CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 07 June 1877 vol 234 cc1447-77

Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed.

DR. KENEALY

moved the insertion of the following clause after Clause 10:—

(As to solitary confinement.)

"It shall not be lawful to confine any prisoner in solitary confinement for more than twelve hours, and, when he is so confined, the ordinary diet of the prison shall not be withheld from him."

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

supported the clause proposed by the hon. Member. He had witnessed, he said, instances of lunacy arising from solitary confinement. Persons who possessed some degree of moral and intellectual culture did not require such a punishment. Only the lowest and most debased class of prisoners were subjected to it, and they were the very last to whom, in his opinion, it ought to be applied. He hoped he would not be considered a mere sentimentalist in supporting the clause. It was, on the contrary, because, while acting in a judicial capacity, as a Commissioner of Assize, it had been his duty, to consider the nature of the punishment to which he was sentencing prisoners. He had visited prisons at home and abroad, in order to form an opinion from the actual operation of the system, and it was only from what he had seen and heard that he supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke.

MR. BIGGAR

said, there seemed to be some misapprehension on the subject. Solitary confinement was not inflicted for breaches of prison discipline alone. In many gaols he knew it was the rule to keep prisoners in solitary confinement from the time they went in till the time they came out. The separate system, moreover, was very much in the nature of solitary confinement.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he thought the hon. Member who moved the clause should have told them whether he meant it to apply to solitary confinement as a punishment for prison offences. In that case he thought something was to be said against extending solitary confinement beyond a certain time—he thought 12 hours too little. If, however, it referred to all classes of prisoners, it was not a clause which he could support. For one thing, all the new and all the best prisons in the country had been designed with a view to what was called the separate system, and to abandon that system would be to undo the work of years and to incur great expense. Moreover, he ventured to say that the system was of advantage to the prisoner, and not at all likely to injure him in his health. Speaking from the experience of 20 years as a visiting justice, he could say that he never heard of a case in which a prisoner confined on the separate system had suffered in health. In Belgium, where life imprisonment was sometimes inflicted on the separate system, there were prisoners who had been kept in solitary confinement for 14 or 15 years without injury to their health.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he thought that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had placed the matter in the correct light. The system carried out in the gaols of recent construction had worked well. With regard to prisoners who were placed in solitary confinement as a punishment for offences against prison discipline, the period of such confinement was strictly limited by Act of Parliament, and it was the duty of the surgeon and of the gaoler to visit them once a day. A record was kept of such punishments, and the visiting justices saw this record every time they went to the gaol. It would be of very great advantage, both as a safeguard to the public and as a means of insuring discipline, if the visiting justices continued to perform that duty.

In reply to Sir WILLIAM FRASER,

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the punishment of solitary confinement could not be applied to untried prisoners.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, it would be convenient if some one on the part of the Government would state what was the actual state of the law at the present time, and how many days or hours the gaoler was allowed under the existing system to inflict solitary confinement. He should certainly vote for the Amendment.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, if there was any doubt as to the scope of the Amendment it could very easily be amended.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 311: Majority 276.—(Div. List, No. 155.)

DR. KENEALY,

in rising to propose an Amendment relating to the punishment of prisoners, said, he believed that no such horrible punishments were inflicted either in Turkey or any other country in Europe as were inflicted in some of the prisons in this country, and he was desirous of rescuing this country from the disgrace of inflicting such punishments. He was assured that in many cases the practice of compelling prisoners to wear iron chains, 16 or 18 pounds in weight, was constantly resorted to in our prisons, and that in many cases they were obliged to sleep in them at night. It was constantly the habit at Woking to put these chains round the waists of prisoners, and being obliged to sleep in them on a cold winter's night was a punishment repugnant to humanity and Christianity. It had been proved conclusively that O'Donovan Rossa had been handcuffed for 35 days with his hands behind his back, and was obliged to eat his meals like a beast, and yet the fact had been denied by the prison officials. This proved that acts sometimes were done in the prison without coming to the knowledge of the Secretary of State. To remedy the evils which at present existed he begged to propose the following clause:—

(Punishment of prisoners.)

"It shall not be lawful to compel prisoners to wear masks, or to attach heavy weights to their limbs, or to use handcuffs, leg-irons, or body-belts, or to inflict any tortures or punishments other than the hard labour imposed by statute, and if any such shall be imposed upon a convict in prison he shall be entitled, without giving notice, to bring his action against the governor for damages, by himself, when discharged, or by his next friend if he should be in prison."

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. HIBBERT

said, the proposed clause was very important, and worthy the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He thought no weights ought to be attached to prisoners, and that no leg-irons or body-belts ought to be used. He had never heard of their being put on prisoners in county and borough gaols, and if they were used in convict establishments he thought the practice ought to be stopped. He admitted, however, that a necessity might arise for using handcuffs in prisons. He was not prepared to support that part of the clause which empowered a prisoner to bring an action against the Governor of a prison.

MR. EVANS

reminded the House that sometimes prisoners were so violent that it became necessary to impose additional restraints upon them. He admited, however, that the things in question ought not to be used by way of punishment, but only for the purpose of restraint. He decidedly objected to the use of masks.

SIR WILLIAM FRASER

observed that it would be satisfactory to the House to hear authoritatively from the right hon. Gentleman whether the tortures referred to were inflicted upon our prisoners or not. He was very much against any punishments of the kind being inflicted unless they were authorized by the law. The strictest surveillance ought to be exercised, not only by the visiting justices, but by the Home Secretary, over the acts of the officials; we had heard of benevolent and malevolent Governors, and Governors who entertained peculiar views with respect to discipline, which they carried out with great stringency. Instead of confining the inspection of gaols to the visiting justices, every magistrate in the country should possess similar powers, and have the right of inspecting gaols at any hour that he might think proper.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

desired to ask the Home Secretary, was it the fact that in county prisons in England wearing of masks was used as punishment? In Ireland, as far as he was aware, such a punishment was not resorted to in county prisons. He was quite aware that they were used in con- vict prisons, for he had seen 20 persons at a time wearing them in Spike Island. He thought it a cruel punishment, and if it was used in county prisons, about which alone this Bill was concerned, he thought there was good ground for the clause now proposed to be added to the Bill. One hon. Member had stated that masks were used as a punishment in county gaols in England, and he desired to know if this was correct?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

