. RENTONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. LUPTONsaid that according to the Home Secretary they were to have reform prisons where the prisoners would have better treatment than in the 147 ordinary prisons; but there were no words in the Bill which carried out that idea. The Amendment which he was about to propose would carry out the idea that the prisoners under preventive detention were going to be kindly treated: at any rate, less severely treated than other offenders. Perhaps he had not drafted his Amendment, in the best way, but the right hon. Gentleman might propose some better addition to the Bill which would carry out what he himself wanted. He desired to insert the words, 'A person sentenced to preventive detention shall, subject only to the needs of safe custody, be treated rather as a person in a lunatic asylum than as a person undergoing a sentence of penal servitude, and shall be allowed reasonable comforts and relaxations.'"
§ SIR E. CARSONasked if this Amendment ought not to come under Clause 11, which dealt with the treatment of prisoners who were to be detained.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid he was much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He thought the hon. Gentleman ought to raise his Amendment on Clause 11.
§ MR. GLADSTONE moved to amend the definition of an habitual offender in the clause as a person who had at least three times been convicted of a crime by inserting "since attaining the age of sixteen years." He said the hon. Member for Peterborough had two Amendments on the Paper with precisely the same object, but he thought his would be a better form of drafting.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 5, line 24, after the word 'has,' to insert the words 'since attaining the age of sixteen years.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. G. GREENWOOD (Peterborough)was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for accepting this Amendment and agreed that the drafting would be better.
§ Amendment agreed to.
148
§
Amendments proposed—
In page 5, line 25, to leave out the words 'above referred to,' and to insert the words 'of the crime charged in the said indictment.'
In page 5, line 26, to leave out the word 'such,' and to insert the words 'any such previous.'
In page 5, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words 'for which he was so sentenced,' and to insert the words 'of which he is so charged.'
In page 6, line 10, after the word 'charge,' to insert the words 'and the notice to the offender shall specify the previous convictions and the other grounds upon which it is intended to found the charge.'
In page 6, line 22, after the word 'regard,' to insert the words 'to the circumstances of the case and in particular.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ *MR. LUPTON moved an Amendment to Clause 11, providing that a person sentenced to preventive detention should, subject only to the needs of safe custody, be treated rather as a person in a lunatic asylum than as a person undergoing a sentence of penal servitude, and should be allowed reasonable comforts and relaxation. By this Amendment he made sure that the imprisonment should be of such a kind as was recommended to the House by the Home Secretary, as he could not reconcile it with his conscience to pass a law which said one thing, and they were told meant something else. They were told that the preventive detention was not penal servitude or penal detention, and he proposed this Amendment to make that clear. He wanted to prevent a man from running about the country doing all sorts of improper things, and therefore thought he should be prevented from getting outside the establishment, but he should not be tortured as well as being subjected to confinement. He should be enabled to live a life of some degree of kindness although, of course, he would have to work. Let him have his newspaper and pipe and be treated like a human being, and in time he might recover some degree of respect and regard for society which was now for the first time treating him well and in a Christian spirit. He was exceedingly anxious that all the humane expressions of the right hon. Gentleman should be fixed in the Bill in some way, 149 and therefore he brought forward this Amendment.
§ SIR E. CARSONinquired how a man was to be treated "rather as a person in a lunatic asylum."
§ MR. LUPTONsaid he would be treated, according to the words of the Amendment, with due regard to safe custody and subject only to those needs. He would be treated as a person capable of breaking bounds, but not subjected to the severities of prison life. He begged to move.
§ *MR. RENTON (Lincolnshire, Gainsborough), in seconding the Amendment, said they wanted some of the principles which the Home Secretary had enumerated to be embodied in the Bill. They had not had the slightest information as to what preventive detention really meant except that it was not penal detention. He should like to know what would pass in the establishment at Camp Hill and in what respect the regulations would differ from those of a prison.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 24, at the end, to insert, as a new subsection, the words 'A person sentenced to preventive detention shall, subject only to the needs of safe custody, be treated rather as a person in a lunatic asylum than as a person undergoing a sentence of penal servitude, and shall be allowed reasonable comforts and relaxations.'"—(Mr. Lupton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Mr. GLADSTONEwas understood to say that he also desired to know how a man was to be treated "rather as a person in a lunatic asylum."
