HC Deb 21 February 1911 vol 21 cc1851-9
Mr. ILLINGWORTH (Lord of the Treasury)

I beg to move "That the House do now adjourn."

Earl WINTERTON

I desire to take up for a very short space the time of the House in order to raise a question of some importance upon which questions have already been asked and my reasons for dealing with it are twofold. First it is difficult to formulate it accurately at Question time, and secondly it refers to a matter of some immediate importance, and it is desirable that it should be referred to in this House at this time. A short time ago the Home Secretary paid an official visit to Pentonville Prison and as the result of that visit the sentences of a number of inmates of the prison were reduced or remitted, and the reason I have for raising this question now is to see if it is possible to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman firstly, by what process of selection the prisoners were chosen whose sentences were remitted, and secondly, by what means the reduction of sentences of others was approved by the prison authorities. As it is rather late in the evening having regard to the short time at our disposal I do not want to enter into any general question, but I would venture to make this remark of a general nature, that it does seem to me—and I say it with all respect—that the right hon. Gentleman in making these sudden remissions or reductions of sentences, although he has undoubtedly the right to do it by virtue of the office he holds, is rather taking upon himself the duty of assuming functions which really more properly belong to the judicial authority or the Court of Criminal Appeal.

It further seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is showing what I think is a most dangerous disposition—and this part of the question has not been referred to in this House—to take up what is commonly known as the unwritten law—a principle which, fortunately for the administration of justice in this country, has hitherto been unknown in the administration of our law, and which is rapidly bringing the administration of the law of the two great democracies, the United States and France, into contempt, and causing great hardship and injustice. This sort of humanitarianism of the crowd consists very largely in being extremely brutal to persons who are suspected of crime, which is revolting to human feeling of which they have been found guilty, being, as I think, far too lenient to those persons who have been found by the judiciary of the country guilty of crime which is supposed to be of a nature which is due to temporary aberration by the criminal of his sense of right or wrong. The reason why it is important that this matter should be raised is that the right hon. Gentleman, by making use of the function, which he undoubtedly possesses, of remitting and reducing sentences, is making himself the arbiter of whether or not a certain individual prisoner should serve the full term or whether his sentence should be materially reduced, thereby really usurping the functions of the judiciary. I pressed for information before, but was informed in that formula so dear to those on the Front Bench that it was not in the public interest that information should be given. The point I want to ask is whether these prisoners whose sentences were remitted as the result of this official——

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill)

The Noble Lord was not informed anything of the sort.

Earl WINTERTON

Oh, yes, I was.

Mr. CHURCHILL

The Noble Lord was not told it was not in the public interest. He was told it was contrary to the general practice, which is quite a different thing.

Earl WINTERTON

That is a formula equally dear to Ministers and equally meaningless. If the right hon. Gentleman can give a definition of what he means by this cryptic phrase the House will be glad to listen to him. What are the facts we are asking for? The first question is: By what process of selection were these prisoners chosen? Did the right hon. Gentleman simply ask for a list of prisoners in the gaols, and with the aid of a lead pencil, and with closed eyes select certain names from A to Z? Did he consult the prison authorities? or did he, as I have reason to believe, merely remit the sentences of those prisoners whom he happened to interview? An important principle is at stake. If the sentences which the judiciary have given in the exercise of their functions are going to be overridden by the action of the Home Secretary upon every occasion on which he pays official visits to a prison, it seems to me, that a very serious state of affairs has arisen. The second question is whether these remissions or reductions of sentences were recommended by the only people who, with the exception of the Judge who gave the sentence, are entitled to make such recommendations. Were they recommended by the Governor or by the officials present?

Mr. CHURCHILL

The Noble Lord has chosen an unusual time for raising a Debate on this subject, and what the relevance of this Motion is to the question whether this House now adjourn or not, only his fertile and extremely active imagination can suggest, but in courtesy to him and not because there is any obligation in the practice of the House, which I think it very necessary to make clear, I have made it my business to be present to give an answer to the questions the Noble Lord has asked. On the occasion when I visited Pentonville prison I think I saw about forty prisoners of the juvenile division, and it was in order to see the prisoners of the juvenile division that I went and for no other purpose. Out of these forty 1 found sixteen cases which appeared to me to merit investigation and out of these sixteen eases after careful investigation I made certain small reductions in the sentences of seven. I investigated the cases of all the prisoners of youthful age, and it was these seven alone, after a prolonged process of sifting both on the spot, and subsequently with the magistrates who convicted and with the police authorities, that I arrived at the decision that in seven cases certain reductions might be permitted. I must confess I was glad of the opportunity of recommending the use of the prerogative in these cases, because I wanted to draw the attention of the country by means of cases perfectly legitimate in themselves to the evil—the terrible evil as I take it—by which 7,000 or 8,000 lads of the poorer classes are sent to gaol every year for offences which, if the Noble Lord had committed them at college, he would not have been subjected to the slightest degree of inconvenience. The sentences which were passed on these seven prisoners appeared to be of a kind on which some remission might justifiably be made. Robert Hall, 18, was convicted in September for using obscene language.

