§ MR. BLAKE, in calling the attention of the House to the insufficiency of the food given to the prisoners confined in the county prisons in Ireland, said, he would limit himself to a general statement of facts, as he expected they would be sufficient to induce the House to concur with him that a very impolitic, and, he would add, a certainly not humane course was being pursued towards persons incarcerated in the gaols in Ireland, as regarded the quantity of food given to them The dietary had been two or three times reduced in the last twenty years; but the worst feature about the system was, that since the reduction took place first, changes had been made in prison discipline which necessitated a larger quantity of food being given. They all knew that increased bodily exertion required additional nourishment; but another fact was not so well known—that separate confinement had also a most wearing effect on the body, and prisoners undergoing it required to be better fed than those in association. These laws were, however, practically ignored in the Irish country prisons. In England, with the change of discipline from association to separate, and from the 174 treadmill to shot drill, came also the necessary augmentations in diet. In the Irish convict prisons also this was done; but in county gaols the central authority and board of superintendence, with one honourable exception, left the prisoners to battle with nature as best they could on inadequate sustenance. The consequence was that both men and women frequently left the Irish county prison in such a moral and physical state of prostration as to be unable to earn an honest livelihood. He would now state the dietaries in the Irish county prisons, and contrast it with the dietaries of the workhouse and the Mount-joy Convict Prison. The latter dietary was about the same as that generally in use in the English county prisons. County gaols (Ireland).—Breakfast—8 oz. meal in stirabout, ½-pint new milk; dinner—14 oz. bread and 1 pint of new milk; no supper. Workhouse (Waterford Union).—Breakfast — 7 oz. Indian meal, 1 oz. rice, ½-pint new milk; dinner—16 oz. bread, 1 pint vegetable soup, 2 oz. oatmeal; no supper. Mountjoy Convict Prison.—Breakfast—8 oz. oatmeal, ¾-pint milk; dinner—(five days) 16 oz. bread, ¾-pint milk; ditto—(two days) 12 oz. bread, 12 oz. beef; supper 8 oz. bread, ½-pint milk. The foregoing represented in solid food per week for each male adult: county prisons, 7½ lbs; workhouses 8¼ lbs.; Mountjoy Convict Prison, 12 lbs. He had also calculated the relative nourishing qualities of the food used in the Mountjoy and in county gaols, and found that two prisoners in Mountjoy or in an English county prison received as much food, both as regarded quantity and nourishment, as three prisoners in an Irish county gaol. If prisoners were to be detained in gaols, as they ought to be only for short periods, the diet would not be of so much consequence; but, offenders sen-tenced up to two years put in their time in county gaols, which he considered was also a great mistake. It might be urged that the prison physician had the power of giving prisoners in cold weather engaged in shot drill 1½ oz. of meal for breakfast and 2 oz. of bread at dinner over and above the regular allowance, but on inquiry he found this was very seldom done. Boards of superintendence did not look with favour on what they deemed indulgences, and those whose situations depended on their favour did not like to go against them. No doubt if a prisoner became broken down from insufficient 175 nourishment, the physician could put him on hospital diet, but they all knew when a man, and especially one in close confinement, lost stamina, how very hard it was to build him up again. He could assure the House he was not one of those who would seek to prevent prisoners from receiving the full punishment their crimes deserved, and within legitimate bounds he would make a prison as little agreeable as it ought to be considering its object; but if no other consideration prevailed let our self-interest induce us not to allow a system to continue which to some extent was calculated to promote the continuance of crime instead of preventing it, as well also as to increase the burthen of the ratepayer by throwing on him for support either as a felon or a pauper those whom a false and cruel policy rendered incapable of maintaining themselves.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in Older to add the words "it is the opinion of this House, that it is the duty of the Government to take steps to increase the dietary in the County Prisons in Ireland, especially for prisoners confined beyond two months,"—(Mr. Blake,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. BRADYsaid, the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford must entirely recommend itself to the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland and of the House. It was fully borne out by the facts of the case, which were well known to all who were at all acquainted with the working of the present prison system in Ireland. The Reports of the Prison Inspectors in 1843 showed first, that animal food should in all cases form part of the fond of prisoners employed at hard labour; secondly, that a considerable portion of the food of every prisoner should be solid; and, thirdly, that variety of food was necessary. Medical science showed that these conditions were absolutely necessary to maintain the health of the prisoners. The quality of the food supplied was no less essential. According to the county regulations, however, the unfortunate prisoners in Ireland received only 8 oz. of Indian meal for breakfast and 14 oz. of brown bread for dinner; and the prisoners were eighteen hours without receiving any food whatever. 176 Such a system was cruel in the extreme. On looking over the statistics he found that the ordinary cost of maintaining a prisoner in the county prisons in Ireland was three-pence a day; their drink being either skimmed milk of a very inferior quality, or butter-milk, which was so sour as to be totally unfit for food. In the gaol at Gibraltar the prisoners had for breakfast 1 pint of cocoa and 12 oz. of bread; for dinner either fish, fresh meat without bone, or soup and bread; and for supper a pint of gruel and 9 oz. of bread. They had no right, in addition to the sentence of the law, so to reduce the vital energy of the prisoner by an insufficient diet as to render him, at the expiration of his imprisonment, incapable of performing the ordinary duties of life. That was to inflict a double punishment, which neither the law nor the lawmakers had ever contemplated. The sooner such a state of things was remedied the better.
§ SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, that the hon. Member for Waterford had done good service by bringing this subject under the notice of the House. Some two years ago his attention had been turned to the subject by the governor of the Londonderry Gaol, who was a most painstaking and well informed man. He was strongly impressed with the insufficiency of the diet of prisoners in the county gaol. He found that in the case of prisoners confined for more than two months, where there was any tendency to scrofula or any constitutional disease, it was sure to develop itself. Nor was there any economy in the system; for the medical men were obliged to recommend that a considerable number of prisoners should be put on sick diet. The regulations in force dated from a period when the general food of the people was of a much inferior character to what now prevailed, and, like everything else, they ought to be revised. There could be no wish that the health of prisoners should permanently suffer from insufficient diet, and he had no doubt the attention of the noble Lord and the Government would be given to the subject.
LORD NAASsaid, the question to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) had drawn attention was a very important one, and fairly entitled to consideration. The dietaries in the Irish county prisons were originally regulated by the Inspector General under the approval of the Court of Queen's Bench, but by an Act passed a 177 few years ago the approval was removed from the Court of Queen's Bench and placed in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, and the Executive Government, and practically now the Government were the persons to whom the recommendations of the Inspectors General were referred on all questions affecting the dietary in the county prisons. The low slate of the dietary in Irish county prisons as compared with other similar establishments, both gaols and workhouses, in this country, he fully admitted. It arose in this way. In 1849, when great distress existed in the country, there was an enormous increase of crime. In some counties it increased at the rate of 43 per cent, and in others at the rate of 150 per cent over the four preceding years. In that state of things the dietaries of the county prisons were so very much higher than the ordinary food within the reach of the labouring population of the country, that they formed an absolute temptation to many to commit crime in order to get into the gaols. The evil was so patent that considerable reduction was at once made in the prison dietary, only two meals a day being given. This system was tried for eight or nine months, when it was found necessary to reduce the scale still further in order to prevent persons from committing crimes for the purpose of obtaining the prison food. In 1850 soup was substituted for milk. In 1854 a third alteration was made, by which the dietary of juvenile offenders, which had not been affected by the previous alterations, was reduced. This alteration was made in order to prevent boys of between ten and sixteen years from committing offences in order to get transferred from the workhouse to the prison, and it was effectual for that purpose. The dietary had remained in that state to the present time. Since the year 1854, however, a considerable change had taken place in the ordinary dietary of the poor of Ireland, and he was therefore quite willing to admit that the whole question should be looked into most carefully. There were several reasons why the scale of the prison dietary in Ireland should be reviewed, the first of which was that within the last ten years a great change had taken place in the diet of the labouring population in Ireland, it having increased in quantity and improved in quality, with very beneficial effects upon the lower classes of that country. Although he was sorry to say animal food was by no means a common 178 article of food among the poor of Ireland, yet bread of a good quality had been generally substituted for potatoes. Under these circumstances he was willing to admit that a prison dietary which would have been suitable to the lower class of prisoners fifteen years ago was unsuitable to them now. Another reason in favour of increasing the scale of prison diet was, that the number of vagrants had largely diminished, and therefore there was not so large a class which would be likely to commit offences for the sake of obtaining the prison diet. A still stronger reason for inquiring into the matter, however, was that the system of prison discipline in county gaols had been greatly altered of late. A system of discipline chiefly upon the separate principle, which could not be too highly commended, had been introduced, and as was proved by experience this rendered it necessary to improve the diet of prisoners in order to keep them in health. In a great number of the county prisons in Ireland they had got rid of the horrible system of association in gaols, which made them little better than colleges of crime. By the separate system, too, they were better enabled to employ the prisoners in their cells at trades and other occupations. It was found, however, that under this improved discipline it was necessary to increase the scale of diets in order to preserve the health of the prisoners. Under these circumstances it had, in his opinion, become necessary for the Government at once to take this question up, especially as the Inspectors of Irish Prisons, in their Report for 1866, had referred to the evils that now existed, and had