§ (Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
§ COMMITTEE. [Progress, 22nd February.]
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Visiting Committee of Justices.
§ Clause 10 (Appointment of visiting committee of prisons).
§ MR. ASSHETONmoved, in page 4, line 10, at end, to add—
and the fifty-fifth section of 'The Prison Act, 1865,' shall be read as if the words 'visiting committee' were substituted for the words 'visiting justices.'The county and borough gaols under 1218 this Act would become Queen's prisons, under the direct control of the Secretary of State, who was rarely seen in the country, though much believed in. It was essential that the people should had confidence that the law would be properly administered, and it was desirable that all justices should have access at all times to prisons, as they had now, with power to report to the visiting committee. If that safeguard was removed, the time of the House would be taken up with complaints similar to those which had been lately made of the "unfortunate person" who was locked up in one of our convict prisons. It was therefore desirable to prevent cases from cropping up of imaginary ill-treatment, leaving a burning sense of injustice in the minds of the people.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could assure the House that this was not a question of principle, but purely of drafting. He was advised that, as the Bill was drawn, it would secure all that the hon. Member required. He, however, suggested that this Amendment should be withdrawn, and that the Committee should accept that proposed by the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson).
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. LEIGHTONmoved, in page 4' line 12, after "under this Act", to insert "and every convict establishment in England." His object was to carry, as far as possible, the principle of uniformity, which was the basis of the Bill, to its legitimate conclusion. The Homo Secretary had applied that principle to 20,000 prisoners, leaving 10,000 outside the provisions of the Bill. If it was necessary for the short-sentenced men to have the protection of periodical visits from independent gentlemen, it was far more necessary that the long-sentenced men should have a similar protection. The acceptance of his Amendment would take away from the Bill the reproach that it was a step towards present government.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSrepeated what he had said on a previous occasion—namely, that he very much agreed with the terms of the Amendment, though he thought it would be inconvenient to introduce it into this Bill. At 1219 some future time he should be quite willing to discuss the point.
§ MR. PEASEthought the difficulty with regard to the insertion of the Amendment in this Bill might be met by placing all criminals, including those in the convict prisons under long sentences under the surveillance of the local magistracy.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKwas strongly in favour of inspection. We did not know where we were going; but we knew where we had come from. [Laughter.] He meant what he said. It was only 100 years since John Howard published his book, in which frightful disclosures were made on the subject of prison life; and, as far as he could see, we might end there again. Government managed then, and would now.
MR. PAGEThoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn after the intimation of the Home Secretary that he was not opposed to the principle of the Amendment.
§ MR. MUNTZremarked that some of the things mentioned in the book referred to by the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Lusk) were as bad as Bulgarian atrocities. Moreover, within the last few days they had heard of indignities being perpetrated on a well-known person at Dartmoor. If this was not the time to bring forward this Amendment no time would be appropriate. He should certainly support the Amendment if it was carried to a division.
§ MR. J. R. YORKEthought that the House ought to be satisfied with the assurance of the Home Secretary on the subject. Ho hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
§ SIR HENRY JACKSONsuggested that the necessary clauses to ensure an inspection of convict prisons should be brought up on the Report.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he could not see that this Bill had anything to do with convict prisons. It was a great mistake to have a divided authority in visiting the gaols with which they were dealing; but it would be still worse if they applied it to the convict establishments. He would like to know whether, from the right hon. Gentleman's reading of the clause; the appointment of visiting justices would be made imperative? It ought to be clearly understood whether they would be appointed with their consent or not.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it would be imperative upon the courts of quarter sessions to appoint certain visiting justices, and it would be imperative on those justices to serve. Of course, the court of quarter sessions, in the exercise of their discretion, might previously ask the justices whether they would serve. Their duties would be confined to the administration of the gaol, and would be analogous to those they had hitherto performed.
§ MR. WHALLEYwished to allude to a certain convict at Dartmoor. It greatly increased the anxiety of those persons who were interested in that prisoner that rumours got abroad respecting his treatment in the prison, and that anxiety would be considerably diminished if he were visited by justices, by whom his friends might be assured that he was properly treated. He believed that among the prisoners confined in the convict prisons there were many grievances which demanded inquiry.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that if this proposal was to be carried out it must be in a separate Bill. He was quite willing to consider the question, but not in the present Bill. With regard to the particular prisoner referred to by the hon. Member for Peterberough (Mr. Whalley), he could assure hon. Gentlemen that he had made most careful inquiries into the matter, and had found that every possible care and attention had been paid to him.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. WHITBREADmoved, in page 4, line 17, at end to add, as a fresh paragraph—
Nothing in this Act, or in any rules to be made under this Act, shall restrict any member of the visiting committee from visiting the prison at any time, and any such member shall at all times have free access to every part of the prison, and to every prisoner therein.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ On the Motion of Mr. ROWLEY HILL, certain words were introduced to save the right of the Worcester Corporation under the Worcester Prison Act to appoint visiting justices.