Earl WINTERTON

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that that is a kind of crime which I would have committed at college?

Mr. CHURCHILL

Nothing is further from my mind than to suggest that the Noble Lord would have committed such an offence. Robert Hall was fined 7s. with the option of seven days' imprisonment. I said he might be released, and that was done without consulting a magistrate, but not until after inquiry of the police who had given the information. There is no obligation whatever on the part of the Home Secretary in these cases to consult a magistrate in the exercise of the prerogative. The Home Secretary exercises that power on the merits on his own responsibility and the House exercises its judgment as to whether he was justified in the exercise of that discretion. The next case was that of a lad of 20 who was convicted at Westminster for travelling on the railway without a ticket and sentenced to pay a fine of 20s. or go to prison for fourteen days. I made careful inquiry into the case and I found that this lad had actually been for fourteen miles by road in search of work and that he had failed to get it. Very improperly he came back by train without a ticket. He had served seven clays of the sentence, and I thought that period was sufficient, having regard to the fact that he had no previous convictions. In the cases of those who were undergoing very short sentences I did not consult a magistrate, but I did so in regard to the longer sentences. There was more opportunity of short sentences expiring before the time for the inquiry came round. The next was a youth of 20 who was convicted of loitering and his sentence was one month. I released him without consulting a magistrate. The next was a youth of 17, convicted at Old Street for using obscene language. Again I make no reference to the Noble Lord. The lad had been sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment, and if the boy had belonged to the wealthier class he would have paid the fine without the slightest difficulty. It is a very serious thing for young boys to be committed for long periods for offences of a class which in any other class of society would inflict no stigma and no injury upon them. The last case is one of loitering, which is a very vague offence. I went into the matter very carefully, saw the authorities and the police reports and considered the sentence, which was one month for loitering, passed upon a youth of 20, for loitering outside a railway station, probably in the hope of getting a bag to carry, or possibly with some other object, but still for a very-vague offence, as being in the circum stances too long. I have given the House these statements in answer to the questions of the Noble Lord. It was not at all a case of my taking the first four or five names submitted to me and releasing the prisoners. It was not at all a case of my picking out the first few people whom I met. I deliberately went with a definite purpose, and saw all the young prisoners who were confined in Pentonville Prison. I went into all the cases and found that seven of these cases were cases to which I thought the prerogative of mercy might be extended. I fully admit that that does not cover the whole area. I earnestly hope that it may be in my power, during the course of the present Session, to introduce legislation which will give us a different method of punishing these young boys who commit offences for which in no other walk of life would they receive the stigma of being classed with what the Noble Lord, with his loose mode of talking and his very superficial way of looking at this subject, calls the convicts of the country.

Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON

I think that my Noble Friend has done a great service by bringing this matter before the House. He certainly is entitled not to be treated in the way in which he has been treated by the observations of the Home Secretary. I should be the last man in this House to say a single word against the mitigation of sentences of youthful offenders. It may be the sentences passed upon them are unduly severe from time to time. No doubt they are. But sentences are imposed in this country as a rule by men of long experience, magistrates who have given much time without anything in return, and who have been upheld by every party in this House as performing their duty admirably and without any public cost. These men have a right to be consulted as to the grounds upon which sentences are revised before the Home Secretary, who has had about three weeks' experience in criminal law, goes to the prison, makes a cursory investigation into the subject and then advertises the fact in every newspaper in the country.

Mr. CHURCHILL

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that I took any steps to bring the fact to the notice of any newspaper whatever?

Mr. LYTTELTON

If the right hon. Gentleman says that he took no measures to advertise the matter I shall certainly withdraw.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I must unhesitatingly say I took no such measures. I took only three or four days after investigation of the matter with the police, and with other authorities concerned, and the prison authorities, to make up my mind, and I never mentioned a word about it to any single human being outside the Home Office.