thought that it was better before this discussion proceeded any further, that hon. Members should know how the law upon this subject stood at present. If the hon. Member for Stoke wished to know what his opinion was upon this matter, he would say that he believed that in some of the exercising grounds in certain prisons the prisoners did wear masks, but not as an actual punishment, but for the purpose of carrying out the system of separation; but that was a practice to which he was extremely opposed, and he should certainly provide by a rule against the continuance of such a practice. He entirely agreed with those hon. Members who objected to any form of torture or punishment beyond the hard labour imposed by law being inflicted. Hon. Members, however, must remember that gaolers had to deal with a very determined set of people, whom it was necessary to keep under control by means of punishment of some kind. None, however, but the most unruly of the prisoners were ever put into irons. Under the law as laid down by the Gaol Act of 1865, no prisoner could be put into irons or subjected to any mechanical restraint except in case of urgent necessity; and where such punishment was inflicted, the particulars of such case was to be entered forthwith in the "Gaoler's Journal," and notice of the fact was to be given to one of the visiting justices; and it was further provided that no prisoner should be kept in irons, or under other mechanical restraint, for more than 24 hours, without an order in writing from the visiting justices. He supposed that the House would not desire that unruly prisoners should be subject to no restraint whatever, provided sufficient care were taken that the power of inflicting punishment was not abused. Under the Bill, as it now stood, every magistrate would have the power to inspect any gaol, and under the existing law all county magistrates could inspect any gaol in their county The use of heavy weights, leg-irons, and body-belts, was absolutely illegal at the present moment; and it was, in fact, illegal to inflict any other punishment than that of hard labour. He did not think that any mechanical restraints, except that of the handcuffs, which was sometimes absolutely necessary, were resorted to in county or borough gaols.

MR. BIGGAR

observed, that in the case of O'Donovan Rossa it was clearly proved that cruelties were practised in most prisons without the knowledge of the Secretary of State. He thought that no punishment should be inflicted upon any prisoner until he had been proved to be guilty of an offence by some judicial proceeding, in which he would have the opportunity of showing cause why he should not be subjected to additional punishment.

MR. SHERIDAN

recommended the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to accept the words of the clause, for there was abundant evidence to show that prison officials were not always guided by the provisions of an Act of Parliament.

MR. PARNELL

said, he could not consider the reply of the Home Secretary satisfactory. The powers of the visiting justices under the Act of 1865 were entirely taken away under this Bill. That Act said that the visiting justices should be the visiting justices of all purposes for the punishment of prisoners; but now in this Bill the power of the justices was confined to cases where prisoners were put in irons for 24 hours. In section 59 the gaoler had power to put the prisoner in irons without any order or direction from the visiting justices.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

was understood to say that that was provided for by the gaoler being bound to enter the fact in the book.

MR. PARNELL

observed that there was nothing to prevent a prisoner being frequently at intervals kept in irons for 24 hours at a stretch. They knew that O'Brien had been kept in handcuffs for six months, because he made an attempt to break the stonework to get ventilation into his dark dungeon and when all this was done under the direct control and with the sanction of the Home Secretary, they might reasonably urge that placing a man in irons came under the operation of the Bill, and that a man should not be placed in irons excepting in cases of violence, or where the safety of the officers of the gaol was involved. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State evaded the latter part of the Amendment which provided that where any tortures or punishments other than the hard labour imposed by statute should be imposed upon a convict in prison he should be entitled, without giving notice, to bring his action against the Governor for damages, by himself, when discharged, or by his next friend, if he should be in prison. That was a most important part of the Amendment.

MR. MILLS

thought the 14th section of the Bill carried everything that the hon. Member for Stoke wished, without depriving the gaolers of those powers which were really necessary if discipline was to be maintained. The hon. Member had spoken as if a prisoner wore now precluded from bringing an action for ill-treatment; but that, of course, was not the case at all.

MR. BUTT

said, the hon. Member for Stoke had made a mistake in mixing two things up in one clause. They all seemed to be agreed that it should not be lawful to compel prisoners to wear masks, or to attach heavy weights to their limbs, or to use handcuffs, leg-irons, or body-belts, or to inflict any tortures or punishment other than the hard labour imposed by statute. But with reference to the rest of the clause, giving a right of action to the prisoner against the Governor or officials, there was not the shadow of a doubt whatever that in the present state of the law if a gaoler were cruel to a prisoner he was both criminally and civilly liable, and he was liable civilly in an action. The only new thing in this clause was giving the prisoner the right to bring his action by his next friend. That would be introducing a totally new principle, and he had grave doubts as to its propriety, and would prefer leaving the prisoner to the common law remedy. The Home Secretary had said that there should be an absolute prohibition of the use of masks, and with that assurance he was perfectly satisfied; but the part of the clause that might be needed was with reference to putting handcuffs on the prisoner, or putting him into irons. As to the use of body-belts, which he supposed to be strait-waistcoats, and handcuffs, it might be absolutely necessary to use them in certain extreme cases. As the law stood at present, it was only in cases of absolute necessity that they could be used. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: The words are—"urgent necessity."] That was the only case of using handcuffs, and the moment he did it he must report it to the visiting justice. He was not to be 24 hours about it. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: Hear, hear!] He must report it instantly to the visiting justices, who, if he did his duty, would go straight to the gaol. What were they to do under the circumstances? They must leave it in the hands of the justices, although he should prefer it in an Act of Parliament. He was quite willing to leave it in the hands of the Secretary of State, with the understanding that he would frame his rules in accordance with the feeling of the House. If the Home Secretary would give them an assurance, which he (Mr. Butt) thought he had done, by intimating assent, he would be prepared to vote for the clause.

