Lords Sitting of 30 July 1889

SMALL DEBTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 177.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
POOR LAW BILL.
Read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª on Friday next: (The Viscount Torrington). (No. 195.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE) BILL. (No. 174.)
Reported from the Standing Committee for General Bills, with Amendments: The Report thereof received: Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 196.)
THE CRIMINAL LAW: TERMS OF PENAL SERVITUDE.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, in rising to ask the Lord Chancellor whether the Government have any intention to deal next Session with the subject of the length of terms of penal servitude under the existing law, I may state that I have had a notice on the Paper some time to move for a revision of the Acts relating to penal servitude, with a view to the resumption of the minimum term of three years. Hearing that a Bill to that effect was in preparation at the Home Office I have delayed bringing forward this notice, but now that the Session is drawing to a close I wish to ask the Lord Chancellor, on behalf
  1690
  of the Government, whether any such measure is intended for next Session? I had myself a hand in the abolition of transportation, and served on the subsequent Committees which substituted the punishment of penal servitude for transportation, having resulted in the Acts of 1854 and 1857. A great mistake was made in measuring the terms of the new punishment by those of the old. In 1863 a Commission led to further lengthening those terms, under a panic caused by an increase of crime, which it was supposed that longer terms of penal servitude would check. But a Commission in 1878 repealed one of these longer terms, and reported that, in their opinion, penal servitude was sufficiently deterrent, but that it failed to reform, and they suggested that three years' imprisonment might usefully replace the five years' penal servitude. They, however, shrank from recommending Parliament to make repeated changes, and only proposed better classification against contamination in public works, and giving further trial to the existing system. I protested from the first against measuring penal servitude terms by the former terms of transportation. The two modes of treatment bore no relation or similarity to each other. Tentative changes had confessed the mistake, while all changes themselves have a bad effect on punishments. The highest and best opinion on the subject is that of Sir Edmund Du Cane. No man is better qualified to give an opinion upon the subject. He was not deterred from suggesting the change which he saw was called for, of shortening penal servitude sentences, by the happy fact of the recent diminution of crime. He knew that long punishments

  1691
  had not caused that diminution of crime, but that reformatories, industrial schools, discharged prisoners' aid, and education had been the causes of that result. Now, my Lords, the question is—whether these penal servitude sentences are not too long, and I would ask your Lordships to allow me to read a few lines from a publication of Sir Edmund Du Cane's on the subject. In a volume entitled Punishment and Prevention of Crime, 1885, he says:—
  "The amount of punishment should he the least possible to effect its object. The assigning periods to penal servitude, derived from the days of transportation, and excluding intermediate periods of years, is difficult to justify, and may soon defeat the main object.… There is much evidence to prove that after six or seven years the deterrent effect on the prisoner diminishes, and is therefore likely to be less on those who hear his account after discharge than if he had come out before getting used to it."
  I have since received a letter from Sir Edmund Du Cane, strongly taking the view that the minimum term of three years' penal servitude should be resumed, adjusting it to the next preceding term of imprisonment, so that there should be a continually ascending scale of punishment, the two kinds being treated as stages of the same category, the latter ending in employment on public works. That is Sir Edmund Du Cane's view, and I think it will be conceded that his opinion has very great weight. He advocates a complete ascending scale of punishment and the resumption of the minimum term of three years, to follow an adjusted term of imprisonment preceding it. He says in that part of his pamphlet from which I have just read:—
  "The shorter the term of punishment so that it effects its object the better—if it effects its main purpose, that of deterrence."
  Sir Edmund Du Cane is surely wise in thinking that the shorter punishments are the better if they secure their object. The chief object of punishment is to deter from the repetition of crime. As to reformation of character, that should be carefully kept in view incidentally, but it is not the primary object of punishment, and prison is the worse place for education. Sir E. Du Cane's book was criticised in the public press as not taking account of a third object in punishment—the keeping of dangerous characters out of the way. This, how-
  1692
  ever, I consider to be a most shortsighted and unprincipled consideration in dealing with criminals. It is not the-right object of punishment to get dangerous characters out of sight. We have responsibilities both to them and to the country which we must recognise. The principal object being to deter from repetition of crime, it follows that the shorter the process in gaining it the better. The longer terms not only fail to secure, or even impede, the object, but they waste thousands of able-bodied men in useless durance, while their wives and children are kept at public expense in workhouses. There is, moreover, a fatal weakness in long punishments. There is an uncertainty about their practical meaning which? tends to destroy their effect. Licenses on leave and mitigations are inseparable-No sentence of penal servitude is carried out to the full as it is passed. In that way, therefore, its effect is diminished, both as a deterrent to the evil-doers themselves, and as a warning to others. What is wanted is a revision of sentences both of imprisonment and penal servitude. There is nothing now between two years' imprisonment and five years' penal servitude. The matter is one of great importance, because penal servitude, if dealt out carelessly, and on wrong principles, must cause very great public mischief. I hope the Lord Chancellor will be able to say that the Government intend to deal with the subject as early as possible.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid I am not able to give as satisfactory an answer to the noble Lord as I could have wished. I do happen to know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has had certain proposals submitted to him, but he has not yet brought them before his colleagues, and I should be very reluctant to anticipate any consequence which might ensue. The view of the Government on the matter must, therefore, rest in the future. I do not deny the importance of the subject, but at present I am not able to say the Government has any intention such as the noble Lord has indicated.

