CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 14 June 1877)

§ MR. PARNELL
moved a new Clause—

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he would accept the hon. Member's clause if the word " Commissioners " were substituted for " visiting justices," and the rest of the clause left out.

§ MR. PARNELL
accepted the Amendment.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ MR. PARNELL
next moved that— No prisoner who, previous to his conviction, has been in the habit of wearing flannels shall be deprived of them during his imprisonment. If the right hon. Gentleman would provide for this being done in the prison rules he would withdraw the clause.
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
was understood to say that flannels were always offered to prisoners.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. PARNELL
then moved the following Clause:— (Restraint of prisoners.) No prisoner shall be put in irons, or under mechanical restraint, by the gaoler of any prison, or by order of the visiting committee of justices, except such restraint be necessary to secure the personal safety of the prison officials. When the question was before the House it was urged that the use of irons was necessary to the personal safety of the prison officials. He had framed this clause to meet that case. Prison officials had been in the habit of punishing prisoners by putting them in irons. He thought that the inflicting of punishment by irons ought to be done away with; and his opinion was that prisoners should be no longer punished, but restrained by officials where restraint was necessary. The Bill of 1865 said that it should be lawful for the gaoler to order the prisoner to be put in irons in case of "urgent necessity;" but it did not say 1781 what was meant by " urgent necessity." He thought that " urgent necessity " should only exist where the safety of the prison officials or the prisoner himself was involved, or where the prisoner would tear the furniture.
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 irons were not used except in cases of absolute necessity. He could not accept the clause, which provided only for the personal safety of the prison officials; but, a prisoner in a desperate state might, if not put under restraint, tear his own clothing, destroy furniture, or do injury to his fellow-prisoners or himself. He believed that everything that was necessary was provided for by the 59th rule, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press the clause.

§ MR. BIGGAR
would suggest that the hon. Member for Meath should amend his clause so as to enlarge its scope by taking in the various matters spoken to by the Home Secretary.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, the question seemed to be whether they should leave prisoners to knock out each other's brains. They sometimes fell foul of each other, and he thought they ought to be restrained.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
wanted to know if the Home Secretary intended to make any additional rules to those in the old Act of Parliament? He had a very strong opinion that irons should not be used as a means of restraint at all. In the case of lunatics irons had been abandoned and strait-waistcoasts had been substituted, and he did not see why they should not be adopted in gaols.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
said, the hon. Member for Meath had moved his clause, because he considered the expression " urgent necessity " in the Act of 1865 to be rather ambiguous. It rather depended upon the opinion of those who inflicted the punishment as to when an "urgent necessity" arose. If the object of the law was only for the purpose of restraint, and not for punishment, he did not see why they should take the trouble to amend the law. In 1782 order to express that intent more clearly, that could be done by amending the present clause, and he should propose—
That prisoners shall not be put in irons by the gaoler of any prison, or by order of the visiting committee of justices, as a punishment, but only for the purpose of restraint. Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 298: Majority 255.—(Div. List, No. 172.)
On the Motion of Mr. PARNELL, the following Clauses were agreed to, and added to the Bill:— (Limitation of time of confinement.) It shall not be lawful for the gaoler to order any prisoner to be confined in a punishment cell for any term exceeding twenty-four hours; nor shall it be lawful for the visiting committee of justices to order any prisoner to be punished by confinement in a punishment cell for any term exceeding fourteen days. (As to inquests on the bodies of prisoners.) In no case, where an inquest is held on the body of a prisoner who dies within the prison, shall any person engaged in any sort of trade or dealing with the person, be a juror on such inquest. Clause 10 (Report to contain information as to manufacturing processes in prison).

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
moved, in page 4, line 3, at beginning, to insert— Whereas it is expedient that the expense of maintaining in prison prisoners who have been convicted of crime should in part be defrayed by their labour during the period of their imprisonment, and that, with a view to defraying such expenses, and also of teaching prisoners modes of gaining honest livelihoods, means should be taken in promoting in prison the exercise of and instruction in useful trades and manufactures, so far as may be consistent with a due regard on the one hand to the maintenance of the penal character of prison discipline, and on the other to the avoidance of undue pressure on, or competition with, any particular trade or industry, Be it enacted, That.