MR. MACDONALD

said, the Act now under consideration was likely to last for a considerable time, and it was therefore desirable to make it as clear and as perfect as possible. Some provision should be made for punishing the wrong-doing Governor, independently of the action which the prisoner might take, for where was a man leaving gaol without money, character, or friends, to go for redress? He characterized the suggestions of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick as being fallacious in the highest degree. He (Mr. Macdonald) preferred dealing with the matter by a clause to leaving it to be dealt with by the Home Secretary.

MR. BUTT

said, he wanted the Under Secretary, as the Home Secretary could not speak twice, to assure the Committee that rules should be made against the infliction of these punishments. That was his suggestion.

MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN

remarked that in aiming at putting an end to possible cruelties, they must take care that they did not go too far, and prevent the repression of outrages by prisoners. He could not admit the force of the argument that this and similar clauses ought be passed because gaolers did not obey that which was the law at present. If that was true, it would be useless to pass another Act of Parliament, and they should rather look to some improved supervision over their gaolers to secure obedience to the law. He appreciated the motives with which the hon. Member for Stoke had brought forward the clause, but said that they must trust somebody to carry out the details of prison management. The use of handcuffs, leg-irons, and body-belts might be necessary at times to prevent prisoners from injuring themselves as well as others; and with regard to the use of masks, and the infliction of unnecessary indignities upon prisoners, the Home Secretary had undertaken to frame rules under which these things should be forbidden, and the House might rest assured that any such rules framed in the direction of leniency by a Home Secretary would never be repealed or reversed. The discussion that had taken place would have a good effect in showing the Home Secretary that the feeling of the House was very much opposed to anything being done to prisoners beyond that which was absolutely necessary for the good government of a gaol, and he trusted that the hon. Member might be satisfied with the discussion.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, no one doubted the sincerity of the Home Secretary's humane sentiments, but that simply amounted to this—that the Home Secretary was personally opposed to having masks put upon prisoners, and the Home Secretary was not aware that such a practice had even appeared in any of the prisons in this country. But that did not destroy the fact spoken to by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), that this did obtain in the county in which the city of Belfast was situate. The Home Secretary was opposed to leg-irons and body-belts, and the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had assured him that it was illegal to impose heavy weights upon the limbs, and that any Government who imposed this might be proceeded against. But if the right hon. Gentleman believed that masks and leg-irons and body-belts were unnecessary, and that the use of handcuffs would be a sufficient means of mechanical restriction, then why should he refuse to express it in the statute? It had been said that gaolers bad violated the Act of Parliament, and the Home Secretary had then adduced the argument of what use was it to pass new Acts of Parliament. But if gaolers were bold enough and rascally enough to inflict illegal punishment against the law, what would they not do if they did not confront them with the law? He was not at all ready to trust to the humanity of the ordinary officials, because he was well acquainted with the facts of O'Brien's case, who, under the administration of a humane Home Secretary, was, as a political prisoner, kept in chains in the dark cell for six months. The answer was very plain. They could trust Nobody. Home Secretaries had such multifarious duties to perform that prisoners who were unable to seek redress would suffer. He trusted, therefore, that the House would consider carefully the proposition before it, and endeavour to lay down in plain terms that it should be illegal to use masks, or body-belts, or to attach heavy weights to the limbs. He must assure the Home Secretary that nothing would satisfy him in the absence of satisfactory provisions against the recurrence of outrages of a character of which the House was perfectly cognizant.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

observed that the argument that they must trust somebody had been used in the case of the lunatic asylums, where atrocious acts had been committed which had excited public indignation. There were many prisoners in our gaols who could easily be goaded into insanity by cruel and inhuman punishments. The most humane prison officials in time might, from the very nature of their calling, forget their humanity; and there was no doubt that aggravating prisoners were being subjected at this moment to tortures which the House would never sanction. They ought on that occasion, which would not recur for years, to take care that their prison discipline was made as humane as the regulations of their lunatic asylums.

MR. HOPWOOD

observed that the common law was very elastic, and they ought to be cautious lest, by declaring that such and such practices were forbidden, they should seem to suggest that other practices, which might be equally objectionable, but which were not specifically prohibited, were lawful. He thought it would be unwise to adopt the clause.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 309: Majority 261.—(Div. List, No. 156.)

DR. KENEALY

then moved the following clause:—

(Prisoners complaining of sickness.)

"Where a prisoner complains of ill-health, and the medical officer of the prison does not think the complaint well founded, it shall be permitted to him to write forthwith to his friends, and it shall be compulsory on the governor or the deputy governor to allow him or her to be visited by a medical man sent by the relatives or friends of a prisoner to examine him or her, as often as need be, until he recovers his health, or until it has been established to the satisfaction of the visiting justices that there are no good grounds for such visits."

He said that he could not doubt that this clause would be accepted. Medical men were often mistaken in their diagnosis; and it would only be reasonable that a prisoner suffering from some disorder in which the medical officer did not believe, should be allowed to communicate with his friends. There was a practice of "malingering," or shamming ill, no doubt, in prisons, and the knowledge of that practice made the medical officers less inclined to listen to the complaints of prisoners.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he could not accept the proposed clause, though he gave every credit to the hon. Member for his wish to secure the health of prisoners. Ample provision was contained in the Gaol Act of 1865 for the regular appointment of gaol surgeons, and he could assure the House that those who were so appointed were not young men of no practice, but men in reference to whose capacity full inquiries were made, and men who enjoyed good salaries. Special provision was made in the Act of 1865 for cases where additional medical advice was desirable, and every gaol surgeon could call in another surgeon to consult with him in cases of difficulty. If this clause were adopted, the discipline of gaols might be seriously interfered with.

MR. WHALLEY

supported the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Stoke, and took occasion to condemn the whole Bill as the most objectionable and unconstitutional measure which had ever been introduced into Parliament. the Home Secretary had been spoken of as a humane man—as a man of peculiarly gentle qualities; but he would remind the House that though the right hon. Gentleman was at the head of the Home Office, there was still in prison a man [Cries of "Name!"]—he referred to the person whom he called Tichborne—who, on the authority of Lord Rivers and other gentlemen of position, had been more than once in a dying state. The gentlemen to whom he referred had described the appearance of that man in gaol as most unsatisfactory, and had testified to the fact that his neck, face, and so forth were attenuated in their proportions. He ventured to say that the sufferings which that man had endured had excited an agony of mind amongst the British people such as he could not describe. They were sufferings to which he could scarcely refer without some emotion himself. The Judge who tried that man had some doubt as to his case, and it was notorious that there were some amongst the jury who were beginning to change their mind.—["Order."]

