§ MR. MAGUIRE, in rising to call attention to the punishment which Messrs. Sullivan and Pigott are undergoing in Richmond Bridewell for political writings in the public Press, and to the difference between the same nominal punishment for political writings in England and in Ireland, said, that neither the House nor the public were aware that there was a different punishment for the same offence in this country and in Ireland. Owing to the Operation of an Act which had passed quietly through the House with scarcely the knowledge of any Member, the punishment for seditious libel in the two countries was very different. While the old punishment of imprisonment with or without fine was retained in this country, the punishment in Ireland was the most aggravated and terrible that could be imagined. In this country when Cobbett was punished for a seditious libel, pronounced by the Judge to be "atrocious," he was simply detained in Newgate; he conducted his journal in prison, was freely visited by his family, managed his farm, and attended to his private affairs. Mr. Leigh Hunt also conducted his journal while suffering imprisonment. At various times down to 1856 the treatment of persons punished for seditious libel in Ireland was similar; but in that year a Bill was introduced by the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, called the "Prison Bill, Ireland," which effected a very great change. That Bill was very much misunderstood. On the first reading there was no discussion; and on the second the right hon. Gentleman only said that its object was merely to transfer the superintending power over the gaols from the Court of Queen's Bench to the Executive, thus following the precedents established in the case of England and Scotland. Irish Members, therefore, understood that the Bill was to hand over the prisons to new bodies, over which the Lord Lieutenant would have control, and those bodies were to be Boards of Superintendence, who were to make regulations which were to have the force of law the moment they were sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant. Now, in England they had several classifications among the prisoners. In Ireland, though the law was nominally the same, 440 they had none. He brought no charge against the Irish Government, the Lord Lieutenant, or the Board of Superintendence; but if the law there were strictly carried out Messrs. Sullivan and Pigott would have their hair cropped, they would wear the felon's dress, and would have to discharge the most menial and revolting tasks, besides being kept in confinement for twenty-two hours out of the twenty-four. He must admit that the Board of Superintendence had done as much as they possibly could to relax the severity of that code, but those gentlemen were in solitary confinement for twenty-two or twenty-three hours out of the twenty-four. Two hours a day were allowed for exercise; but this was so irksome that Mr. Sullivan could only take one hour a day. The two prisoners could only see their friends once in three months, and then no communication was to be made to them, except on matters of a domestic or a business nature; and they were not allowed to see a newspaper. Yet all this time they were legally and morally responsible for the contents of their journals, over which they could not, however, exercise any supervision. If they were in England, they would be allowed to hold free intercourse with the managers of their journals, and could exercise such supervision. We were apt to refer with some complacency to France in these matters; but in St. Pélagie journalists under sentence were free within the prison precints; they ordered what they pleased from the restaurant; they could play dominoes or chess; and the editor of the Courrier Francais was actually allowed to go out one day in order to attend a meeting of shareholders of his journal. This was French tyranny contrasted with English liberty. The treatment of the two Irish journalists had roused one cry of indignation from the English Press, and the sentence as carried out had not the approval of the public. Two things ought to be done. These men, who had suffered in six weeks more than they would have suffered during twelve months in an English gaol, ought to be liberated. Such a step would be approved by a vast majority of the people of the three countries. Again, the Government were bound to assimilate the law of the two countries. They should do this, not by making the English law as cruel as that of Ireland; they should "level up," not level down, and make the administration of the Irish law as merciful as that of the English law. These men 441 made no appeal ad misericordiam. They were ready to suffer the penalty they had incurred; but no one anticipated the severity of their sentence or the different system which existed in the two countries. He appealed to the Government and to the manly, generous spirit of the English people to do justice in this case.
