PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL(No. 66.)—REPORT. (Hansard, 17 June 1864)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE
said, he desired to call attention to the manner in which the Bill was likely to effect the voluntary emigration of convicts released on licence. As regarded this question there were two points of very great interest and importance, which came out strongly in the evidence before the Commissioners—first this extent to which the emigration of ticket-of-leave men had up to the present time been carried; and secondly, the beneficial results which had attended it. Sir Walter Crofton stated, that upwards of 20 per cent of those convicts who were released on licence in Ireland daring the six years ending in 1861, had emigrated. But those figures, large as they were, did mot represent the whole numbers, because Sir Walter Crofton could only speak with, respect to those persons whose movements he had traced. The information with regard to England was not so good, but there could be no doubt that considerable numbers of convicts had emigrated from the country as well as from Ireland. According to the secretary of the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society that institution, since it came into existence, had assisted about 900 released convicts to emigrate, and that a still larger number would have been assisted had the society's funds permitted; and the same authority stated that a very general disposition to leave this country had been found among ticket-of-leave men. As to the beneficial effects of the emigration there was a concurrence of testimony on the part of all who had given evidence before the Commissioners. Sir Waller Crofton was of opinion that any well-directed system of prison discipline must involve a large voluntary emigration of released convicts; and Mr. Organ declared that the main object of his lectures had been to induce ticket-of-leave men to emigrate. Looking indeed to the large extent to which emigration had gone from Ireland, and looking to the great importance that had been attached to the Irish system, it was not too much to say that the good working of the Irish system might be attributed, in great measure, to the voluntary emigration of convicts released on license. With regard to transportation the Commissioners were sensible of the difficulties of the 1935 question; and to meet those difficulties they recommended a large increase in the emigration to Western, Australia—as large a number as the colony could accommodate. Captain Henderson stated the number at l,000 a year; the Commissioner in their Report estimated the number somewhat larger; but it was known that the average of those transported during the last two years had been between 500 and 600 each year. This was not the time to discuss the question whether the Government were acting rightly or not. He thought they were acting rightly. They had now pledged themselves that no greater number of convicts should be transported to Australia than between 500 and 600, and that pledge, he thought, could not be revoked. What was to be done with the remainder? It appeared to him that it would be acting more in the spirit of the recommendation of the Commission, if they could not carry out those recommendations to the letter, not to throw obstacles in the way of voluntary emigration of convicts who had been released from prison. Now, what would be the position of the Government if the Bill passed in its present form? The Bill provided for a stringent supervision of ticket-of-leave men, who were to report themselves once a month, besides intimating every change of residence. These reports would be sent in the first instance to the directors of convict prisons, and would then be transmitted by them to the Government, who would thus be made responsible for the movements and conduct of all convicts released on licence. It was also important to note what had been the action of other countries, especially of those towards which the tide of emigration usually tended—the United States of America and our Australian colonies. The State of New York had framed a most stringent regulation for the purpose of preventing persons whose term of punishment had not expired from being landed on its shores. They made the shipowner responsible—they visited him with severe penalties if he allowed any of these men to land. Of course, the Government would not deny the right of the United States to make such a regulation a cause of grievance. But in the case of our own colonies it was still stronger. After the concessions which the Government had made to the colonies, he could not believe that they would be so wanting in self-respect as to attempt to smuggle convicts into the colonies. If the Bill were passed as it 1936 stood, it would hamper the Government very greatly in dealing with a large class of our convicts. No doubt the Government might deal in this way with the class of convicts whose term of imprisonment having expired, and who having had a chance of gaining honest employment offered to them here or elsewhere, could be shown to have declined availing themselves of such a chance; but if an impression should ever prevail in the public mind that these men were the victims of a system that would give rise to most dangerous state of feeling—sympathy with the convict class. He had shown that a very considerable emigration of criminals had taken place, that it had been beneficial, and that this Bill would put a stop to it. He hoped the Government, therefore, would consider whether the Bill could not be so modified as to give the Secretary of State power to release convicts, if he thought fit, without imposing any conditions of supervision.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
admitted that there was an inconsistency between the Bill and the Report of the Commissioners—that the Report of the Commissioners—that the Commissioners had stated that Western Australia was capable of receiving 1,000 convicts a year, whereas the Government were only permitted to send 500 or 600.

