KNUTSFORD GAOL. (Hansard, 20 March 1843)

§ Mr. T. Duncombe
said that it would be recollected that, on a recent motion respecting the conduct of a noble and learned judge, he had referred to certain transactions in Knutsford House of Correction. A few days afterwards the hon. Member for North Cheshire had given the most unqualified contradiction to his 1128 (Mr. T. Duncombe's) statement. To this statement, after making inquiries of certain parties, he had adhered, notwithstanding the contradiction of the hon. Member, and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had consented to institute an inquiry into the conflicting accounts. In fulfilment ot this promise he had sent Capt. Williams, the inspector of prisons, to Knutsford, and he arrived there on the 2d instant; and this morning he (Mr. T. Duncombe) had received a letter from the Rev. Mr. Brown, the chaplain of Knutsford House of Correction, asking him to lay his statement before the House of Commons, justly considering that the investigation instituted by the right hon. Baronet, besides being an inquiry by Government, partook also of the nature of a Parliamentary inquiry. It appeared that the Rev. Mr. Brown had been summoned before the prison inspector, and had subsequently found considerable reason to complain of the conduct of the magistrates. The statement of the chaplain was contained in the following letter, which, with the leave of the House, he (Mr. Thomas Duncombe) would read:— Knutsford, March 18, 1843. Sir—As you were the Member who brought forward in the House of Commons the conduct of the gaoler of the House of Correction, Knutsford, and obtained from the Secretary of State an inquiry into the state of that prison, I have to beg you will bring forward in the House of Commons the conduct of the magistrates towards me, the chaplain, for having spoken the truth to the inspector of prisons when I was on oath. On the arrival of the Inspector at Knutsford, on Thursday, the 2d of March, he sent for me to the George Hotel, where he was staying, and asked me several questions with respect to the Chartist prisoners and the general state of the gaol, which I answered in sincerity and truth. The magistrates met on Friday last, the 17th instant, and asked me several questions on the subject of my private interview with Captain Williams. I at first refused to divulge a private conversation. They then said, 'If you do not tell us what passed during the two hours you were with him, we shall consider it as a refusal to answer the questions of the magistrates, and shall deal with you accordingly.' They then asked if I did not tell the inspector in private that the gaoler had used these words, 'D—n these Chartists, I will give them a bellyful before I have done with them.' My reply was, that the inspector had asked me if I had ever heard the gaoler use violent language about them. I then stated to him the above language, which the keeper 1129 or gaoler had made use of to me when he had seen some of the Chartist prisoners who had complained of their food. Mr. Trafford, the chairman of the quarter sessions, said, why did not you report these words to the magistrates at the time they occurred? I answered, because you, sir, in April, 1830, in consequence of some misunderstanding having taken place between me and the gaoler, told me not to interfere in the discipline of the gaol, but confine myself solely to my spiritual duties, which I considered a prohibition to report that or any such language, or anything relating to the gaoler. After that order I made a note in my private diary on the day it was given. The letter addressed to me on the 3rd of February, 1843, by the gaol committee, desiring me not to put anything on my public journal with respect to the gaol discipline until I had first laid it before the gaol committee, which letter is in Capt: Williams's possession, will show that ray construction of Mr. Trafford's order was correct. After sitting for some time in deliberation the magistrates sent for me, and Mr. Trafford told me that they had come to the determination of recommending to the quarter sessions to be held at Chester, on Monday, the 27th inst., to remove me. I asked what charges were against me? The answer was, none. No unfaithfulness in the discharge of my duties, no immoral conduct, nothing whatever; only that I had stated to the inspector of prisons what I ought to have stated to the magistrates. I again repeated I considered myself under restraint from the order given me by Mr. Trafford to confine myself to my spiritual duties. The magistrates replied it was absurd to consider such an order a prohibition. Mr. Trafford and Mr. Lloyd shortly afterwards observed to me, 'We find it impossible for you and the governor to go on together; we cannot part with him, out with you.' Mr. Lloyd added, 'If you were to remain, it would soon be no gaol at all.' This remark had reference to the inspector having had all restraint removed, and liberty was given to me to report to the nearest visiting justice any improper conduct of the gaoler or any other officer; both Mr. Trafford and Mr. Lloyd added, 'There is no imputation on your character, and no charge for your neglect of your duties.' I replied, 'I will write to the Secretary of State.' 'With that we have nothing to do.' When the magistrates met on the 24th of February last, and took the depositions of some of the Chartist prisoners, which they forwarded to Mr. Tatton Egerton, as the ground of his statement in the House of Commons, they never called me; if they had done so I would have stated to the magistrates the words I stated to Captain Williams. Why they did not call me is best known to themselves. I have been thirty years in the Church, and some time officiated as chaplain to a garrison 1130 By the next post I will forward to you testimonials from the magistrates, from the surgeon, and the gaoler in my favour, when I was candidate for the Pentonville Prison chaplaincy. Your obedient servant, W. BROWNE, Chaplain Knutsford House of Correction." He now called upon the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to say whether a chaplain of a gaol, who had been for thirty years a member of the Established Church, against whose character there was not the slightest complaint, who, according to the magistrates' own account, had faithfully discharged his duty, and who, in obedience of that duty, had given information to the inspector of prisons sent down by the Government, ought to be visited by the displeasure of the magistrates, and, at a Court of Quarter Sessions to be held on the 27th inst., should be removed? It was clear, however, that by this falling out between the gaoler, magistrates, and chaplain the public would really get at the truth; and, if he had heard correctly, the magistrates would have reason to regret that this inquiry had been instituted, and that the statements he (Mr. Duncombe) had originally made would be mainly borne out. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State, who had charge of the prisons, was bound in duty to preserve this chaplain from the anger of the magistrates, and see that he was not displaced.

