Lords Sitting of 3 May 1866

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading-Legitimacy Declaration (Ireland)* (96); Consecration of Churchyards* (97).
Second Reading—Selling and Hawking Goods on Sunday (92); Exchequer Bills and Bonds* (58).
Referred to Select Committee—Ecclesiastical Commission* (52).
Committee—Customs Duties (Isle of Man)* (82); Local Government Supplemental* (81).
Report—Poor Persons' Burial (Ireland)* (94); Customs Duties (Isle of Man)* (82); Local Government Supplemental* (84).
Third Reading—Qualification for Offices Abolition* (41); Salmon Fisheries (Scotland)* (86), and passed.

THE OATH TO BE TAKEN BY PEERS.

  STANDING ORDER.
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, it was
  Resolved, That the Oath appointed by the Act of the present Session of Parliament, intituled "An Act to amend the Law relating to Parliamentary Oaths," to be made and subscribed by Members of both Houses of Parliament on taking their Seats in every Parliament, be made and subscribed by Members of the House of Peers betwixt the Hours of Nine in the Morning and Five in the Afternoon: Ordered, that the said Resolution be declared a Standing Order, and that it be entered on the Roll of Standing Orders of this House.

TOTNES ELECTION—GREAT YARMOUTH ELECTION—REIGATE ELECTION— LANCASTER ELECTION.
Messages from the Commons that they have agreed to Addresses (which are severally set forth) to be presented to Her Majesty, to which they desire the concurrence of their Lordships.
Message to the Commons for Report and evidence taken before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Petitions complaining of undue Elections and Returns for the said boroughs.

SELLING AND HAWKING GOODS ON SUNDAY BILL.—(The Lord Chelmsford.)(No. 92.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
  Lord CHELMSFORD presented petitions from tradesmen of Marylebone, Clerk-enwell, Bethnal Green, and Spitalfields, Islington, Stepney and Limehouse, and from persons signing, praying for the adoption of measures to restrict Sunday trading to such articles as are necessary to public convenience:—and from inhabitants of St. George the Martyr, Holborn, West Ham, and Christ Church, Bermondsey, in favour of the Selling and Hawking Goods on Sunday Bill.
  LORD CHELMSFORD, in proceeding to move that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the petitions he had just presented were signed by not less than 10,000 persons, all of whom were specially
  336
  affected by the question, and who desired that Sunday trading should be prohibited by law, so that they might be enabled themselves to abstain from a violation of the Sabbath, to which they were at present driven in self-defence. For many years past, various attempts had been made to pass a measure for this object. In 1832, and again in 1847, a Committee of the House of Commons sat upon the subject, and in 1850 their Lordships also appointed a Committee to inquire into the whole subject. All of these Committees received a considerable amount of evidence, proving the extent to which Sunday trading was carried on, the utter inefflcacy of the law, and the necessity for fresh legislation. Various Bills, framed in accordance with the recommendations of these Committees, had been introduced to Parliament; but they had unfortunately all been unsuccessful. In 1850 a noble Earl on the cross-benches (Lord Harrowby) introduced a measure which was favourably reported on by a Select Committee and passed their Lordships' House; but it was so late in the Session before it reached the House of Commons that it fell through. The framer of that measure had assisted him to draw up the Bill he had introduced to their Lordships' notice, and he expected the noble Earl would cordially support him in his endeavours to get the Bill passed. In that year 1855 a noble Lord (Lord Ebury), who was then in the House of Commons, introduced a measure, which was read by that House the second time; but the people at that period grew much agitated upon the subject of Sunday observance—not, he believed, in consequence of the provisions of that Bill, but because the public-houses had been ordered to close at ten o'clock on Saturday by an Act of Parliament passed in the previous year—and so threatening was the appearance of the large numbers of the people gathered in the Parks at the time that at the request of the Government of the day his noble Friend was induced to withdraw the measure. In 1860 he himself introduced a similar Bill, and their Lordships' passed it; but it failed to pass the Commons. Considering that all these efforts had been made and failed, it might be very fairly asked why another attempt was made, and how he could hope to be successful now. But there were at the present time certain considerations which led him to hope that the present moment was peculiarly favourable for the attainment of his object. In the first