COOPER'S HILL COLLEGE.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I desire to ask the Secretary of State for

  1693
  India if it is proposed to offer a certain number of commissions in the Royal Engineers and the Royal Artillery to students at the Royal Engineering College at Cooper's Hill.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS): Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to reply to the question. It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to offer 13 commissions if there were that number of cadets available and qualified. At present the matter is being discussed between the War Office and the India Office.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): I only desire to supplement my noble Friend's answer by pointing out that the training for the year will begin in September next, and I hope the commissions which are offered will be an inducement to gentlemen who want to enter the Army to go to that most excellent institution at Cooper's Hill. It is an institution which I have had a great deal to do with and have examined very thoroughly, and I have satisfied myself that a more excellent education is not to be got anywhere. I think the greatest possible credit is due to Sir Alexander Taylor and all the members of his staff, who have worked so heartily together in producing such a very excellent result. I am glad the noble Earl has asked this question, in order that this opening for young men may be made publicly known, and also the offer of the War Office which I hope will be continued.
  LORD SANDHURST: May I be allowed to ask whether the offer of Commissions will be continued?
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I certainly hope that the offer of Commissions will be continued from year to year. We have had rather more applications for India than we want. Generally, there is some little room in the College, and it makes a difference in regard to the College whether it is full or not.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I should like to know whether this proposal will diminish the number of cadets at Woolwich?
  LORD HARRIS: I may say that there is certainly no intention of reducing the number of cadets in the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich. If the Royal Military Academy, being full, cannot
  1694
  supply the number of officers required for those two services, I have no doubt the War Office would again apply to Cooper's Hill College. The noble Earl is no doubt aware that the question of difficulty at present is the age, as pupils entered Cooper's Hill College older than cadets entered the Royal Military Academy.

AFFAIRS IN ZULULAND—TREATMENT OF THE CHIEF USIBEPU.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF KINGSTON: My Lords, I have to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is the case that the charge of being accessory to murder against the Zulu Chief Usibepu was dismissed after a hearing of several weeks; and, if so, by what law, native or otherwise, is the Chief still detained in custody, and what power has the Governor of Zululand to have the case reheard? I should like, my Lords, to read what was said on the subject in another place, on the 11th July, by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies in answer to a question:—
  "The Secretary of State has as yet only received an informal Report of the proceedings from the Governor, who has come to this country on leave of absence. The charge was one of being accessory to the murder at Umsuby-wana. The Magistrate, after an investigation extending over several weeks, dismissed the charge. The Government is not altogether satisfied with the action of the Magistrate in dismissing the charge; and it is understood that the case has been referred back to the Resident Commissioner for his further consideration as Chief Magistrate. In the meantime, it is understood that Usibepu remains at Eshowe."
  It appears to me, my Lords, that this man stands in danger of an inquiry a second time for the offence of which he was pronounced innocent by the Magistrate who, at great length, investigated the case. I desire to ask what power there is to have the case reheard?
  LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I have not yet received official information as to the proceedings against Usibepu before the Magistrate. The proceedings were of a preliminary character, and, after an investigation of some weeks, the charge was dismissed. But proceedings of that kind are not of the same character as a proceeding in full Court, where an acquittal stands as an acquittal for ever, and the man cannot be charged a second time. The whole

  1695
  case was then very properly submitted by the Governor to the Attorney General, Sir Michael Gallwey, a gentleman of great experience and ability; and, as I understand, the case has, upon his advice, been referred back to the Resident Commissioner for his further consideration in his capacity of Chief Magistrate. I expect to receive further information very shortly. Usibepu is not, strictly speaking, retained in custody; but, in accordance with native law, he is not allowed to return to his location without the permission of the Resident Commissioner, and that permission has not been given. The dismissal by the Magistrate of the charge does not, as I am advised, preclude the institution of fresh proceedings. The noble Lord has asked under what law these further proceedings can take place. I should think the course which the Governor was advised to take would fall under his powers as supreme Chief of Zululand, even if not under the powers vested in him by the Royal Commission. I may also refer to a Natal Ordinance, No. 18 of 1845, which, by the Proclamation of 1887, has been declared to be law in Znluland. By the 51st section of that Ordinance, after a party accused has been discharged by a Magistrate on a preliminary proceeding, the Crown Prosecutor may apply for a warrant to re-apprehend the party accused, in order to stand his trial. I think that is an answer to the question which the noble Lord has asked.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SCOTLAND BILL.

  QUESTIONS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, before the House adjourns I wish to ask a question of the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, of which I have given him private notice. The question is with reference to the Local Government of Scotland Bill, which your Lordships will on Thursday be asked to read a second time. My Lords, I wish for information on two points. It appears by the Bill that the number of Councillors for each county is to be fixed by the Secretary for Scotland, and I wish to ask the noble Lord whether he will lay on the Table a Paper, stating the number of County Councillors he proposes to appoint for each county? There is another matter
  1696
  which I think it is still more important we should have information about, and that is with regard to the number of service voters, as I believe that the number of service voters will greatly exceed the number of any other class of voters. It is very desirable your Lordships should have information on this point when you discuss the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, in answer to the first question which the noble Earl has put, the number of County Councillors for each county provided by the Bill to be appointed by the Secretary for Scotland has been settled, and a printed Paper giving the number has been circulated. I have given directions that the Papers showing those numbers shall be available in the Paper Office. If the noble Earl thinks it desirable that the Papers should be circulated with the other Parliamentary Papers I see no objection to that course being taken. With regard to the second question of the noble Earl, as to the service voters, I am afraid I cannot give so definite an answer. Such information as is asked for would take considerable time to prepare, and might also entail considerable expense. I am therefore not prepared to give a distinct answer at once, but I will, if possible, accede to the request of the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Of course I do not wish to ask for anything that will entail great expense, but if anything even approximately full can be given us it would be valuable.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Does the noble Earl desire the information to be given in the form of Returns?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I shall be glad to get it in any form that may be thought desirable.

AUDIT (ARMY AND NAVY ACCOUNTS) BILL. (No. 164.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3ª on Thursday next.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, to. Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.