§ (Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
§ CONSIDERATION.
§ Further proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed.
§ MR. BIGGARmoved the following Clause:—
(Return to be laid before Parliament of special punishments.)That a Return be laid before Parliament early in February of each year setting forth the special punishments inflicted in each gaol during preceding year, with the reasons given by the prison authorities for such punishments.He believed such a Return would act as a useful check on prison Governors.
§ 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 CROSSpointed out that the hon. Member's object was practically met by the Bill in its present shape. He did not mean to say there was to be a detailed return of each prisoner's case, but there was to be an annual Report as to the special punishments inflicted in each gaol, which would enable them to compare the discipline of one gaol with that of another.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. BIGGARmoved the following Clause:—
(Complaint hook to be kept in each gaol.)That a complaint book be kept in each gaol, in which every prisoner shall be at liberty weekly to enter any complaint he chooses to snake; said book to be open to inspection by the public on payment of a fee of one shilling for each person who applies to see it.The object of this clause was that convicted prisoners should be able to make their complaints heard by their friends, or by means of societies, acting upon humanitarian principles, so that if there was anything wrong in their treatment it might be put right, either by the ordinary legal means or by force of public opinion brought to bear on the matter complained of. It was known as a fact that O'Donovan Rossa, Chambers, and other persons had been badly treated; and he urged that had there been proper means of bringing the complaints in these cases before Parliament a remedy would speedily have been applied.
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he was not sure whether the clause before the House was the best that could be passed; but he hoped the Home Secretary would either accept it, or propose something that would better answer the purpose. The wish of the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, was that a prisoner should 1642 undergo the full punishment the law allotted him, but not that he should be subject to the irresponsible tyranny of prison officials. The power exercised by warders in gaols and keepers in lunatic asylums was so terrible that every precaution ought to be taken that no abuse should be perpetrated, and there should be an absolute power of appeal. He had received a letter from a person who had just undergone 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour in Holloway Prison. He was a person of some education, and had for 20 years had an unblemished character, having during that time held the position of manager of a considerable mercantile establishment in the City. He yielded to temptation, not, he declared, with any intention to defraud his employers, and was convicted of embezzling a small sum. He made no complaint of the superior authorities of the prison, of whom he spoke in terms of high praise, but he said great cruelties were practised by the warders and other subordinate officials, many of whom, by their ignorance, violence of temper, and natural malevolence of disposition, were totally unfit to be entrusted with powers which they systematically abused. Complaint to the Governor was useless, as these men made common cause, and the last state of a prisoner who complained was worse than the first. Again and again the writer of this letter had seen them goad a man into saying something for which they could report him. One prisoner sentenced to 14 days was made to carry leads for which he was manifestly unfit, and when he broke down, he was placed on the treadmill, from which he fell down dead, having been in prison only nine days. There was the solemn farce of an inquest; but the fellow-prisoners of the dead man dared not tell what they had seen. One prisoner stated that he had been confined in a dark cell for three days for striking a fellow-prisoner who used insulting language, and there chained to the wall by thumbscrews. After a time he could do nothing but moan, and ultimately ho went out of his mind and had to be removed to the infirmary. The marks of the cruel instruments were visible on his hands for weeks after. Another grievous hardship was the impossible tasks which prisoners were set to fulfil. Quantities of oakum were given to them 1643 which only habitual criminals who had had experience at the work could pick in the allotted time, and failure in their task subjected them to what was really a terrible deprivation—the stoppage of their supper bread. The writer of this letter further stated that his weight, which was over 13 stone, was reduced to less than 11 stone owing to the insufficient quantity of food he received, and he gladly devoured scraps of dirty bread intended for the pigs, raw potatoes, mangel wurzels, and anything eatable that he could find. One prisoner, who was not in his right mind and could not do his quantity of work, was declared to be lazy, his food was stopped until he was too weak to do it; and if ever anyone died from starvation that man did. The severity of the punishments for slight offences was another grievance, three days' confinement in a dark cell being inflicted for giving a little bread to a fellow prisoner who was almost starving. The name of the writer of this letter was at the service of the Home Secretary. He appealed to the Home Secretary, either to accept that clause or to bring forward any other which would give every prisoner who was wronged some appeal.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsupported the clause as calculated to put some check on the tyranny and the petty persecutions inflicted by warders and Governors of prisons on prisoners. One boy had been illegally punished with 72 hours' bread and water, 48 hours only being legal. Again, a prisoner was entitled by law to see his friends six months after ho had been sentenced to transportation; but in the case of his own son ho was not allowed to see him for 20 months, and his letter applying to the Governor of Portland Prison for that privilege was returned to him. Such Governors of prisons required looking after, and he therefore hoped that clause would be pressed to a division.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he thought it would be very desirable if between the present time and the date when those gaols were taken over by the Government a Royal Commission were appointed to inquire into the discipline and internal administration of our public prisons. He did not make that suggestion in consequence of any want of confidence in the Home Secretary, or in Colonel Du Cane (Surveyor General 1644 of Convict Prisons); but he thought it was evident, from the debates of the last three months, that neither that House nor the country would be satisfied unless such a thorough and impartial inquiry as he had indicated were instituted before the Bill came into operation. The inquiry need not take long, and, whatever its result, it was sure to be of great practical value. He believed that there had been no Commission of that kind since the year 1863 or 1864, when he had the honour of being one of its Members.
