§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHmoved,
That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty for a Nominal List of Persons who have received a Remission of Sentence under the Terms of the Home Office Circular, 27th June, 1857, stating in each Case the original Sentence passed the Portion of such Sentence undergone by the Convict previous to his being discharged either in this Country or the Colonies, and in what Pena Establishment; also a Nominal List of Persons discharged since the above-mentioned Circular who have been re-convicted, and the Sentence passed.The noble Duke said, that a Circular had been issued recently from the Home Office in which the terms of a previous Circular of the year 1857 were considerably modified. The latter laid down a scale which was to be followed in remitting sentences of penal servitude. It was so difficult to obtain any reliable information as to how these remissions of sentences had worked, that he hoped there would be no objection to furnishing the Returns for which he moved, and which would show the number of persons who had received remission of sentence under that Circular. In 559 the Returns already made, the numbers were stated in the aggregate—and the portions of sentence undergone were also given without reference to any particular individual. He was therefore anxious to obtain information of a more complete and minute description. By the present Returns it was almost impossible to trace the result of the system now in operation. The Circular of 1857 left much less discretion to the officials than that just issued; for in the latter the Home Secretary laid down a scale on which the officials were to be guided in the remission of sentences. The noble Earl near him (the Earl of Carnarvon) had shown, during the discussion of the subject of prison discipline yesterday, that there was great increase of crime in the year 1861 as compared with 1860. How far that increase was attributable to the remission of sentences under the terms of the Circular of 1857, and the re-conviction of the persons liberated, he could not say, but it was far from improbable that it was in some degree to be accounted for by the injudicious action of prison officials under the Circular. He would only mention one instance in which its terms had been departed from. The case of Redpath, to which he (the Duke of Marlborough) alluded on a previous occasion, exemplified the want of certainty in the remission of sentences. Redpath was convicted of forgery in 1857, and sentenced to transportation for life—a sentence which, by the Act of 1853, was equivalent to one of penal servitude for life. In 1858 he was despatched to Western Australia, contrary to the Act, which provided that no person who was removable from this country should be sent away until he had undergone eight years' penal servitude in this country. Five years had scarcely elapsed from his arrival in the colony before he was liberated, and, in the enjoyment of a revenue of £200 a year, lived in his own house and upon his own resources. In point of fact, he appeared to have only undergone one year of penal servitude. If there was any objection to give a nominal Return, a numerical Return might be given; what he wanted was that each case should be specified.
§ EARL GRANVILLEthought, that to be of any value, the Return asked for by the noble Duke must be nominal. He was informed that to prepare it in such a form would involve a great deal of trouble and take considerable time. He therefore 560 hoped the noble Duke would not press his Motion.
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that on the considerations stated by the noble Earl, he would postpone his application until after the Commission should have reported, when he would move for the Return if the information he wished for had not been called for by the Commission.
§ Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.