§ MR. MORLEY
expressed his acknowledgments to the Home Secretary for the fair spirit in which he had dealt with the matter involved in the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 (Duties of visiting committee).
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 18, after the word " intervals," to insert the words " and at least twice in each week."—(Mr. Parnell.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
hoped the House would not insert the Amendment. He felt sure there was not the least doubt of the visiting justices performing their duties in a satisfactory way.

§ MR. BIGGAR
thought there should be something more definite laid down than the words "frequent intervals." Heretofore the justices had various duties to discharge, among them the tempting duty of filling appointments. Now, that that patronage was withdrawn, he feared there might be no inducement to attend, and it might be, as it was often with members of the Poor Law Board, who never attended on occasions when there was no election or other little matter to be carried out in which they were interested. Twice a-week might be too often to visit prisons, but some safeguard as to intervals should be provided.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 20, after the word " prisoners," to insert the words " privately, and not in the presence of any of the prison officials."—(Mr. Parnell.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he had no objection to the spirit of the Amendment, and if it were withdrawn he would propose other words to carry out the object of the hon. Member.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
condemned the Amendment as "sentimental," and. thought its adoption would be very inconvenient. It would depend a good deal on the character of the prisoner whether the visiting justice would grant him a private interview.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
moved, in page 5, line 33, to insert as a separate paragraph— Provided, That an offender shall not be punished under the said sections fifty-eight and fifty-nine, or either of them, by personal correction except in pursuance of the order of two justices of the peace after such inquiry upon oath and determination concerning the matter reported to them as is mentioned in the said regulation numbered fifty-eight. Motion agreed to.
Paragraph inserted. 1784 Clause 15 (Visits to prison by any justice).

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
moved, in page 6, at end of Clause, to add— and any Member of either House of Parliament may, when he thinks fit, enter into and examine the condition of any prison and of the prisoners therein, and he may enter any observations he may think fit to make in reference to the condition of the prison or abuses therein in the visitors' book to be kept by the gaoler; and it shall be the duty of the gaoler to draw the attention of the visiting committee, at their next visit to the prison, to any entries made in the said book. He reminded the House of the value of independent inspection. At present, the only persons to whom prisoners might make known their complaints were the visiting justices. The House had declined to lay down rules for the time of the visits of those magistrates, and their duties were of a purely honorary character, and having no penalty for neglect. If prisoners attempted complaints in their letters, allowed every four months, those letters were immediately confiscated. Nor were the prisoners to make complaints to their friends who visited them at intervals of four months. Seeing that all the proposals which had previously been made by himself or by hon. Members around him had been rejected, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accepting the present one. He could see no practical objection to it. Of course, visits might be made by Members of Parliament to prisoners with whom they felt some sympathy, but those prisoners might also be visited by those whose views were antagonistic, and so there was no fear of misrepresentation; while it would provide Members with the opportunity of verifying cases — such as that mentioned the other night by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), on the authority of a discharged. prisoner — before bringing such cases before the House.
Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 13, after the word "treatment," to insert the words " and any Member of either House of Parliament may, when he thinks fit, enter into and examine the condition of any prison and of the prisoners therein, and he may enter any observations he may think lit to make in reference to the condition of the prison or abuses therein in the visitors' book to be kept by the gaoler; and it shall be the duty of the gaoler to draw the attention of the visiting committee, at their next visit to the prison, 1785 to any entries made in the said book."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
opposed the Amendment. The Houses of Parliament did not administer, but they had the control of the administration through the responsible Ministers of the Crown, and it would be going beyond the functions of Members to undertake the supposed duty. Besides, the Bill already provided a very extensive machinery for the visiting of prisons. There were the Prison Commissioners, the Inspectors, and the visiting justices, and, moreover, every single justice of the peace of the county, and every justice of the peace where the prisoner came from, if he happened to be taken out of his jurisdiction and removed into a prison in another county, had the power of visiting prisoners.

MR. GOLDSMID
appealed to the hon. Gentleman not to saddle Members with a new and probably onerous task.

§ MR. HIBBERT
suggested that every justice of the peace should have power to visit prisons without restriction.

§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON
said, that if this clause were adopted it would create a divided responsibility between visiting justices and Members of Parliament. Moreover, the Home Secretary would be no longer responsible if such a power were given to Members of Parliament.

§ MR. FAY
said, that if such a power was granted to the Queen's counsel, he did not see why it should not be granted to a Member of Parliament.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
said, that practically any Member of Parliament who actually desired to visit a prison could obtain permission, and he knew of cases in which such permission had been granted. To give power to every Member of Parliament to visit prisons would be as absurb as it would be unwise to introduce politics into prisons.