THE EARL OF MAYOSir, it certainly required some courage on the part of the hon. Gentleman to draw a comparison between the mode in which Press offences are treated in France and in this country. My belief is, that if any person had committed in France the offences which these gentlemen committed in Ireland their punishment would have been a very different one. Indeed, the publication of these newspapers, which has been going on for nearly three years in Dublin, would not have been permitted for a day in any other Country in the world. I will dismiss, then, all comparison between the punishment of Press offences in Ireland, and, not in France only, but in any other country. With regard to the particular question brought before the House, I shall content myself with mentioning the exact state of the law in this country and in Ireland, and it will be seen that a very substantial difference exists in the two cases. In England, by the Prisons Act of 1865, it is provided that misdemeanants may be divided into two classes, and the Judge may order them to be placed in the first class. In that case they are not to be deemed criminal offenders; and there are special rules for the treatment of prisoners under clause 102, schedule I. of that Act. Thus, a Judge in England has the power of saying whether a misdemeanant convicted by a jury shall be placed in the first class of misdemeanants or not; and it does not at all follow that if Mr. Pigott and Mr. Sullivan had been convicted in England of this precise offence, the Judge would have felt it his duly to place them in the first class of misdemeanants. If, therefore, the Judge had sentenced them as ordinary misdemeanants, they would have been subjected very much to the same rules as prevail in Ireland. By the Irish Prisons Act it is provided that misdemeanants shall be subject to rules made by the Board of Superintendence, submitted in Dublin to the municipal council for approval, and subsequently sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant. I quite admit that these rules impose upon misdemeanants imprisonment of a somewhat severe character. 442 The rules to which particular reference has been made are the 9th and 17th. The 9th provides that prisoners shall keep their ceils clean; the 17th provides that prisoners are not to see their friends until after the expiration of three months; and the 18th says that prisoners shall be visited only in the presence of the Governor or a subordinate officer of the prison. These are the rules which regulate the treatment of prisoners in the Richmond Bridewell. I will show shortly that those rules have been considerably and substantially relaxed in favour of Messrs. Sullivan and Pigott. The Board of Superintendence have the power by law to relax a certain portion of these rules, and other portions of the rules have been relaxed by the authority and on the recommendation of the Government. A great difference has been attempted to be drawn between the treatment which these gentlemen would have been subjected to had they been sentenced by a Judge in England to the treatment of first class misdemeanants and that which they are receiving; but I will show the House in a moment that they have been subjected to precisely the same treatment. I have here a copy of the rules under which first class misdemeanants are treated in Oxford gaol; and these are the rules which are observed generally in England. They say that a prisoner who has been sentenced to be treated as a misdemeanant of the first division shall not be deemed to be a criminal prisoner within the meaning of the law, and he shall be treated as follows:—"He shall be searched on admission in the presence of the gaoler," and so on. "He shall not be placed with any other division or class of prisoners." That rule has been observed in the case of Messrs. Sullivan and Pigott. "He shall be permitted to wear his own clothing." That has been done. [Mr. MAGUIRE: Not by law.] It has been done in this case by law, under the power the Board of Superintendence have to relax the rules of the prisons. The next rule is—
He shall be permitted to maintain himself, and to receive, at reasonable hours, any food, clothing, bedding, or other necessaries; but subject to such examination and other limitations, to be judged of by one or more visiting justices, as may be requisite for preventing too much extravagance or excess. He shall be permitted to procure for himself wine, not exceeding one pint, or malt liquor not exceeding one quart, in the course of every twenty-four hours.Mr. Sullivan has been allowed to provide 443 himself with a small portion of wine, as much as he asked for; and, in fact, during the early part of his imprisonment he supplied himself with, I think, a small quantity of mulled claret every evening. At present Mr. Pigott has a pint of ale every day. [Mr. MAGUIRE: Is a medical certificate required?] No medical certificate is required. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman does not know anything about the matter. Another English rule is—He shall not be required to do any work, to clean his apartment, or make his bed, or to perform any menial office; but his apartment shall be cleaned, his bed made, and his meals brought to him by an officer or servant of the prison.This has been done every day in this case. The next rule is—He shall be allowed exercise in the open air, either alone, or with other prisoners of this division. In either case he shall be attended by an officer of the prison, if deemed necessary by the gaoler.This has been done every day in this case. I have been informed by the Governor of the gaol that if the prisoners wished to extend their hours of exercise they will be allowed to do so. Mr. Sullivan, however, has limited his time for taking exercise to one hour. Mr. Pigott, I am informed, takes exercise for two or three hours a day, and