SECOND READING (Hansard, 16 June 1857)

THE EARL OF CARNARVON
in moving the Second Reading of the Bill said, it was purely supplementary to previous legislation. By the present law, magistrates could commit juvenile offenders under six-teen years of age to reformatory institutions. He proposed to extend the age from sixteen to twenty, to enlarge the ago of admission, not the age of detention. It might be objected that some limit was necessary, and that sixteen was as good a limit as any other. But this was to assume that there was a fixed point in the life and character of a man, where juvenile offence ceased and adult crime commenced. At present there was some inconsistency, as he thought, in the law, because, if a juvenile offender were committed one week before he was sixteen, he was subjected reformatory discipline, but if he happened to be one week older than sixteen, he did not obtain that which must be admitted to be an advantage. This further difficulty arose. The present system, if carried out, sometimes involved the evils of an association of different ages; if not carried out through fear of that association, inasmuch as the field of juvenile offence was too narrow for the establishment of reformatories for youths between fourteen and sixteen, it left this section of juvenile offenders unprovided for. There were two modes of dealing with juvenile offenders; by a recent Act of the 16 & 17 Vict., and by the Parkhurst Act, which empowered the Secretary of State to grant conditional pardon to young offenders. He proposed in the Bill to apply the principle of the Parkhurst Act to offenders above sixteen, and for this reason. The committal of juvenile offenders to reformatories was, on the assumption that they were unaware of the nature of the offences they had committed; but that plea could not be admitted where 1875 offenders were above the age of sixteen. It was fair that in their case there should be a penalty for the transgression of the law. He proposed by the Bill, that, in all circumstances to which it might apply, a conditional pardon should only be granted after the prisoner had undergone at least one-half of his sentence. That penal element would be found in such a case not only just but useful. At that age prisoners could appreciate the difference between the punishment of a prison and the milder correction of the reformatory, for it was held by all men who had given their attention to this subject, that it was an almost indispensable condition of success in the treatment of juvenile crime in reformatory institutions, that there should be a previous stage of punishment. M. de Metz, than whom there could scarcely be a more competent authority on this subject, had always insisted on the necessity of this preliminary punishment, provided that he could effectually guard against the association of juvenile criminals with older offenders in prisons. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) had inserted a clause with regard to the classification of juvenile offenders, and had given power for the removal of such offenders from one institution to another, but only with the consent of the managers of such institutions. It would not be difficult under this Bill for the manager of reformatories in different counties, or districts, to come to an understanding, and whilst in one reformatory boys under fourteen or fifteen should alone be admitted; in another reformatory lads between fourteen or fifteen and twenty should only be received. A better classification of offenders might thus be made than is now practicable. It had been erroneously supposed that by this Bill it was intended that boys under and above the age of sixteen would live in the same reformatory but in different classes, but such was not the intention of the measure. He had reason to believe that if this Bill passed there would be many persons who would interest themselves at once in establishing reformatory schools for those who might be convicted between the ages of sixteen and twenty. He was bound to show not only that the law might be made more harmonious and practical in its working, but that there was a large class who would be affected by this measure, and that there was ample subject matter on which it could be made to operate. By the police returns of Liverpool for 1856 it 1876 appeared that out of 19,336 convicts there were 5,985 between the ages of fifteen and twenty-one, of whom 48 per cent could neither read nor write. Again, in Manchester, out of 4,470 prisoners there were 963 between the ages of fifteen and twenty; while at Winchester, during the last three years, there had been 561 prisoners between the ages of fifteen and twenty. From the last report of the inspectors of prisons it appeared that under the head of summary convictions, and of committals for trial there were 25,211 prisoners between sixteen and twenty-one. This did not allow for re-committal; but it might he fairly said that of the 105,000 male prisoners during the year from 25,000 to 27,000 were persons between sixteen and twenty-one. At a reformatory meeting held at Bristol last year, a noble Friend, who presided, dwelt in a very able speech upon the startling fact in the history of crime that whilst persons between the ages of sixteen and twenty one constituted one-tenth of the population, that tenth would be found guilty of one-fourth of detected crime. It might he asked what was the peculiar condition of the juvenile offenders who made up that high rate of the criminal per centage? He feared it was but too true that they were in a state of gross ignorance in all that constituted the first rudiments of education. They were neither skilled workmen nor good husbandmen. They were generally men of the lower trades, and wanting in all