§ MR. E. JENKINSthought that if it were true there were cruel and malicious persons capable of doing what had been alleged employed as warders in our gaols no more direct means of insuring that they would take vengeance on the prisoners under them could be devised than a system of complaint books, in which prisoners would be allowed to enter complaints against those officials. In most cases the complaints would, on investigation, be found to be frivolous, and it was only to take a correct estimate of human nature to suppose that the prison officials would, in some way or other, endeavour to pay out those prisoners who had drawn attention to particular cases. Moreover, there appeared to him at the present time a very strong tendency to push humanitarian sentiment to the very farthest extreme, so that it almost became a sort of disease; and the result would be that unless some check were adopted everyone would become suspicious whenever punishment was inflicted on persons who had offended. We had anti-vaccination, anti-vivisection, and soon we should be called upon to provide first-class hotels for our prisoners. He would ask the House whether it was right that it should be led away by the stories told by prisoners. The only practical way was to place the matter under the supervision of the Home Secretary, and they might depend upon it that cases of an extreme character would, in some way reach the ears of some hon. Members of that House. Supposing the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), or some other hon. Member sitting near him, had been in gaol and had the opportunity of writing in a book of this sort, they could easily imagine the state of things which would have been created. The reporters would have gone and paid 1645 their shillings and the complaints would have been reproduced in all the newspapers, and public sentiment would have gone to the prisoners. He had every desire that practical measures should be taken to provide that no cruelties should take place in prisons; but with regard to the proposal before the House, he questioned whether it was a practical one. It was his opinion that the supervision should be left entirely in the hands of the authorities.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, a fallacy, underlying all the statements of the hon. Gentleman, was that the prisoner was the only person to be considered if the book were established. He thought the book would be an admirable institution. It would, at least, warn Governors and the petty officers of prisons that there was a mode of reaching the public from which they had no escape. Such a warning would, in his opinion, have a material effect in suppressing the petty tyranny which characterized the internal arrangements of some prisons.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, he thought that some additional provision ought to be introduced for the protection of prisoners now that the prisoners were to be handed over to the control of the State; and though he did not approve of the proposal to allow the public to inspect the complaint book, he considered it would be a wise thing to give prisoners the power to enter complaints into the book, on the understanding that it should be brought to the notice of the visiting justices from time to time, and also open to the inspection of any magistrate of the county.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSwas extremely surprised to hear what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), especially as the hon. Gentleman had been a visitor to a gaol for many years. The responsibility of receiving and hearing complaints rested on the visiting justices, and it was properly appreciated. It was their special duty by the Act of Parliament. The result of the establishment of such a book as that proposed by the clause would be to multiply complaints for the express purpose of getting them entered into the book. He must object to the manner in which the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) had read the details of an alleged case of hardship without any Notice of his in- 1646 tention to do so. It would have been but fair that the official implicated by that statement should have had an opportunity of answering it. [Mr. P. A. TAYLOR: I only received the letter yesterday.] But if Notice had been given yesterday, and the official had been communicated with, an answer of some sort might have been received that morning. It was certainly hard for those officials to have such very grave charges brought against them behind their backs. Indeed, allegations of that kind ought not to have been made in that House at all until they had been substantiated. He could only say at present that if the hon. Member would furnish him with the necessary particulars, he would cause the case to be strictly inquired into. To return to the subject before the House, he had to remind hon. Members that prisoners very often made unfounded complaints, and that it would not be wise to allow these to come before the public. He believed the visiting justices might very properly be left to deal with all cases of hardship, or alleged hardship, which occurred in prisons. His own invariable practice when a visiting justice was to insist upon seeing all the prisoners in private, quite apart from both the Governor and the warders, and he believed other visiting justices did the same thing. On the whole, therefore, he did not feel that there could be a better safeguard for the proper treatment of prisoners than was already provided in the Bill. With regard to the suggestion of a Royal Commission, he had to state that it had always been his intention, after the passing of the Bill, to appoint a certain number of independent gentlemen to inquire into the state of the gaols throughout the country. Their inquiry would be prosecuted during the Recess, and he hoped to be prepared with a set of rules drawn up from their Report at the opening of the next Session of Parliament. He trusted the House would be satisfied with the explanation he had given.