§ MR. LOCKErose to call the attention of the House to the manner in which prisoners are detained in Newgate whilst under remand, and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether 1023 he proposes taking any steps to obtain their better treatment. He thought sufficient consideration had not hitherto been given to the treatment of individuals under such circumstances. The well-known principle of English law was that until a man was found guilty he was presumed to be innocent. Now, in the case to which he wished to call the attention of the House two gentlemen—the Messrs Barry—were charged with conspiracy to defraud certain insurance offices, and three others were charged with larceny. The charge was made a month ago, and the parties had been remanded week after week, the alderman not thinking it right to allow them to go at large. He did not wish to make any charge against the alderman, or to prejudge the case in any way. His charge was against the authortities of the City of London for the mode in which they conducted the prison of Newgate. These persons had to clean out their own cells; they were not permitted to see their friends except through an iron grating, and in the presence of the goaler; they were not allowed the use of a knife and fork; they were, in point of fact, made domestic servants in a place where they ought not to be treated as criminals, but were simply remanded for further inquiry. Now, under whose direction was the gaol of Newgate? In the Report of the Commission of 1864, it was stated that the Court of Aldermen were constituted a court of quarter sessions for prison purposes under the statute 4 Geo. IV. c. 64. The Court of Aldermen sat upon these cases of prison discipline under different circumstance to the court of quarter sessions, as the latter sat with open doors. Captain W. J. Williams, in his evidence before the Commissioners, Question 2369, said that he thought this power ought never to have been given to the City of London. The Court of Aldermen have the power, which they sometimes exercise, of excluding strangers. He did not accuse them of framing rules worse than those which existed in other parts of the country. The House had given every attention to the welfare of men undergoing punishment; but, with regard to persons placed in prison simply on the ground of detention, for the purpose of being brought up again to have their cases properly investigated, he was not aware that any consideration had ever been given. And what was the consequence? They found in the City of London, and in a majority of other places throughout the kingdom, 1024 that these persons were compelled to clean out their cells and to perform every menial office, as these two gentlemen in Newgate were compelled to do, although no crime whatever had been brought home to them. When they were brought up last time—namely, on that day week, before Mr. Alderman Stone, Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, who appeared for the defendants, applied to the magistrates to admit them to bail. He stated—
That his clients who might easily have evaded this inquiry during the earlier stages of the proceedings, did not do so, but were to be found every day at their houses or pursuing their usual avocations, and had themselves courted inquiry; but since their apprehension they had been deprived of their liberty without the option of giving bail. The learned gentleman said he should not be so urgent if he had not found that the prisoners were subjected to all the pains and punishments of convicted felons.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYThat is not true.
§ MR. LOCKEBut the counsel for the prosecution did not deny the truth on that occasion, and it was not gainsaid by the alderman on the bench. If the right hon. Gentleman had received information different to that, it was different to what the alderman admitted. Indeed, the alderman said that it was the Home Secretary's fault. He attributed to the right hon. Gentleman all the evils chargeable upon the management of the gaol of Newgate; and certainly put the right hon. Gentleman on his defence. Mr. Serjeant Ballantine said—
That his clients were deprived of the common necessaries of life, and had every menial office to perform in their cells; they were not allowed to hold communication with their families, except in the presence of a warder. Such prison regulations, he said, were a disgrace to a civilized community, and that if he had heard of such things taking place in continental prisons, they would be denounced as insupportable tyranny. His clients were prepared with any amount of bail, and their liberation could by no possibility be injurious to the ends of public justice.The learned counsel's opinions were endorsed by the cheers of the public in the court, and no wonder. Mr. Giffard, who appeared for the prosecution, said "he was sorry to hear that the prisoners were treated in the manner represented," and thus endorsed the statement of Mr. Serjeant Ballantine; but Mr. Alderman Stone spoke in stronger terms still. He said he was sorry to hear the prison regulations were as they had been described, but those matters were in the province of the Home Secretary, and not in that of the City magistrates, and it was in Parliament only 1025 that a remedy was to be found. The right hon. Baronet said the other night that if these persons were illegally imprisoned they had their remedy; but it now appeared, from what Mr. Alderman Stone had said, that it was not the fault of the City authorities, but of the right hon. Baronet. He would therefore ask whether it was intended to allow persons remanded, and not found guilty of any offence, to be treated as convicted felons or even worse. Since he (Mr. Locke) had put this notice on the paper he had received communications from other places, and one from the Isle of Wight said that what was done in Newgate was nothing near so bad as what was done there, and instances were given. All, therefore, that he (Mr. Locke) now wished to do was to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware of the mode in which these things were done throughout the country, as by his office he had the official surveillance of these matters. He would also ask, as the right hon. Gentleman had a Bill before the House with respect to convicts, whether he would introduce into it a clause to remedy this disgraceful state of things in Newgate and elsewhere?
§ MR. TORRENSsaid, that the case of Newgate was not an isolated one. Similar circumstances had come under his notice. It was not long ago a man named Holl and his wife were taken into custody on a charge of illegally pawning. They were brought a considerable distance in a soaking rain, and were locked up all night in their wet clothes, having been refused the privilege of sending for dry clothing. In the morning some little show of mercy was made by the persons in charge of the station by turning hot air into the cell, but the poor man exclaimed, "It is too late; the treatment I have received this night has done for me," and he died in twelve hours. An inquest was held, and the jury returned as a verdict, "Died of bronchitis, accelerated by the treatment he had received before being found guilty in the station." The coroner said—
He quite agreed with the verdict; that it was not the first time such treatment had come under his notice; that shortly before a similar case had happened at the Marlborough Street station, and that he had made a report of it to the Home Office, and expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to do away with the great cruelty to which people under remand were now subjected.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Torrens) had given him 1026 notice that he intended to mention any specific case he would have been prepared with the answer which no doubt could be given. With regard to the hon. Member for Southwark it appeared he had made a double complaint—one as to the magistrate in the case not admitting the prisoner to bail—
§ SIR GEORGE GREYThen he need say nothing as to that. After the answer he (Sir George Grey) gave to the hon. Member's question the other night, he should have thought it impossible for any one to assert that prisoners under remand were in a worse position and subject to greater hardships than prisoners convicted of crime. He (Sir George Grey) stated then that there was a distinction in favour of persons on remand or committed for trial, and that they had privileges allowed them which convicted criminals had not. He knew nothing of this case; he had had no complaints from any of these persons, or from any other person, in Newgate prison, of harsh treatment. If any such complaints had been made he should have addressed on the subject the only persons who by law were competent to deal with them—namely, the visiting justices—who, were the Court of Aldermen. Although, therefore, a single magistrate could not interfere, yet Mr. Alderman Stone might have brought the subject under the notice of his brother Aldermen. It was not the Secretary of State who was the only person who could interfere—the matter was in the hands of the visiting justices. He would only say that if the persons whom his hon. Friend on this occasion represented sent to him any statement of improper treatment they had received he would refer it to the visiting justices, and request them to report upon it.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.