§ MR. LUPTONsaid he would be treated rather as a person in a lunatic asylum than as one undergoing a sentence of penal servitude.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would tell him what in his judgment would be the legal interpretation of the words.
§ SIR E. CARSONsaid he could not supply it.
§ MR. GLADSTONEpointed out that the hon. Member had quite ignored the Amendment which he had on the Paper, to the effect that these persons should be subjected to such disciplinary and reformative influences, and be employed on such work as might be best fitted to make them able and willing to earn an honest livelihood on discharge. That would really reply to him, and the hon. Gentleman opposite. He described the various steps which would be taken on the Second Reading of the Bill, and in Committee, and the kind of place the new detention house at Camp Hill was likely to be, and he could not be expected on Report to go over the same ground. A man would be put in a certain class and he would be set to work which would enable him to earn successive privileges, and a livelihood on his discharge. It was a curious fact that under the present system very few men who became competent workmen at particular crafts continued them when they left prison. But still he was not disheartened by that, as he thought men might be trained in manual work, so that habits of industry might be engendered. The men would be supplied with newspapers, and they would be less and less subjected to anything approaching prison discipline; but, of course, he must safeguard these provisions, as in this prison there would be some hundreds of the most desperate criminals in the country, and the greatest care would have to be taken.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ SIR W. J. COLLINS moved to omit the words "any prison or part of a prison," and insert "a place," and said he wished to make it clear in name as well as in fact that the place in which the preventive detention would be given would be not a prison or a part of a prison. He had a series of consequential Amendments on the Paper to carry out what the right hon. Gentleman said, and make it clear that the treatment would be totally different from that in prisons. In a prison or part of a prison there was the danger of the spirit in one part of 151 the place pervading the others. The State Reformatory at Aylesbury was next to the convict prison, and this danger had been found to exist. The object of the clause was to establish a totally different line of treatment in this preventive establishment, and therefore he wished to distinguish it from a prison. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, to indicate his intention that the detention should take place at a different place from a prison.
§ MR. RAWLINSON seconded the Amendment so far as he understood the right hon. Gentleman meant that this place should not be a prison in reality, but a place more in the nature of a labour colony which might be self-supporting as far as possible. That was to say that such work as farm work might be done on the premises and made remunerative as far as possible, and that those detained should not be put to the more or less useless labour that was done in penal servitude.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 26, to leave out the words 'any prison or part of a prison,' and to insert the words 'a place.'"—(Sir W. J. Collins.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'any prison' stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had considered this matter in the drafting of the Bill, but the word "prison" had gone into the Bill, and he submitted that there could be no objection to these words because, after all, prison rules would apply. He had pointed out that it would be a prison in the sense that it must be a place fit to keep in safe custody those who were dangerous. There was no getting away from the fact. On the whole he saw no objection to the word "prison," while on the other hand there might be some inconvenience in adopting another phrase, like "place of detention," which had already been identified in the Children Bill lately passed.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. PICKERSGILL moved to leave out the words "or any part of a 152 prison." He submitted that the Amendment could hardly be resisted because the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of a place of detention for these people being erected on a special site, of a special building and complete separation. It seemed undesirable that persons who were under ordinary penal servitude or imprisonment should be in the same place as these people who were undergoing this system of detention. The two systems should be distinct from each other, and it was therefore desirable that they should be carried on in separate buildings.
§ MR. LUPTONformally seconded the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 26, to leave out the words 'or part of a prison.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. GLADSTONEquite sympathised with the desire of his hon. friend. It was the intention to keep these habitual prisoners apart from ordinary criminals suffering terms of imprisonment or undergoing terms of penal servitude, but the House would see that provision had to be made for possible difficulties in the future. It was impossible to say how soon this place would fill up. There might at times be some difficulty with regard to accommodation when it might be in the interests of the prisoners themselves that the prisons should be used for temporary purposes rather than that the prisoners should be crowded at Camp Hill. He hoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment. Of course he would give an assurance that the prisons would only be used for temporary purposes.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 36, at end, to insert the words '(3) Persons undergoing preventive detention, shall be subjected to such disciplinary and reformative influences, and shall be employed on such work as may be best fitted to make them able and willing to earn an honest livelihood on discharge.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
153§ MR. RAWLINSON moved to omit subsection (3) in order to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman his view with regard to the Board of Visitors. Were they a new body, and, if so, what were their duties?