§ MR. FRESHFIELDmoved, in page 4, line 25, at end, to add—
Provided, That there shall be on the committee at least one such justice representing the jurisdiction of each prison authority in existence 1221 at the date of the commencement of this Act in the county or part of a county or borough to which each prison shall be assigned.He said that the prisons in different counties or boroughs might be abolished under the Bill, and as the clause was drawn they might not get that full representation of the justices generally on the committee which was desirable.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not accept the Amendment on the ground that it would lead to considerable confusion. There were a great many prison authorities at present who had no gaols of their own, but sent their prisoners elsewhere, and there was no reason why they should be brought in under the Bill. Besides, as a rule, it would be found that the visiting justices who lived at a distance from the gaols took little trouble about them.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that in the town which he had the honour to represent there was a borough and a county gaol, and it was probable that one of the two would be done away with, and the prisoners would be placed in the other gaol. There was a strong feeling that those who had had authority in the gaol to be abolished should not be set aside altogether, and he would like to know what were the views of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to dealing with the authorities in such a case as he had suggested.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that no doubt in certain cases where there happened to be both borough and county gaols one or the other must give way. The intention undoubtedly was that if the borough gaol was done away with a number of justices in proportion to the prisoners contributed by the borough should be placed on the visiting committee. In the same way if the county gaol were abolished a certain number of county justices proportionate to the number of prisoners from the county would bejoined with borough justices. He would have no objection to introduce words on a future occasion making it clear that this was the intention of the Act.
§ MR. THOMSON HANKEYstated that his constituents were, deeply interested in this question, and were looking forward anxiously to the action of the Home Secretary with regard to it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1222§ MR. WHALLEYmoved the following Amendment, which stood on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Rowley Hill), which he proposed to add at the end of the clause:—
Provided always, That where the right of appointing visiting justices or visitors of any prison hath heretofore been vested in the municipal corporation of any city or borough, the right of appointing the visiting committee under this Act shall be exercised by such municipal corporation and not by the justices of such city or borough.The hon. Member was proceeding to remark upon the regulations of convict prisons, when—
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Member was out of Order in discussing the subject of convict prisons in reference to an Amendment which related to a different class of prisons.
§ DR. KENEALYsubmitted that the hon. Member was quite in Order in referring to cruelties and hardships which had occurred in Government prisons as a ground for vesting the appointment of the visting justices for borough prisons in the town council.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Peterberough was travelling be. yond his own Amendment in entering into an argument as to the condition of convict prisons. In answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke, he might observe that the question raised by the Amendment was not as to the appointment of visiting justices generally, but as to who were the proper authorities to appoint them. Of course, if the hon. Member was only illustrating his argument in referring to the management of the convict prisons, the Committee would perhaps be inclined to allow him some latitude.
§ MR. WHALLEYwas merely advocating the introduction of a still stronger blast of civil life into the recesses of our prisons. The right hon. Gentleman, to whom special credit was due for the anxiety he had always shown to do what was right, had been misinformed and misled with reference to one case which had occurred in our convict prisons. He could prove this by the fact that the treatment of the prisoner to whom he referred had been totally changed. When the right hon. Gentleman—and such a right hon. Gentleman—had been misinformed and misled it, showed the 1223 necessity that existed for securing a proper civil supervision of our prisons as contra-distinguished from mere official supervision. He therefore trusted that the Amendment he now moved would be accepted.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 25, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That where the right of appointing visiting justices or visitors of any prison hath heretofore been vested in the municipal corporation of any city or borough, the right of appointing the visiting committee under this Act shall be exercised by such municipal corporation and not by the justices of such city or borough."—(Mr. Whalley.)
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided:— Ayes 54; Noes 253: Majority 199—(Div. List, No. 20.)
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
MR. PAGETmoved, in page 4, line 27, after "Secretary of State" to insert "shall on or before the commencement of this Act, make and publish and."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 11 (Duties of Visiting Committee).