could have more time if he wished for it. With regard to association, I cannot conceive anything which would be more repugnant to the feelings of these prisoners than that they should be obliged to associate with the other prisoners in the gaol. As there are no other occupants of the gaol with whom they could associate, it is impossible to give them association of any sort. I am told by the Governor of the gaol that they never expressed any wish to associate with each other. There would be no objection to their doing so; and, in fact, they do associate with each other every morning. I am also informed by the Governor that Messrs. Sullivan and Pigott were not acquainted with each other before the passing of their sentences, but that they had now become intimate. The next English rule is—He shall, at his own expense, be permitted the use of books or newspapers which are not of an objectionable kind—to be judged of by one or more of the visiting justices.I never heard that any application made by either of these prisoners has been refused. On the contrary, I believe they are allowed to have any periodicals or books they wish for. With regard to visitors, the English rule says— 444He shall be permitted to see his friends in his apartment on week days (excepting Christmas-day, Good Friday, and any public fast or thanksgiving day), from the hour of hall-past ten in the morning till twelve, and from hall-past one till four in the afternoon, in the winter six mouths, and till six o'clock in the summer; and some officer of the prison shall be present at such visits, unless his presence be dispensed with by the written order of a visiting justice.I am told that the rules of the prison have been very considerably relaxed in favour of these gentlemen; that the Governor has been told he might exercise his discretion; that it is the intention to relax the rules still further, and that these prisoners have been allowed to see their friends without the presence of an officer of the gaol. The last English rule I will notice says—He shall be permitted to write, send, or receive letters or other papers; but, before they are sent by such prisoner, or received by him from any visitor, or in any other manner, they shall be examined by the gaoler.I fancy that is precisely the rule at the Richmond Bridewell. I have shown, then, that the fancied difference between the English treatment and that of these prisoners does not exist, and that they are treated precisely in the same way they would be had they been sentenced by an English Judge as first-class misdemeanants. With regard to solitary confinement, I do not see how that can be obviated. Persons are not sent to prison for pleasure; but, in compliance with the law, for punishment. The state of the case with regard to association is this. By an improved state of prison discipline association in gaol is put an end to, I hope for ever; and the separate system is adopted in all well-regulated gaols in Ireland, to the great advantage of prison discipline. The very construction of the prisons forbids association. I have no reason to believe that if association with other prisoners were offered to these gentlemen they would do otherwise than indignantly reject it. It would be no pleasure to them to associate with criminals convicted of pocket-picking or breaking into houses. So far from confinement in the cell being a hardship, I believe it would be thought a much greater hardship to be forced to associate with the other prisoners. I do not think, therefore, it is possible to make any alteration in the treatment which these men are receiving. I have taken upon myself as an officer of the Government, on my own authority, to authorize a very large departure from the rules which the Board of Superintendence 445 have laid down. In that respect I have, perhaps, assumed an authority which did not altogether belong to me. I felt so strongly that the regulations made by the Board of Superintendence for the Richmond Bridewell were not intended for the treatment of prisoners convicted of this class of offences that I felt it my duty to authorize a departure from the rules. In doing so, I believe I only fulfilled my duty. By doing that I have caused the treatment of the prisoners to be assimilated to the treatment they would have received in England. On the whole, I believe the course taken by the Government to have been one tempered by mercy, and reflecting no discredit on that member of it holding the position I have the honour to hold.
§ SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, that as a member of the Board of Superintendence of the Richmond Bridewell, he was much surprised at the statement of the noble Earl—that the prisons in the two countries were governed by the same laws.
THE EARL OF MAYOI said the prisoners received the same treatment practically that they would have received in this country.
§ SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, that at all events he understood the noble Earl to say that in Oxford gaol first class misdemeanants could supply themselves with any kind of provisions they pleased.
§ SIR JOHN GRAYWell, this privilege was denied to Messrs. Pigott and Sullivan, who were merely allowed the prison diet; for which, however, they paid at the end of every week, the object being to avoid the labour which they would otherwise have to perform. They were not permitted any choice in regard to the diet, which was regulated by the medical officer of the prison. It was paid for from prison funds, and they afterwards re-paid the amount. The noble Earl said that in Oxford gaol first class misdemeanants were allowed to have newspapers, but that was not the case with the gentlemen who are in Richmond Bridewell.
THE EARL OF MAYOWhat I said was, that these prisoners were allowed to see newspapers which were not considered to be of an objectionable kind.