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 37, to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 11."—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'with,' in page 6, line 39, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid that as a matter of fact he was quite prepared to accept this Amendment, because the Board of Visitors was appointed under the present law, and had statutory duties, which duties they would discharge at Camp Hill, but the Government had thought it well to set it forth in the Bill that this Board of Visitors would, in fact, be set up at Camp Hill.
§ MR. ADKINSearnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment. They were now setting up a valuable and rather new type of place, not for imprisonment but for the reclamation of criminals, and it was very desirable that the public should know that there was to be a Board of Visitors in regard to it. He hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite would not press the Amendment, as he was quite sure that public confidence would be increased if these words were left in.
§ * SIR W. J. COLLINSthought the right hon. Gentleman had recognised that it was necessary to have an independent eye to overlook this matter in this Board of Visitors, and in an Amendment lower on the Paper he himself had suggested that not less than three of the Board of Visitors should be elected by the county council of the county in which the place of detention was situated. The House would bear in mind that the tendency of the government of our prisons had been rather in the inverse direction to our general legislation; while the tendency of legislation in regard to prisons was to concentrate their management in the hands of the Government, 154 the tendency of other legislation had been in the direction of devolution and the placing of administration in the hands of the local authorities. He submitted the tendency of concentration had gone too far, and that it would be well if, in this new departure, the Board of Visitors contained some members other than those nominated by the Home Office. He hoped his right hon. friend would not accept the Amendment moved, but on the other hand, when they came to it, accept the Amendment which he himself had lower on the Paper.
§ MR. RAWLINSONsaid he left himself entirely in the hands of the Home Secretary, and did not wish to press the Amendment in any way.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR W. J. COLLINSformally moved to previde that not less than three of the Board of Visitors shall be elected by the county council of the county in which the place of detention is situated.
§ MR. ADKINSin seconding, said that as this was a national institution, therefore perhaps the local authority, according to precedent, would have very little locus standi; but considering that this was a new experiment which certainly had awakened exceptional interest, he hoped the Government might see their way to meet the demand for the appointment of some independent local members who would have cognisance of the way in which the institution was administered. He seconded the Amendment in the form in which it was moved. He would very much prefer that the county council themselves should nominate two or three of their members to serve on the committee, but if there were really administrative objections to that, then it would be better than nothing that the Home Office should appoint members of the county council to serve. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman appreciated what had fallen from the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, that there should be an independent element on the Committee of Visitors. It would strengthen public confidence, and would be exceptionally valuable in dealing with a new institution.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 39, after the word 'peace,' to insert the words 'and not less than three shall be elected by the county council of the county in which the place of detention is situated.'"—(Sir W. J. Collins.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid he agreed that there was a good deal to be said for this Amendment, but what would be the result if a member of the county council declined to serve? If the Amendment were to be accepted, and if they said that certain members of the committee "shall" be members of the county council, then something must be put in the Act.
§ * SIR W. J. COLLINSsuggested "may" be.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid that whether it was "may" or "shall," he did not think either would very much relieve the situation. It was quite clear that he could not accept the Amendment as it was drawn. This particular prison, of course, was for the service of the whole country, and that the County Council of the Isle of Wight should have a statutory right to nominate two or three members to a comparatively small board of this kind was a proposition which did not commend itself to his judgment as being a right, one. He would point, out that, as a matter of fact, the existing Board of Visitors appointed in connection with another prison included three or four residents in the Isle of Wight, including county councillors. In fact, he thought almost the whole of the Visitors were actually resident in the Isle of Wight.
§ SIR W. J. COLLINSNominated by the Home Secretary.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid there was no great gulf between the Home Secretary and the present Commissioners and the county council or any other representative body of men. It seemed to be suspected in some quarters that the Prison Commissioners lurked in the background for the purpose of worrying and ill-treating prisoners, and that somebody must be always watching to prevent these wicked 156 men from wreaking their wicked purpose upon these unfortunate criminals. He pressed his hon. friend to admit that as between the personnel of the Isle of Wight County Council and the personnel of the present administration of the Home Office, in respect of humanity there was really nothing to choose.
§ SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid the right hon. Gentleman had entirely overstrained anything he had said or suggested. He repudiated entirely the construction which the right hon. Gentleman put upon what he had said.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid the hon. Member would remember having interrupted him by saying that the local members of the Board were nominated by the Home Secretary.
