MR. VERNERsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Reports of the Inspectors General of Prisons in Ireland for the last five years, with reference to the grave irregularities consequent on the management of certain City Prisons by Boards of Superintendence. He wished to refer to several complaints of irregularities on the part of the Board of Superintendence with respect to the Prisons in Dublin, and in particular to the case of Daniel Byrne, the warder of Richmond Gaol, who last year became so notorious on account of the escape of Stephens, the Fenian Head Centre. He would next call attention to the irregularities in Grange 36 Gorman Prison, where the system of electing the Board of Superintendence by lot was highly unsatisfactory, and he begged to observe to the House that the members of the Board, being for the most part persons engaged in trade, could not give the time and attention requisite for the proper discharge of their duties. His chief object in bringing this subject under the notice of the House was to effect a change in the system. He was warranted by the climax of last year in saying that a complete change ought to be made. The Inspector General had drawn the attention of the Town Council of Dublin to the necessity of some change, and they had prepared a series of Resolutions on the subject. Those Resolutions, however, were not approved by the Inspector General. [The hon. Member quoted at considerable length the Reports of the Inspectors General.] He had felt it his duty to draw the attention of hon. Members to the irregularities which had prevailed, because he understood that Her Majesty's Government had some thoughts of proposing remedial legislation, and he begged to thank the House for its patient attention to the long extracts he had read.
§ MR. O'NEILLsaid, that the facts which his hon. Friend had brought before the House showed unmistakably that the management of the city prisons of Dublin had been, to say the least of it, capable of great improvement. This state of things arose, as the inspectors stated, from the manner in which the Board of Superintendence was constituted. This Board was elected annually, by lot, and from the fact that its members had other avocations, they could not become acquainted with the character and conduct of the prison officials, as the County Boards did. One illustration of the bad results of the system of election by lot was that only one member of the Board of 1862 was upon that of 1863; and the defects of the system became still more apparent in the manner that defalcations had been dealt with. The Board of 1863–4, having investigated that subject, recommended that the inquiry should be still further pursued by the incoming Board, which, however, at once cancelled all the proceedings of the former Board, and reinstated the officer who had been recommended for suspension. This new Board contained only two members of the former Board, and virtually only one, for the second member had never sat at the old 37 Board. Hon. Members could well conceive how fatal it must be to discipline to have it known that an incoming Board could reverse in this way what had previously been done, and that it could also reinstate defaulters who had been suspended. In further illustration of the injurious working of the system, he begged to quote to the House an official statement to the effect that the Board of Superintendence had given its sanction to a Report by the Governor of Richmond Bridewell, which contained statements that were irreconcilable with facts, the Report having been signed without being read, on the presumption that the Governor would not make statements that were incorrect. Considering the large interests at stake, it must be evident how important it was that the Board should consist of persons who would take a practical interest in its business, and, indeed, of persons who could devote themselves uninterruptedly to it. As the irregularities had culminated in the escape of Stephens, hon. Members would agree that the subject was worth attention, and if it were the intention of Her Majesty's Government to legislate upon the general subject, he hoped that this branch of it would not escape their attention.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that having listened to the speeches of the hon. Members, he was yet in the dark as to the objects they had in view. If they desired once more to have attention called to the past errors of the Board of Superintendence, it was not his duty to defend that body, although he must observe that the hon. Members had culled from the reports only those passages which pointed out the deficiencies and irregularities of the administration of the Board, and not any of those many passages which were of a more favourable character. As neither the Inspector General nor the Government had been attacked, neither required defence, and as the hon. Members had spoken of the past, he would say something of the present and of the future; and he thought he should be able to show that there was now a fair prospect of improvement in the management of the Dublin prisons in those respects in which it had hitherto been wanting. The catastrophe of last November had brought deficiencies to light and had caused remedies to be applied. Since that event neither the Government nor the Board of Superintendence had been idle. The Lord Lieutenant had thought it his duty to remove 38 the Governor of Richmond Bridewell, who, although originally a highly respectable official, with a character for fidelity beyond all taint of suspicion, had, as they all knew, lost his head upon the occasion referred to. The Lord Lieutenant had also determined to resume the power he possessed by statute of appointing all the internal officers of the city of Dublin prisons. Within the last few months the present Board of Superintendence had made a very searching inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the escape of Mr. Stephens, and the general deficiencies of the Richmond prison, and they had issued a Report which contained some very candid statements and valuable recommendations of improvement. He fully agreed in the condemnation passed upon the vicious mode of appointing the members of the Board. Not only had it been a body varying from year to year, and therefore incapable of acquiring a proper knowledge of or interest in the management of the prisons, but there was also a strange arrangement under which the members were chosen by lot—that is to say, by a chance selection from among the members of the Town Council. That state of things, however, had already been to a certain extent remedied. The present rule of the Council provided that at least four members of the outgoing Board should continue in office, and thus so much of permanence at least was secured in the constitution of the Board. But the remaining members were still selected among the Council by lot—a proceeding of which the Government highly disapproved. He might say that in the Bill upon the subject of Irish prisons which the Government proposed to lay upon the table—not in the hope of passing it during the present Session, but for the information of Parliament and for the public in Ireland, a clause would be introduced providing that the members of the Board should for the future be elected, and not chosen by lot. As he had said, the Report of the Board contained some valuable recommendations affecting the internal management of the prison. One was that married officers and their families should cease to reside in the gaol—a practice subversive of good discipline. That recommendation had been carried into effect. Provision was also made for a more regular inspection of the Dublin prisons by allotting the duty every week to certain members of the Board. Again, 39 certain fixed rules were laid down for the selection of prison officers, depending upon the acquisition of marks testifying to their good conduct, thus freeing the members of the Board from those perpetual solicitations which were addressed to them, and of which this Report most feelingly complained. The Board had the advantage of possessing a most able Governor, selected for his capacity, and were also about to appoint a new local inspector in the room of a gentleman who had become unfit for his duties; and if they would only act upon the principles laid down in the Report, and would carry into effect the recommendations which it contained, he believed that a great change for the better would be seen in the management of the Dublin prisons, and that this House need not be anxious for the result.
§ SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he could bear testimony to the excellence of the appointment made by the Lord Lieutenant in the case of the new Governor of Richmond prison; but he thought that the House was greatly indebted to the hon. Member by whom this subject was brought under notice. When they recollected how very serious had been the consequences of these bad regulations, culminating as they did in the escape of Stephens, it would have been highly improper if this question had been passed over without discussion. He hoped that the whole subject, a most important one, would be considered, and that sufficient time having now elapsed to allow political feeling to subside, the Government would look seriously into all the regulations affecting gaols, and would endeavour to introduce some useful legislation. To one point he would call attention, and that was the insufficient nature of the diet often given to prisoners. He was not an advocate of over-feeding in gaols, but it had been represented to him that prisoners suffered seriously from the diet upon which they were put; and, if this were found to be the case, a different system should be introduced.