  337
  place, he believed there was a growing opinion abroad that the tradesmen who complained of the existing system were subjected to an intolerable grievance, and were entitled to the protection of the Legislature—and, in the next place, the work-people generally were released from labour earlier on Saturdays, and were paid their wages earlier in the day, than formerly—arrangements which obviated the necessity of making purchases on Sunday. He believed that much prejudice existed against legislating upon the subject; but that arose chiefly from the efforts made in former times by good and religious men, who caused a cry to be raised that it was useless to attempt to make people godly by Act of Parliament. This idea, perhaps, arose in the first instance from the provisions of the Act of Charles II., wherein it was ordered that—
  "All and every person or persons shall on every Lord's Day apply themselves to the observance of the same, by exercising themselves therein in the duties of piety and true religion, public and private."
  Of course, the injunction failed to have any effect; and he desired that it should be expressly understood that his Bill should be looked upon as a measure of protection and not of coercion. He wished to leave it to the dictates of a man's own conscience as to how he should spend the Sunday; but he also desired to insure that he should not be bound to continue his work on that day, and thus lose the blessing—the inestimable blessing-—of a day of rest, and the opportunity of employing that day in a becoming manner. In the Reports of the Committees to which he had referred, abundance of evidence would be found as to the extent to which Sunday trading was carried on. The facts disclosed might almost be described as startling. Trading of every description went on, and it was computed that 10,000 shops in the metropolis were open every Sunday. Many of the public thoroughfares were thus crowded by noisy multitudes, and the decent and respectable portion of the community were annoyed on their way to church by the scenes exhibited—they were subjected to much inconvenience and sometimes to insult; and worse than this, the tradesmen who desired, for the sake of themselves, their families, and their servants, to enjoy the Sabbath as a day of thankful repose, were prevented, almost by necessity, and certainly from regard to their worldly in-
  338
  terests, from doing so, and compelled to join the throng of Sunday traders. The number of persons computed to be thus engaged was not less than 100,000. It might be said, if these tradesmen were so desirous to have Sunday as a day of rest, why did they not agree among themselves and close their shops? But the experiment had been tried over and over again, and it had invariably failed, because it was found that unless there was a unanimous agreement in a neighbourhood that every shop should be closed it was in the power of a very small minority to defeat the object of the majority, and to compel the latter in self-defence to keep their shops open. It was almost impossible for a man who was striving to obtain a livelihood and support his family to protect himself against the competition of trade and the dread of loss caused by closing his shop on Sunday. He wished to call their Lordships' attention to a letter written by a butcher in the New Cut, Lambeth, which put this part of the question in a very strong light. The writer said—
  "My Lord,—I trust your Lordship will pardon the liberty I take in addressing you for the purpose of soliciting the favour of your Lordship's kind aid and support to the Bill now before Parliament in reference to Sunday trading. Permit me, my Lord, to state that I have carried on the business of a butcher in this locality for the last ten years, and have a wife and nine children entirely dependent on me for support. As nearly all the shops are open on Sunday, I am compelled to do the same. Were I to close while others are open, in all probability my business (in a neighbourhood like this) would be reduced one-half, and my family might be ruined. I find, however, that the system subjects me and my dependents to much unnecessary toil and degradation, and entirely prevents my giving that attention to the duties and responsibilities which I am sure your Lordship will feel devolve upon one having the care of so large a family. We are generally in business eighteen hours on Saturday, and from seven o'clock up to dinner time on Sunday, and I hardly need assure your Lordship that the whole of the afternoon and evening of Sunday is scarcely sufficient to recruit our exhausted energies. Many attempts have been made by the tradesmen themselves to close their shops by voluntary arrangement, but a very small minority have invariably defeated the object, and it is clear that nothing short of a legal enactment will cure the evil. There cannot, my Lord, be a shadow of doubt that not only the tradesmen and their assistants, but the labouring classes, would be greatly benefited by confining Sunday trading as much as possible to articles that are perishable, or those absolutely needed by the public on that day. Again apologizing for the liberty I have taken in thus addressing you, I beg most respectfully and urgently to intreat your Lordship's serious consideration of the subject