§ SIR W. J. COLLINSThat is the fact.
§ MR. GLADSTONEAnd why should the Home Secretary not do so? Why should he give up part of his direct responsibility to the House, which that House desired him to have, to statutory members of a particular county council? He would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to recognise that, as a matter of fact, at the present time they did get the services of the best men available in the Isle of Wight. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight was himself a most useful member of the Board of Visitors, and he thought his hon. friend might rest content with his assurance that it was his desire to appoint the very best qualified men who could be got. He might point out that in the Committee upstairs, after a long discussion, by nineteen to five it was left to the Department to see that the best men of the locality were appointed.
§ MR. LUPTONcontended that while they had confidence in the Home Secretary, yet everyone nominated by him must act in accordance with the views of the right hon. Gentleman's Department and with their way of conducting this business. Those who were nominated by the county council would be in the position of independent critics; whereas, under the system of nomination by the Department, if anyone of 157 the Board of Visitors made himself obnoxious, or they did not like his criticisms, it would be easy to say: "Do not nominate So-and-so; he is always asking questions, he does not agree with us, and he is always giving us trouble." He thought there should be a little independent criticism.
§ MR. RADFORDsaid he desired to support the Amendment. Those who were nominated might be the best men to be found, and it was quite likely that they might be the very same men who would be selected by the county council. The fact, however, that they were not nominated by the Home Secretary but chosen by the county council would give a degree of confidence which they would not otherwise possess. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)trusted the Home Secretary would not accept the Amendment. There was no reason why this particular prison should be treated differently from any other kind of prison, or why the county council should have a special knowledge of this place of detention that they were not supposed to have in the case of an ordinary prison. It appeared to him that the Amendment was one for which there was nothing to be said, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press it.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. PICKERSGILL moved an Amendment providing that at least one of the Board of Visitors should be a woman. He was sure, he said, that the interests of women prisoners were somewhat neglected from the fact that there were no women in the higher ranks of prison administration. He had endeavoured to secure that there should be a woman representative on the Prison Commission, but failing that, he now thought that at least one woman should be appointed on the Board of Visitors. The Home Secretary no doubt would say that the persons sentenced to detention would be for the most part men. That might be so, but at all events there might be some women, and there would be advantage in having a woman on the Board of Visitors. He begged to move.
158§ MR. LUPTONseconded the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 39, after the word 'peace,' to insert the words 'and one at least shall be a woman.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. GLADSTONEhoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment which it would be seen was not necessary if reference was made to Section 5 of Clause 12—
The directors of convict prisons shall report periodically to the Secretary of State on the conduct and industry of persons undergoing preventive detention, and their prospects and probable behaviour on release, and for this shall be assisted by a committee at each prison in which such persons are detained, consisting of such members of the Board of Visitors and such other persons of either sex as the Secretary of State may from time to time appoint.
§ MR. PICKERSGILLThat is at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
§ MR. GLADSTONEQuite so, but his hon. friend might take it from him that as a matter of fact ladies were allowed to visit juvenile prisoners at Wormwood Scrubbs and Borstal.
§ MR. PICKERSGILLsaid those visitors were quite distinct from the Board of Visitors.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid he could not accept the Amendment, because this particular prison would be tenanted by dangerous, violent, and habitual criminals of the older type, and he thought it would be wrong that women should necessarily be on the Board, when it was clearly shown that their admission to this class of prison might be extremely undesirable.
§ MR. PICKERSGILLasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 40, after the word 'prescribe,' to insert the words 'by such prison rules, as aforesaid.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
159§ MR. G. GREENWOOD moved to amend Clause 12, subsection (1). by substituting two years for three years as the period within which the Home Secretary shall take into consideration the condition, history, and circumstances of a person in custody under a sentence of preventive detention with a view to determining whether he shall be placed out on licence. He said the doubts which some of them had felt in regard to the sentence of preventive detention were founded not so much on any matter of principle as upon some distrust of the administration of prison officials. His Amendment merely proposed that once in every two years instead of every three years the Home Secretary should take into consideration the condition, history, and circumstances of the person undergoing preventive detention, with a view to determining whether he should be allowed out on licence, and, if so, on what conditions.