§ EARL GREY
said, it was impossible to overstate the importance of enabling convicts to leave this country, and he entirely concurred with his noble Friend (the Earl of Airlie), that while it was most desirable that convicts should be enabled to leave the country, it certainly was not desirable that we should send them away in an underhand and stealthy manner. The noble Earl had pointed out that several foreign countries and some of our colonies had passed laws to prevent the immigration of such a class, and he could not help fearing that if Her Majesty's Government pursued their present policy on this subject we should get into serious difficulties, both with our colonies and foreign countries. At present convicts sent to Western Australia had very little chance of making their way to the other Australian colonies; but he had no hesitation in saying that if convicts were released here with tickets-of-leave, but under no conditions which would prevent them making their way to the colonies, the Australian colonies would get a larger importation of this class than if we had continued to send them to Western Aus- 1937 tralia. He dissented altogether from the assertion of the noble Lord that the Government having decided on not sending More than 560 or 600 convicts to Western Australia in each year, this decision of the Government was irrevocable. He never would admit that an unwise decision was to be binding on the wisdom of Parliament to all future time, and he hoped' no long time would elapse before Parliament overrated this unwise and hasty measure.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, Her Majesty's Government were quite alive to the complaints which our colonies and foreign Governments would have against us if we deluged them with our convict classes.

§ THE EARL OF LICHFIELD
rose to move aft Amendment the effect of which was to relieve the ticket of-leave men from the obligation of reporting themselves once a month to the police, unless they were required so to do by the conditions of their licence. The mere fact of a man calling upon the police once a month would not give them any further check upon him than the ordinary supervision which they ought under all circumstances to exercise. He contended that it would be impracticable to carry out the clause as it stood, and that it would be hard to deprive the few men who were inclined to earn an honest living from a fair opportunity of doing so, especially as there was nothing to show that the public would be better protected under such a system.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON
said, that every argument that had been urged by the noble Earl had been urged over and over again on a former evening. If the Amendment was agreed to it would completely reverse1 the deliberate decision arrived at by their Lordship after a full discussion. The objection to supervision was its hardship upon the ticket-of-leave bolder. He was willing to assent to the introduction of a proviso that the personal attendance of the ticket-of-leave holder should not be required after the first occasion, but that a certificate or letter from the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society, or a clergyman, or an employer, should be received as evidence of the man's continuance in honest courses.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
observed, that nothing bad been said to show that a monthly reporting would insure a greater amount of supervision on the part of the police, than reporting upon first arrival and upon each change of residence.

CONTENTS.
Richmond, D.	Bolton, L.
	Chelmsford, L.
Salisbury, M.	Churston, L.
	Colehester, L.
Bandon, E.	Colville of Culross, L.
Carnarvon, E. [Teller.]	Conyers, L.
Chesterfield, E	Dinevor, L.
Manvers, E.	Dunsany, L.
Mayo, E.	Egerton, L.
Nelson, E,	Inchiquin, L.
Orkney, E.	Lyveden, L.
Powis, E.	Polwarth, L.
Romney, E.	Raglah, L.
Tankerville, E.	Silchester, L.(E. Longford).
Wilton, E.
	Templemore, L.
Hawarden, V.	Tenterden, L.
Hereford, V.	Thurlow, L.
	Tredegar, L.
Blantyre, L.	Wyntord, L. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS.
Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor).	Torringten, V.
	Down, &c., Bp.
Armagh, Archbp.
	Camoys, L.
Devonshire, D.	Cranworth, L.
Saint Albans, D.	Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne)
Somerset, D.
	De Tabley, L.
Airlie, E.	Foley, L. [Teller.]
Belmore, E.	Houghton, L.
Caithness, E.	Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland).
Cathcart, E.
Chichester, E.	Leigh, L.
De Grey, E.	Lyttelton, L.
Devon, E.	Methuen, L.
Ducie, E.	Mostyn, L.
Granville, E.	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessbourough).
Grey, E.
Lichfield, E. [Teller.]	Portman, L.
Russell, E.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Saint Germans, E,	Suridridge, L. (D. Argyll).
Shaftesbury, E.
Shrewsbury, E.	Talbot de Malabide, L.
	Truro, L.
Everaley, V.	Wenlock, L.
Falmouth, V.	Wodehouse, L.
Sydney, V.