HL Deb 23 February 1864 vol 173 cc919-30
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

rose pursuant to notice, and moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Returns of the Number of Convicts sentenced to Penal Servitude confined in Gaols other than Government Prisons in the years 1862 and 1863; and to ask the Government whether any and what Steps have been taken to carry out the Recommendations of the Commission on Penal Servitude. The noble Marquess, in moving for the Returns, addressed their Lordships at some length, but his observations were inaudible.

EARL GRANYILLE

was understood to assent to the Motion, stating at the same time that many of the recommendations of the Commissioners had been embodied in a Bill now before the other House, and said that the best time for discussing the subject would be when that measure should be before their Lordships.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that it will be more desirable to defer a general discussion of this subject until the Bill, introduced by the Home Secretary in the other House, shall have come up to your Lordships; but, at the same time, I think there is one part of the subject, raised by the Motion of the noble Marquess, which, it is important should be considered at once. It is a principle which I consider to underlie the whole legislation on the subject. That question is this:—How far can we or ought we to assimilate the condition of a prisoner condemned to penal servitude to that of an ordinary prisoner sentenced to an imprisonment in an ordinary gaol for a limited period of say twelve or eighteen months. I cannot understand how, consistently either with reason or justice, there should be no distinction in the treatment of a penal servitude man and that of an ordinary prisoner, undergoing perhaps his first course of punishment. It seems to me a most monstrous anomaly in the administration of justice in England that, practically, a heavier offence is visited with the lighter punishment, and a lighter offence with the heavier punishment. Every gentleman who has had experience at quarter sessions knows that eighteen months of ordinary imprisonment, in one of the county gaols, is a much more severe punishment than three years of penal servitude; and that five years of penal servitude is not as severe a punishment as two years' imprisonment awarded to an ordinary prisoner. I shall not weary the House with quotations; but from, the very important evidence given on this point by the Governors of Wakefield and Leicester Gaols, I shall ask the permission of your Lordships to read two extracts. Both these gentlemen have had much experience in the management of criminals, and the gaols of which they are the Governors may be said to stand at the extreme point of our system. The Governor of Wakefield Gaol says— The prisoners on the West Riding side prefer the Government side to the Wakefield side. I have heard it frequently said by prisoners, 'Do let us be transferred over to the other side, and then we shall get more to eat.'"—2,934. The Governor of Leicester Gaol gives this evidence on the same point— The Inspector reports that you have had a great deal of diarrhœa in your prison. Do you attribute this to any particular cause?—Yes, it was confined chiefly to Government convicts, and I attributed it and suggested it to the medical inspector that it arose from the richness of their food. This was also the opinion of the surgeon, and in consequence of this the ox-head cheeks were withheld from the soup and the men's health improved. We had no diarrhcea to speak of amongst the prisoners working at the crank. Do you believe that the prisoners entertain a preference for Government convict establishments over your gaol?—Yes. Then they would prefer a sentence of three years of penal servitude to eighteen months with hard labour?—I should say decidedly that a sentence of three years' penal servitude is Jess in amount than a sentence of eighteen months with hard labour."—1859–61. From this your Lordships will see how utterly subversive of all discipline it is to endeavour to combine together these two classes of prisoners. My Lords, I am no enemy whatever to the remission of sentences. On the contrary, I think that with certain precautions—certain safeguards to society—remissions of sentences may take place. The principle is an excellent one, as holding out a hope to the criminal that he may, in some degree, retrieve his former position by good conduct and a course of voluntary and actual industry. I do not go the length to which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary appears to go, and hold that remissions of sentence are absolutely necessary in order that the criminal may have such hope. I think a system could be adopted by which hope would be held out to him without any promise that his imprisonment was to be abridged; but, at the same time, I think remissions are valuable if properly arranged. But then there arises a strong objection to these remissions in the minds of many persons, on the ground that they interfere with the certainty that should also accompany a judicial sentence. But it is to be remembered that absolute certainty is just as objectionable. What we ought to strive for is a system by which you could reconcile a reasonable amount of certainty with a hope for the prisoner that he might diminish his punishment by his own good conduct. You may apply remission not so much in respect of the duration of the punishment as in its character—by introducing a modification of the hard labour and mitigations generally, especially mitigations in respect to classification. In the case of penal servitude, you may adopt a system of gradual amelioration. You