§ SIR W. J. COLLINSseconded.
§
Amendment proposeu—
In page 7, line 2, to leave out the word 'three,' and to insert the word 'two.'"—(G. Greenwood.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid he would submit to his hon. friend that this subsection was put in largely because of the indeterminate side of the Bill as it was, and the Committee required that special precautions should be taken, having regard to the fact that a man might be detained for an indeterminate time. Therefore, they had put in these safeguards. Now that they had really shortened the time materially and taken other precautions he submitted to his hon. friend that this further restriction was not necessary. It might put a great deal of rather unnecessary trouble upon the Secretary of State and the Home Office. And let him remind the House that as the Bill stood they had first of all the examination by the Secretary of State every three years in subsection (1), then the Annual Report to the Secretary of State which was presented to Parliament; there was another 160 periodical Report under the fifth subsection of the clause, and in addition to that they had the special committee which must meet at least twice every year, and could make representation as often as it liked. He thought under these circumstances they had taken all necessary precautions, and perhaps his hon. friend would not press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 7, line 12, to leave out from the word 'prison,' to end of line 21.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR W. J. COLLINSthought the Report of the Board of Visitors should be periodical, and he proposed to provide for it in sub-clause 5 of Clause 12.
§ MR. ADKINSseconded.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 7, line 27, after the word 'Prisons,' to insert the words 'and the Board of Visitors."—(Sir W. J. Collins.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. GLADSTONEThe Board of Visitors do under present rules report every year.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 8, line 38, at the end, to add the words '(5) The time during which a person is absent from prison under such a licence shall be treated as part of the term of preventive detention. Provided that, where such person has failed to return on the licence being forfeited or revoked, the time which elapses after his failure so to return shall be excluded in computing the unexpired residue of the term of preventive detention.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ * MR. LARDNER (Monaghan, N.)said he wished to move the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Down to omit Clause 16. Appeals against preventive detention sentences under the 161 Bill were dealt with in the same way as proceedings under Section 1 of the Crown Cases Act of 1848. The effect of that was that the only method of appeal which the prisoner had was on a case stated in the discretion of the Court on a question of law. The House would not listen for a moment to a proposal to pass the Bill into law with no other right of appeal for English prisoners than that which it was proposed to give to Irish prisoners. Let them take the position of the English criminal and contrast it with the limited right of appeal allowed to the Irish criminal. In England under the Criminal Appeal Act there was an appeal on questions of fact and mixed questions of fact and law, on the certificate of the Judge, and if refused, on application to the Court of Criminal Appeal. There was always an absolute right of appeal in questions of law, but under Section 10 of this Bill there was an absolute right of appeal without certificate or application to the Court. Moreover, the English prisoner, where there was an important point for decision and he was poor, could get the assistance of a solicitor and counsel assigned to him by the Court. What position was the illiterate Irish prisoner in? He must apply to the Court to state a case. He was without means and was unable to employ counsel and solicitor to draft a case for him, while it was a most cumbersome and unsatisfactory method. He strongly urged on the Home Secretary, while he agreed with the spirit of the Bill and the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman, that he was not treating the Irish prisoner fairly in this legislation by reference in the matter of appeal. The question whether a prisoner was persistently leading a dishonest or criminal life was one of fact on which certain Judges in Ireland under certain circumstances might take a very extreme view, but the unfortunate Irish criminal had no appeal because it was not a question of law. He strongly urged the Home Secretary to tell them what be proposed and whether he would improve the position of the Irish prisoner.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 10, line 23, to leave out Clause 16."—(Mr. Lardner.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. GLADSTONEOf course I quite understand the reasoning of the hon. Member, but he takes me rather by surprise. If I had had any knowledge that that question was going to be raised I have no doubt one of my learned colleagues who represent the Irish Office would have been here to answer. I was under the impression that the Bill really was acceptable to the Irish representatives and I have reason to know it has been under their consideration. Communications of course have passed between me and the Leader of the Party, and therefore I presumed hon. Gentlemen from Ireland acquiesced in the clause. If it appears that Irish Members generally dislike the clause and wish it to be omitted that may be considered in another place, but to-night it is rather too late to consider that.
§ * MR. LARDNERIt could be amended very easily if the right hon. Gentleman so desires. I spoke to the Irish Solicitor-General in connection with the matter.
