CO885-(7-8) — Page 286

438

PUBLIC RECORD

OFFICE

Reference :-

TIIUC.O.885

7

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

10

but it would do no good, as only further brutalising a people who have been already sufficiently degraded, and whose only chance of improvement lies in their gradual but thorough-going subjection to civilising influences.

11. The only practical suggestion I feel able to throw out for consideration is the enactment of a properly-framed law for making possession under certain circumstances, if unexplained, evidence of guilt. If the law were thus strengthened, I believe good would be done as regards this crime; at the same time, such a law is so incompatible with well-regulated freedom, and so contrary to the spirit of English law, that I do not know whether it would not be better to cope with this great evil as best we may, than introduce it.

(Initialed) A. H. H.

10th May 1897.

JAMAICA.

Confidential.

SIR,-

11

III.

Mr. ChamberlAIN to Governor SIR A. W. L. HEMMING.

Downing Street,

23rd January, 1900.

I HAVE had under my consideration your de patches No. 261 of the 28th of May and No. 612 of the 21st of October last, and their enclosures, on the subject of praedial larceny in Jamaica. This subject has recently engaged my attention in regard also to other West India Colonies, and I am very desirous of finding effectual means for checking this very prevalent and very mischievous form of theft.

2. I think it may be of interest to you to peruse the enclosed transcript of a minute written by Sir H. Hocking, when acting on the staff of this department, on the subject of praedial larceny in Jamaica, in connection with the reports transmitted in Sir H. Blake's despatch No. 76 of the 12th of June 1897, and the accompanying copy of a lettert from Sir D. Barbour to this department on the same subject.

3. Mr. Olivier is in possession of my views and after considering this difficult question with him iu the light of the present despatch I hope you may be able to come to some practical conclusions with which I shall find myself in accord.

4. The legislative proposals subunitted of late by the Government of Jamaica for dealing with praedia! larceny have not appeared to me altogether well-considered, and I have therefore not felt able to consent to them. The dis approval of these proposals appears to have strengthened the local opinion, which your despatches on the subject reflect, in favour of an increased resort to flogging as the regular punishment for this offence.

5. I may observe, in this connexion, that the Jamaica Law already permits a sentence of flogging on first offenders in cases in which the property stolen exceeds 57. in value, and in any case of second conviction, the power of flogging under these conditions may be retained.

6. The British Guiana Law to which you refer in paragraph 5 of your despatch No. 612 now provides that a first offender in a proclaimed district may be flogged. He cannot be flogged in a district not proclaimed. There is no provision making flogging compulsory on a second offence, either in a proclaimed district or out of it.

7. I gather that the Jamaica magistrates, speaking generally, are disposed to believe that if flogging were made the normal punishment, and were publicly administered in the thief's own district, the offence would be effectually checked.

8. This belief may be correct, but the checking of the particular offence is not the only question involved, and other aspects of the matter have also to be borne in mind.

9. The lines on which it seems to me desirable to endeavour to deal with this evil may be indicated as follows. Some well considered endeavour should, in my opinion, be made in the first place to enlist, in support of the existing police agencies and legal penalties, the co-operation of the large class of settlers or peasant proprietors, who both have themselves a very strong direct interest in putting down pracial larceny and must be in a good position, as a class, to supply or obtain information which may lead to the identification, arrest, and conviction of thieves. I suggest that you should consider the possibility of promoting with, I should hope, the hearty co-operation of ministers of religion of all denominations, in every parish, either through the custos, or in connexioa with the local Parochial Board, the organisation of vigilance societies, in which all owners of property exposed to racial theft should be entitled to enrol themselves; that if sucli associations of registered persons can be formed the powers of arrest on suspicion, which I considered were too widely provided for in the Bill recently submitted and disapproved, might be assigned either to elected members or even to any duly enrolled member of such an association.

10. Any pariali in which praedial larceny increases or prevails in a marked degree might be made liable to be proclaimed as a district in which not only additional constables or detectives might be employed at the cost of the ratepayers of that parish, but sufferers from depredations might be enabled to claim and recover damages against-the parish,

11. It also appears to me that it might be advisable to organise a special service of detective police to deal with this particular class of offence.

12. With regard to the question of punishment it has been suggested to me that the stocks might with advantage be employed, and I consider the suggestion to be one well deserving consideration. The magistrates might be empowered to order convicted offenders to sit in the stocks on a certain number of market days in the market of their district. Nor do I object to power being given to magistrates to order the birching of offenders up to 12 strokes.

• No. II.

† 12938/09.

2

12

13. I`shall be glad if, after making such inquiries as will be necessary as to the possibility of enrolling the pesant proprietors in actual and semi-official support of the law, in their own interests, in the manner l'have suggested, and deciding as to any strengthening of the vagrancy law that may be advisable, you are able to submit a draft Bill on the lines indicated, for my consideration.

14. I enclose copies of the

Canadian Act 55–6 Vict. cap. 29. Ceylon. Ordinance 4 of 1841. Cape Act 23 of 1879.

Cape Act 27 of 1889.

Cape Act 34 of 1895.

Natal Law, No. 15 of 1869.

various enactments mentioned in the margin in compliance with the request contained in your despatch, but Ï do not enclose the Scotch Act to which you refer which was passed as long ago as the year 1579, and is still in force as amended by Act 8 & 9 Vic. cap. 83. It would be difficult to obtain a copy of the 1579 Act, and I hardly think it would be likely to be of much use to you.

Mauritius Ordinanas No. 2 of 1889.

Hermutia. Act No. 3 of 1869,

Victoria Act 54 Vict. No. 1706.

N.8. Wales, 15 Viet. No. 4.

N. Zealand, No. 24 of 1984,

B. Guiana Ordinance 22 of 1898,

&c.

Governor Sir Augustus W. L. Hemming, K.C.M.G.,

&c.

&c.

I have, &c.,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.