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERconsidered that a Royal Commission was necessary, and believed that it would have more weight than the method of inquiry which the Home Secretary had indicated. Of the necessity of an inquiry there could be no doubt. There could be no question that all the authorities in a prison, especially the subordinate authorities, who were in contact with the prisoners, 1647 must be under very great temptations. He could imagine nothing more provoking than having to deal with the general run of prisoners. Therefore, there was an absolute necessity for the strictest supervision, and from time to time an inspection by the public, through Parliament, with the view of seeing how far that supervision was carried out. It was to be remembered, however, that all the visiting justices were not likely to exercise the discretion shown by the Home Secretary. As regarded the clause before the Committee it was hardly possible to vote for it, for it was open to the objection that prisoners would not make use of it, and if they did it would be open to abuse. He trusted that, considering how public attention had been directed to the matter, and the statements that had been made, the Government would not overlook the suggestion as to a Royal Commission.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) had been forgetful of the maxim that humanity, like charity, begun at home. He had frequently and very properly intervened to secure the humane treatment of the subjects of a foreign Power, and yet he decried the exertions which he (Mr. Parnell) and some others had endeavoured to make in the course of the discussion on this Bill to obtain an amelioration of the treatment of our prisoners, which was not a consequence of their sentence, but merely the result of the whims of subordinate officials of the prison. A great deal of the delay attending the passage of the measure might have been avoided if the Home Secretary had shown a proper appreciation of the task before him. The rules regulating the discipline of the prison and the treatment of prisoners should have been embodied in the Bill, and not left to the discretion of the Home Secretary. The power at present invested in the gaoler by the Act of 1865 to inflict punishments was a very arbitrary one and ought to be restricted. Under that Act the gaoler had the power to inquire into an offence and to sentence the prisoner to three days' close confinement and bread and water. That system of starving prisoners was a most inhuman one, and ought to be at once remedied and swept out of the statute.
§ MR. SHERIDANthought the book would enable the visiting justice to go at once to the prisoner who was ill-treated.
MR. ROWLEY HILLopposed the clause. As a visiting justice he could say he had never experienced any want of readiness on the part of prisoners to make complaints, and he thought the institution of a complaint book quite unnecessary.
§ DR. KENEALYhoped that a Royal Commission would be appointed. If anything had been clearly demonstrated it was that cruelties of the worst description habitually prevailed in the prisons. As to the prisoners having redress by action at law, there was no case, he believed, extant in which an action had been brought by a prisoner against the Governor of a prison. That did not prove that cruelties did not prevail, but that there was an absolute impossibility of getting justice for cruelties committed in these prisons. They had it on record that O'Donovan Rossa was tortured by his gaolers, and that the facts were entirely misrepresented to the Home Secretary. They had yet to learn that any punishment had been inflicted on that gaoler for the infliction of the torture and for the misrepresentation, and, for aught they knew to the contrary, he might be still employed in a similar capacity. How could the Home Secretary exercise supervision when the facts were misrepresented to him? He hoped that a Royal Commission would be appointed to inquire into the matter, and that it would consist of independent Members of that House. That Commission would be the very best safeguard the Home Secretary could have with regard to the rules he was about to frame.
§ MR. A. PEELsaid, the statement was erroneous that cruelties of the worst description were perpetrated in our gaols. There was some ground for insisting that complaints by prisoners should be entered into a book, which should be open to the inspection of visiting justices. Such a book did not exist in all gaols. Ho suggested that the proposed clause should provide that the book should be open to the inspection of any visiting justice or magistrate. If it were so altered, he would vote for it.