  339
  and your Lordship's powerful support to the Bill now before your Lordships' House."
  Another person who was engaged in the news trade, wrote the following letter:—
  "My Lord,—I should not have troubled your Lordship on the present occasion, but seeing an account in to-day's papers of a deputation on Sunday trading waiting upon the Secretary of State, and the last words, as reported, of Sir George Grey are, 'that there must be a deal of opposition on the other side seeing there are so many shops open on the Sunday,' as much as to say, that all those Sunday traders would be opposed to the Bill But as one of those traders (in the news trade) I humbly submit that three parts of those traders are quite ready to close their shops if they could do so without offending their customers all the week. Now if the Government passed a Bill prohibiting trading on that day, the public could not blame any individual tradesman. I once tried the closing of my shop on the Sunday myself, and did close for six Sundays, but I found I lost half my trade all the week and I should soon have been ruined had I not opened it again on that day. My customers told me that they should deal with those that would; for I am sorry to say that the working classes, though they have their hall-holiday on Saturday, and all Sunday to themselves, are the last to wish others to rest on the Lord's Day. I have attended a number of meetings of the news trades, who number about 4,000 in London alone, and at each of those meetings I have put the question, whether they wished Sunday trading to be done away with, and I have always found the meetings unanimous in wishing to do away with it. I have not the slightest doubt, if the Bill is brought before Parliament this time, it will be carried without opposition; but I trust it will be a Bill entirely doing away with trading in newspapers on Sunday, and every other article that can he procured on Saturday."
  Having shown the desire that existed for the introduction of some such measure, the only remaining questions were the necessity for legislation, and whether the existing law was sufficient to prevent the evil. The Act of 29 Charles II. c. 7, imposed a penalty of 5s. upon every person who should
  "Publicly cry, show forth, exhibit, or expose to sale any wares, merchandise, fruits, herbs, goods, or chattels whatsoever on the Lord's Day."
  By a somewhat extraordinary decision of the Courts, it was held that the only proof of exposing goods for sale was the actual sale of such articles. But the penalty of 5s., which might have been a considerable sum in the days of Charles II., was at present insufficient to insure the observance of the law; and as one penalty covered the trading on the whole of any given Sunday, a man who followed a lucrative business would cheerfully pay 5s. to be allowed to continue it, and many of the Sunday traders even professed their
  340
  readiness to pay six months' penalties in advance. He proposed by the present Bill to render the law more efficacious by increasing the penalty for the first offence to any sum between 5s. and 20s.; and after a conviction for the first offence, he proposed to exact cumulative penalties for every separate offence on each Sunday. He also proposed that the Bill should extend to the whole of England, and that the police should be required to enforce the law. These were the main provisions of his Bill. He anticipated two classes of objections. In the first place, there were persons who would not admit the necessity for allowing any kind of trading on Sundays, and who contended that the Lord's Day ought to be preserved strictly and exclusively for religious purposes. They would regard his Bill as giving a legislative sanction to Sunday trading. The Bill of 1860 was in some degree defeated by the action of the persons connected with the Association for the Religious Observance of the Lord's Day. They sent 13,000 circulars to the clergy and Dissenting ministers throughout England, and they stirred up an opposition to the Bill by a not very faithful representation of its character. But he would ask the members of this Association whether they could hope to enforce by law the strict and rigid observance of the Lord's Day. If not, why should they object to this Bill, which was at least a step in the right direction? He knew perfectly well by experience that there was not the slightest chance of his getting the Bill passed unless the exceptions which he should propose were embodied in the Bill; but he had reason to believe that if their Lordships passed the Bill in its integrity it would ultimately receive the sanction of the other House and become law. The other class of objectors to whom he alluded were those who thought that there ought to be no restrictions at all on the liberty of persons to employ the Sunday as they liked. To those persons his Bill would oppose no new restrictions whatever. Their objection ought to be, not that this Bill imposed restrictions, but that it would make the law effective to prevent that Sunday trading which they were desirous of carrying on. He had no intention whatever by the Bill to lay any restrictions upon the private observance of the Sunday; but what he would say to those persons was this—"If you publicly employ your Sun-