may adopt a classification which, will admit of amelio- ration by subdivision, and putting the convicts on public works to work in smaller gangs. In this way encouragement may be held out. On the other hand, you may give the convict a licence; but if that system should be generally acted upon, it should be accompanied by a strict supervision of the police. I hold this to be absolutely necessary. Again, I think that licences ought not to be granted so systematically—so much as a matter of course. They ought to be granted more on good conduct. What I mean by good conduct is this—not mere passive obedience to the prison rules, but actual work, actual industry. I cannot but regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should have thought it desirable, when introducing his new scheme of penal servitude, while renewing the convict's ticket-of-leave, to ignore the principle of a strict police supervision. He prefers the supervision of such societies as the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society, who are an irresponsible body. Now, I attach much importance to the operations of these associations — I think they have accomplished much good work—but I cannot think it right of the Government to abrogate its own functions (for it comes to that), and leave them to be performed by irresponsible gentlemen, who may be here to-day and away to-morrow. There is another point to which I would direct the attention of the House—namely, that up to a very recent date, the conditions of the ticket-of-leave were not made known—a fact which of itself would have been sufficient to cause the breakdown of the system. The number of licences seem to have increased lately, while the revocations of them seem to have diminished — in fact, the ticket holder has been most directly encouraged to believe that those conditions never would be enforced. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary says, that though police supervision has been more or less successful in Ireland, it would be impossible in this country. I say, if it would be, abolish ticket-of-leave. Do not attempt to have two things which are perfectly incompatible. If you have tickets-of-leave, police supervision is absolutely necessary—that or some other safeguard is essential for the protection of society; and if you cannot have the latter, you ought to give up the former, and fall back upon some other system. But I think the right hon. Gentleman, when he made that statement, was in possession of important papers, which controvert his view of the subject. That correspondence contains a very important Report from General Cartwright, Inspector General of Constabulary, who, looking forward to supervision, expressed himself as perfectly ready to make all the necessary organization for working it successfully within the space of one month; and yet the Home Secretary said it was absolutely impossible to do such a thing. Another correspondence, and a very important one, was issued at the same time. It took place between the Home Secretary and the Directors of the Convict Prisons, and three papers contained in it deserve special attention. There is a memorandum bearing date September 15, and inclosed by Colonel Henderson, which lays down distinctly and clearly all the leading principles necessary to a strict system of police supervision. I will not weary your Lordships by reading it in detail, but Colonel Henderson proposes, among other things, that all prisoners who take up their residence in London, or in other large towns, should be under the inspection of the police, should report themselves to the police at certain periods, should also report any change in their place of abode, and, if they remove to another town, should receive a parchment notification, of this removal, addressed to the police of the place to which they go, and to whom they must also report themselves. A distinct outline is thus traced, by which strict police supervision may be enforced. That paper is dated the 15th of September. On the 3rd of October it is acknowledged from the Home Office, and cold water is thrown upon the system. And accordingly, on the 15th of January last, the Board of Directors turn suddenly round and express their entire disapproval of police supervision, and their doubt whether its adoption is at all desirable or possible. Now, this sort of see-saw backwards and forwards, to which the Homo Office, during the last few years, has accustomed us, is very unfortunate. So I say once more, "Either adopt one system or the other: either adopt the system of tickets-of-leave, coupled with its only safeguard—namely, strict police supervision, or, on the other hand, throw that system overboard and adopt another." The right hon. Gentleman is trying to please everybody, and is giving satisfaction to nobody. He takes a scrap of one system and a scrap of another, until the whole system adopted becomes incomprehensible and unworkable. Now, I do not at all disagree with many of the changes proposed in the Bill which, as I understand, has been brought into the other House. I think that some of those changes are useful, but that which I regard as the most useful and most necessary has no place there. In the same way the Report of the Royal Commission is said to be adopted, and yet that which is vitally necessary to make it acceptable is cut out. I do hope the Government will reconsider this question of police supervision. I am convinced it is far better to sacrifice tickets-of-leave altogether if you are not prepared to indorse this principle; and if you are not, I desire now at the earliest moment to record my protest against any system like the present which does not include that principle as a necessary accompaniment.