§ MR. MACDONALDobjected to the charge of 1s., but thought that a com- 1649 plaint book would serve as a guide to the visiting justices.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERdenied the accuracy of the statement made by the Home Secretary that the complaints made of ill-treatment referred to convict establishments. The complaints which emanated from the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan), a recital of prison experience, referred to a county prison in Ireland. Those he (Mr. Power) referred to on a previous occasion also related to county prisons. It would be fairer to the visiting justices in the case of a large prison to give them an opportunity of examining the state of the prisoners through the medium of the complaint book than through that of a visit to the cells. Their contention was that under the administration of these visiting justices these cruelties had been perpetrated; and when the right hon. Gentleman argued that they were bringing forward charges entirely unfounded he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he could not convince him, after having passed nearly four months in solitary confinement; and if they could do things to a man for uttering words on an Irish platform not nearly so strong as he had spoken in that House, what would they do to a man who had committed an ordinary breach of the law? What would the man that was capable of punishing him because he was suspected of a political offence have done if he was an ordinary offender? He hoped that the House would not be put on a wrong scent by speeches of that kind.
§ MR. EVANSdid not approve of the clause as it stood. He thought the Home Secretary could not reasonably object to complaints being entered in a book; but the most complete way of getting at the grievances of prisoners was to see them separately in their cells, in the absence of warders and Governors, and to insist upon inquiry where necessary.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, the clause would, at any rate, serve to check the disposition of some Governors to carry out their duties in a harsh manner.
§ MR. CLIVEdid not believe there was any foundation for the allegations made against the visiting justices. On the contrary, he thought these gentlemen carried out their duties with the utmost forbearance and discretion.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 227: Majority 133.—(Div. List, No. 166.)
§ MR. BIGGARmoved to insert the following clause:—
(Before special punishment prisoner shall be heard at petty sessions.)That, before any special punishment is inflicted on a prisoner, the said prisoner shall have an opportunity of having his case heard before the justices of petty sessions in open court, who may either confirm or disallow the said proposed punishment.The hon. Member said, this clause was in some respects different from that which had just been thrown out, but, at the same time, the object was, in some respects, the same—that was, to take care that the prisoner should not have more punishment than the rules at present allowed, or more punishment than could be supported by public opinion. It was said when this Bill was in Committee that it did not matter much about what rules were passed by this House, for they had to look to those who administered the law. It was very desirable that the public should have all complaints heard in order that the influence of public opinion should be brought more or less upon the sessions in different cases. They knew that it was very difficult even to get at a satisfactory decision in open Court. For instance, in the Tichborne Case, he would say that the sentiment of the British public was very nearly right, and a very large proportion of the English people believed that that gentleman was thoroughly innocent of the charge brought against him. Tichborne was tried before an able Judge; and the best case which could be made out by able counsel and by witnesses—some of them of the most disreputable kind—was brought against him, and he was defended by an able and experienced advocate, and at the same time he was found guilty. In the case of a prisoner brought before visiting justices and making charges against warders, it was an absurdity to suppose that he would receive bonâ fide justice. All that he asked was that these charges should be heard in open Court. If justices gave a proper decision so much the better; but if they gave a decision which was unfair, there would be at least some chance that the public would hear of the misconduct of these justices — he did not think it 1651 was intentional misconduct, but, at the same time, they were sometimes prejudiced—and the public would have an opportunity of forming an opinion as to whether or not the judgment of these justices was sound or not. They had heard that day of a prisoner having been kept long behind the time allowed by the prison rules, and also of a thumbscrew having been used to a political offender, and neither of these things would have occurred had there been an appeal to an open Court. The warders at present were beyond the reach of public opinion, which ought to be brought to bear upon all subjects, and certainly in connection with the visiting justices. It was generally held that the leading principle of British law was that the subject should be tried in open Court, so that in this case the British public should know what was done by the visiting justices.
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he hoped that the Home Secretary would take the arbitrary power of gaolers into consideration. The present state of the law was certainly not in accordance with the Common Law of the land. A gaoler was a very unlikely person to come to a competent decision, and he should not have the power of inflicting solitary confinement for 72 hours on a prisoner, as he could do under the Act of 1865; and he certainly should not have the power of confining men 24 hours simply by informing the visiting justices that he had done so. If the Home Secretary did not see his way to accept the clause as it stood, he trusted that he would meet it with some concession in the same direction in which the clause pointed.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSresisted the Amendment, as being unnecessary, inasmuch as ample safeguards were already provided against the abuse of the power of inflicting punishment. As to the inquiry which would take place upon the framing of the rules for the regulation of prison discipline, he would take care that it was as thorough as possible.
