QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 21 March 1887)

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he will recommend for the release of prisoners to celebrate the Jubilee those prisoners who are under sentences for life and other heavy sentences for trifling thefts, and who had 803 been subject to previous convictions; a list of which sentences was published in The Madras Mail of 12th September, 1884; and whether he will recommend the amendment of Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code by the insertion of the words "or any shorter time" after the words "transportation for life?" said, that he had put down the Notice on behalf of some prisoners; because, while they seemed fit and safe subjects for the exercise of Her Majesty's clemency, some of them who were in the Andaman Islands were so far from the seat of government that they might be easily overlooked. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), who had brought the question a short time ago before the House, objected that the prisoners to be released either had undergone sufficient Punishment, in which case they ought to be released, whether there was a Jubilee or not; or, if they had not had sufficient punishment, it was not expedient to release them in order to give more éclat to a public celebration. Now, there were 10 prisoners sentenced for life in the list published by The Madras Mail, for very petty thefts, owing to a defect in Section 75 of the Penal Code, which, unlike another section of that Code, left no discretion to the Judge. The Madras Mail list also gave a description of 177 sentences between 1876 and 1884, which were very heavy sentences for potty thefts. Many of these sentences would now have expired; but the remaining portion, he thought, would be fit subjects for receiving the benefit of Her Majesty's gracious intentions on the occasion of the Jubilee. A leading article in The Madras Mail, commenting on these sentences, left no doubt as to the general opinion that the sentences for life were unjust, and that it was inexpedient to punish pickpockets more severely than burglars, and that the other sentences, though not so exaggerated, wore also too heavy for such potty offences. One of those sentenced to penal servitude for life, named Alfred Lees, received his sentence on a second conviction for a petty theft in a shop. The Madras Mail was one of the best-conducted English newspapers published in India, and the editor, Mr. Lawson, had printed the list of sentences with the view to assisting in obtaining the amendment of Section 75 of the Penal Code. In 1884, he (Lord Stanley 804 of Alderley) had asked the then Secretary of State for India, if he would recommend the amendment of the section, so as to leave the Judges some discretion, and he now repeated the Question, and hoped that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, with his experience at Quarter Sessions, would endeavour to remove the anomaly of punishing pickpockets more severely than burglars. As to the other sentences, he differed entirely from the noble Earl's (the Earl of Derby) theory that the Jubilee had nothing to do with the release of prisoners. It was quite a matter of opinion, in the case of a heavy sentence, whether it was enough, or too much, or too little; and if no part of a sentence was remitted, what became of the exercise of the Royal clemency? The Calcutta Statesman of February 19 announced that prisoners had been judiciously and extensively released in that city; but it had been done so privately that the editor had not been able to ascertain oven the approximate number of those released. For his part, he thought that the prisoners had bettor have been released at midday in the most public manner. The noble Lord concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.