MR. SPEAKER

said, the case to which the hon. Member was alluding was certainly not relevant to the subject-matter of the proposal before the House.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he was so frequently prevented from bringing the matter forward in a regular way that he must be excused if he had deviated a little from the exact point of Order. He earnestly hoped the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Stoke would find favour with the House.

CAPTAIN NOLAN

supported the clause, and that on grounds the hon. Member for Stoke had not touched. He believed it would have good effect upon the medical men themselves. From his experience of the Army, he found that sometimes the wives and children of soldiers preferred to pay for the attendance of a civilian doctor, and often an officer would prefer to call in another medical attendant in preference to the military surgeon, and on some occasions wives of privates and non-commissioned officers attended local hospitals. He had often heard opinions expressed by military surgeons, These had a good effect, although in some cases they might laugh at the attempts of the civilian, yet others cheerfully admitted that it was an inducement to competition, and awakened a useful interest in new and different methods of treatment. The Army surgeons were men of ability; but an infusion from outside made them thoroughly alive to new ideas and improved systems of treatment. The talk among them as to this or that treatment of an officer for any particular illness naturally tended to keep them out of a narrow medical groove, and was of immense advantage to the Army surgeons. He did not pretend to have much knowledge of the internal economy of prisons; but it appeared to him that the medical men there would be even more liable to get into a narrow groove than the military doctors, and exactly the same good result would follow the working of the clause that he had indicated in the Army. The clause would do good, although he was prepared to admit that it might be modified. "Medical man" was rather a wide term, and the Government might accept an Amendment of the wording, and substitute the words, "Properly qualified physician or surgeon," and give to the visiting justices the power of objecting to any particular man. It would be impossible that they could object to any well-known man of skill in his profession. Clearly it would prevent the prison medical service becoming a hermetically sealed service, and if the Amendment wore pressed, he should vote for the clause as it stood.

DR. CAMERON

opposed the second reading of the clause, which, he believed, would offer opportunities for malingering, which it would be extremely undesirable to afford. The outside poor of large towns did not enjoy such privileges as the clause would confer.

MR. EVANS

said, that surgeons in gaols very frequently had a large private practice. The gaol authorities had to place the greatest possible confidence in them, and it would not do to have strange surgeons put in a similar position. He hoped the clause would not be pressed.

MR. PARNELL

saw the objection to the clause in the danger there was that a prisoner guilty of "malingering" or shamming might get a medical man to humbug the Governor; but, on the other hand, there were cases in which prisoners had been dangerously ill, and yet neglected, simply because the gaol surgeon believed them to be guilty of "malingering." He could not help thinking that the Home Secretary should accept the clause, modified, perhaps, to meet the exigencies of the position. On several occasions he had adverted to the case of Daniel Reddin, the manner in which that unfortunate man was for years subjected to a cruel neglect and to torture while in prison, so that now he was helplessly paralytic. The prison surgeon subjected him to the various cruel tests which were applied to supposed malingerers. Red hot irons were applied to his body, and an instrument of torture, known as "Corrigan's button," was used. It was a difficult part of a surgeon's duty to discover when a man was really ill, and when only shamming; but it should claim the attention of the Legislature as a fact that medical men had not discharged that part of their duty with the humanity which ought to distinguish them. Another case to which the Home Secretary had made allusion was that of a boy who was confined in Walton Gaol, Liverpool, for seven days, in default of paying a fine of 58. In that case the lad was sent to work on the treadmill when he was really suffering from symptoms of malignant small-pox, of which disease he died immediately after his discharge from prison. If such a provision as that suggested by the hon. Member for Stoke had been in force that would have been prevented, and a life would in all probability have been saved. He appealed to the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment, and render it more easy for a prisoner to defend himself from the treatment dealt out to a malingerer when he was really ill.

MR. D. DAVIES

thought it should not be forgotten that Nobody was obliged to go to prison. If prisons were to be converted into palaces we should have persons doing mischief in order that they might get there. At present he was told there was sufficient protection for a prisoner if he behaved himself, and if he did not it was only right that advantage should be taken of him in order to compel him to do so. He also wished to point out that the clause was decidedly a class clause. It would afford no relief to the poorer class of prisoners. There was no cause for com- plaint against the prison doctors; they were always first-class men.

DR. WARD

regarded the Amendment as one of utility, although objectionable in some respects. In the first place, it would be an assistance to the official medical men of the establishment, who, from their knowledge of the medical profession engaged in large concerns, were liable to fall into a routine, and were more likely to suspect malingering, and thus fall into fatal errors which the presence of an outside surgeon would tend to prevent. So, too, it would tend to repel all charges which were falsely made against the gaol surgeon; and in too many cases those charges had been substantiated by the evidence of other than official surgeons. In that very case at Mountjoy Prison which had been mentioned, where the medical officer had ventured to lay his objection to certain prison discipline before the prison authorities, it was considered most inconvenient to them, and the officer was dismissed because he would not become a mere mean official such as was then engaged, with the result that, within three months, by being treated as a malingerer, the death of a prisoner suffering from consumption was hastened. As to the use of "Corrigan's buttons," and other instruments, they were well known to medical men, and were really not so terrible as they seemed, but still they would be much less likely to be abused. If such a clause were adopted with that view, he should support the clause.

MR. M'LAREN

expressed his deep sympathy with the object of the clause. He thought it advisable that prisoners should be allowed to seek the advice of medical men who had special knowledge of their cases. He did not approve of the clause as it stood; he thought it went too far. He would leave out the words, As often as need be, until he recovers his health, or until it has been established to the satisfaction of the visiting justices that there are no good grounds for such visits. If the clause went to a division he should feel bound to vote against the Government upon it.