Mr. Tatton Egerton
said, that the magistrates were quite as anxious as the hon. Member that the truth should be known. They had intimated to their chaplain their disapproval of his conduct, because, being the officer of the gaol, he had not communicated to them what had passed in the gaol, which they looked upon as a violation of the confidence that ought to subsist between them and their officers. It appeared that during the last two or three years the chaplain had been in the habit of keeping private memoranda of what passed in the gaol. He should think that the House would expect such to be communicated to the magistrates, for unless it were made it would be impossible for the visiting magistrates to have accurate evidence of what passed in the gaol. [Mr. T. S. Duncombe: The magistrates prohibited him from making communications.] He could not conceive that any officer of the gaol could think that it 1131 was his duty to withhold such communications. The moment after Captain Williams had left they made the inquiry; they were only anxious that the truth should be known; he understood that the inspector's report had been received at the Home Office that morning.

§ Sir James Graham
thought the complaint of the hon. Member somewhat premature. Immediately after the hon. Member's statement on a former evening, an inspector of prisons had proceeded to Knutsford. The inspector did institute a searching inquiry, but his report had not yet been seen by him (Sir James Graham). It had been left at the Home Office, but on the request of Captain Williams, it had been forwarded to him for revision. He was not, therefore, in possession of the report, and he thought that the complaint of the chaplain was premature, inasmuch as it was his intention to lay the report upon the Table of the House. It was also, he conceived premature because the power to deprive him of office was not vested in the justices or in the visiting justices, but in the Court of Quarter Sessions, which had not yet met. They were, therefore, only discussing the apprehensions of an officer, which might be more or less well-founded, but still they were only apprehensions; it rested with the majority of magistrates at quarter sessions to say whether the removal should take place or not. The hon. Member had supposed, erroneously, that he (Sir James Graham) had a control over the election or removal of an officer. The power was absolutely vested by law in the Court of Quarter Sessions. Till he had come into the House he did not know of the complaint of the chaplain.