  341
  day in such a manner as to produce annoyance to others, and to promote social and moral evil, then it is the duty of Par-liament to step in and restrict you." These were the grounds upon which thousands and thousands of persons had thronged their Lordships' House and entreated that the inestimable blessing of a day of rest should be secured to them. Even as a civil institution it was impossible to overrate the inestimable value of the Sunday. Incessant toil on every day of the week, including the Lord's Day, not only tended to enfeeble both mind and body, but also to demoralize. Upon this subject he wished to call attention to the eloquent words of Lord Macaulay, who said—
  "Rely on it, that intense labour beginning too early in life, continued too long every day, stunting the growth of the body, stunting the growth of the mind, leaving no time for healthful exercise, leaving no time for intellectual culture, must impair all those high qualities which have made our country great. On the other hand, a day of rest occurring every week, two or three hours of leisure exercised in innocent amusement or useful study every day must improve the whole man—physical, more], and intellectual."
  Even in a political point of view, therefore, he would earnestly ask their Lordships to pass this Bill. But he could not help anticipating better results from the measure if it became law. Besides giving that inestimable boon of the day's rest from incessant toil, it would prevent the evil example of Sunday traffic in those districts where that traffic was carried on; it would introduce a healthier state of feeling, and, he trusted, in the result, would make Sunday what he desired it to be, a day of thankful rest, of religious exercise, and of innocent and cheerful relaxation from toil.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a;."—(Lord Chelmsford.)
  LORD TEYNHAMsaid, he congratulated the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) on having introduced a measure in some respects less objectionable than one which he had some years ago succeeded in passing through their Lordships' House. The powers of the Bill to which he referred were to extend no further than the metropolitan districts; so that, had the Bill become law, there would have been one law of the Sabbath for London and another for the country—a principle altogether objectionable. England from some received the title of a Christian nation, and that they should have one law of the Sab-
  342
  bath for the metropolis and another for the provinces would be contrary to reason and religion. He, therefore, congratulated the noble and learned Lord that the present measure was to apply to the whole of England. Whether there was to be one law of the Sabbath for England, another for Scotland, and another for Ireland, he knew not; but so far as the Bill applied to the whole of England he was in accord with the noble and learned Lord. It had been stated by the noble and learned Lord that one reason why the law as it now stood was inoperative was the smallness of the fine, amounting to only 5s. for each offence. But perhaps their Lordships would allow him to remind them that just about the period when the noble and learned Lord introduced his last Bill an attempt was made by the police of Southampton to put in force the law as it now stands. There were five old persons keeping stalls in that town who were taken up and fined 5s. for the offence of selling on the Lord's Day; and if his memory did not fail him, in two or three of these cases the 5s. fine could not be recovered without a distraint. It might be true, as the noble and learned Lord stated, that there were persons in trade who were perfectly willing to pay 5s., and pay it in advance for twelve months, to be allowed to carry on their trade in peace. But what might be innocuous to a man in a good line of business might be ruin to a small greengrocer or a poor woman sitting at the corner of the streets keeping a stall to sell apples and oranges. Besides, according to the Bill the fine of 5s. on the poor woman might, at the discretion of the magistrate, be raised to 20 s., and might be inflicted for every separate offence; and thus in the name of the religion of a God of love and of a Saviour who came to proclaim liberty to the captive their Lordships were asked to ruin a poor creature for this offence! If there were nothing else objectionable in the Bill than the accumulated penalty, it ought to be sufficient to induce their Lordships not to entertain the measure. But then it was proposed that there should be a tacit allowance of the sale of certain articles. Was it possible that their Lordships could in any way consent to an exemption of that kind unless as regarded matters of necessity on that day? As he understood the Bill—and the noble and learned Lord would correct him if he were wrong—it would permit selling in a shop while it prevented selling in a stall or with a basket in the