education. For this class the prison was the only school: and it was a bad school. If even association of different ages could be guarded against, the lessons of the prison, and the good resolutions formed there, admitted of no gradual confirmation or practical proof. He had received a letter from the chaplain of the gaol at Winchester, a gentleman of great experience in that capacity, and who had been brought much into contact with juvenile offenders; and, as the opinions of such a person were entitled to respect, he (the Earl of Carnarvon) would read an extract from his letter:— I am (said the reverend Gentleman) more than rejoiced to hear you can report progress on the question of reformatories for young men between the ages of seventeen and twenty-one years. I assure you there is no class of prisoners in more destitute and perilous circumstances than they are. Generally they have no trade, or at least most imperfect acquaintance with one. Their friends are most exasperated against them, when they have friends, because it is about that time of life friends look for some aid from them; and, smarting under disappointed hopes, I have 1877 found them more inexorable towards the class I refer to than the friends of younger or older prisoners. Again, I think reformatory homes for such parties most desirable, because they are more capable of reformation in two respects—first, because whatever knowledge they have of trades or habits of labour, are not so disrupted or fallen into desuetude as to be useless, but may be advantageously prosecuted and improved, so as to render such young men useful and desirable in the more perfect state they would be found on leaving a reformatory home; and, secondly, because depraved habits are net so confirmed as in more ripened years. Again, I have found many young men of the age you name, so affected by detection in the earlier stage of crime, that they were far more willing to avail themselves of such institutions than at a later period. And, lastly, I beg to remind you this class is, with one exception, the most numerous you have in prisons. This is a strong reason why they should have consideration in this improved age of reformatory effort. May it be well received and carried. I am sure it will be most beneficial in its results. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) had reason to believe that the success which had attended the reformatories already in existence would lead to the hope that their benefits would in time, become more widely diffused. In arriving at any estimate of the numbers who are reclaimed and who relapse into crime any calculation must be a general one. Much depends upon the character, the occupation of the individual, and the peculiar temptations to which he is exposed on his discharge from the reformatory. But, speaking broadly, the Redhill establishment had reclaimed about 70 per cent, and the London and North-west Reformatory in the New Road nearly 90 per cent. With regard to the practical result of existing reformatory institutions, it appeared that the establishment at Redhill had reclaimed about 70 per cent upon the number admitted. The London and North-western Reformatory Establishment had reclaimed about 90 per cent; while the Metropolitan Industrial Reformatory, which had dismissed 15 per cent, on account of indifferent conduct, calculated that out of 141 cases there had been only six relapses, and twenty-four persons who had left the establishment had been lost sight of. At the Glasgow House of Refuge the persons reclaimed amounted to 85 per cent, calculated upon 400 cases, and at the admirable establishment at Mettray they were no less than from 85 to 90 per cent. At Mr. Baker's Reformatory in Gloucestershire the result had not been unsatisfactory. The persons reclaimed amounted to 50 per cent, the number of doubtful cases to 25 per cent, and the number of relapses to 25 per cent. When 1878 that establishment had been first established it was for the primary purpose of receiving young persons who had undergone four or live convictions, but that class, he Was happy to say, had become so scarce under this exhaustive process that the supply was now reduced, and Mr. Baker was compelled to fall back upon first and second convictions. Their Lordships would observe (hat one very great advantage of these institutions was not only that they reformed these offenders individually, but that they tended to break up those gangs which in large towns rendered it so difficult to deal with young persons in consequence of the impossibility of detaching them from their companions in crime. There was another point, although it might be of secondary importance, upon which he ventured to recommend the measure to the House, and that was, that it would be advantageous upon the score of economy a well as of morality. He had endeavoured to show the practical effect of reformatories upon a criminal population; he had also shown that 25 per cent of the crime which was committed, was committed by persons between the ages of sixteen and twenty years; and if reformatories for offenders above sixteen, which might be established under this Bill, were as successful—and there was no cause to doubt their success existing reformatories, it could be shown that a very large saving might be effected to the country by such a measure. Now, what were the comparative expenses of the person and the reformatory system? As regards the building alone, the cost for repairs in prisons amounted to £2 per head. The cost of original building amounted in the case of Pentonville to £170 a head upon the number of prisoners that the prison can contain; in Reading gaol it amounted to £200 per head; in Millbank to £512; and in the prison at York to the enormous sum of £1,200 per head; whereas the expense in Mr. Baker's Reformatory was about £20. and in the London and North-western Reformatory about £17 per head. Then, again, with regard to the cost of maintenance, their Lordships would observe that she cost of a prisoner for three years in prison—and that was the time generally calculated that a man would spend in prison before he was transported—might be fairly compared with that of three years in a reformatory in England and four at Mettray. The average cost of the maintenance of prisoners in gaol was £28 2s. l¾d. 1879 per head. Now, the cost at Redhill was £28 17s. 7d.