§ LORD NORTON, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government if they would introduce early this Session the Bill which they had had prepared two years ago to restore to the scale of punishments on the Statute Book the three years' term of penal servitude which was unfortunately omitted by the Act of 1879, so as to make a regularly ascending series of sentences to various kinds of imprisonment capable of adjustment to the gravity of offences, 337 and to fill up the gap which often leaves Magistrates and Judges to choose between a punishment too light or too severe for the case before them, said: My Lords, I have put this question to my noble and learned Friend sitting on the Woolsack in two Sessions, and I have been assured on both occasions that a Bill has been prepared. I know that a Bill has been prepared for this purpose, and I hope it will at last be forthcoming. Although it is a very short Bill, yet its importance I venture to say is in inverse ratio to its length. It cannot be opposed, for it has no possible ground of opposition in it from any part of this House, and though I know we have been called together for the purpose of considering special measures, this Bill could in no way impede their progress. The restoration of the middle term of our code of secondary punishments is called for by Magistrates, Judges, and especially by the Prison Commissioners connected with the Home Department. The gradations of imprisonment, and of its severer form called penal servitude, ought to be regulated in an ascending scale in proportion to the gravity of offences. The gap which now exists is simply owing to a mistake made in 1878, when a sudden panic arising from an increase of crime led the Committee who inquired into the subject to recommend the legislation which was passed in 1879, omitting this smaller term of penal servitude. The consequence is, that there is now a gap in the series of secondary punishments, which to a very great extent stultifies the administration of justice. If an offender deserves a severer punishment than two years' imprisonment, the Judges can sentence him to nothing short of five years' penal servitude; and in cases where offenders do not deserve so heavy a punishment they cannot be sentenced to anything more severe than two years' imprisonment. I know that, happily, crime is decreasing, owing to the advance of education and to reformatories, and still more to the Discharged Prisoners Aid Society. It seems to me a very great pity that there should be any impediment offered in the way of such improvement by a flaw in the administration of justice. I cannot understand why this Bill, which has been so long prepared, and to which no- 338 body anticipates the slightest opposition, should be any longer delayed. The effect of this imperfect code of punishments is obvious in the number of re-commitments of offenders who have received inadequate sentences, and in the frequent remissions of too long sentences, I hope your Lordships will be assured by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack that this Bill will at last be introduced this Session.
§ LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, I would support the appeal which has been made by my noble Friend opposite. It is connected with a matter to which I drew attention in the course of last Session, and is a point, I think, of very considerable importance, and upon which it is desirable that there should be no further delay. I think it has been clearly shown by the Prison Commissioners that the change has caused mischief. This gap in our list of punishments arose from a misapprehension, and they point out the mischievous consequences to which it has given rise. I cannot think there will be anything but a good result from its being rectified.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI have received a communication from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who has informed me not only that the Bill has been prepared, but that he is anxious it should be brought before your Lordships. There is, I think, a misapprehension in the mind of the noble Lord that the Bill refers only to the matter to which he has called attention. There are other matters also included in it. The Secretary of State is very desirous, as soon as the state of business will allow, to lay the Bill before the House.
§ LORD HERSCHELLI might ask my noble and learned Friend to consider whether, if the Bill includes matters which are likely to be of a controversial character, it might not be advisable to separate them from this other question, which might be allowed to stand and be dealt with by itself, leaving the other matters to be dealt with in a separate Bill.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI did not intend to intimate that the other matters in the Bill will be matters of controversy. I hope they will not. I meant that, owing to the change which will be thus made in the Criminal Law, it will be necessary to introduce other 339 matters, and it would be inconvenient to have two separate Bills on the subject. I only desired to point out to the noble Lord that he must not assume that this is the only provision in the Bill.