§ MR. MACDONALD
said, that he had previously voted with his Friends for the protection of prisoners; but he should be against this clause, for the protection of Members of Parliament. The immediate result of such a clause would be that Members of Parliament all over the country would be solicited by numerous persons to inquire into their complaints. In a borough such as that 1786 he had the honour to represent, with a large county prison in it, he could see for himself an almost continual residence there. He would certainly divide against the proposed Amendment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 282: Majority 269.—(Division List, No. 173.)
Clause 18 (Compensation to be made to prison authority in respect of accommodation provided for prisoners of some other authority).

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
moved, in page 7, line 39, at end of Clause, to add, as separate paragraphs— Provided also, That no compensation shall be payable under such provision as last aforesaid in respect of any prison discontinued within two years after the commencement of this Act. A prison authority shall not be entitled to receive under his section more than one hundred and twenty pounds in the whole in respect of the same cell. Motion agreed to.
Paragraphs inserted.
Clause 25 (Confinement of prisoners after conviction).

§ MR. CLARE READ
moved, in page 9, line 38, to leave out the words " be entitled to," the effect of which would be that all prisoners confined in prisons beyond the limits of the " county, borough, or place " where they were convicted should receive on their discharge at the public expense the means of reaching the place where they were convicted. The hon. Gentleman remarked that the practice was already in operation in convict prisons. In agricultural districts, where they had little crime and large prisons, it was possible the right hon. Gentleman would shortly be making them available for the prisoners from other districts, where the gaol accommodation was less ample, and it was undesirable that there should be any possibility of persons from other districts being turned adrift without the means of getting home. The clause, as it present stood, stated that the prisoner should be "entitled to be taken back." He wished to make it an absolute right, which the prisoner could demand, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would 1787 see his way to accepting the Amendment.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he had no objection to offer to the principle of the Amendment; but he was not sure that the simple device of leaving out the words, as proposed by the hon. Gentleman, would effect its object. All prisoners would undoubtedly be sent back; and if the hon. Gentleman thought there was a possibility that they might not under the clause as it stood, he had no objection to accept the Amendment, on condition that it might be found necessary to alter the wording in " another place," if it was thought there would be any practical difficulty in carrying it out.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 (Special rules as to treatment of unconvicted prisoners and certain other prisoners).

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
moved, in page 15, to add the following Proviso:— Provided always, That no unconvicted person, or prisoner on remand or under any Act suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, shall be subject to the ordinary prison rules or discipline save so far as may be necessary to secure order and safe detention. The hon. Gentleman said, it had been shown in previous discussions of this Bill that a scandalous system had grown up, under which outrages had been committed on persons who were awaiting their trial. A large proportion of these persons were acquitted, and therefore these outrages were inflicted upon them in violation of the law. The Home Secretary had shown, in carrying this Bill through the House, that he was a master in the art of Parliamentary government. He had stated that any rules and regulations which he might make would be submitted to Parliament, and that there would be an opportunity of amending and repealing them. He (Mr. Sheridan) contended, on the other hand, that Parliament ought to govern and control these rules and regulations, and that the House ought to declare in the text of the Act what were the rights of unconvicted prisoners. There might come times of political trouble and excitement, and if the right hon. Gentleman represented the Prerogatives of the Crown, the House of Commons represented the rights and liberties of the people, and would neglect its duty if it allowed the clause to 1788 pass without the introduction of these words. There was nothing in the Amendment he proposed which would in any way conflict with the Bill, or change the law as enacted by it. All that was involved was, that persons who were in prison simply for the purpose of detention should not be subject to the same treatment as convicts; and although the rules to be drawn up by the Secretary of State might be satisfactory, it was desirable to have the distinction clearly laid down in the text of the Act. All that was of a popular character in the government of prisons was being swept away; and, although it might be said they were parting with a shadow, let them take care that in parting with the shadow they did not also part with the substance.
Amendment proposed, In page 16, line 18, after the word " regarded," to insert the words " Provided always, That no unconvicted person, or prisoner on remand or under any Act suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, shall be subject to the ordinary prison rules or discipline save so far as may be necessary to secure order and safe detention."—(Mr. B. Sheridan.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR WILLIAM FRASER
thought the proposed Amendment would not at all interfere with the principle of the measure, and he hoped the Homo Secretary would be able to accept it. The Amendment was a perfectly harmless and innocent one. Ho had found, on visiting a prison—the House of Detention at Clerkenwell — that no distinction was made between persons who were simply under detention and others who were being imprisoned without hard labour.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, it by no means followed it would be so under this Bill, for the Preamble of the clause made it imperative that a distinction should be made, and no rules, original or amended, could come into force until they had laid on the Table of the House 40 days.
Question put, and negatived.
Clause 40 (Treatment of prisoners convicted of sedition, &.).