  343
  streets. One of the clauses of the Bill provided that it should not extend to the ordinary business of a coffeehouse or a cookshop between 10 a.m. and after 1 p.m. In London there were peripatetic coffee dealers who sold in the streets to travellers and to the poor; and if he did not misunderstand the Bill, these dealers would be acted on injuriously, while the keepers of coffeehouses would be held harmless. One of the strongest objections that a very large proportion of our fellow-subjects would make to the Bill is that while it continues the permission to sell innocuous things, there is no further limitation, which many would have expected and hoped for, to the selling of noxious things such as wines and strong drinks. Objecting as he did to the principle and to the details of the Bill, he moved that it be read a second time this day six months.
  An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months.")—(Lord Teynham.)
  THE ABCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, having been appealed to, I think it is right I should say a few words upon this important Bill, and on the general question. We owe a debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord who has introduced the Bill, because, although I might take some exceptions to it, nevertheless I do feel that, if it be carried out, Sunday trading will be materially diminished, though not perhaps entirely prevented, and a number of persons who feel it to be a great grievance that they are driven in self-defence to violate the Sabbath will be permitted the peaceable enjoyment of that day of thankfulness and rest; for though it would be better, no doubt, to brave all the consequences of an adherence to the Divine command, it would, I fear, be too much to expect such heroic virtue from the mass of mankind. I have received deputations from persons of great respectability and from butchers doing large businesses in my own neighbourhood, who have entreated me to support the Bill, because it will protect them and give them the defence they require. Certainly it may be said that persons of high Christian principle would brave all consequences and would resolve, in spite of any loss they might sustain, to refrain from selling on the Sabbath Day. Nevertheless, there is much to be said in favour of the principle of this Bill. There may be some particulars in respect of which I should desire to see the
  344
  Bill altered in Committee; but I am so satisfied that it would materially promote the observance of the Sabbath by affording protection to a great number of persons that I must give my support to the second reading of the Bill.
  On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative: Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

CRIMINALS—IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE.

  ADDRESS FOR RETURNS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in moving for a Return of the Number of Criminals sentenced to Imprisonment for Life, from 1850 to the present Date, specifying the number of such life-sentenced Criminals released by Ticket-of-Leave or otherwise in each year, said: My Lords, I want to call the attention of your Lordships to the subject of life sentences, because the question will be raised when a Bill now before your Lordships' House gets into Committee, and it is desirable that the House should have all the information that may be available. I suppose it is pretty well known that a sentence of penal servitude for life in most cases resolves itself into one of twelve years penal servitude. This is known to the Judge who pronounces the sentence and to the prisoner who submits to it. It is, in fact, a great sham; it is known to be that, and it produces all the effects that a great sham always does. The character of these life sentences of twelve years duration does not differ in any respect from that of the ordinary sentences of twelve years penal servitude. Both commence with a period of separate confinement and pass on to a stage of associated labour on public works; both terminate by a conditional discharge with a ticket-of-leave. As a matter of fact, there is not a single prisoner who is not aware that, if he behaves well, he will be discharged at the end of twelve years. Up to this time there has been no great practical difficulty in the matter, because prisoners were transported. While transportation lasted, no doubt it was an admirable expedient. It benefited a colony by giving it labour; it benefited the convict by giving him a chance of a new career, and it benefited the mother-country by ridding her of the convict. All that has passed away; the colonies are closed to us, and the question before us is—how are we