LORD WODEHOUSE

Probably we may have to discuss this subject when the measure which has been referred to comes before the House, and I shall not, therefore, now trouble your Lordships at any length; but I wish to express my agreement with my noble Friend who has just sat down as to the probability of failure if you disconnect the system of tickets-of-leave from a system of strict police supervision. I draw, however, a different conclusion from that arrived at by my noble Friend. Upon this subject I am afraid I hold very heterodox opinions, because I do not believe in the system of the remission of the punishment of criminals. In the main I agree with the able argument of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, contained in the statement which ho handed in to the Commissioners, not being able to sign the Report. I think we have fallen into the habit of confounding the treatment of prisoners in England with that of prisoners sent abroad, and have been led to adopt the ticket-of-leave system from the mistaken belief that a practice which has been found useful in the colonies would be also useful at home. In a penal settlement such a system was intelligible enough. Thus, in Western Australia the convicts who hold these tickets are required to be in their own houses by ten o'clock at night, and not to go out of a particular district. But no such system would be possible in England. Now, I believe that the difficulty of managing prisoners without holding before them the prospect of a remission of their sentences has been greatly exaggerated. It is said that, unless you could hold out such a prospect, you would have continual outbreaks in the convict prisons. No doubt sudden and extensive changes of system might lead to outbreaks; but when the system which I should desire to see adopted was fully established, I do not think you would find much difficulty in managing the convicts under it. No doubt it is advisable to offer to the convicts inducements to good behaviour by indulgences and by relaxations of discipline, on the same principle as was recommended in the report of the Committee on County Gaols; but I do not believe that it is advisable to offer such inducements by shortening sentences. By doing so you introduce great uncertainty into punishments; because, however we may understand the theory of the existing system— and a very complicated system it is — depend upon it that, in practice, the criminal population believe that the sentence inflicted by the Judge is not meant to be, and never will be, entirely carried out. The evils which thus ensue are great and obvious; for it should never be forgotten, in devising any system of punishment, that you have to deter as well as to amend— to legislate for those who hitherto have not, as well as for those who have made themselves amenable to punishment. No doubt it is advisable to combine reformation with punishment; but I maintain that reformation should be subordinate to punishment, and that the great object of penal discipline is to deter persons from embarking in a career of crime, Nor can I think, notwithstanding the authority of Commissions and Reports, that reformation is so probable or so frequent as some persons say it is. Of course there are criminals of different classes, and upon persons who have been led into crime by unbridled passions or by some passing temptation the reformatory process may be effectual. But it should be remembered that a considerable number of the prisoners with whom we have to deal belong to the professional class of criminals. It is very important to find a good system of punishment applicable to them. But their reformation is far more difficult, and I doubt extremely whether the remission of sentence conduces to any such result. What does society gain by these remissions? His term of punishment being very much shortened, you send forth an offender who probably within a short period returns to his old haunts of vice, and as there is no police supervision, society has no safeguard against his return to crime, and there is no check by which you can see whether the punishment inflicted has had a salutary effect. I think it would be far better not to reduce the period of sentence, and, having inflicted the whole of the punishment ordered by the Judge, to send the offender out a free man at the expiration of his full sentence. The certainty of punishment which would thus be gained would be an important advantage, and you would not then be deluded by the theories of persons, no doubt of great humanity, who hope, under the present system, to reform a class very few of whom, I fear, can ever be reformed.