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
moved, in page 16, line 20, after "libel" to insert—" Or treason-felony, or offences of 1789 a political nature." His object was to extend to political prisoners generally the exemptions and alleviations of discipline which were under the Bill to be allowed to persons convicted of libel and other offences. The Prison Commission reported in favour of separating political prisoners from other offenders. When a Commission, composed of such men as sat on this Commission, had made such a recommendation, it certainly deserved the most careful consideration. Political prisoners were now treated worse than they were in the days of O'Connell; and while the let of all other classes of prisoners had been mitigated, that of political prisoners had been materially aggravated. So far the feeling of loyalty had not been promoted by this treatment of political prisoners, the contrary had been the case; nor did he know of anything which had so much stimulated the hostility of Irishmen to the English Government as the stories which reached them of the ill-treatment to which Fenian prisoners were subjected in prison. He trusted that even if the Home Secretary did not assent to this clause, he would, at least, indicate to the House that he did not regard the severe treatment of political prisoners as a means of promoting loyalty, and that he would hold out some hope of adopting some measures to separate from ordinary prisoners men who, however mistaken might be their aims or ther modes of action, were of perfectly good moral character.
Amendment proposed,
In page 16, line 20, after the word "libel, "to insert the words" or treason-felony or offences of a political nature."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
observed that this subject had already been discussed at considerable length, and he thought they had arrived at the conclusion on sufficient grounds that these words should not be introduced. The statute gave considerable latitude to the Judge who tried the case. It was left to the Judge to say whether the offence was so slight that it deserved only a very light punishment. In such cases hard labour would not be imposed, and the prisoner would be more leniently treated. At the present moment there 1790 was not a single prisoner in England or Ireland who, if the Amendment were inserted, would be affected by it. It would not affect any political prisoner who was in custody at the present moment; because the Bill related entirely to county gaols; whereas any prisoners said to be political prisoners now in confinement were suffering penal servitude in convict prisons. There was another ground on which he must oppose the Amendment. If they adopted it they would, while passing a Prisons Bill, be really altering the sentences which the Judges had pronounced for certain offences.

§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON
suggested a compromise by inserting after " libel " the words " treason-felony without hard labour." This would be perfectly consistent with the clause, and would only extend the regulations to a class of prisoners to whom they were not at present applicable.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
could not see any reasonable objection to an Amendment, the principle of which the Home Secretary had already conceded by admitting the application of the proposition embodied to sedition and seditious libel.

§ DR. WARD
also urged that the principle of the Amendment was conceded by the application to prisoners guilty of seditious libel. He did not regard the power vested in a Judge to mitigate a sentence as at all meeting the case to be dealt with by the clause, because the truth was that in Ireland, at all events, the Judges did not command the confidence of the people.

§ MR. DODSON
hoped the right hon. Gentleman would leave the matter as it stood. It had been fully discussed in Committee and a compromise had been arrived at, which had been accepted as a settlement of the question.

§ MR. BIGGAR
also expressed his opinion that prisoners were not always justly treated by the Judges in Ireland.