§ MR. GLADSTONEI did not quite gather the specific way in which the hon. Member proposes to amend it.
§ * MR. LARDNERIt could be amended by giving an absolute right of appeal on questions of fact as well as of law.
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,) South ShieldsThe fact that there is no appeal on questions of fact under this Bill is due to a circumstance which is not connected with the Bill. The Irish people did not themselves desire to be included in the Criminal Appeal Bill and no Court of Appeal was established to deal with questions of fact. They have an appeal on questions of law only. It is a very comprehensive appeal, and I imagine Irish Members, if consulted, would much prefer the remedy they have under the Act to that which it is suggested they might get by way of appeal, their remedy being that they have the protection of a jury on questions of fact in the first instance. Juries in Ireland are not unduly severe. One 163 might say twelve good men and true are not likely to give a finding which would be reversed on appeal. It is rather difficult to amend the Bill because an Amendment such as is suggested would involve the creation of a new tribunal, which would be rather an extensive Amendment and would necessitate a second Bill. The Irish Members were understood not to favour the inclusion of Ireland in the Criminal Appeal Bill.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid the House had some little reason to complain that no representative of the Irish Office was present. He did not know why the Home Secretary should be taken by surprise by the Amendment, seeing that notice of it appeared upon the Order Paper. But apart from that he did not quite follow the Attorney-General's argument. He said Irish Members ought to be satisfied because they had the verdict of a jury.
§ SIR W. ROBSONI did not say they ought to be satisfied.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid the point raised by the Amendment, as he understood, was that there was not equality of treatment between Ireland and England. In England they had both the verdict of the jury, and the Court of Criminal Appeal before they could be sent to detention. In Ireland they would not have any appeal on a question of fact, though they would have the verdict of a jury. That was a matter which required some answer from the Government. They made two answers—in the first place that the Amendment took them by surprise, and in the second place that the Home Secretary had been in communication with the Leader of the Irish Party, who did not raise the point. He objected to references to negotiations and conversations which had taken place outside the House being referred to with a view to prevent discussion. He disliked them as a novelty in constitutional practice, and thought it better to consider the Bill apart from consultations which had taken place outside the Chamber. It would not be reasonable to strike out this clause, because the Bill would apply to Ireland, and yet there would be no machinery provided for that.
§ MR. J. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)said that subsection (6) of Clause 15 contained a special provision relating to Scotland. He would suggest to the Home Secretary that, between now and when the Bill reached another place, he should confer with the Law Officers for Ireland, as to the advisability of having inserted in another place a clause dealing specially with the Irish case. His hon. friend had no desire to place the Government at any disadvantage, or weaken the Act in any way, and he would be quite satisfied if the Home Secretary would give an undertaking that the matter would be considered.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid he should be glad to consider whether Ireland could not be put in the same position as Scotland.
§ MR. LARDNERasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 11, line 21, to leave out the word 'January,' and insert the word 'August.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made and, Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ MR. BELLOCsaid (hat after the very full discussion they had had, he did not desire to detain the House, but, as he intended to vote against the Third Reading, he thought it was necessary for him to give his reasons for so doing. The discussion had been entirely devoid of party feeling, and had not proceeded on party lines. The discussion had been entirely devoid of any acrimony whatsoever. As they all knew, there had been throughout the discussion a genuine desire to make one type of punishment in their midst less cruel, and more humane than the rest of their penal system was. He remained convinced, in spite of the concessions and the arguments to which he had listened, that in theory, and he hoped to show also in practice, it was impossible for a man who held his views to vote 165 for the Third Reading, of the Bill, and in point of fact it was necessary for him to vote against it. In the first place, the crux of the whole debate on the general principle of Part II. still remained. It was only by a verbal quibble that they could say that the indeterminate sentence had disappeared. It was true that the indeterminate sentence no longer proceeded from the Bench. The power which the Home Secretary had to release at his discretion would be used, but it was still an indeterminate sentence. They were proposing in the Bill to set up a wholly new principle; they were proposing to copy societies far less civilised, with less traditional knowledge and complexity of situation, with less experience of mankind than their own. They were imposing a new principle altogether, and this was a position of extreme gravity. He knew this was an academic point which the House had fully discussed and he would, therefore, touch upon it most briefly. The Bill was based upon a novel theory, which, if