  345
  to dispose of our criminals? At this moment there exists this glaring anomaly, that the next sentence to that of death is twelve years' penal servitude. If, indeed, it be desired that there should be no sentences between these two, well and good—I have nothing to say; but if, on the other hand, it is not considered desirable that you should step from twelve years penal servitude to death, let the point be considered, and either let the system be altered, or convert the nominal life sentence into a real one. But you have distinct evidence that the present nominal life sentence fails to produce any effect on the criminal population. I will quote the opinions of three different persons, who are very fair—perhaps, the best—samples that can be selected. One of them is a learned Judge, Baron Bramwell, whose experience is undoubted; another is the Director of Convict Establishments; and the third is an Inspector of Metropolitan Police. Baron Bramwell says—
  "As at present administered, penal servitude is scarcely a punishment at all, in my opinion."
  Of course, he is speaking of penal servitude for life. Then comes Colonel Henderson, the [present Director of Convict Prisons, who says—
  "All those men now under sentence of penal servitude for life are told that they can expect no remission whatever, but they do not believe it; they know perfectly well that ten or twelve or fourteen or fifteen years hence their cases will be brought forward, and that the crime will be almost forgotten; they are quite sure that something will happen, and that they will be released."
  Then lastly, comes the evidence of Mr. Tanner, an Inspector of Metropolitan Police; and he, as is natural, speaks more of details. He says—
  "There are hundreds, or probably I may say a thousand persons in London who have very little fear of a penal servitude."
  He was then asked—
  "Does the sentence of penal servitude for life make a sensible impression on them?—Yes; but they have all now a hope of getting out of it. But if it was penal servitude for life without hope of remission they would then look upon it as a very dreadful punishment?—I think so."
  Now, when you find that three different witnesses, all of whom are from their professional duties remarkably fitted to form an opinion, come to the same conclusion on the subject, though from different points of view, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they are right. Then there is another point which deserves consideration. I
  346
  think Parliament and the country are hardly aware what changes have of late years been made in regard to the classification of criminals. My Lords, these changes have been carried on so very gradually, and in some cases so imperceptibly, that Parliament is scarcely aware of them. But it is a matter of fact that we have now, what has never been the case in former years, a very complete system of classification. In the first place, juvenile offenders are now dealt with as a separate class. There is a separate legislation for them, and separate places where they are confined. Next, you have separate prisons, and a separate treatment for female criminals, to which may be further added many penitentiaries which are doing good service. Again, within the last year you passed an Act which assimilates the treatment in the various county prisons throughout the country, and brings all offenders sentenced from a few days to two years imprisonment into one uniform system. Beyond this, again, you have a further class of criminals who are sentenced to various periods of penal servitude, commencing at five years and going on to seven, ten, and possibly fourteen years. But from fourteen years you at once pass to the greatest sentence of all—namely, the sentence of death; and that, I think, is a great defect in the chain of penal procedure, and is very inconsistent with all you have done. My noble Friend reminds me that there are sentences of twenty years penal servitude. No doubt, some few sentences of twenty years have been passed, especially of late years; but they are few, and there is not a single instance, I believe, of a man being confined fifteen years. Now, there are, perhaps, some objections to the conversion of these nominal life sentences into real ones. The objection is twofold—first, on the ground of health; and secondly, on the ground of management. The objection on the ground of health will not hold for a moment; because, if you keep a man in prison for ten, fourteen, or fifteen years, there is no reason why the term should not be extended without injury to his health. But it is much more forcibly objected that if you confine a man for life you render the management of such criminals exceedingly difficult. It is said that if you take from a man all hope of going forth again into society, and give him no chance of the remission of his punishment, you deprive him of that element of hope which is most valuable in prison