§ MR. WADDY
entered a protest against the distinction constantly drawn in the House between political offenders and other criminals. In his opinion—an opinion which was shared by many others—no distinction could be drawn in favour of a political offender. From his point of view the political offenders were infinitely more dangerous, infinitely more culpable, and infinitely more deserving of punishment than the poor, misguided, 1791 ignorant wretches who were to be found in the same prisons with them, and the enormity of whose crime consisted in stealing a pocket handkerchief or embezzling a shilling. In no other country in Europe would the language which was openly held in that House and out of it with respect to the Government of the country be permitted without stern and speedy repression following. If they attempted to suppress seditious talk and writing their conduct would be denounced as an instance of Saxon tyranny and persecution. It was the privilege of England, Scotland, and Ireland, that they had free writing, and, he might say, very free speaking not only in the House, but elsewhere, and it was one of the consequences of that privilege that whoever did not confine himself to that free debate, free writing, and free speaking, by means of which we endeavoured to get our opinions believed in and maintained, but stepped over the line and resorted to violence, disloyalty, inciting to civil war and that which would lead to bloodshed and death, must take the consequences to the fullest extent, and his blood must be on his own head. That, at all events, was the feeling of the great majority of the people of this country when, presuming upon the liberty of speech and writing which they had in England and Ireland, men so far forgot themselves as to become involved in direct and open treason against Her Majesty, the crime of which they were guilty was not a crime to be talked of with forgiveness in the sense in which it had been talked of in that House; it should not to be spoken of with a kind of patronizing air; the House ought not to be told that it must draw a distinct line between these people " who were really only political offenders " and others, and that it should treat them with greater consideration than the poorer, more ignorant, more needy, more pitiable, people who had committed crimes of infinitely less magnitude and infinitely less peril to the State. He felt the time had come when a distinct protest should be entered against the false feeling which endeavoured to raise political offenders almost into heroes, instead of keeping them in their proper position as criminals. Political offenders, as they were called, had done far more in this country 1792 to disturb peace, spread mischief, and cause panic, than almost any other class of criminals.

MR. J. COWEN
said, he had no wish to take part in the discussion, and had not heard what had been previously said in support of the Amendment, but he could not pass in silence the most extraordinary speech just delivered by the hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple. As an English Liberal—or rather as an English Radical—he lodged his protest against such observations. He had the opportunity, when the Bill was in Committee, of speaking his views with regard to the treatment of political prisoners, and he had no wish to repeat what he then said; but the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple went absolutely to the very root of constitutional government, and against the very existence of the House of Commons itself. Some of the most distinguished Members of this House, notably the Leader of the Opposition, represented the struggle against despotism of a large portion of the people of this country in 1688. Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, and other great constitutional triumphs were all won in direct antagonism to the principles laid down by the hon. and learned Member who had given expression to doctrines such as were seldom heard from any Gentleman on the other side. His speech was one of unqualified opposition to constitutional government. Not very long ago a distinguished Member of the English Peerage proclaimed openly in his place in Parliament that the subjects of every Sovereign in Europe were not only justified in rising against their Governments, but that their resistance was sanctified by the best feelings of Christianity and humanity. But the hon. and learned Member from the Liberal side of that House had expressed a very different view. No doubt an attempt to overturn the constituted authorities of a country was most unwise, and in a sense criminal. We had in this country the largest measure of liberty enjoyed by any people. We had the fullest liberty of speech and of public meeting and it was most unwise for men, for the sake of liberty, to attempt to appeal to physical resistance. But there were times when men's feelings got the better of their judgment, and when their passions overruled their reason, and that had been the case to a 1793 great extent in Ireland quite recently. All that the Mover of the Amendment contended for was, that when men had overstepped that boundary, they should be treated with some measure of consideration, and not be classed in the same way as men who broke the law for their own personal advantage. If a man stole a pocket-handkerchief or a purse, he did it for his own personal aggrandizement; but if a man attempted to revolutionize the law of a country, he acted unwisely and illegally, perhaps, but what he did was done from patriotic feelings, and for what he believed the general advantage of mankind. That man might be mistaken in the view he took, but his actions were for the advantage of others; and they ought not to treat a man who broke the law foolishly and indiscreetly for the benefit, or the supposed benefit, of the nation at large, in the same way as they treated a man who broke the law for his own benefit. All that was asked for by any reasonable man was, that when men had been convicted of a political offence, and sent to prison or to penal servitude, they should be treated with some measure of consideration. Let them be restrained by imprisonment from inciting to rebellion or sedition, as long as it was for the interest of the State that they should be so restrained. He should have no hesitation in sanctioning the confinement of a dozen, or 20, or 100, or 1,000 men, who conspired unwisely and unjustly against the rule of the authority of the Government, to prevent these men from engaging again in similar pursuits; but what the Mover of the Amendment wished to enforce was, that confinement should be sufficient, and that there should be a distinction between crime as against an individual, and crime as against a nation. He understood that the Home Secretary had, to a certain extent, assented to the Amendment, and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman cordially for the concession he had made. He was satisfied with the advance that had been made in that direction; but what he understood the Mover of the Amendment to desire was that the same measure of leniency should be extended to treason-felony as to other political offences. He had no wish to detain the House by any lengthened observations; his only object was to protest against the arbitrary, despotic, and most uncon- 1794 stitutional doctrines which had been preached by the hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple.