§ SIR JOHN GRAYproceeded to say, that they were not allowed to see The Times, or Illustrated London News, both of which were papers that could not be deemed objectionable. Nor were they permitted 446 to read the Standard or the Evening Mail.
§ SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he had visited the prison only the other day, and therefore he was speaking from his own knowledge on the subject. It was true that for three or four days they were allowed to see The Illustrated News, but it was afterwards excluded simply because it was a newspaper. The rules of the prison, he might point out, were not made by the Board of Superintendence, but by Mr. Marks, the then Governor of the prison, in conjunction with Mr. Corry Connellan, the Inspector of Prisons. They were subsequently submitted to the Board of Superintendence and to the municipal council of Dublin, who referred them to the Lords Justices, by whom they were certified, after certain alterations had been introduced. He confessed, however, that he did not know what alterations had been made. The moment these gentlemen were brought into the prison the Board of Superintendence were called together; and they came to the determination that no relaxations should be granted except such as were in accordance with the rules and the provisions of the Act of Parliament, and an order was at once made under the powers conferred by the 13th section of the Act, that the prisoners might wear their own clothes. The prisoners, he might remark, were only allowed to be together during about a quarter of an hour in the course of the day.
§ SIR JOHN GRAYwent on to say that, according to the rules, they were to be in separate cells, and the Board found that they could not put them into rooms with fire-places without violating the Act under which the rules were framed. They thought they might confine them in cells in one of the short corridors, and allow them to walk in the corridor, which was properly secured; but they found that they could not do this. These gentlemen had been convicted, not of treason or treason-felony, but simply of seditious libel. They were taken to a common lavatory by ring of bell at six or seven o'clock in the morning, and after performing their ablutions they were allowed to converse together for ten or fifteen minutes, and then they were locked up in separate cells. What was 447 required was that the same rules should be applied in Ireland as prevailed in England, and that there should be a proper classification. Under the Oxford rule, the first class misdemeanants were allowed to see their friends for a certain time every day. Now, in this case, one of the prisoners moved to have his trial conducted in the Court of Queen's Bench, but that motion was resisted by the Crown; though if the prisoners had been sentenced to imprisonment by a Superior Court they would have been subject to the Oxford rules. The Government had had them tried in the county, and but for the Judge they would have been placed in a county prison away from their friends. He gave the noble Earl, who stated that he had issued directions to have the rules relaxed, credit for kindness of disposition, and he hoped that the noble Earl would assure the House that the law in Ireland in reference to this matter should be assimilated to that which existed in England.
§ MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he very much regretted that the consideration of this, which seemed to him to be a matter of grave importance, should have been embarrassed by the introduction into the discussion of the names of the two gentlemen who were now unfortunately suffering under the sentence of the Irish criminal law. His hon. Friend the Member for Cork, followed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny, had put the case very plainly before the House, and the official knowledge of the hon. Member for Kilkenny had given a complete answer to the statements made by the noble Earl, on the part of the Irish Government, as to the regulations of the prisons and the punishments inflicted upon those who have fallen within the reach of this Act. The noble Earl indeed was himself obliged to admit that, as he found the case of the gentlemen alluded to was scarcely one which was contemplated by the Prisons Act, he felt called upon to assume a certain amount of responsibility, and to give instructions that the regulations should be to some considerable degree suspended. But Sir, the real question at issue, and to which the attention—and the earnest attention of the House—should be directed, was this:—Did the laws at present in force in England and in Ireland impose a degree of punishment more severe in the one country than in the other for the same offence? That was the true question, and one of grave moment. It was not sufficient 448 for the noble Earl to tell them that the prison in Oxford was very excellently managed in every respect. Of this he (Mr. O'Beirne) had no doubt; but why did not the noble Earl inform the House of the regulations which were in force in the various Houses of Detention in London and its neighbourhood. However, he would not longer occupy the attention of the House; he would merely remark that, as it was admitted by the noble Earl that the severity of the prison rules had, in the unfortunate instance which had been alluded to, proved to be greater than the nature of the case justified, he (Mr. O'Beirne) considered the case made out by his hon. Friend the Member for Cork had been fully sustained; and he therefore hoped that immediate steps would be taken, not only to equalize-the rules of the prisons in both countries, but, for the sake of both countries, to remedy a system which must be productive not only of dissatisfaction, but of much public scandal if permitted to continue.