§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOT,in moving, as an Amendment, the omission of the following words:—
The visiting committee may from time to time (subject to such rules as to rotation or otherwise as may be made by the Secretary of State) nominate to the Prison Commissioners persons fit to be admitted into the prison service as subordinate officers, and such persons shall, in the event of their possessing such qualifications and fulfilling such conditions as may from time to time be prescribed by the Secretary of State, be appointed to vacancies from time to time arising in the prison service,said, that he wished to have omitted from the Bill the small amount of patronage that had been placed in the hands of the visiting justices. His objection to the Bill was not on account of there being no patronage allowed to the magistrates, but to its principle. In the debate on the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir John Kennaway), the Secretary of State said objected to any stringent words being placed in the Bill, because he might thereby be forced to do certain things which he might not wish to do, and prevented from doing certain things and 1224 from appointing certain persons he might wish to appoint. If that objection applied to one portion of the Bill it applied equally to another. If they were not to have that patronage, and if the discipline was to be maintained by the Secretary of State and the Commissioners, let them have the patronage, and let the visiting magistrates have the important work entrusted to them of seeing that prisoners had no complaint to make, but let them not have divided responsibility, even the small amount of recommending persons for this patronage. He observed from the Notice Paper that his hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir John Kennaway) intended to suggest that the Secretary of State for War should have this patronage. Well, he believed that amongst the non-commissioned officers of the Army there would be found as good a class of men to put into prison service as could possibly be selected, and he hoped that the Home Secretary would never lose sight of that fact; but, at the same time, it would manifestly be unwise to say that no other deserving men should be open to appointment.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEremarked that the patronage which it was proposed to confer on the visiting committee would serve no purpose whatever, except to disguise the exclusive domination which was to be exercised by the Home Secretary, and to defeat the responsibility he proposed to assume. That patronage could only operate to the deception of the public, and he therefore thoroughly concurred in the request that the Justices in Quarter Sessions might not be encumbered with this small patronage.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, that he hoped his right hon. Friend would announce his consent to the Amendment — which was in the right direction. The words not only possibly created a divided responsibility, but were directly surplusage. Under restrictions to be imposed by the Secretary of State the justices were to nominate persons to certain subordinate appointments. The privilege of recommending persons to such appointments would exist without these words, and any Secretary of State would attend to recommendations coming from such a quarter. As it stood, moreover, the clause appeared to give a power of nomination which it did not give in 1225 effect, because the rules regulating the appointments would be in the hands of the Prison Commissioners or the Secretary of State. This part of the clause was an unreality, therefore, to which he objected. Having given the power to the Secretary of State, the less they clogged him the better.
§ SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, that he could save time by stating his cordial agreement with the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter Barttelot), which, he thought, was approved of' by the Committee. He thought the justices would decline to be burdened with this patronage, though he had been accused of coveting patronage for them. The object of the further Amendment to which his hon. and gallant Friend had referred was not to tie the hands of the Secretary of State as to the persons he should appoint, but to offer increased inducements to good men to enter the Army. It had been found difficult to find a class of appointments suited to retired soldiers; but if it were known that such appointments existed, it would add greatly to the inducements which the recruiting sergeants had to offer.
§ MR. PEASEsupported the Amendment on the ground that a divided responsibility in prison management was objectionable. He hoped the Home Secretary would keep all these appointments in his own hands. The proposal of the hon. Member for Devonshire could only result in confusion. Those who had served in the Navy and in the Civil Service were equally as deserving as those in the Army.
§ MR. HENLEYhoped the Committee would strike out the clause. If they wanted a gaol to be well managed they must have undivided authority and responsibility. The Prison Commissioners and the Home Secretary ought to be responsible for everything, and then if matters did not go well the House would know whom to "pitch into." If they wanted to scare magistrates from acting as visiting justices they would give them the duty of inquiring into the doubtful qualifications of A, B, or C for these situations.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the Committee would believe him when he said that he had not sought for any patronage in this Bill that he could possibly avoid exercising. The clause did not, in his view, create a 1226 divided authority. His intention was that the visiting justices might send up the names of any persons whom they thought fit to occupy the position of prison warders, and who, after passing the ordinary Civil Service examination, would be appointed not to any particular prison, but to the general prison service of' the country. He would not, however, press that part of the clause, and would accept the Amendment, as he was quite sure he could get all he wanted without the words being embodied in the Bill. It was obvious that if any body of visiting justices recommended a particular man for the position of prison warder the Home Secretary would only be too glad to avail himself of the recommendation.