§ MR. WHALLEY
said, that the persons who offended in the way referred to were not to be blamed so much as the officers whom they obeyed. The Roman Catholic priesthood were the officers of a Power which was treason itself, and their avowed duty was to preach and teach by every possible means—in the pulpit, the confessional, and the schools —how to bring to the ground and destroy—[Cries of "Question!"]

§ MR. MELDON
wished to ask whether the hon. Gentleman was in Order in the observations he was now making?

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the hon. Gentleman was discussing a question not before the House, and was quite out of Order.

§ MR. WHALLEY
had thought he was safe. With what justice could the Government treat these poor Fenians thus, and yet continually grant large sums—the other day, £9,000—

§ MR. SPEAKER
asked the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Question before the House.

§ MR. WHALLEY
said, he was endeavouring to do so. The Government, by every means at their command, in the Army, by-and-by, he supposed, in the Navy—[" Question!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
again interposed and informed the hon. Member that the Amendment before the House related to the treatment of persons confined for treason-felony, and that his remarks must be confined to that subject.

§ MR. WHALLEY
resumed his seat.

§ MR. HIBBERT
expressed his regret at the language used by the hon. and leaned Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Waddy). He thought that these prisoners should be treated in a more lenient manner. In other countries the greatest leniency was shown, with a most satisfactory result. Prisoners convicted of treason-felony would be sent to the convict prisons, not to the county and berough prisons. The proposal of the Devon Commission ought to be adopted. It would be a great advantage if such persons were sent to some particular prison or section of a prison.

§ MR. GRAY
said, it appeared that the position which the Home Secretary occupied with reference to this clause was a slightly inconsistent one, because the 1795 right hon. Gentleman consented that prisoners convicted of sedition and seditious libel should be treated as first-class misdemeanants, while he refused to permit prisoners convicted of treason-felony to be in the same category. As it appeared to him, it would frequently happen that a man convicted of sedition would be morally quite as guilty as a man convicted of treason-felony, and the distinction attempted to be drawn was extremely fine, and in practice would not be found just. He asked the Home Secretary, also, to remember that the Treason-Felony Act was an innovation, only introduced some 30 years ago, and passed, as many thought, with the view of vindictively punishing Irish political prisoners. He thought the time for the vindictive punishment of political offences had gone by; and when the prison laws were being amended it would show a spirit much to be regretted if men of a class who had risen to high positions in the State were still to have cast upon them the odium of being treated like common felons, of being herded with the worst class of felons.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
wished to endorse the views expressed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson), and should, therefore, be disposed to oppose this Amendment. He did not think that it would be wise on the part of the House of Commons to apply any kid glove treatment to the crime of treason, or to allow themselves to be carried away on this subject by any sentimental feelings. There was, in his opinion, no sound reason why the great crime of inciting others to make war against the Queen should not be dealt with rigorously and according to the law of the country. He should deeply regret if any large number of hon. Members on that side of the House were to use language with regard to treason-felony which would tend to show that they sympathized with those who committed crimes against the law of the land, or that they scarcely thought that treason-felony was a crime at all. A few hon. Members appeared to think that they could go behind a crime and look into the motives that led to the crime being committed; but, in his opinion, nothing could be more dangerous than to attempt to gauge the various motives which led men to commit crimes and to contend that they should be 1796 treated, not according to the crimes they committed, but according to the particular frame of mind which they happened to be in at the time they committed them. Murder itself might be justified on such grounds as those, because it might he said—" Here is a man whose death will be a great benefit to mankind, and therefore it is right to kill him." He was satisfied that such a doctrine as that would not find favour in that House. These offences were characterized as crimes by the Statute Book, and it was for the general safety of the State that those who perpetrated them should be treated as criminals. He trusted, therefore, that the House of Commons would not enter into the dangerous course of extenuating these offences, and would declare its opinion that all who committed them deserved rigorous punishment.