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)wished to state in reference to the trial of Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Pigott, that it was conducted before two of the most eminent Judges in Ireland, both of whom were Members of that House when the Act of Parliament, which was the foundation of the prosecution, was passed, and no doubt they were perfectly familiar with that Act, and the prison rules which were in force in Ireland. In sentencing one of the accused to six months', and the other to twelve months' imprisonment without imposing a fine, they had a due regard to the stringency of the prison discipline. It was quite true that they were tried in the county of Dublin; but that step had been taken at the pressing instance of the counsel for the prisoner, and with the concurrence of the Attorney General. He had no hesitation in saying that these men were tried for offences of deeper moral guilt and of a more mischievous character than had been committed by many who had been sentenced and were now under punishment for treason-felony. One of them was convicted of a series of fourteen seditious libels spread over a period of twelve months; and the other of seven seditious libels spread over a considerable time, stirring up the people of Ireland to join the Fenian conspiracy. He therefore thought that the punishment, having regard to all the circumstances, was a light one. He admitted that there was a difference between 449 the law in England and Ireland; but neither Mr. Sullivan, who was a member of the Board of Superintendence, nor the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), also a member of that Board, had ever called the attention of Parliament to this difference, or asked for any assimilation of the law. The attention of the Government, however, having been called to the point, they had done all they could to bring the administration of the law in Ireland into conformity with that of England. Difficulties, however, having arisen, he would undertake that a Prison Bill should be introduced, assimilating the law in the two countries. In the meantime, he might say that through the operation of the Board of Superintendence, every means had been taken to alleviate their condition. He read the dietary allowed to the prisoners, which was a very liberal one, and even included the supply of tobacco. On the whole he considered that the prisoners were not suffering a greater penalty thon their crime deserved. Not a single request made by either of the prisoners to the Governor of the prison had been refused; and he believed the House would feel that Government and its officers were not open to any imputation for the course pursued towards these offenders, or for the manner in which they had been treated after sentence.
§ MR. BRADYsaid, it had been clearly shown that the law of Ireland was very different from that of England, and much more harsh and severe as regarded the treatment of this class of misdemeanants. He was glad to hear the Attorney General for Ireland state that it was the intention of the Government to assimilate the law of Ireland in this respect to that of England. That was all the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) desired, and he had therefore succeeded in his object. Had it not been for the humane recommendations of the medical men, the prisoners would be subjected to treatment far more severe than the Government intended.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, he only rose to observe, that if there was uncertainty in the law of Ireland, there was similar uncertainty in the law of England. Some years back he had called attention to the case of two gentlemen charged with the offence of fraud. They were sent to Newgate by an alderman, on remand, to be brought up for further examination, and were, therefore, innocent in the eye of the law, but they were, nevertheless, subjected to very severe treatment. The then Home Secretary, the right 450 hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), directed an inquiry to take place, and the result corroborated all he had stated; but the answer was that such were the rules and regulations which the law permitted magistrates to make for the regulation of gaols. What, then, was the inference he drew?—that an alteration should be made in the law, both for England and Ireland, that would not leave magistrates the power of making rules and regulations for the conduct of prisons at their own discretion; but that some regular principle should be laid down for their guidance in all such cases. The two persons of whom he spoke had been convicted of no offence, and were innocent persons, but they were subjected to all sorts of indignities in the prison of Newgate. They had to clean out their room, and were put into a bath in which a number of other persons had been put before. This was a matter which the Government ought to take into their own hands; and the sooner the laws of the two countries were assimilated, and both brought into accordance with the principles of justice, the better.
§ MR. REARDENsaid, that if a like outrage were offered to the editors of any of the London morning papers, not only the House, but the whole country would be roused. He exonerated the noble Earl and the Government of Ireland from any blame in carrying out the Act of Parliament; but the penal code of Ireland was alike cruel and mean. No such prison rules were to be found in the most despotic countries. He said, without fear of contradiction, there was nothing in the history of Poland which exceeded the cruel treatment of those two gentlemen. He strongly urged upon the House to make the laws of Ireland more humane.