SIR WILLIAM FRASER

pointed out that the surgeon of a prison was not an officer who lived within its walls, but a medical practitioner in practice outside. He objected to the clause on the ground that it would produce a divi- sion of responsibility in the medical department of a prison.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, that the opinion of medical men of the conduct of the eminent man who was dismissed from his position in Mountjoy Prison was shown by the fact that, within the last few days, he had been elected to the Presidency of the Royal College of Irish Physicians. The only real objection to the clause he had heard, and that had been met by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan)—the medical attendant should be defined as a properly registered medical practitioner, approved of by the Secretary of State—further, some restriction should be placed upon the number of visits a prisoner should receive from his doctor. An hon. Member (Mr. D. Davies) had spoken of attempts to convert prisons into palaces. All he could say to that was that the hon. Gentleman could have had no knowledge of prisons, or he would know what a great difference there was between the prison as it was and the happy home he conceived. Nor could he have seen the affidavits filed in the Queen's Bench on the case of Daniel Reddin and the treatment he received at the hands of the medical man, Dr. Burnes, all the harder treatment, because he happened to be a political offender, instead of being a murderer, a garetter, or a thief. He supported the clause, because it would secure an independent inquiry in such a case; and hoped that the clause would be modified in the manner he had suggested, as it would then have his support.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that the doctor of the gaol had denied the statements made by Reddin when the latter, having been released from prison, had brought the matter before a Court of Law; and Mr. Justice Blackburn had come to the conclusion that the allegations were exaggerated and many of them untrue, Mr. Justice Quain and Mr. Justice Archibald being both of a similar opinion. It was entirely against the practice in any public Department to allow an independent medical man to correct or set aside the decision of the official medical officer.

MR. BIGGAR

stated that the result of Reddin's case was that the unfortunate man was suffering under paralysis, and the fact was that the Judges gave their decision on perjured affidavits. ["Oh, oh" and "Order."] They were as much perjured as were the affidavits in the case of O'Donovan Rossa. ["Order, order."]

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

rose to Order, and wished to know if the hon. Member could impute perjury to persons in the way he had?

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member will feel that unless he has strong proof of his assertions that these persons have committed perjury his language is not permissible.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the proof was in the books which contained the evidence given. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary made a great protestation that he wished the prison rules to be moderate and fair, and yet he was invariably ready to support the present system.

MR. MACDONALD

observed, that although he did not go the whole length of the clause, he trusted that the Home Secretary would give it full consideration. If a medical man was called in he would at once consult the prison surgeon. That would be a security to the prisoner, and prevent many unnecessary charges from being trumped up.

MR. RODWELL

believed the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was labouring under some misapprehension as to the effect of the clause. He (Mr. Rodwell) considered it wholly unnecessary, the visiting justices having at present all the power to protect prisoners which it proposed to give them.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

trusted that if the Home Secretary did not accept the clause in its entirety he would give it full consideration, and introduce some relaxation of the rules for the purpose of meeting the difficulty which at present existed.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 26; Noes 120: Majority 94.—(Div. List, No. 157.)

DR. KENEALY

then moved the following clause:—

(As to interviews and correspondence with prisoners.)

"Every prisoner shall be entitled, as a matter of right, to be visited by his relatives or friends once every three months, and one hour shall be allowed for the purposes of such visit. Every prisoner shall also be entitled to write and receive a letter once at least in every three months.

It shall not be lawful at any visit, nor in any letter written by a prisoner, to prohibit him or her from making a complaint of prison rules or prison treatment as affecting such prisoner. It shall not be lawful to exhibit prisoners to visitors in iron-barred cages, cells, or dungeons, unless there is reason to believe that such a precaution is necessary for the safe custody of the prisoner, or against the machinations of his visitors."

He was perfectly certain that if they treated men as beasts, they would in the end turn them into beasts. There was no reason to think that everyone who visited prisoners was in league with the prisoners to assist in their escape or attempt to break the prison rules.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, he had a son who was unfortunately convicted of a political offence and sent to Millbank for nine months, and then was removed to Portland, where he remained over two months. He wrote to the Governor to have an interview with his son, and the Governor replied that he could not visit him till he had been there six months. He, however, got a friend of his to get an order from the Home Secretary, and that order he got, not as a right, but as a compliment to his friend; and when he arrived at the prison he was only allowed to see him through some iron bars, he was not allowed to shake hands with him, although he had not seen him for 12 months. He had occasion to write to the boy on family affairs; but because the boy had received a letter within four months previous the letter was returned. Thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, his son was amongst the first who was released from his odious confinement. He would ask the Government what good they would do by keeping up this petty tyranny? Did they think that it would make men more loyal to the Crown of England? He knew from experience that those who were subjected to such petty tyrannies were ready to crush the laws when they were released. The next part of the proposed clause was "that every prisoner should be entitled to write and receive a letter once at least in every three months." He had stated that these letters of his were returned; but what he thought most humiliating in his interview was that his son was kept in an iron cage, and between father and son was a warder. Why should he have been placed five or six yards away from his son? The Home Secretary might be anxious that no harm should be done and no cruelty practised; but the House had no idea of the petty vindictiveness of these gaol officials—the scowl that a warder occasionally put on was enough to frighten a prisoner; but when religion was brought into play, as was the case in some gaols in Ireland, the House would scarcely believe the amount of petty vindictiveness practised. He recollected on one occasion sending his boy a religious book which his son had particularly asked for, but the book was returned. The boy was not allowed that simple book, though it had been recommended to him. He also sent a certificate from the doctor that the boy, who was only 19 years of age, was delicate and required flannels, but these flannels were also returned. He merely introduced these experiences to inform the House of what actually occurred in prisons, and he asked the Government for what reason could they object to the clause of the hon. Member for Stoke? The clause could do no harm to anyone. Then, as to the latter part of the clause, that it should not exhibit prisoners to visitors in iron cages, he could not see what objection could be raised to it, when there were plenty of warders about. He hoped that the Government would see their way to adopt the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Stoke, and he trusted that he had shown that there was nothing dangerous or unreasonable about it.