EAEL GREY

My Lords, I think I can suggest to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) an Amendment to his Motion, that will more perfectly obtain his object. That object is, I understand, to show the large number of convicts sentenced to penal servitude who are detained for considerable periods in the county gaols before removal. I quite agree that that is a point of the utmost importance, the practice being most injurious to the discipline in the county prisons, and also imposing an undue charge upon the counties. I think it is desirable we should have the information he desires, and I think he will obtain all he wants if he will add to his Motion the words "and the average time they (the convicts) have been kept in county gaols." I would now wish to say a few words upon what has fallen from my noble Friend who spoke last (Lord Wodehouse). He has entered into the large questions, whether it is proper there should be remissions of sentences for good conduct, and whether tickets-of-leave should be granted. I quite agree that it is difficult to enforce tickets-of-leave in this country, because you cannot give to the convict liberated upon a ticket-of-leave in this country the same facilities for obtaining employment as he would enjoy in the colonies; nor can you place him under the same severe restraint as he would there be subject to, without interfering with his chances of obtaining honest employment. The question whether convicts should be discharged in this country upon tickets-of-leave or unconditionally, is therefore one of extreme difficulty; but if they are to have tickets-of-leave, I am of opinion that there ought to be a system of superintendence. I wish, however, to point out that the question, whether convicts are to be discharged unconditionally, or with tickets-of-leave, is quite distinct from that as to whether they are to be allowed to earn a remission of part of their punishment by industry and good conduct; or whether, according to the sug- gestion of my noble Friend, we should adopt the system of imprisonment for fixed terms, without holding out any hopes of remission on account of conduct. Let me remind my noble Friend that that would be to introduce a system which has been unanimously condemned by every officer who has had charge of convicts, whether at home or abroad, for many years, and opposed to what has been the practice from 1788 to the present time. Since that time, when transportation to America was abolished, and that to Botany Bay established, it has been the uniform practice of this country, in some mode or other, to remit a portion of the punishment of convicts for good conduct. When I first had the honour to enter the public service, now more than thirty years, the system was to keep in the hulks at home all convicts under sentence of transportation for terms not exceeding seven years, and if they behaved well they were discharged at the end of four years. The only objection to the system was, that there was no regular methodical plan of recording the conduct of convicts, which led to great abuses, the convicts soonest discharged being generally the best hypocrites rather than the most improved. My noble Friend (Lord Wodehouse) says it is desirable that convicts should be sentenced to a term of punishment that should be certain. It seems to me that all the real advantages of certainty in this respect are attained, if convicts are only allowed to earn a partial remission of punishment under certain and well defined rules; and, on the other, it is surely extremely desirable, when a convict is sent for several years to a prison, that he should be made to do some hard work. It is desirable on two grounds—first, that he may be taught to acquire habits of industry; and next, that if he can be employed in any kind of profitable labour, he may contribute to some extent to lessen the charge which his offence has imposed upon the community. The uniform experience of all acquainted with this subject is, that if you confine a convict and endeavour to extort from him hard labour by mere coercion, you will brutalize him to the lowest degree, and must gradually come to a repressive system of cruelty horrible to contemplate, and after all you will fail to extract that useful exertion which you require. That has been the universal experience in this and all other countries where such punishments have been tried. Ask any French writer what was the state of the convicts who were condemned to the gallies, and since the gallies were abolished of the convicts at the Bagnes. As long as you trust only to the "cat" to get hard labour from convicts, you only demoralize and degrade them to the lowest level, and finally you will fail in extorting what you desire to obtain. My noble Friend says you might give the convicts certain indulgences to induce them to work. What indulgences can you give them? They must be physical indulgences, such as beer or tobacco. But that, unless confined within very narrow limits, would be inconsistent with the first principles of convict discipline. The essence of punishment is that the convict should be deprived of those indulgences which are within the reach of the honest labourer, and such indulgences granted in return for labour would be inconsistent with convict discipline. But by holding out the hope that, by good conduct, a convict may obtain a remission of sentence, you teach him not to look only to the consequences of the day, but you induce him to look forward. The great fault of the class from which most of our convicts spring, is the recklessness of all but immediate consequences. It is desirable to teach a convict to look before him, to practise self-denial and self-restraint. Such is the principle on which all convict discipline ought to be founded. I say the