  347
  discipline—you render him, in fact, a wild beast, and that the warder who goes into his cell goes there with his life in his hand. Now, I quite admit that would he a valid objection if you were to confine these prisoners for life in the same prisons and under the same regulations as other convicts; but of course my argument rests on the supposition that prisoners sentenced for life should be confined in a different prison suited to their wants. Nor can I imagine that there would be a real difficulty in establishing such a prison. The question is, whether you can present to these men sufficient inducements as a substitute for the hope of the final remission of their sentence. When a man is thus confined in prison, and shut out from all hope of ever going into the world again, his measure of things around him is entirely changed. He sees with different eyes, and matters which before he would have deemed trifling become to him of the greatest possible value. In the short imprisonments of county and borough gaols a difficulty at once analogous and of a different sort was felt. It was said, "How can you possibly hope by any system of reasonable inducements short of morally bribing them into work, to influence men committed for short terms?" As a matter of fact, however, experience has shown that we are perfectly able to deal with criminals under short sentences. I may, perhaps, without egotism, refer for a moment to a gaol which my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Malmesbury) knows as well as I do—I mean the gaol of the county of Hants. And I do so because, first of all, the system of that prison was made the basis of the Bill introduced and carried by the Home Secretary last year, and it was acknowledged by him to be substantially the model to which all the county and borough gaols ought to be assimilated; and secondly, because the experience of the system established at Winchester shows such remarkable results. We have so disposed matters that a very large amount of hard penal labour is exacted, and at the same time a very considerable amount also of what I may describe as voluntary exertion on the part of the prisoners is obtained. The system is worked out by a gradual relaxation of the penal and more irksome labour, and the substitution of less laborious work. The men are promoted from class to class, in exact proportion to the number of marks
  348
  gained, and become entitled to advantages of a most modest and even trifling nature. We find, under this system, that just in proportion as hard labour in conjunction with this mark system, which I have indicated, has been imposed upon and exacted from the men, a corresponding, and more than corresponding, diminution has taken place in the punishments inflicted for prison offences. Premising that Class I. includes prisoners during the first month of their imprisonment, I may observe that in the month of November, 1865, before the system was fully brought into effect, the number of prison offences in Class I. was fifty seven. In December, however, the mark system was extended to Class I., and the punishments fell to twenty-two. In January there were twenty-one, in February fourteen, and in March they decreased to thirteen. Now, that is a proof which no one can gainsay as to the power of such a system over the men while they are in prison; and if you can deal with men by such a system in county prisons, where almost every thing may be said to be unfavourable to you, how much more easy it would be to do so where you have the vast machinery of a convict establishment. Well, without arguing on this point, I will only say this much—that as a matter of fact it has been shown abroad that life sentences are perfectly possible. In one large prison at Ghent there are many prisoners confined under sentences of penal servitude either for twenty years or for life. I believe that it would be both advisable and practicable for prisoners confined for life to be separated from those sentenced to imprisonment for a term of years. But I must honestly confess that I should not be at all prepared to confine these life sentences to murder in the second degree as recommended in the Bill just introduced. I think it is necessary to extend that punishment to the hopelessly incorrigible class of persons who are continually being brought up in one court or another and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment without any hope of producing any good effect upon them. I find on referring to the judicial statistics of 1864 that of the 300,000 convicted criminals 20,000 were known thieves, 20,000 belonged to the vagrant class, and were, therefore, but little better, while 45,000 were suspicious characters, making a total of 85,000 out of 300,000 who, if they did not actually