—according to one of the reports to be ultimately reduced to £20; at the London North-west Reformatory £17; at Parkhurst, 19; Mettray, £12 to £16; and the Metropolitan Industrial, after deducting labour, £20 13s. Then, in the case of prisoners, there were other expenses which did not apply to the inmates of reformatories. It was necessary to calculate the expenses of a police organized at great cost, of the magistrates and judges' time, of the prisoner's attendance in gaol, of his conveyance to and fro, of his recapture and reconvictions, and finally of his transportation, which could not be estimated at less than £28; in fact, the whole expense of keeping a criminal in gaol for three years and then transporting him was calculated at £200, independently of the fact that an experienced thief made at least an annual income of £100. On the other hand, the expense of maintaining a person in a reformatory for three years was sometimes £60, and never exceeded £100. Again, the expenses of a lunatic asylum and a reformatory afforded a fair comparison. In both institutions the same quiet control and supervision, the same kind of care and instruction, the same diet and clothing were needed. He would only take two instances. In the lunatic asylum for the North and East Riding, the actual cost of maintenance per head was reduced to of 4s. 10d., and the profits of labour on the farm amounted to one rent and a half. In Hampshire, even on a thin soil, in 1855, the profits were actually eight rents, and in 1856 four rents. So great were the profits of very cheap or unpaid labour. There was no reason why, in the older reformatories which this Bill contemplated, the institutions should not be made self-supporting, inasmuch as they would be not only consumers, but producers of food. The attention to the clothing and the diet of youths between sixteen and twenty would not exceed what is required in the case of lunatics or younger boys, and their capacity of labour would be far greater; and if a small interest were given to them in the land upon which they were employed, not only would they acquire habits of prudence and frugality, hut with the earnings of two or three years they would be in a position to emigrate, carrying with them the qualification and habits which are necessary to colonial enterprize. He had in the present Bill, inserted two 1880 clauses, giving power to the justices at quarter sessions to grant money to reformatories, but that solely for building purposes, because he thought that the more reformatories preserved the character of private institutions, the more useful they would prove. The right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had introduced a few nights since in the House of Commons, a Bill containing somewhat similar provisions. Had he known that it was Sir G. Grey's intention to do so, he probably would not have introduced these clauses precisely as they now stood. He should have also wished to insert another clause in the Bill, but he did not see his way at present to get it passed into law, which would enable the keepers of low lodging-houses, who in many cases were trainers of thieves, to be visited with the same penalties as could be inflicted on parents who wilfully educated their children to crime. The law touched the receiver of stolen goods, but he should rejoice to see it also reach these harbourers and trainers of young criminals; and though he could not see his way at the moment how best to accomplish this, he did not despair of ultimately doing so, and of thus striking at the root of juvenile crime. He thought the Bill would be found, if passed, to contribute materially to the development of the reformatory system, and upon that ground he asked their Lordships to assent to the second reading. The Bill was simply ancillary to the present law; it introduced no new principle, it did not propose to establish adult reformatories, it only extended the existing reformatory schools to an age which would make the law more harmonious, and bring the period of admission and detention into agreement; it would facilitate a better classification of youthful convicts, and would deal with a class to which at present directly 25 per cent of the existing crime was referable, and indirectly at least 50 per cent, but which from character, age, and circumstances, were as yet unconfirmed in their habits. There was a, great safeguard against the abuse of the measure, which ought to calm the apprehensions of those who looked with jealousy upon it. But if, on the report of the governor or chaplain, the Home Secretary should feel that there were in any prison youths between sixteen and twenty fit subjects for reformatory discipline—cases where, by a timely change of condition, a future career of sin and suffering might be averted—then, whilst the law was maintained 1881 and an atonement was made to society for the transgression of its laws, it was the privilege of the Home Secretary to step in, to grant a conditional pardon, and to modify the iron rule of justice by a fair consideration of the circumstances of the case. The noble Earl concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.