SIR WILLIAM FRASER

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt at least the first two paragraphs of this Amendment. Every prisoner should be allowed to receive a visit from his friends every three months, and it should be made, not a matter of goodwill on the part of the Secretary of State, but the law of the land. The second point, that a prisoner might write and receive a letter every three months, ought to be conceded. He was not so clear as to the third point—that prisoners should be allowed to complain of their treatment in those letters, for statements might be published which were not true. But then some means might be adopted which would prevent such abuse. Permission, for instance, might be given to make a statement of grievances to be submitted necessarily to the visiting justices, or to some board or tribunal which would have power to refer it to the Secretary of State. As to the fourth part of the clause the expression "exhibited in iron-barred cages" was unhappy. But what he understood the hon. Member for Stoke to mean was that not the prisoner merely, but the relations who visited him ought not to be humiliated. There were abundant means of preventing the passing of an instrument to enable the prisoner to escape without maintaining the present system. He was glad that the Bill would place such great powers in the hands of a responsible Minister. The way to prevent abuse was to have a Minister responsible to this House and the country.

MR. WHALLEY

hoped that some concession would be made by the Government in the direction indicated. For about seven years he was a member of a very zealous committee acting in this City for the protection of the public against the malpractices of the police. There was such a strong feeling against the police from the organized system of perjury existing among them. ["No, no!"]

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

I cannot allow that charge to be made without protesting against it.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member ought to withdraw the statement.

MR. WHALLEY

I will withdraw it, Sir; but I must be allowed to repeat it with a proof. It is part of what I once addressed to the right hon. Gentleman. The police are in the habit of combining, when their conduct is assailed, in such a manner that it is almost impossible—

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

I must protest again, Sir, for the sake of the time of the House. We are discussing prisons.

MR. WHALLEY

What can be plainer than this?

MR. SPEAKER

The Question before the House has reference to certain concessions to be made to prisoners; the hon. Member does not appear to be referring to them.

MR. WHALLEY

asserted that he could not depend on the discretion of whoever might happen to preside at the Home Office, and that the abolition of the ancient common law protection that constables should be ratepayers and heads of families exposed the public to ill-treatment at the hands of the police. ["Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member must confine himself to arguments having relation to the Question before the House.

MR. WHALLEY

said, his observations were relevant, and of great importance.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

It appears to me, Sir, that the hon. Gentleman's speech has no relation to the subject under discussion.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he was discharging his duty to the best of his power, and was not responsible for his deficiency. He did not understand that he was saying what was irrelevant. The question was whether we should protect prisoners by such regulations as were now proposed, or should depend on the discretion of a gentleman at the Home Office. Speaking on the authority of a pamphlet which had been published, he maintained that there was a power in those individuals to combine in their own defence, so as to prevent a knowledge of what had happened reaching the Home Secretary.

MR. SPEAKER

I must call the attention of the House to this matter if the hon. Member insists in pursuing a line of argument which I have more than once told him is irrelevant.

MR. WHALLEY

I will sit down, Sir, with the strongest protest that I can make against being prevented by the Rules of the House from discharging my duty.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that he would endeavour to recall the House to the point under discussion. Many speakers had complained of the injustice and hardship of a system of which they were somewhat ignorant. He was far from wholly disagreeing with the hon. Member for Stoke; but his Amendments were almost in accordance with the rules which regulated many of the existing prisons, and which he, for one, did not wish to disturb. Indeed, the latest rules and regulations went further than the hon. Member seemed to wish to go, and in some respects gave the prisoner more liberty than, perhaps, he would approve. He had himself sanctioned a regulation by which prisoners were permitted without order to receive one visitor each during the hours allowed by the visiting justices; and that, so far as he knew, was the principle upon which county and borough prisons were worked. Very possibly the system of rewards might in some cases operate as well as the system of punishment in promoting good conduct, and he hoped the giving of marks would have that effect. He would say a word on the paragraph of the Amendment which allowed complaints of prison discipline. He would remark that one of the very first rules of justice was that a complaint should be made and disposed of as early as possible. But the result of the Amendment would be that a prisoner might complain of (say) a warder, and the complaint might not be heard of for a long time, when the warder might very possibly not be able to answer it. The present practice was that the visiting justice should go round once a week, all the prisoners knowing well enough that they had a right to see him alone. It was a good plan always to see prisoners out of the presence of the Governor. He thought that the visiting justice acted as a check upon the prison officials, and did not see how grievances could be brought before a better tribunal. As for the iron-barred cages mentioned in the Amendment, all that was wanted was that nothing improper should be passed from a visitor to a prisoner. He had known cases where not merely money and tools, but dangerous weapons, had passed from visitors to prisoners, and where the officials had been wounded by these weapons. They must remember that they were dealing with some of the worst of human kind, and that they must have their rules drawn in such a way as would protect their officers. These iron bars were really necessary in some cases; though, on the other hand, he had no wish to degrade the prisoners, many of whom were, perhaps, capable of reforming. The true theory of punishment was that it should be at once penal and reformative, and he hoped that his views would satisfy the House, though he could not accept the Amendment.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that they were simply wasting the time of the House by asking for promises from the Home Secretary of which they would not he able to exact the fulfilment. It was the rules to be framed under this Act with which the House must deal.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

considered that no real objection had been offered to the Amendments of the hon. Member for Stoke.

MR. MORLEY

said, he was anxious to vindicate the honour of the police with reference to the charges made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley). He had lived in London all his life, and had mixed in all classes of society, high and low. Nine-tenths of his fellow-citizens believed that the London police were as a body above suspicion. No doubt among 10,000 men—

MR. SPEAKER

I am unwilling to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but his remarks are not relevant to the question before the House.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the object of the Amendment was to protect the prisoners from ill-treatment, and to enable them to send out complaints.

MR. PARNELL

hoped that in some way or another means would be found to enable prisoners to make their complaints known to the outside world—to the Prison Commissioners, and through them to Parliament. He thought it was not unreasonable to ask the Government to insert a clause in the Bill that would ensure these complaints being brought under the notice of Parliament.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 163: Majority 127.—(Div. List, No. 158.)

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following clause:—

(Use of treadwheel, &c., abolished.)

