COMMITTEE ON RE-COMMITMENT. (Hansard, 18 July 1871)

LORD HOUGHTON
objected to the clause, which provided that convicts holding tickets-of-leave should be compelled to report themselves monthly to the police, under the penalty of having their licence revoked if they neglected to do so. It had been, he believed, the practice in that country to draw a positive line between a man who was actually under the action of the law, and a man who was placed in a position in which he was free to perform all the duties of a citizen. The power of supervision, however, which was given under the Bill simply meant that a man should be liable to be hunted down by the police, so that he could not possibly enter on any new course which would enable him to obtain an honest livelihood. Owing to it, in fact, a convict would be as completely under the operation of the law as if he were confined within the four walls of a prison, and would be led to look on the policeman as an enemy instead of a protector. In practice the system had not worked well, and he held in his hand a Report of the Surveyor General of Prisons which spoke of the present course of public policy as being directed principally to the hunting down of criminals. He should, therefore, advise their Lordships to express their disapprobation of that portion of the Bill to which he was referring. The noble Lord concluded by 1931 moving, in page 2, line 20, to leave out from ("reside") to the end of the paragraph.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, he hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment. He wished, however, to draw attention to the provision of the clause in accordance with which a holder of a ticket-of-leave would be obliged within 24 hours after his change of residence to notify that change to the chief officer of police of the district to which he happened to have removed. That was scarcely a sufficiently long time, he contended, to allow for the purpose.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
concurred with the noble Duke in the opinion that 24 hours was rather too short a time; but it should be remembered that the notification of change of residence need not be by personal application, but might be conveyed by letter. There was also a proviso that it need not necessarily be made to the chief officer of police, but that it might be made as effectually to any person authorized by him. He was, however, prepared to extend the time. He begged, in reply to the noble Lord (Lord Houghton), to say that the change to which he objected was in accordance with the almost unanimous opinion of the Prisoners' Aid societies as well as of the chiefs of police. He did not at all see that there was anything in that provision at all calculated to prevent the persons implicated from obtaining an honest livelihood. There was no question of hunting down the holders of those licences, because they might make their applications by letter—so that they need not become marked men at the police stations. A monthly report was the only means by which the police could exercise the necessary superintendence over the criminal classes.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
entirely sympathized with the object of the noble Earl, but held that the matter was one for regulation by the Executive rather than for introduction into an Act of Parliament.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
opposed the Amendment, on the ground that if the clause were made too stringent its effects might be nullified.

LORD HOUGHTON
said, that it was frequently regarded as a matter of amusement, by classes who should know better, to assault the police in a brutal manner, as appeared from the reports in the public journals for the last twelve months. It was incumbent on their Lordships to show, by the severity of the punishment they would inflict, that they looked upon such conduct as disgraceful. He therefore proposed to make the penalty £100, instead of £20, or imprisonment for twelve months instead of six. He thought it necessary that young men should be taught that they were not to knock policemen about out of sport.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
said, he was rather surprised to hear that it was regarded as sport among the upper classes to assault the police in a brutal manner. He thought, however, that the disgrace would be felt to be as great by incurring a fine of £20 or six months' imprisonment as of £100 or twelve months, and for summary jurisdiction £20 or sis months' imprisonment was probably as much as could well be inflicted.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, the clause provided that the children of women convicted of crime should be treated as children entitled to the benefit of the Industrial Schools Act, and to be fed, clothed, and lodged at the public expense. This he regarded as a direct encouragement to crime.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
said, the object was to prevent the children from falling into the hands of the associates of the woman in crime. Although the principle was open to some doubt, the case seemed to be one where the children should be sent to industrial schools rather than to the poor-house. It was consistent both with good policy and humanity to send them to a place where they would be duly educated.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
suggested that in that case provision ought to be made in the Bill that when the mother came out of prison she should not have the power of reclaiming the children; or power should be given to some person in authority to say whether she should be entitled to them or not.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
said, he would take the suggestion of the noble Earl into consideration.