MR. SULLIVAN
said, that if the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to which the House had just listened was to be taken as representing the opinion of the Liberal Leaders in Parliament, he feared that the friends of humanity and progress would wish a long career of office to Her Majesty's present Government. The right hon. Gentleman had lent the prestige of his much-respected name, and the reputation of his past official life, to a doctrine which was unworthy of an Englishman. The proposition advanced by the right hon. Gentleman was that political prisoners in this country, and this alone, should be treated on a level with the common felon, thief, and murderer. The right hon. Gentleman said that political prisoners ought not to be handled with kid gloves; but could he point to any country in Europe where, in the wildest times, such prisoners were treated as the Irish political prisoners had been in recent years ? What would be thought of an ex-Minister of France if he were to rise in the French Assembly and say that French political offenders should be treated as pickpockets and garotters ? What would be said if the Emperor of Austria treated the Hungarian rebels as the right hon. Gentleman would treat them if he happened to be in power in Austria? But, happily for Austria, the right hon. Gentleman's services had been reserved for this country. This odious, re-actionary, and barbarous policy was disgraceful to the country. Would the 1797 right hon. Gentleman tell him in what way the great Republic of America would receive this proposition? Would it be listened to with patience? Even after the Civil War to uphold the Union, during which whole families were decimated, the people would have spat with scorn if the suggestion were made that Jefferson Davis should be treated as a thief. He (Mr. Sullivan) said that the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman was unworthy of that Assembly, and was unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman himself, for whom personally he had the highest respect. A man who committed a political offence had to face his fate, but magnanimity ought at any rate to be the characteristic of a nation which owed everything to a great rebellion. He was not an Englishman, and his countrymen had fought for the English King when his own subjects had adopted a foreigner in his place. Cromwell, Charles, and James no doubt put down rebellion with a strong arm. They gave capital punishment, but they never degraded their prisoners. The most despotic Sovereigns they ever had used to punish severely, but they never wounded the prisoners as political prisoners were wounded at the present day. He happened to know some of the released men, and had heard them say they would rather suffer death than endure the sufferings and indignities put on them in prison, and one of them said his flesh crept at the indignities heaped upon him. He (Mr. Sullivan) did not believe, if he went round England and canvassed the country on the subject, but that he would gain the voices of nine out of every ten Englishmen against the doctrine which had been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. O'CLERY
said, he was glad to hoar that the Liberals had openly declared against Ireland, and that the right hon. Gentleman had at last shown himself in his true colours.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
rose to Order. He wished to explain that he had not spoken against Ireland, but against treason-felony, without particular reference to Ireland.

§ MR. O'CLERY
said, everyone knew that the debate had turned upon the question of Irish political prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman had dealt exclusively with them.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
denied having alluded to Irish political prisoners specially.

§ MR. O'CLERY
observed that this discussion had been provoked by the cruel and unwarranted attack made by the hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Waddy) upon Irish political prisoners.

§ MR. WADDY
rose to Order. He had never used the expression "Irish political prisoners" from beginning to end. A man guilty of treason-felony in England was worse than one guilty of the same offence in Ireland, and he was not aware that Ireland had a monopoly of treason-felony.

§ MR. O'CLERY
said, that whenever, in foreign countries, individuals revolted against the constituted authorities and afterwards escaped to England, they were received with open arms by Members of the English Liberal Party. He regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was of Irish descent, had wounded and insulted the very country he had sprung from. He thought the time had come when offences of this kind might be forgiven, and the political prisoners at present in gaol might be liberated.

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
said, that in the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) he was quite consistent, as, like a strict disciplinarian as he was, he had opposed the Motion for the abolition of flogging last year, and this year did the same, though he stood alone on the front Opposition bench. He would, however, rather have the consistency of the right hon. Gentleman than the inconsistency of the hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple, who signed a Petition in favour of the release of the political prisoners last year, and afterwards said he had signed it by mistake. He (Captain Nolan) advocated the milder treatment of political prisoners, because England by adopting that course would act consistently with the policy she had pursued with regard to political refugees from foreign countries. There was no finer thing in England's history than the manner in which she had defended political offenders who had sought refuge on her shores; and it was inconsistent, therefore, to seek to degrade and lower men who had committed political offences at home. The great Republic of America and the small Republic of Switzerland had shown them an example of how to treat political prisoners, which 1799 it would be for the advantage and honour of this country to follow.

§ MR. MACDONALD
rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London had not charge of a Prisons Bill. If he had, it would be immensely more severe than the measure which had been introduced by the Government, and which would add one more to the honours which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had won in that House. After such an expression from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, he, for one, hoped that he would not bask in the sunshine of Office for the next 20 years to come. He (Mr. Macdonald) was in favour of extending as much kindness as possible towards political prisoners, so as to wean them back to their duties as citizens.