§ Question put, and negatived.
1652§ MR. BIGGARthen moved the following Clause:—
(Corporal punishment to be awarded by open court.)That corporal punishment shall in no case be exercised on any prisoner unless by order of a competent tribunal sitting in open court.The hon. Member said, his own opinion was, that flogging should not be inflicted in any case; but, as by a decision the House had allowed the infliction under certain conditions, it was only right and just that all precautions should be taken to make the use of the power to inflict it as difficult to exercise as possible, and that prisoners should have the right to make their defence heard after a proper examination of witnesses. This clause, though in some respects resembling that which the House had just rejected, differed in so far as it could not be maintained that flogging was a punishment that had to be administered immediately after the offence. The tribunal for appeal need not be the quarter sessions. That was open to objection, because the quarter sessions might not meet until after the term of the prisoner's confinement had expired. An appeal to petty sessions would insure the security he wished to obtain.
§ 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 CROSSsaid, he hoped the House would excuse his not going at length into the question, because the principle had been discussed fully in the consideration of former clauses. He felt bound to say his opinion had not been changed by any arguments he had heard. To adopt such a clause would be most prejudicial to prison discipline, and all those cases of punishment must be dealt with by the visiting justices.
§ MR. A. MOOREregarded it as perfectly monstrous that such a terrible power should be placed in the hands of one visiting justice, as practically it would be left. He, therefore, supported the clause.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, although he could not agree with the last clause proposed, yet he did quite agree with the present one. Flogging was a terrible 1653 punishment, and should in no case be inflicted in a hurry and without sufficient inquiry. That was all the clause sought to provide. He hoped the Home Secretary would be induced to re-consider his decision; and if he did not do so, he hoped the Motion would be pressed to a division.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he hoped they would have some assurance that a responsible tribunal should regulate the special punishments mentioned in the Act of 1865. These punishments were —confinement for a month in a cell, putting in irons for a time not stated in the Act, and also flogging. He would suggest that the number of visiting justices to decide upon the punishment should be increased to three. Even if the number were made two instead of one, his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) might be induced to accept such a concession and withdraw his Amendment. He regretted that, though toiling in the discussion of this Prisons Bill night after night, they had not met with a single concession, but were always met by the rules—the splendid rules!—the Home Secretary would have framed. But he did not see how any of these rules could govern or repeal the Act of 1865, and it was certain portions of that Act it was desired by the clause to limit.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was his desire that the punishment of flogging should be resorted to as seldom as possible, and under the strictest possible rules, and if anyone would examine the statistics, they would see that the number of cases in which it was resorted to was extremely small. It had practically ceased in some prisons, but the retention of the power was a good thing. Although he thought inquiry by one justice would be sufficient as to the expediency of inflicting corporal punishment in a particular case, he was willing so far to accede to the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite as to consider whether the inquiry should not be made by two justices, and the matter, he could assure the House, would receive the best attention of the Home Office in framing the necessary rules.
§ MR. DILLWYNthought the public would always look upon the visiting justices as quasi-prison officials, and it would be desirable to have some other authority.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the Home Secretary must admit that punishment by flogging varied in different prisons. In some it had become a habit, while in others it was banished. The reason why flogging was infrequent in convict prisons was because it was not inflicted except by order of one of the visiting Commissioners. ["Divide!"] If it were considered that flogging should not be inflicted except after due inquiry, such as governed convict prisons, then it would accomplish what was desired; but if it were to be left in the hands of a couple of magistrates without responsibility, he should feel bound to support the Amendment. ["Divide!"] There should be no such distinction between county and convict prisons, and he hoped his hon. Friend would divide the House, and that somebody else would raise the question again. ["Oh, oh!"] He knew quite well that hon. Members who interrupted him did not care two pence about prisoners being flogged, but he did care.
§ MR. RITCHIErose to Order. Was the hon. Gentleman in Order in addressing remarks to hon. Members on that side?