recommended a change in the diet being effected. It would, however, be necessary, in the consideration of this question, to take care that they did not go too far and fall into the other extreme, and render the prison diet better than that of the unions. The rule they should follow would be to make the prison diet resemble, but not exceed the usual diet of the prisoners when at liberty. One great evil that existed in Ireland was that in every prison there was one uniform description and amount of prison diet for all prisoners, whatever might be the severity of their sentence. In his opinion, the diet should be smaller in quantity and lighter in quality in the case of short sentences than in the case of long sentences. A light diet would be a very proper mode of increasing the punishment of short sentences; but 179 when prisoners were confined for long periods they required an additional allowance of food. Unfortunately that system did not exist in Ireland, where "a hard and fast line" prevailed for all cases. Some few years since a Select Committee of the House of Lords inquired very minutely into all matters connected with the prison discipline of county gaols, and especially into the question of diet. That Committee, finding that no uniformity of practice was adopted thoughout the gaols, in this country, and that meat evils existed in consequence, recommended that some rule on the subject should be laid down for the guidance of the county gaols. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir George Grey), in consequence of the recommendation of that Committee, appointed a Commission to inquire further into the subject, and induced three eminent medical men to give their attention to the question of diet. In accordance with their Report a scale of diet was recommended by the Home Office, and had been adopted in a great number of the county gaols. He had been very anxious to introduce into Parliament this year a very extensive measure affecting the whole question of prison discipline in county prisons in Ireland. That measure had been prepared, with the exception of a few details, and he hoped to be able to lay it upon the table of the House before the end of the present Session in order that hon. Members might have an opportunity of considering it during the Recess. By that measure it was proposed to render not only the diet but the prison treatment uniform in all prisons in all cases where the sentences were similar. It was felt to be a great evil that, owing to the different systems in force in the various gaols, the Judge, in passing sentence upon a man, knew really very little about the mode in which that sentence would be carried out. Following the example set by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he should endeavour to secure the services of two or three eminent medical men to inquire particularly into the question of prison diet, and he hoped next Session to be able to lay ample information upon the subject before the House. In the meantime, however, he must say that the statistics did not show that there was any loss of health on the part of the Irish prisoners on account of the present diet. It had been said that the prisoners lost weight during their imprisonment, but the contrary was rather the fact. He confessed that the case was 180 one worthy of inquiry, and he would take care that that inquiry should be conducted by men of ability.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was glad to hear that the noble Lord intended to deal not only with the question of dietary, but also with that of discipline. He would suggest to the noble Lord the advisability of looking at the Act which was passed a few years ago for England, an Act which had undergone very careful scrutiny in a Committee consisting of men of great experience, and which, since the passing, had had a very beneficial effect. A similar result might be expected in the case of Ireland. He quite agreed with the noble Lord in the opinion that there should be different scales of diet for different classes of prisoners. It had, however, been established beyond dispute that men sentenced to long terms of imprisonment required a higher diet than that even to which they were accustomed when pursuing their ordinary avocations. This was rendered necessary by the depression which such imprisonment occasioned. He trusted that the legislation which the noble Lord contemplated would be such as would meet the objections which might, with some reason, be at present urged.
§ MR. NEATEsaid, he was sorry to hear the noble Lord assert as a fact, and justify as a principle, the doctrine that whatever might be the misery which the Irish people suffered, they must be reduced to a still greater depth of misery in order to prevent their violating the laws of their country. Not only should the object of imprisonment be, to a certain extent, the reformation as well as the punishment of the individual, but they ought to take care that no inducement should be offered which could lead men to prefer being sent to gaol to entering a union. He greatly doubted whether the Irish system of pitching the diet at the lowest possible point above starvation, was the proper one. The diet ought to be adequate to maintain the vital powers and energies in full activity, and restore the prisoner to society on the termination of his punishment in a condition at least equal to his state upon entering prison. He was glad to hear the noble Lord's statement as to his future intentions.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.