LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 9 February 1877)

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Prisons in Ireland, said, he should not detain the House by arguing in support of the principle of the measure, but would point out the differences between the proposals he was about to make and those contained in the Bill of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Assheton Cross). Much of the scheme was not new, for an Irish Prison Bill had been brought under the notice of the House by more than one of his Predecessors in office, although they did not go so far in the direction of reform as was now proposed. The idea of the large reform now contemplated originated with the late Lord 145 Mayo, who interested himself greatly in the management of prisons in Ireland, as well as in India. The number of county and borough prisons in Ireland, properly so called, was not so excessive as was the case in England. His right hon. Friend had on previous occasions informed the House of the great number of county and borough prisons in England, and he should follow his example by quoting some figures with respect to Ireland. In Ireland there were in 32 counties 38 county and borough prisons; being one in each county, except Tipperary, in which there were two; two in the city of Dublin, one in Drogheda city, while Cork and Limerick had each a separate city prison. In those 38 prisons he found that there was in 1875 a daily average number of prisoners in custody amounting to 2,741, the net cost of the gaols for the year being £94,658. He thought it would be admitted, even looking at the matter solely as it concerned county and city prisons, that there was great room for the adoption of a more economical and efficient system. They had in Ireland nearly the same difference as in England in the annual cost of maintenance of prisoners in the large and small gaols. He found that in Antrim Gaol, which included Belfast, the annual average cost of each prisoner was £17. In the county of Carlow, with an annual daily average of only 15 prisoners, the average annual cost of each prisoner was £91; in the county of Leitrim, with an average of 20 prisoners, the annual cost was £70; and in the county of the town of Drogheda, with a daily average of 15 prisoners, the annual cost was £34; and in Sligo, with a daily average of 22, the annual cost was £82. In Carlow, to 15 prisoners there were 13 officers, and in Leitrim with 20 prisoners there were 14 officers, and in Sligo 23 prisoners to 14 officers; he could, if necessary, quote further figures, which showed that there was the same room for economy in this matter as in England. In regard to industrial labour, Carlow gaol returned the profit of prison labour as nil; £6 was returned for Leitrim gaol during the last year. Passing from county and city prisons to others which were known only in Ireland, which were called bride-wells, in these the necessity of reform was even more imperative than in the former class of gaols. Bridewells did 146 did not exist in every county. There were as many as five counties in which there was not one. These prisons consisted of three classes—the district, the certified, and the ordinary bridewell; and they were used mainly as places where persons were locked up for a time on remand, but also to a small extent as places for the detention of convicted prisoners. In ordinary bridewells sentenced prisoners might be detained for short periods, not exceeding 48 hours. He could conceive nothing worse than the practice of imprisoning men in these little prisons for such short terms; he doubted the use of any sentence for less than seven days, and he could imagine no reason why men sentenced to imprisonment for seven days and upwards should not be sent to the larger prisons, which were, by means of the railways, brought within a fair distance of every part of Ireland. There might be one or two places in which these smaller prisons might be required, but, as a rule, they were entirely unnecessary, and to detain sentenced prisoners in such places would prevent their punishment from exorcising a proper moral and deterrent effect. In many of these bridewells, owing to a defect in the law as to the appointment of a matron, there was no female official whatever. The female prisoners were, therefore, left to the care of male officers—who, of course, were frequently unmarried—and the abuses which occurred in consequence would easily be imagined. Many of these shorter sentences of 18 hours' imprisonment were imposed for drunkenness, and, in his opinion, they did more harm than good. Anybody who had studied the judicial statistics of Ireland would have noticed with regret the terrible increase of the offence of drunkenness in that country. He was bound to say that, in his opinion, this was not a little owing to the mistaken leniency of the magistrates who frequently imposed infinitesimal fines, and absurdly short and unsatisfactory terms of imprisonment for this offence. But bridewells were mainly used us places of remand, and some local provision for this purpose would still be required. No doubt, in many cases of serious crime, remands, even for lengthened periods, were absolutely necessary. In such case, however, for safe custody as well as for other reasons it was much better that prisoners under remand 147 should be committed to the ordinary prisons. In other cases of short remand, a simple committal to the police cells, as in England, would suffice. Many of the constabulary barracks were already provided with suitable cells, and some of the bridewells might be handed over to the constabulary and utilized for this purpose. He proposed by a clause in the Bill to secure that any county in which "lock-up" accommodation of this kind was deficient should provide such accommodation at its own expense. This provision was based on a similar principle to that in the English Bill, that counties and boroughs in which sufficient accommodation for their prisoners was not provided should pay so much per cell for their prisoners. The main point of difference between this and the English Bill was one in regard to which he might suggest, that the Irish measure would be more complete, simple, and satisfactory than the English Bill: though from the larger population and greater number of gaols and prisoners in England a similar arrangement would probably not be practicable there. In Ireland at present the convict prisons were managed by what was legally a Board, but all the power was really vested in a single Director. A former Act gave the power to appoint as many as three Directors of Convict Prisons; but some years ago the Government, looking to the number of convicts and the work to be done, reduced the number of Directors from three to one. Circumstances, however, might arise, such as, for instance, the transfer of the convicts at present located at Spiko Island to places better adapted for them, which would impose far greater labour and responsibility upon one Director than a single individual could properly and adequately perform. For many reasons, indeed, the management of the prisons ought not to be entirely left to one individual, and he should propose to vest the convict prisons and the ordinary prisons in a single Board, subject to the control of the Lord Lieutenant, who would be represented in the House of Commons by his Chief Secretary. Besides the three Directors of Convict Prisons and the two Inspectors-General of County Prisons there were two other offices legally existing in Ireland—the Inspectorship of Industrial and Reformatory Schools, and the Registrarship of Habitual Criminals; 148 but the duties of the first office were now performed by one of the Inspectors-General of County Prisons, and those of the second by the Director of Convict Prisons. The powers exercised by these officers would also be vested in the Prisons Board, and thus the whole prison system of the country, including the Industrial and Reformatory Schools, would be vested in one Board. He believed that the economy, uniformity, and simplicity which would be secured by the Bill would commend the measure to the approval of Parliament. In addition to the differences which he had stated, there were some minor alterations which would be proposed in the Irish Prison Law, mainly in the direction of assimilating it with that of England. He would add that the Bill of last year contained no limitation of the power given to the Lord Lieutenant to close all prisons in a county. He now proposed to place some check on that power by requiring that in cases where the Lord Lieutenant might issue an Order to close the only prison in any county, the Order should be laid before Parliament within a certain period. He had now gone through the principal features of the measure, and he had only to thank the House for the attention which it had given to his explanation, and to move for leave to bring in the Bill.