it were developed, and held largely by our societies, would, in his opinion, transform those societies very much for the worst. In a speech, which it was no exaggeration to call the best he had heard on this matter, from the hon. Member for East Dorsetshire, he challenged him whether it was not the conclusion of what he called science that there was no line of demarcation between crime and disease, and, more, that we were coming more and more to regard crime as a form of disease, a thing to be cured rather than punished. The hon. Member for Tyneside also used that mysterious, dogmatic word, science, and said that this infallible thing, science, had decided in that way. The first tiling to seize in this, and in a great number of other modern discussions, was that there was no such thing as this dogmatic, infallible power of science laying down rules of that kind with regard to the human mind. There was a school of physical research which had come to these conclusions, but that school was not universal, and, on the whole, he should say that its power was a great deal less than it was some ten or fifteen years ago. That school was part of the spirit which ran through, he thought, too much modern University 166 work, confounding speculation and analogy with rigid proof and positive fact; and he denied that the complexities of that vast mystery were to be explained by a man of the type of Lombroso, who was at the head of that school. He asked any man who believed himself safe to look back upon the past of his own life, and say whether he did not recognise responsibility for his own actions, and whether his own wrongdoing seemed to be a disease or a voluntary act. He recognised that there were very many types of habitual crimes unsuited to public debate, which were somewhat in the nature of a disease, but that did not say that the man who always poached, or the man who was being continually committed for larceny or shop-lifting, suffered from a disease. He did not believe that, because such a man knew what he was doing every time he did it. He had laboured that point on account of its great importance. The Bill only intended to deal with a small class of people, but, small as was the class, slight as was the exception, they were brnging a wholly new principle into the practice of our law, and if this principle, on however small a scale it was to be applied, was repugnant as it was to him and to many others, it was impossible to vote for the Bill which contained it. What was the nature of the punishment it was proposed to inflict? It was all very well to call it preventive detention, and to describe the intention of the Home Secretary as being something which would turn those places into institutions a little more cheerful than the Crystal Palace, and make them places where men would live happier and brighter lives. The Home Secretary might have all those intentions, but what they were proposing was to deprive a man of his liberty and to put him under the arbitrary orders of other men—gaolers. And there was added to that yet another bad feature—the feature of anxiety. The poor fellow did not know that on a particular date he would be free. As the hon. Member for Mayo pointed out on the Second Reading, the one thing that made imprisonment tolerable and human at all, the one thing that saved our prison system from being too odious for mankind to impose it, was that it certainly came to an end at a definite period. They 167 made it infinitely worse if they added the element of anxiety. They would not reform by any method of that kind. Apart from these particular considerations, he looked with some suspicion upon these perpetual attempts to make better that very evil thing, our penal system. After all the efforts of the nineteenth century, a man was no better off in our English prisons to-day than he was 100 years ago. The chances were that the exact order of prison life, its rigid discipline, and complete segregation of the human mind, was a more awful thing than the conditions which obtained before the reforms began. He wanted to ask the House another question, and it was, who would suffer this detention under the Bill? That was a very important practical point. Who would suffer this detention? It was the type of person who was the most unfortunate among the very poor—the type of man who was a nuisance in the village or the slum, who was perpetually giving irritation to the governing and well-to-do classes. His contention was that the whittling down of the criminal law in the last 100 years had left the bulk mainly applicable to the most unfortunate of the very poor. Now and then it caught a solicitor; it had caught one lord; but in the main, when a man made a concept of the criminal there arose in his mind a member of the poorest class, and below a certain minimum of income every man felt himself somewhat in danger of our system of criminal law. It was on that account that the more this proposition got known the more it was disliked. He could assure the House that those great popular audiences which he and others had recently been addressing in the north of England would, if these proposals in Part II. were submitted to them, disapprove of them by an overwhelming majority. He instanced the case of a man named Barbour who was earning 20s. a week. He worked twelve hours a day every day. His wife contracted a painful disease from which she died. This unfortunate man was left with a few little children and he was prosecuted for neglecting them by one of those societies which were paid to produce the prosecutions which added to the misery of the poor. It was discovered 168 that the children had been well-fed, but their hair was in a dirty condition. The man was sentenced to three months hard labour by men who did not know what hard labour was. That was the type of man who would fall within the new system.
