§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in asking the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India, Whether he will cause Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code to be amended by the insertion after the words "transportation for life" of the words "or any shorter time," so as to avoid the constant infliction of sentences of transportation or penal servitude for life for thefts of very trifling amount in cases where there have been previous convictions? said, that between 1876 1358 and the present year the Records of the High Court of Madras showed that there had been in that Court nine sentences of transportation for life, and two of penal servitude for life, for trifling thefts by previous offenders. The alteration of the section mentioned in his Notice was the minimum that was asked for, so as to leave more discretion to the Judge; but he thought that the Code might well be amended by substituting some shorter period for that of transportation for life; and he was fortified in this view by the words of the Chief Justice, Lord Coleridge, at the opening of the Bedford Assizes, last 26th of October. The Chief Justice said—
If heavy sentences were awarded in such, cases, there were no sentences adequately severe for the far graver crimes which frequently came before Judges at Assizes.Some time ago an official of the India Office had told him that these people who were sentenced were much better off at the Andaman Islands than in their own country. If that really were the case, it was enforced colonization, and should be reserved for deserving persons, and not for thieves.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in reply, said, he objected to the allegation that the severe sentences referred to in the Question were being "constantly" inflicted. The 75th section of the Indian Penal Code provided that in the case of second offences punishable by imprisonment of not less than three years, the Court might, at its discretion, either transport the offender for life or sentence him to a double term of imprisonment for 10 years. The provision was a salutary one, intended to meet the case of habitual offenders against the law. He was not aware that the power conferred by the nation upon the Judges had been abused; and he, therefore, could not agree to the suggestion that the Code should be amended.