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, the rules of debate required hon. Members to address their observations to the Chair.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYdenied the right of the hon. Member (Mr. Ritchie) to lecture him, and as his remark was made with the object of interrupting his speech, he felt bound to notice it. For his own part, he would not consent to have the matter lightly passed over. Flogging was got rid of in the Army, and he hoped would be abolished in the Navy. Flogging was nearly got rid of in convict prisons, and should not be retained in other prisons.
§ MR. CHILDERShoped that after the alteration proposed by the Homo Secretary, requiring the consent of two visiting justices, the hon. Member for Cavan would withdraw his clause.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, all the observation he had made was to cry "Divide," when he thought the hon. Member for Galway had finished his speech. The hon. Member was not justified in making use of the language he had employed towards himself and other Gentlemen who sat on that side of the House.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the discipline of the prison 1655 would be destroyed by a trial of this kind in open Court. The provision of two justices would afford ample security, and flogging would be inflicted as seldom as possible, and under the strictest surveillance.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, his main point was not so much the number of the visiting justices, but to secure the publicity of sentences for flogging. On that point he should divide the House.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 289: Majority 240.—(Div. List, No. 167.)
§ MR. E. JENKINSmoved the following clause:—
(Where site of prison is of greater value than the cell accommodation prison authority not to make payment into Exchequer.)Where in any case the site of any prison or prisons vested in any prison authority, including the ground within the boundary of the walls thereof shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be of greater value than the value of the cell accommodation necessary under the provisions of this Act for the district under the control of such prison authority, such value being ascertained by the number of cells required at the rate of one hundred and twenty pounds for each cell, the prison authority shall not be bound to make any payment under this Act, into the receipt of the Exchequer, in respect of inadequate cell accommodation.The hon. Member said, if the Bill were to pass in its present shape, a serious injustice would be done to the county of Forfar. Under the 5th section the prison, which was situated in Dundee, upon land of very great value, would be transferred to the Imperial authorities, and although the cell accommodation in that prison was really ample for the purpose for which it was required, yet the effect of the 17th section would be that whereas the Government would take over a site which, in round numbers, would be worth £10,000, he was informed that owing to the incomplete accommodation in the existing cells in Dundee prison, another £10,000 would be payable to the Government in respect of that matter, so that practically it would be a fine of £20,000, in round numbers, upon the county.
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
1656MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should be glad to meet the hon. Member for Dundee as fairly as possible. But first of all he would say that the value of the site would be to him no good in the world. What he wanted was a certain number, say 100, good cells, and his complaint against the Dundee prison was that it would not do for the purpose for which it was wanted, and, so far as the Exchequer went, it would be quite impossible to take the value of the site as a set off. Dundee was bound to have provided certain cell accommodation, and that she had never done. The fact was that the Inspectors had not put the Acts of Parliament in force strongly enough against Dundee, and the money which ought to have been expended some years ago on prison accommodation had been fructifying in the pockets of the inhabitants and bearing interest. He believed that the hon. Gentleman would not deny that the prison of Dundee was a very bad one; indeed, it had been described as "abominable." If any hardship had been inflicted upon anybody, it was upon the prisoners, who for the last seven or eight years had been confined in cells in which they ought not to have been confined, and that was the fault of the inhabitants of Dundee. Now, he would make a fair proposition to the hon. Gentleman. He believed that the prison of Dundee happened to be situated in a part of the town which made it extremely valuable, and the price of land would, he was told, bring in a considerable amount of money. He also heard that it would be difficult to make this prison into a very good one. Under these circumstances, and without talking more about the hardship one way or the other, he thought the best arrangement in this case, when the Government came to settle with the inhabitants of Dundee, would be that the prison should be sold altogether by the Government, and that they should build a new one, any deficiency which there might be being made up by the inhabitants.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYrecommended the hon. Member for Dundee to accept the proposal of the Home Secretary, but thought it was hardly fair on the part of the latter to speak in such strong language respecting the Dundee Prison. That building was of a most substantial 1657 character, causing it to last much longer than buildings that had been erected in other quarters, but when first erected it was considered capable of meeting the requirements of the district.
§ MR. YEAMANwas not quite sure that the proposal of the Home Secretary would be considered satisfactory by the people of Dundee. The present prison was remarkably well situated for the purposes for which it was built. He thought it unfair that they should be saddled with £15,000 or £16,000 for additional cell accommodation, when there was plenty of ground in the immediate vicinity for the purpose of enlarging the present prison building.
§ MR. KINNAIRD,as connected with the district, ventured to recommend his hon. Friend to accept the offer made by the Home Secretary.
