THE CONVICT SYSTEM—TICKETS OF LEAVE.—QUESTION. (Hansard, 10 February 1863)

§ EARL STANHOPE
said, he wished to put a Question to the noble Earl the President of the Council on the subject of tickets of leave. Their Lordships were aware of the numerous acts of violence which had been committed since last Session not only in London but throughout the country, and they also knew how general was the feeling of alarm caused by those outrages. There was also, he might say, a general conviction that the system of tickets of leave as framed by the Government eight or nine years ago, however good in theory, had not worked well in practice. It had been announced that a Royal Commission had been appointed to inquire into the whole subject; and he 216 did not intend on the present occasion to anticipate in the slightest degree the conclusions at which that Commission might arrive; for, remembering the great ability and experience of many of the Gentlemen named as Commissioners, he had every hope that the inquiry would lead to some good and practical suggestion. But he could not conceal his own opinion that it would have been better for the public interests if, instead of a fresh Commission, instead of seeking for further information on a subject on which they already possessed ample knowledge, the Government had decided on independent action of their own and had brought forward on their own responsibility on the re-assembling of Parliament some measure of reform. He was informed, however, that pending the labours of the Commission, the Secretary of State considered the evil to be of so pressing a character that he had already taken some important steps with the view of mitigating the evil complained of. It was said that a circular had been issued to the chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and he thought it would be desirable that the noble Earl should state the object of that document. He apprehended that it had been issued for the purpose of diminishing the number of convicts set free periodically, and besides ascertaining the exact nature of the orders given, he should further like to know, whether any calculation had been made, founded on statistics, as to what the diminution was likely to be. He now begged to ask his noble Friend for information on those two points.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he thought it would be inconvenient to discuss a subject which had only just been referred to a Commission. He should, therefore, confine himself to saying that a circular such as that referred to by his noble Friend had been issued by the Home Office in regard to persons who were recommitted, having formerly been convicted of other offences. In the case of such persons, no expectation of a remission of any part of their sentence was to be held out. No other important step had been taken. In answer to the second inquiry of his noble Friend, he had only to observe that it would be impossible to say what number of persons were likely to be recommitted.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
wished to ask whether a convict who, having received a ticket of leave which was only a conditional exemption from a portion of his sentence, was again recommitted before the time at 217 which that sentence had expired would, in addition to the new sentence received by him after recommittal, have to go through what remained of the previous one. The intention of the law certainly was that ticket-of-leave men found associating with thieves, or even leading a suspicious life, should forfeit their tickets and undergo the original sentence; but, except perhaps in Ireland, he did not believe that principle had been acted on in a single instance.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, that in the country parts of Ireland a very strict police supervision had been observed in respect of ticket-of-leave men; but the fact that such a supervision had not been carried out in Dublin showed the difficulty there was in giving effect to a system of that kind in large towns. His noble Friend was, however, mistaken in thinking that there had been no case of the revocation of a ticket of leave in England. Recently ticket-of-leave men had been made amenable for leading disorderly lives, keeping company with thieves, or committing offences of which the general law of the country was not exactly cognizant. In the case of a recommittal, he believed the custom had been to include the entire punishment in the second sentence.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
observed, that in accordance with that custom, a convict who had received a sentence of ten years' imprisonment, and who obtained a ticket of leave after four years, leaving six years of his sentence unexpired, might derive a positive advantage from a second sentence, which would wipe out six years of the first.

§ LORD CRANWORTH
said, that no difficulty would arise, because the Judge generally had a discretion as to the term of sentence he should inflict.

§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
said, he would make an inquiry of the noble Earl, of which he had not given notice, and which he would be happy to postpone if the noble Earl could not answer it immediately. It had been stated in a public journal some weeks ago in giving an account of the convict establishment at Portland, that the convict Redpath, who was sentenced to transportation for life in the year 1857, was now at liberty on a ticket of leave; and, as the writer added, in all probability enjoying the proceeds of his felony. It would be recollected that this person was convicted at the Central Criminal Court in 1857, for one of the most 218 enormous forgeries which stood recorded in the annals of crime. The Judge, in sentencing him, said that an amount of property to the extent of £40,000 or £50,000 was found in his residence, the proceeds of his fraud; that he was a very hardened criminal; and that considering the enormity of the offence, he must sentence him to be transported for life beyond the seas. It was now stated, upon somewhat reliable authority, that this man was at large, and owing to the imperfect state of the law, having been able to assign his estate to his relatives, was now enjoying the fruits of his frauds undisturbed. He (the Duke of Marlborough) wished to know whether there was any truth in the statement, as, if true, it showed a very absurd and inefficient state of the law.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, that he could not undertake to enter into the details of any individual case without previous notice, but he would make it his business to inquire into the truth of the statement alluded to. He thought the noble Duke, however, was wrong in supposing that Redpath was now at large upon a ticket of leave. The man had been transported for life, and was still in the colony, though he might have a ticket of leave.