principle of remission of sentence for good conduct is admirably adapted to obtain those ends. It is a sound principle; but, of course, to be usefully employed, must be properly enforced. I do not deny there have been faults in past modes of applying discipline. And here, in passing, I cannot avoid paying a tribute to the services of the late Sir Joshua Jebb, than whom I do not believe there was ever a more conscientious public servant; but still I say even the ablest man cannot be expected at once to discover the best mode of accomplishing an object which it is so difficult of attainment. I admit that the system hitherto adopted has been complicated, and has tended to make the discharge of convicts from prison at certain periods too much the rule rather than the exception. That was, I believe, the view that was taken by the Royal Commissioners, who recommended a system of compelling convicts to earn by hard work any remission of sentence they might afterwards obtain. We laid down the principle that a convict was entitled to no reward for simply abstaining from all conduct which would expose him to pun- ishment; but we agreed that a man should be rewarded for any extra exertions he may make beyond the amount of labour the failure to perform which would expose him to punishment. No doubt, to carry out an effective system of convict reformation, the great need is good officers; and I do hope the Government will not be guilty of the false and petty economy of endeavouring to keep down the expenses of convict establishments, or of unduly burdening those who have the supervision of them. I hope the Government will not seek to adopt the plan of placing too much work upon them, or giving them too little pay. If you have not efficient officers the whole thing will break down. The best system will be valueless unless you employ persons competent to work it out. I will not now express any opinion upon the plan before the other House, but I must express the great alarm with which I have learnt that that plan will do nothing to correct two great faults of the existing system. Those faults are—first, that a convict is allowed to return to his haunts too soon—before the reformatory discipline has taken its effect upon him—and that he is allowed to do so in the manner most calculated to insure his speedy return to criminal pursuits. The great evil arises from the convicts being discharged in this country at too early a period. This creates, among persons who do not know how much they suffer from the strictness of the discipline, a belief that, after all, the punishment inflicted by the law is not so formidable as they had been taught to consider it. It also encourages crime. It was clearly proved to us that the great instructors in crime, seducing youth and teaching them the arts of felony, are the discharged convicts; and whatever pains you take to reform and improve these men in prison —whatever care you take in watching over them when they are discharged, I believe that, practically, a very large portion of them indeed will again become criminals. And for this very reason— they have no other resource. They are placed under temptation which it is hardly in human nature to resist. We send the criminal to prison, where he is kept from tobacco and other kinds of stimulants; and when the man gets out of prison again, the thirst for these again takes possession of him. But, even if he has the strength of mind to resist these inducements, all the ordinary channels of profitable em- ployment are closed against him. It is quite true that some masters, out of charitable motives, will employ them; but even in Ireland where the difficulty is less than in this country, Mr. Organ, a gentleman who has been of extreme use in this matter, told us that if the fellow-labourers of a discharged convict came to find out the fact, there was an end of his employment—he must leave; the master has no choice, or the men would strike in a body. After all, I cannot say that this is a feeling to the discredit of the labourer. I am not quite sure that it is desirable to get rid of it, because the existence of a general persuasion among the labouring classes of the country, that a man who forfeits his character and gets into prison will for the rest of his life have a mark fixed on him is a great security for integrity. But still I say the evil exists. The man finds he cannot get employment by which he can honestly maintain himself, and therefore stealing is again his only resource. This often happens:—A man goes into a part of the country where he is not known under another name. He gets into honest employment, and for a while behaves well; but, unfortunately, some one who was formerly associated with him in crime or in prison casually recognizes him. He says "I know who you are, I will tell your employer; you must pay me something." So the thing goes on. The secret is used as a means of extorting money from these unfortunate people, and even compelling them to join in schemes for robbing their employers. If we knew the secret history of the manner in which convicts discharged are again brought into crime, I am quite certain that in many cases we should feel much more pity than indignation against the unfortunate men who are thus dragged back into crime—into that fatal career which they are anxious to abandon. I do most deeply deplore that we should have a system of penal discipline adopted which will do nothing whatever for rendering more effective the punishment which criminals have hitherto endured, and will leave this country under the most formidable evils of the gradual accumulation of greater numbers of discharged convicts, who are reduced, from the circumstances in which they are placed, to live by depredation.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.