§ MR. E. JENKINScould only say that the offer of the right hon. Gentleman was quite open to be considered hereafter. The Scotch Bill had yet to come on, and it was unnecessary, therefore, for him to accept it. He only wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was to be understood that the rule of the 17th section would be adhered to, and that he would be willing to accept £120 a cell from the prison authorities?
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmoved the following clause:—
(Contribution by University of Oxford.)The chancellor, masters, and scholars of the University of Oxford shall, in consideration of their being relieved from their obligation under the Oxford Police Act of 1868 to contribute to gaol expenses, pay to the mayor, aldermen, and citizens of the city of Oxford, on or before the first day of April, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight, the sum of four hundred pounds; and the said chancellor, masters, and scholars shall, from that date, be discharged from all liability under the said Act in respect of gaol expenses.
§ Clause added.
§ MR. BIGGARmoved the following clause:—
(Officers of prison to be liable for damages for excess of punishment.)That whenever the governor or other officer of a gaol, or the visiting justice or justices, punish a prisoner contrary to the prison rules or 1658 in excess of the prison rules, said governor, officer, or visiting justice or justices shall be liable to an action for damages at the suit of the prisoner or of his executors, administrators, or assigns.The hon. Gentleman said, there had been a case in which a prisoner was confined for 72 hours in solitary confinement instead of 48 hours. This was clearly illegal, and it was only right that the prisoner should have taken proceedings against the parties who inflicted such punishment. If the man had died, it would have been right that his representatives should have been able to recover the amount which would have been recoverable for culpable negligence in a case of accident.
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
THE SOLICITOR GENERALpointed out that all that was important in the clause was already provided for in the law, and that the only mode in which the clause might operate would be that of an action for some trumpery assault brought by an attorney who wanted costs.
§ MR. SERJEANT SIMONobserved that the clause would give to convicts a right which it did not give to persons who had not been convicted of crime.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. H. B. SHERIDANmoved the following clause:—
(No person to be detained more than three months without trial.)No person shall be detained in custody after being committed for trial for a longer period than three months without being brought to trial: Provided always, That if it shall be made to appear to a judge of the High Court of Justice that the further detention of such person is necessary in order that his trial may be duly and justly had, the said judge may from time to time make such order as to the postponement of the trial and the detention of such person as to the said judge may appear right: Provided also, That nothing herein contained shall affect the provisions of the statute passed in the thirty-first year of the reign of Charles the Second, intituled, 'An Act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for Prevention of Imprisonment beyond the seas.At present, the hon. Member remarked, prisoners awaiting trial were kept in 1659 gaol eight and ten months; and this detention amounted in itself to a very considerable punishment. The excuses for this system were purely financial, it being more economical to keep the persons in gaol than to send them to be tried. Nearly all the lawyers he had spoken to were in favour of an alteration of the law.
§ 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 CROSSsaid, that even if the clause were passed the object which the hon. Member had in view could not by any possibility be secured without fresh legislation. He quite agreed that it was desirable, if possible, to give further relief to prisoners awaiting trial, and he had given an earnest of his desire by introducing the Winter Assizes Act, which he had the honour of passing last Session, under which, generally speaking, the period of imprisonment before trial could not exceed four months. He did not say there were not exceptions; but a great deal had been done by that Act to remove the grievance. He wished to be able to do something more, but there were difficulties in the way. It was not practicable to order that there should be another Assize, because there were not enough Judges for the purpose. It would inflict, moreover, a very great hardship on the sheriffs and jurors of the counties. The end in view must be attained by some alteration of the existing machinery, either by extending the principle of the Winter Assizes Act, or some other means. He hoped the hon. Member would not press this clause to a division. The object he had in view had been gained by entering his protest against the unnecessary detention of prisoners. If the hon. Member would during the present or next Session turn his attention to the matter, and show how it could be dealt with practically, he should be glad to give the subject fair consideration to see whether it could be treated effectually.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that in the 18 months ending the 1st of July, 1876, no fewer than 876 persons were kept in prison for a period longer than three 1660 months, and the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that persons might be kept in prison now without trial for five months. There were three classes of persons affected by the present system—the guilty, the innocent, and the public. With respect to the guilty, everyone would admit that speedy justice was desirable, and at present, on account of long detention before trial, the Judge often inflicted a less punishment than they deserved. As for the innocent, what torture could be greater than that they should be kept in prison without being allowed to prove their innocence? And then with regard to the public, the relief to the ratepayer would be far greater by bringing prisoners to speedy trial, than by treating unconvicted prisoners, as the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do for the future, as if they were innocent. He trusted the hon. Member for Dudley would go to a division, and if the House affirmed the principle that no person ought to be in prison longer than three months without trial, the Government could then easily come to the House and ask for a larger staff of Judges to carry out that principle.