§ MR. GLADSTONEdissented, and said the hon. Member would find in the Schedule the crimes which would come within the scope of the scheme.
§ MR. BELLOCsaid that rich men, as a rule, would not come within the system. The man would not come under it who printed a piece of paper which he called a share in a property in Rhodesia, professing to give to someone vast future prospects, and then unloaded it for £8, though soon afterwards it became worth only 13s. 4d. Finally, who was to discover and decide whether the prisoner was being reformed? They were practically condemning a certain class of Englishmen to imprisonment according to the fancy or whim of prison warders, a class who had been hitherto somewhat menial, and who were notoriously hard in the treatment of those over whom they had arbitrary powers. That was an extremely dangerous precedent. The popular voice was against it, and on that ground, apart from his repugnance to the precedent, he was also against it.
§ * MR. LYELLsaid this had been a most interesting discussion, and there had been an absence of all bitterness. There had been acute differences of opinion, but there had been no party division. The hon. Member for Salford still stoutly maintained the doctrine of free will in all instances.
§ MR. BELLOCNot all instances.
§ * MR. LYELLsaid he himself maintained that the doctrine of vengeance had got to be abandoned. He and his friends maintained that the community had a right to protect itself, and they proposed to do it in this scientific method. The hon. Member reminded him of the story of the child who, when taken to see a picture of Christian martyrdom, and invited to sympathise with the 169 Christians who were eaten by the tigers, devoted her sympathies to the poor tiger who had not got a Christian. His hon. friend's sympathies seemed to be devoted to the tiger, who was now to be prevented from continuing to prey upon the community. He differed from him completely in his view that this was going to apply to the most unfortunate. Oil the contrary, he thought the Bill was going to apply to a class who were fairly well off, who continued to plot and to plan, and to carry out a large proportion of the serious crimes which came before the Courts. He very much regretted that his right hon. friend had not accepted their Amendment which would have enabled them to deal with the habitual as well as the professional offender in a satisfactory way. But if his right hon. friend took the view that he agreed with them in principle but was unwilling to overload his Bill, there was nothing more to be said. He congratulated his right hon. friend on having carried his Bill, which he regarded as far more important than was generally thought. It was a great step forward in a cause which he and many others desired to see accomplished, viz., the breaking up of our bad old penal system, and substituting for it a new, sound, and far more scientific treatment of crime.
§ MR. BYLESsaid he only wished to detain the House for a few minutes in supporting the Bill which they were asked to read for the third time. He regretted very much to find himself at variance with his colleague and friend who had declared his intention of voting against the Bill, more especially as that hon. Member and himself represented what was practically the same community. The Bill was an attempt to humanise and rationalise the methods by which society dealt with its worst criminal population. It had been condemned by many hon. Members in the House, and by some prison reformers outside whose writings he always read with respect; but he believed that the Bill had been misunderstood during the debates in the House, and also by the public. He was bound to admit that the language of the measure itself did not so fully commend the Bill as 170 the speeches which had been made by the Home Secretary in explanation of its provisions. It was the effort to humanise our treatment of criminals which had attracted him to the Bill. His hon. friend the Member for South Salford had spoken of the measure as being an entirely novel measure of dealing with criminals, and thought that that was an objection to it. To his mind that was its recommendation. They had been hitherto treating prisoners in a stupid manner, but at last the reformer had come in to treat prisoners as human beings and not as outcasts of society. His hon. friend seemed to think that the prisoners who were to be sent to special detention under the provisions of this measure would be under the care of precisely the same class of ordinary prison warders who at present had not a very good name. But he would remind his hon. friend that the Home Secretary had distinctly explained that it was the intention to apply the new method of treatment in the new prison about to be erected by means of a different class of wanders, specially selected after instruction, whose duty it would be to instil moral and right principles in the minds of those who were in their charge, to promote their skill, to stimulate their industry, and to give them a fairly happy and useful life until they were fit to go back again to society. This was an attempt to extend the Borstal system to adult prisoners. Some people imagined that criminals were outcasts, without any good in them. He believed there was good in everybody, and far more good in some criminals than they were given credit for.
§ Question put.
§ The House proceeded to a division.
§ Mr. JOSEPH PEASE and the MASTER of ELIBANK were appointed tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. BELLOC was appointed teller for the Noes, but no Member being willing to act as the second teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.