"That the use of the treadwheel, and the practice of the shot drill, and flogging for breach of discipline, shall be discontinued, and abolished, and so much of 'The Prisons Act, 1865,' section nineteen, relating thereto shall be and is hereby repealed."

He objected to these punishments not only on the ground of humanity, but because they failed to produce any salutary effect. They were simply the relics of barbarous times, when a savage spirit pervaded the whole of our criminal legislation. As a punishment, the treadwheel was unjust and positively dangerous. Practised criminals could work it very easily, while new comers found it positive torture and ran great risk of having their legs broken, or of sustaining other injuries by it. It was said to be used for grinding corn; but corn might be ground in another and better manner. Shot drill, again, which consisted of carrying shot about the prison yard, was said to produce swimming in the head and other painful effects on prisoners. The sole end and purpose of these punishments was to inflict bodily pain upon the criminal, and not to effect any improvement in him. The crank, he had been told, was used for drawing water, and as it was not an instrument of torture, he had not included its prohibition in his clause. With respect to the punishment of flogging, they had the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on flogging, and it was only after that and a very strong expression of this House on the subject that it was re-introduced in the case of "garotting." Were they to allow men's backs to be lacerated by the order of two visiting justices for a breach of prison offences? Could anything be more horrid and more shocking to human feeling than to tie a man up and set another man to flog and lacerate his back? Why it was a disgrace to civilization, and a violation of the feelings of humanity. The single effect of all these punishments was to excite a bitter feeling of revenge in the criminal, to harden his heart, and confirm him in his vicious course.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. EVANS

said, his impression was that shot drill was a bad sort of prison labour. As to flogging, he thought the time had come when it might be abolished as a punishment for prison offences. In his own county (Derby) the visiting justices had found that other punishments were sufficient to maintain discipline; and if flogging was not necessary for that purpose he thought there was no justification for it whatever. He could not, however, join in the condemnation of the treadmill, which was a very ready method of punishment, inasmuch as it required very little learning. As to working on it, it was no more torture than digging or mowing, and it was not correct to !say that it was misapplied labour. In his county it was used for the purpose of grinding corn. The treadwheel was a much better means of doing some kinds of work than the crank. On the banks of the Rhine goods were raised by means of a treadmill, the only difference being that the workers walked inside of the wheel instead of outside. He thought the best thing to do was to vote for the second reading of the clause, and he would then move to leave out that portion of it which referred to the treadmill.

MR. HARDCASTLE

desired to point out that if flogging in prisons were abolished the persons inside a gaol would be in a better position than those outside. Garotting in the street, for instance, was punishable by flogging; but if this change were made, a prisoner in gaol might garotte a warder—not an unlikely thing—without the risk of being flogged for his offence.

MR. SULLIVAN

pointed out that in the one case the punishment was the result of a trial before a jury and a Judge, while in the other case it was inflicted at the will of administrative officers. He did not see the objection to the treadmill which had been urged by the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon). The difficulty was this—that they must put the prisoners to some kind of torment that would not make the prison a comfortable home. The prison must not be made a workhouse or a refuge for poverty or distress. There must be some severity in that treatment. If they introduced an industry such as brush-making, the brush-makers were up in arms against them. If they adopted any trade, they would find an outcry against interference with the trade. So long as there was a useful result from prison labour, he cared not whether it was the crank or the treadmill. It was but right that the prisoner should pay the penalty of outraged justice, whether it was by means of the crank or the treadmill; but in regard to carrying shot from one side of the yard to the other, there was hardly a brute who was sensible in some degree to such a brutalizing punishment. Warders were not worse than other men in the same position; but the House could never be too careful to remember that the whole influence of prison life on the human mind was to cramp it, and he had known cases in which a few years of such influence had reduced kind-hearted soldierly men to mere gaolers, whose sole idea was to grasp their prisoner, not for the sake of exercising severity, but of keeping him secure. He hoped, therefore the House would not be disposed to place too much faith in the complaints of warders. As to flogging in our gaols, he was in favour of its abolition; but he was of opinion that it would not be desirable to do away with the treadmill or any other useful occupation. It was thought that society was deteriorating when there was an outbreak of garotting a few years ago; but he thought that it was Parliament that was deteriorating by resorting to such a babarous mode of punishment as flogging. That abominable crime had been abolished—so far as it had been abolished—not by the use of the lash. It was one of those epidemics which, from time to time, attacked the best ordered communities. The Governor of Dublin Gaol was a humane man, who conscientiously discharged his duty, and was as disposed to treat his prisoners kindly as any other Governor in Ireland. This Governor having to deal with a most incorrigible fellow put him in the blackhole. The doctor took him out, the Governor put him in again, and the doctor again took him out. He remembered remarking that he believed the doctor was imposed upon; but it was better to err on the side of the doctor than to err on the side of being with the Governor. That was a case in which if they could have ordered the lash it would have been ordered, but they had no power to do so. He was, generally speaking, entirely opposed to flogging; but he would retain the treadmill and any other useful mode of punishment.

MR. BEACH

mentioned an instance within his own knowledge in which a prisoner, in whose case all other means had failed, had, after the punishment of flogging had been inflicted upon him, become perfectly amenable to the prison discipline. He was therefore in favour of retaining the use of the lash, not to be ordinarily employed, but only in the last resort. He cordially concurred, he might add, with the last speaker in thinking it undesirable that the treadmill should be abolished. He should oppose the clause.

MR. COLE

regretted that the HOME Secretary had not dealt with the whole question of industrial labour in prisons by this Bill. It was one of the most important questions for the future. He did not think any one could be found to support shot drill. He would support the treadmill if it was a punishment which could be readily utilized; but it was not so. He thought every prisoner should be put to industrial labour. Was it reasonable that a man should go into gaol to be supported by the ratepayers Experienced gaolers had stated that it was quite as much punishment to a man to make him earn his own living as to make him perform unremunerative labour. He should like to see the Home Secretary deal boldly with the question of industrial labour that was left untouched by the Bill before the House.