§ MR. PARNELL
must say that some of his hon. Friends had been rather too hard upon the hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple. He had, on former occasions, heard the hon. and learned Member, Hecuba-like, bewail the evils of the past, and then, Cassandra-like, prophesy dire evils for the future. He had heard him persistently advocate certain measures in the House, and a few days after express his regret for the manner in which he had acted. Perhaps, on this matter also, the hon. and learned Member would, after a few hours' consideration, come to see the error of his way, and would repent of his conduct in "sackcloth and ashes." It was necessary for the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) and his Friends to raise the question on this Amendment, as it could not be raised in any other manner. He reminded the House that the Devon Commission had recommended that certain relaxations should be made in the treatment of political prisoners, and that they should be kept apart from other convicts, and he called on all who approved of those recommendations to support the Amendment. The words "treason-felony" were new-fangled, and altogether new terms that ought not to be applied to political prisoners. They were terms that were not known 30 years ago, when certain persons were prosecuted and transported for political offences, and amongst them his predecessor in that House, the late John Martin, than whom there could not be a more amiable and just man. The late 1800 John Mitchell wrote his recollections of the manner in which he was treated as a political prisoner. His book was entitled Gaol Life, and in it he stated that he was not in his exile obliged to associate with criminal prisoners, but was allowed a cell to himself. John Martin, also, left a written record of the manner in which he was treated in his imprisonment—a manner similar to that which John Mitchell described. It was the greatest pride and glory of this country that the political prisoners who sought an asylum were treated with so much liberality; and he trusted the Home Secretary would see that the time had come for an alleviation of prison discipline with regard to those prisoners who had been convicted of offences connected with Fenianism, and for extending to them such privileges as had been recommended by the Devon Commission.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 135: Majority 81.—(Div. List, No. 174.)
Clause 47 (Rules of Secretary of State and repeal of inconsistent enactments).

§ MR. DODSON
moved, in page 18, line 24, after " laid," to insert— In a complete form, after the same shall have been settled and approved by such Secretary of State. Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON (for Mr. NEWDEGATE)
moved, in page 18, line 33, at end to add " and have been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament." Under the present Bill it was proposed to give power to the Home Secretary to alter the rules of prison discipline from time to time as he might think proper. Now, that was a large power to place in the hands of a Secretary of State, and Parliament should certainly take care and hold a power in its own hands which would give to any private Member the privilege of bringing forward any objection or alteration which he might think proper in reference to those rules. During his time in that House he did not know of any instance wherein private Members had not the power to call attention to, and with the sanction of Parliament cause a change in the rules of, prison discipline. The provision that the rules should be on the Table of the House 40 clear days before 1801 they acquired force was a delusion for all practical purposes, and the object of adding these words to the clause was to oblige the Government to afford the House an opportunity of discussing them.
Amendment proposed,
In page 18, line 33, after the word "days," to add the words " and have been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament (Mr. Serjeant Simon.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he hoped the House would excuse him from going into this subject again, having already discussed it in Committee. He had every respect for Acts of Parliament and for the guiding principles laid down in them; but really to legislate on these small matters would be carrying legislation to excess. What was wanted was that Parliament should know what the rules were, and they would be on the Table for 40 days. All the rules he made would be in mitigation of those which now existed. There would be ample opportunity for any hon. Member to challenge them and raise a discussion when they were on the Table.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
said, the object the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had in view was shared by many others near him. All along the proposition had been met by the Home Secretary with a reference to the rules and the right hon. Gentleman's personal assurances. He had urged that Parliament should not be called on to approve of all these minute rules; but, as a matter of fact, all the rules would be considered at once, and one debate would cover the whole ground. The Home Secretary, with his experience of office, must know how difficult it was to become acquainted with the whole subject. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) did not pretend to appreciate all the right hon. Gentleman's ability and industry; but if he possessed the ability of a dozen Home Secretaries, he was putting upon himself an immense responsibility, which he would do well to ask the House to share. This reasonable proposition would, he hoped, be pressed to a division.

§ MR. WHALLEY
supported the Amendment, as it would give the 1802 magistrates some inducement to look after prison discipline.

§ MR. STEVENSON
likewise supported the Amendment, as he was of opinion that the Home Secretary should, when the rules were drawn up, propose them to the House for its sanction.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 140: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 175.)
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.