§ LORD CRANWORTH
said, that Redpath, having been sentenced to transportation for life, was sent out of the country accordingly. It was well known, that after being in the colony for some time, a convict who conducted himself satisfactorily received a ticket of leave, and Redpath might be at large in this way. He could not return to this country.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON
said, he understood from his noble Friend that the superintendence of the police over the holders of tickets of leave had been discontinued in consequence of the difficulty of carrying on that superintendence, although it was being rigidly carried out in Ireland. Now that put the whole question on a different footing, because he had always understood that the system had been found very effective in Ireland. He agreed with his noble Friend that the Government ought to have undertaken to deal with this subject, the responsibility being theirs exclusively. He would go even further, and say that the responsibility rested with a single individual. It was now fifteen years since Sir George Grey had undertaken the disposal of the criminal population. Since then he had been three several times Home Secretary, 219 had bad almost uncontrolled disposal of the Home Office, and had passed one or two Acts on the subject; and this being so, it was only fair to ask how we came to be landed in the present difficulty. It could not be said that Sir George Grey was without warning on this subject. Sir James Graham had warned him of the results which might he expected to follow from his measures, and, unfortunately, the predictions then made had been only too fully verified. He had beside received repeated practical warning by his own failures—failures which had been followed by repeated panics on the part of the public. Sir George Grey had mitigated the extreme penalty of the law frequently in opposition to the opinions of the Judges, thereby virtually absorbing the judicial functions in the office of Secretary of State, and, as he contended, trifling with that prerogative of mercy which, though it certainly belonged to the Crown, ought to be exercised very sparingly. Again, the conditions of the ticket of leave had been dispensed with on the irresponsible authority of the Secretary of State. He did not find any fault with the Commission which Her Majesty had been advised to issue. It comprised many able and experienced men, and no doubt any information which could be supplied on this question would be elicited by them. At the same time this was one of the questions which essentially belonged to the Executive, involving as it did the maintenance of order, and the security of life and property all over the country, and he thought that the appointment of a Commission was an unsatisfactory delegation of duty. Whatever might be their diligence, it would probably be late in the summer before they reported. A Bill would come up to this House, when their Lordships were in the thick of other work, and sufficient time would not be afforded for considering the subject.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
was surprised at the attack made upon Sir George Grey by the noble Earl, upon the ground that he was wholly responsible for the doings of the Home Office during the last fifteen years.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON
I said he had had almost a monopoly of that office during the last fifteen years.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, the fact was that transportation was given up in 1853, and Sir George Grey was not Secretary of State at the time. The system that was now pursued was exactly the same as that 220 which had been adopted by his four predecessors in office, and Sir George Grey had pursued exactly the same course with regard to this matter as Mr. Walpole, who was the colleague of the noble Earl himself. With respect to the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, if there was any instance of that exercise to which exception could be taken, the case should be brought before the House, when a reply could be given to it. With respect to the appointment of a Commission, it was a matter of opinion whether that was the best course; but he saw no reason to anticipate any great delay in dealing with the subject. A kind of panic had of late seized on the public mind—not unnaturally—but he believed that nothing could be more satisfactory to the public than the appointment of a Commission composed of eminent persons such as had been named.

§ THE EARL OF HARDWICKE
said, one point of importance had been raised by the discussion relating to a matter of jurisprudence, and it was a very important one, for the public mind had long been directed to the subject, from an idea that the power which was exercised by the Secretary of State rendered it in many cases extremely doubtful whether the sentences of the Judges would be carried into effect or not. He would be glad to know whether the learned Members of that House approved of that line of public conduct, which in his opinion tended to lessen the opinion which had hitherto been held by the public at large in reference to the character of the judgments that were given from the bench, and which had until lately been held sacred in the eyes of the public.