Mr. LYTTELTON

I entirely accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw, withdraw."] I do not require dictation from hon. Gentlemen opposite. When the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary states that, I do accept it, and I certainly withdraw the imputation that he advertised the fact himself. This very plain point emerges from this very brief discussion. Prison authorities or any other officials are not the sole judge of what is a proper sentence, but the Judge who has heard the evidence and who inflicted the sentence. If after proper consultation with him the Home Secretary sees fit to exercise the prerogative of mercy, then we have nothing to say against it. But I say most emphatically that the excellent and salutary rule that in every case the man who has heard the case and heard the evidence, who has seen the the prisoner and the witnesses and knows the fact, and has administered the sentence, should be consulted as to the motives which he had in imposing the sentence, should be unflinchingly adhered to. I think the right hon. Gentleman in his haste—I acquit him of making party capital or anything of that kind—to signalise his administration of the Home Office has not observed a sound rule, and it is much to be regretted.

Mr. PICKERSGILL

The right hon. Gentleman made a statement with regard to the practice of this House which, as the privileges of unofficial Members have been taken away, I do not desire to pass unchallenged. The right hon. Gentleman said that according to the practice of this House, he having had notice of the Noble Lord's intention to raise this question, on the Motion for adjournment was not under the obligation to be present. My knowledge and experience of this House has "extended over a considerably longer period than those of the right hon. Gentleman, and I would respectfully inform him that in former years it was very frequently indeed the practice to raise questions upon the Motion for adjournment, and it was always understood that if the Minister whose conduct was impugned had notice it was his obligation to attend.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I do not desire, indeed, it would be impossible, to discuss the merits of this particular case to which my Noble Friend has drawn attention. But I do not think we need go further than the answer from the Home Secretary to see what an unfortunate thing it is he holds the office which he does. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech called attention no doubt to some important things in the criminal law, some important defects in working the criminal law, and he pointed out—what is indeed quite true—that there is extreme difficulty and extreme hard--ship in very often imposing fines as the alternative of imprisonment on persons who cannot pay the fines. That is a very clear and very interesting point properly stated. But how did the right hon. Gentleman state it? He did not mean those who are able to pay are placed in that position. Not at all. He said those who belong to the "wealthier classes," the cheap actor playing to the gallery below the Gangway. The right hon. Gentleman cannot speak on the exercise of the prerogative, which is essentially a judicial matter, without bringing in the language of the vulgarest demagogue. The right hon. Gentleman is certainly unfortunate in having a colleague with an even less developed sense than himself, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought his office into greater disrepute by choosing a particular instance——

Mr. C. E. PRICE

Is it fair for an hon Member to make a reference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he is not here?

Mr. SPEAKER

I see nothing unfair in referring to an absent Minister.

Lord HUGH CECIL

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought the right hon. Gentleman's office into even more discredit than himself. The right hon. Gentleman will do much better not only to abstain from advertising himself, but to convey to others that he does not wish to be indiscreetly advertised. Other Ministers do not advertise as does the right hon. Gentleman. What we want is a Home Secretary who will unobtrusively take pains with his business and not a pinchbeck edition.

Mr. RYLAND ADKINS

The speech which the House has just heard from the Noble Lord showed how easily the lowest spirit of faction can go along with the most delicate form of expression. Considering the statement made by the Home Secretary that in only one or two cases where the sentences were short and where there was no time to apply to the magistrates, and considering that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Mr. Lyttelton) admits the accuracy with which the Home Secretary makes his statement, I respectfully protest against the attacks which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman in blaming the Home Secretary. Whether these things get out into the papers or not, I venture to say as a magistrate, and as one who has had some experience of the criminal courts, that it is a very great advantage—

Mr. LYTTELTON

I understood the Home Secretary to read out four or five cases, and that in none of those cases did I understand that he consulted the magistrates. If I am wrong——

Mr. CHURCHILL

I read out seven, and in three they were consulted.

Mr. ADKINS

The action taken by the Home Secretary, whether advertised or not, is very greatly to the advantage of the administration of justice in this country.

Mr. DEVLIN

I think it is nearly thirty years ago since the Irish Members of Parliament initiated a discussion and succeeded in carrying great achievements in the interests of mercy in the Army and Navy of Great Britain, but I think a discussion of this kind, so irresponsibly raised by one of the most irresponsible Members of this House, and of one of whom, at all events, it may be——

And, it being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.

Adjourned accordingly at Half after Eleven o'clock.