§ MR. FORSYTHannounced his intention to support the clause, because he thought there should be an addition to the judicial staff. Although they had increased the number of Winter Assizes in the country, yet there were places where a man might still be detained awaiting his trial from September to March.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSstated that was not so, for Winter Assizes were now held in every county in England.
§ MR. FORSYTHwas not aware that there was a rule so extensive as that; but the fact still remained that they might have a man committed for trial waiting in prison four or five months, and it was because he considered that an injustice that he should vote for the clause.
§ MR. SERJEANT SIMONalso supported the clause, not because of any want of faith in the promises of the Home Secretary, but owing to the deplorable state of things which, according to the admission of the right hon. Gentleman, existed. A large deputation of commercial men from Yorkshire had lately waited upon the right hon. Gentleman, and asked for three or more Courts for civil trials to 1661 be holden in the year in that county; if that request was to be granted, as it ought to be, the case was much stronger where personal liberty was concerned, and where innocent persons were kept in prison for a long period without being brought to trial.
MR. GORSTwas in favour of the clause, because he thought that by passing it they would strengthen the hands of the Home Secretary.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, ho was one of those who opposed unnecessary expenditure; but to talk about the saving of expenditure in the face of a great public evil like this was a thing which that House would never entertain. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not refuse this clause; and, if he would accept it, he would find no difficulty in giving it effect on the ground that it would entail the cost of an additional Judge.
MR. MILLSsaid, the question was whether, if they passed the clause, they had the machinery requisite to carry it out. It appeared to him that to pass this clause without first introducing a Bill to enable them to obtain increased facilities in their legal machinery was like putting the cart before the horse.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that this was one of the questions which was most fully discussed by the Judicature Commission, of which he believed he was the only Member now in the House of Commons. What was wanted was to have certain centres out of London at which criminal sittings should be nearly as frequent as at the Central Criminal Court; and to which prisoners committed in counties where Assizes could only be held twice or three times a-year might be sent. It was an absurd superstition which required prisoners to be tried in their own county, while within a reasonable distance Criminal Courts might be sitting. Without interfering with the regular course of Assizes, a Criminal Court sitting at intervals of not more than two months in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and being in the Birmingham district; and another in London for the Home and Norfolk Circuits would clear all the gaols of the Kingdom, so that no one need be there untried for more than two months.
§ MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, that before the House came to a division, he was anxious it should know what the law of Scotland was on the 1662 point, and if he did not feel strongly h e should not intervene at this late hour. So far back as 1701 the Scottish Parliament passed a law enacting that any prisoner, for any crime, and whether bailable or not, so soon as he was committed for trial, could apply on 24 hours' notice by what was professionally styled "running his letters," and demand from the public prosecutor that within 60 days a diet for trial be fixed. If the prosecutor failed within 60 days to intimate a diet, the prisoner was entitled to instant liberation, under penalties. If a diet for trial were fixed, such date must be made within 40 days of making the intimation to the prisoner, and the trial must be actually completed, not merely begun within these 40 days. Thus in Scotland, although the public prosecutor took his utmost latitude in regard to time, no prisoner could have his trial put off for a longer period than 100 days from the date of his commitment. He was quite surprised lately to see from the Returns laid on the Table, on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), that the law in England was so different, and that some prisoners had within the last year or two been detained in prison waiting trial for periods extending as far as eight months. He could not conceive, now that the matter had come up so prominently, that Englishmen would any longer permit themselves to be 200 years behind their brethren in Scotland in so important a point as that embodied in this clause.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it was a remarkable fact that the principle of the clause had been approved of by nearly all the lawyers in the House, because they had practical experience of its necessity. He would suggest that if it were passed it should not come into operation until the 1st of October, 1878, so that during the next Session of Parliament time should be given for such changes in the law as were necessary for the working of the clause.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 165: Majority 30.—(Div. List, No. 168.)
§ Further Consideration deferred till Thursday.
§ MR. FAWCETTWill it be the First Order?