MR. HIBBERT

pointed out that it was hardly correct to say that under the Act of 1865 first-class hard labour must consist exclusively of the treadmill, shot drill, and crank drill. Other labour of a similar kind might be substituted, and in the Lancashire gaols labour of an industrial character had been introduced. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Cole) that when they could have industrial labour it was better to use it than resort to the methods of punishment referred to; but there were many large prisons where it was impossible to find industrial occupation for all the prisoners, and therefore it was necessary to retain the treadmill and the crank. Speaking from his own experience, he thought the treadwheel could easily be utilized, as it could be employed in pumping water and turning machines. He could not see his way at present to the abolition of flogging in our prisons. He wished he could. It must be retained to be used as a last resort. Visiting justices tried every means of punishment before resorting to flogging; and it was necessary that it should be retained, to let criminals know that if all other modes failed it could be resorted to. He was unable to support the proposed clause; but, at the same time, he trusted the Home Secretary would, when this Bill became law, increase the amount of industrial labour in prisons.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR

expressed his disappointment that when the Home Secretary brought in a Bill dealing with the prisons he should have retained the barbarous punishment of whipping, which was obsolete as far as other countries were concerned. A few years ago a Prison Conference was held in this country, consisting of delegates from all parts of the world, and the delegates were perfectly astonished to find that England still retained a system of brutalizing punishment which every other nation of Europe had abandoned. Yet such was the temper of the House of Commons, that one of the most humane Ministers who had ever held the office of Home Secretary had felt himself compelled to retain this punishment, which Mr. Frederick Hill, who had had a lengthened experience as an Inspector of Prisons, had declared to be as unwise as it was brutal. It could not be said that flogging was at all necessary. It was no deterrent, and was simply a degradation, and it certainly could not inspire in the prisoner's mind that sense of justice which was the object of his punishment. When brutal punishment was inflicted on a man, he became henceforth an enemy of society. The remedy was work—good wholesome work, but not profitless hard labour. Short rations, too, in certain cases, had been found efficacious. He trusted the Home Secretary would see the wisdom of not retaining a system of punishment which had been abolished in every other country in the world.

MR. HOPWOOD

wished to call attention to the effect of the system of whipping. In 1874 and 1875 there had occurred 166 cases; but in many gaols there had been no whippings inflicted, and that justified him in saying that it was a dangerous power to be entrusted to any man. Then with regard to the use of irons, he found there were 84 cases; that the cases of solitary confinement in dark cells amounted to 17,800. The cases of stoppage of diet, which in some cases amounted to a moral torture, amounted to 39,482. Now, what had been the result of a change in system, on punishments inflicted in Manchester Gaol? In the years 1875–6 there had been 23 whippings, 752 cases of solitary confinement in dark cells, and 3,269 stoppages of diet; the total number of punishments amounting to 4,056. But last year the total number had been reduced to 900. Now, how had that change been effected? It was owing to the fact that the Governor at Manchester felt a sympathy for those under his charge, and to the system of marks for good conduct there adopted, which enabled a man who worked hard to earn 2d. per day. At the end of his term of imprisonment he would sometimes be entitled to receive £2 10s. on leaving gaol; but out of that sum 10s. were given to him and the rest handed over to the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society for his benefit. The Governor had been informed that of those taken in hand by that society, a large percentage were working creditably. The system which had thus been adopted reflected great credit not only on the Governor, but also on the magistrates.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he would not detain the House more than a minute. He entirely agreed with almost every word that fell from the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert). He (Mr. Cross) was in favour of introducing industrial labour, so far as it could be done. Under the Act of 1865 the prisoner had to undergo hard labour for the first three months; but this Bill provided that by a careful adoption of this system the prisoner might be let off the hard labour after the first month. With respect to shot-drill, they must have some readily accessible punishment for insubordination, and so far no other punishment had been found so effective for minor offences. As to flogging, they had so recently discussed that question fully in the House that he hoped he should be excused from entering again into the question. But he must say that he could not agree to the proposal to give up the power.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 229: Majority 157.—(Div. List, No. 159.)

MR. PARNELL

then moved the insertion after Clause 12 of the following Clause:—

(Return to Parliament of complaints by prisoners.)

"That the Prison Commissioners shall make a yearly return to Parliament of all complaints by prisoners of ill-health, distinguishing those cases where the medical officer of the prison does not think the complaint well founded, and giving the names of the prisoners and of the prisons."

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

opposed the clause on the ground that it would be utterly impracticable, because, if they were to have the complaints of prisoners made every year laid before Parliament, a mass of papers would be so accumulated that it would be impossible to deal with them. All complaints now made were attended to, and a remedy afforded whenever they were well founded.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

expressed his regret that the Home Secretary had throughout the discussion of the evening shown his hostility to Amendments that had been dictated purely by a spirit of humanity.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 238: Majority 209.—(Div. List, No. 160.)

MR. BUTT

moved, after Clause 40, to insert the following Clause:—

(Persons not sentenced to hard labour shall be treated as misdemeanants of the first class.)

"The Prison Commissioners shall also see that any person confined in any prison under a sentence of imprisonment not including hard labour, shall be treated as a misdemeanant of the first division within the meaning of the seventy-seventh section of 'The Prisons Act, 1865,' and that no order of the judge before whom such prisoner shall have been tried shall be requisite or necessary to entitle him to be so treated."

The object of the clause was simply to sweep away the aggravations of punishment which magistrates and Prison Commissioners had engrafted upon the criminal law of the country.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

hoped that the clause would not be pressed. He had admitted when the question was raised in Committee that prisoners convicted of seditious libel should be treated as misdemeanants of the first class, and he thought also that persons committed for contempt of Court should be put in the same category. But further than that he could not go. If they were to enact that unless a prisoner was sentenced to hard labour he should be treated as a first class misdemeanant, the Judges, in the exercise of their discretion, would probably sentence a great many prisoners to hard labour who were not so sentenced now.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BUTT

then moved the following Clause:—

(Persons committed for contempt of court shall be treated as first class misdemeanants.)

"Any person who shall be imprisoned under any rule, order, or attachment for contempt of any court shall be in like manner treated as a misdemeanant of the first division within the meaning of the said section of the said Act."

Clause brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.

Further Consideration of Bill, as amended, adjourned till To-morrow.