LORD BROUGHAM
supported the second reading of the Bill. He had had some conversation with the noble Lord who introduced the Bill on the important question which formed its subject. If he were to say that be approved of the whole details of the Bill he should be going a great deal further than he was prepared to go without taking more time to consider the matter. As President of the Reformatory Union, his attention had been called to the very great difference of opinion among the members of the association on the important question whether Government or any of the authorities should interfere in these matters, or whether they should be left entirely to private and voluntary exertions. One very important class among the members of the Union held and supported very strenuously an opinion against any interference, of the Government, or Legislature, and amongst those were Mr. Adderley the Recorder of Birmingham, and a lady whom to name was, to honour—Miss Mary Carpenter, the founder of one of the most important of the reformatory institutions, at her own proper cost—a circumstance which not only redounded to her credit and honour, but ought to give very considerable weight to her opinion. On the other hand, there was a very powerful body of the same great institution who held a directly contrary opinion, and who, he had no doubt, would be disposed to support this measure, though he had no right to speak for them; but only judged according to the views they usually advanced and supported. Under these circumstances he (Lord Brougham) would only express his approval of the principle of the measure; and he might mention that among those who probably would approve of it was Lord Stanley, whose zeal and general ability were the theme of universal admiration.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
agreed with the noble Earl that it was quite time there was some legislation upon this subject, and that a fair trial should be made of the reformatory system. He felt bound also to acknowledge the ability and zeal with 1882 which the noble Earl had advocated the Bill. He would, however, suggest to the noble Earl whether it might not be desirable to leave the subject, for one Session at least, in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. That right hon. Baronet had not neglected this question; and a Bill was now before the other House, where it would probably be read a second time that evening. That Bill certainly did not go so far as the one proposed by the noble Earl in extending the ages at which youthful offenders could be received into reformatories; but it contained provisions for a vote in aid of reformatory institutions. The real effect of the present Bill was to create a new system of institutions for older offenders. There was a wide difference of opinion among persons of the greatest experience on this subject in reference to this particular proposition, and it would require the most deliberate consideration before coming to a decision upon it. It was no answer to these objections that the measure would be discretionary and optional. Youths between sixteen and twenty, if criminals, were perfect adepts in depravity, and the proposed system would really form a portion of prison discipline. He would, therefore, suggest that the noble Earl should refrain at present from pressing the second reading of his Bill, but should wait until the other Bill came up from the House of Commons, when his proposition could be taken into consideration.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
thought that although it might be very desirable to know what were the intentions of the Government upon this subject, and to sec how far their measure corresponded with and how far it differed from that of his noble Friend, yet that was hardly a reason for rejecting a Bill against which no serious objection had been urged. It was perfectly reasonable that the Government should wish to have a fair field for the consideration of their own Bill, and if they would consent to the second reading of I this Bill, thereby affirming its principle, he would recommend his noble Friend not to press it beyond that stage until the Government measure had come up from the other House, when the two could be considered together, and their Lordships could decide how far the provisions of the one could be incorporated with the other. It would be hardly fair, however, to his noble Friend, after the trouble which he had taken, and after, the 1883 very clear statement which he had made, to reject his Bill when no serious objection had been urged against it.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he understood the principle of the Bill to be the establishment of reformatories for young men between the ages of sixteen and twenty, and to that principle he certainly could not consent, by reading this Bill a second time, to commit the Government.

LORD BROUGHAM
suggested that the noble Earl's Bill and the Bill of the Government when it came up from the other House should both be referred to a Select Committee, so that a third Bill might be framed from them.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
objected to acceding even in appearance to the new principle contained in this Bill, and he hoped, therefore, that the noble Earl would not press it to a second reading, at least until the Government Bill had come up from the other House.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON
was sorry that the Government were unwilling to agree to the proposition of his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby). If their Lordships would give a second reading to this Bill he would pledge himself not to ask them to commit it until the Government Bill was also before them.

LORD BROUGHAM
said, that, as many of their Lordships had an objection to assent to the second reading of a Bill with which they did not entirely agree, thinking that, notwithstanding any understanding which might have been come to on the subject, they thereby affirmed its principle, it would perhaps be better to adjourn the debate on the second reading, and thus to avoid giving a vote either one way or the other.

LORD KINNAIRD
supported the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, being equally unwilling to vote against the second reading of this Bill, and to affirm a principle which was objected to by many persons of great experience on this subject.

§ THE EARL OF POWIS
said, he was afraid that if his noble Friend acceded to this proposition he would place himself in a very unfavourable position when the Government Bill came under discussion, for it would then be said that the principle of this Bill was of far too great importance to be tacked on to a Bill which had been agreed on by the other House of Parliament.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON
said, he 1884 would adopt the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, that the debate should be adjourned.