  349
  belong to the criminal class, stood upon the border land which divides the criminal from the honest population. Again, the re-commitments to county and borough gaols amounted in the same year to 45,190, of whom 10,780 were re-committed above five times, and 3,975 above ten times. Every Chairman of Quarter Sessions, every Judge, must know that there are persons constantly coming before them who have been convicted twenty, thirty, forty, and fifty times, and there are recorded instances where persons have been convicted ninety times. It is perfectly clear that it is altogether hopeless to attempt to deal with persons of this description, who constitute a distinct class, with a distinct calling, and a distinct trade from honest men, and who look upon thieving as a regular and recognized profession. They go from one gaol to another, choosing as far as they can those which they regard as the most comfortable. When free they live by plundering the honest community, and when in gaol society has to furnish the funds requisite for their support, and as they become expert in their calling they become trainers of young thieves. Surely this state of things is as hopeless for the criminal as it is bad for society, and it would be a mercy to those persons to shut them up so that they could no longer injure the public and themselves. Believing as I do that the statistics I have mentioned will furnish us with much valuable information, I should wish them to be laid upon the table of the House.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Return of the Number of Criminals sentenced to Imprisonment for Life, from 1850 to the present Date, specifying the Number of such Life-sentenced Criminals released by Ticket-of-Leave or otherwise in each Year.—("The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the Returns moved for by the noble Earl would scarcely give him the information he desired, because it was only within the last few years that criminals had been sentenced to penal servitude for life.
  EARL GREYsaid, that although afraid that the Returns would not contain much information, and he therefore doubted whether it would be advisable to call for them, he thought the House was much indebted to his noble Friend for having called its attention to the subject which he regarded as being of great importance. He agreed with the noble Earl that the
  350
  sentence of penal servitude for life did not produce the effect expected from it—which he attributed to the system upon which Judges had acted in awarding that punishment. In the days of transportation it was the order and very proper practice of Judges to pass the sentence of transportation for life upon criminals who had not been guilty of very aggravated crimes. They knew that, after a certain number of years, those on whom this sentence was passed, would be liberated under a ticket-of-leave and so be enabled to commence life anew under more favourable circumstances than if they were permitted to return to this country. The system of transportation had, however, been discontinued, and, therefore, the case was very much altered, because penal servitude for life was very different to transportation for life. Not sufficiently heeding the great change which had taken place in the system of punishment, Judges had passed sentences of penal servitude for life far too frequently, and the result had been that the severity of the sentence was invariably mitigated. One of the recommendations of the Commission which sat to inquire into this subject some short time since was that the punishment of penal servitude for life should be reserved for the most heinous offences, but that when such a sentence was passed it should be most rigidly adhered to, and the criminal should be made aware that, under no circumstances, would he be discharged from custody, He also agreed with the noble Earl that there should be some special places of confinement for those sentenced to penal servitude for life. He also thought that it would be far better for society were the class of criminals who were continually being convicted permanently shut up, and so prevented from continuing their depredations upon society. Such men ought undoubtedly to be subjected to long sentences, but a distinction ought, he thought, at the same time to be made between them and those who committed manslaughter of so bad a kind as to approach to the guilt of murder, or other crimes of like enormity. In cases of this sort, in which penal servitude for life was substituted for the capital punishment which a few years ago would have been inflicted, he thought no mitigation of the sentence should be granted, and he was glad to have learned that this principle was at least partially acted upon. He had heard from the Attorney General for Ireland that a man who

  351
  had been found guilty on a very aggravated charge of murder, but who, for reasons into which it was unnecessary to enter, had been reprieved, had been sent to Bermuda as a convict, and had, upon the breaking up of the convict establishment there, been brought back to Ireland, where it appeared to be the determination of the Irish Government to keep him in confinement. He hoped that determination would be adhered to, for he did not think such men ought to be allowed to be set at large. By passing very long sentences, such as twenty years penal servitude, on all crimes but the very worst which are not capital, life sentences might be confined to a very few cases, and then rigidly enforced. But owing to the very short time that had elapsed since the abandonment of transportation, and the very different practice as to passing life sentences which previously prevailed, the Returns his noble Friend proposed to call for would give an erroneous impression as to the rule now followed, and he therefore recommended that he should not press his Motion.
  LORD HOUGHTONobserved, that although no doubt the system of non-productive labour of which the noble Earl opposite was the advocate might be attended with success in small establishments, like that at Winchester, it would be found not only extremely inconvenient, but very expensive in large establishments such as that of which he had experience. To abandon the system of productive employment would be, he contended, to throw an additional burden on the county rates for no good reason.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

  LEGITIMACY DECLARATION (IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to enable Persons in Ireland to establish Legitimacy and the Validity of Marriage and the Right to be deemed natural-born Subjects—was presented by The LORD SOMERHILL; read 1ª. (No. 96.)

  CONSECRATION OF CHURCHYARDS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill relating to the Consecration of Churchyards—Was presented by The LORD REDESDALE; read 1ª. (No. 97.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.