§ MR. WHALLEYprotested against the withdrawal of this Proviso, and the adoption of the Amendment.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKdid not consider that soldiers would make good warders, and objected to the introduction of military discipline into our prisons.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. LEIGHTONmoved, in page 5, line 17, at end, to add
and shall also report as heretofore to the court of quarter sessions by which they have been appointed.The intention of the Amendment was to keep the public informed through an unofficial source of the management of the prisons. The publicity hitherto obtained through the quarterly reports of the visiting justices to quarter sessions was taken away by the Bill. He desired to see it restored, so that as far as possible the public might be made cooperators with the Government in the cause of prison reform. Improvements had usually originated from outside. Moreover, the best way of meeting the accusations, frequently unfounded, brought against the Government with respect to the treatment of prisoners, would be to appeal to the report of unofficial persons such as the justices committee. It was the secrecy of the system which gave colour to such charges. As long as a large criminal jurisdiction was imposed upon the local magistrates, they should be kept acquainted with the nature of prison discipline, otherwise they would be scarcely competent to pass just and adequate sentences. Pub- 1227 lie discussion on this subject in one of the constituted courts of the country, such as the court of quarter sessions, would strengthen the hands of any Government for good and weaken their power for evil.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 17, at end of the Clause, to add the words "and shall also report as heretofore to the court of quarter sessions by which they have been appointed."—(Mr. Leighton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he quite concurred in the object of the hon. Member for Shropshire; but he thought he had overlooked the circumstance that the visiting justices, who hitherto had been responsible to the quarter sessions, would, under this clause, become instruments of the Secretary of State, as the clause stated that they should only exercise their functions as justices in such manner as the Secretary of State should direct. There was nothing in the clause to limit the control the Secretary of State would have over them. They would be responsible to the Secretary of State, and to him, they would, of course, report. He (Mr. Newdegate) saw that it would be unreasonable to make them report to the court of quarter sessions, to which they would no longer be responsible; but he also saw that the system contemplated by the Bill would be one of secrecy, rendering the prisons that would be retained oubliettes. Hitherto the reports of the visiting justices had been published in the courts of quarter sessions. There might be objections to a double system of reporting; but there would be none to the publication of copies of the reports made by these justices to the Secretary of State. He should therefore move to amend the proposed Amendment by making it provide instead—"and shall also furnish copies of their Reports to the quarter sessions by whom they are appointed."
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "report as heretofore," and insert the words "furnish copies of their report," (Mr. Newdegate,)—instead thereof.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSopposed the Amendment, both as it stood originally and in its altered shape. They had, rightly or wrongly, placed those matters 1228 in the hands of the Secretary of State, who was responsible to the House, and reports were to be made annually to Parliament on the state of these prisons. The reports of the visiting justices would be simply complaints against the officers of the prison, but would not contain any answer to those complaints. They would contain the charges, but nothing more. The publication of such reports would be unfair and unjust.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEwas of opinion that if the public were to be informed in regard to the conduct of prison officials there was but one way of doing that—by the publication of reports against these officials. If the House had any hope that this Bill would not give dissatisfaction the original report made to the Secretary of State and the answer he returned should be produced, so that there might be no more secrecy than hitherto. Besides, the sentences pronounced at quarter sessions were not always carried out to the full, any more than those pronounced by the assize courts. This was a necessary incident in the present system of prison discipline which severely tried the prisoners health. There had grown up a system of political trading in the remission of sentences, which this Bill would increase.
MR. ROWLEY HILLwas in favour of the visiting justices being required to report to the authority by whom they were appointed.
§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOTsaid, there were many things brought before the visiting justices which it was requisite to keep secret; but there were other matters such as the cleanliness, good order, and discipline in the gaol, as well as whether or not there were any complaints. It should be reported by the visiting justices to the quarter sessions particularly so as the quarter sessions were called upon to appoint the visiting committee of justices.
§ MR. DODSONapprehended that unless words were inserted in the Act prohibiting the visiting justices making reports to the body appointing them they would naturally be entitled, and it would be their duty, to do so. At all events, the body appointing might require reports to be made to them.
MR. PAGETsaid, under the Bill the Secretary of State would have no power to enforce visiting justices doing their duty, whereas if there was a quarterly 1229 report the Secretary of State would have the knowledge that they had or had not. Then, again, these reports would not only be a great advantage, but would give satisfaction out-of-doors. If the House was sitting hon. Members would have opportunities of putting Questions to the Secretary of State with reference to the condition of gaols, &c.; but when the House was not sitting what means would the public have of getting information on such matters, unless the visiting justices reported to the quarter sessions?
§ MR. PEASEsaid, there was nothing in the Bill which would prevent the visiting justices from reporting to the quarter Sessions, but there was a clause which required the prison commissioners to report annually to the Secretary of State, and he was to lay their reports before Parliament. He thought the publicity they all desired would be obtained better by the Bill as it stood than by the Amendment.
§ MR. HARDCASTLEsaid, that under the clause it was possible for the Secretary of State to order that the visiting justices should not report to quarter sessions but to himself.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not possibly prevent the visiting justices telling their brethren at quarter sessions what they saw inside the gaols. No doubt they would have their chatter about the gaols. ["Oh!"] He begged pardon of any hon. Members who were justices for that expression; but what he meant was that while he could not prevent visiting justices reporting what they had seen, he could not sanction a statutory obligation to report to the quarter sessions, for that would imply that the quarter sessions had something to do with the report, which in fact they would not have.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the great thing was that the reports would be made known in the localities most interested in them. He did not find that the reports made to that House helped them much. They had an illustration in the Bulgarian atrocities. How much would the House have known about these circumstances if there had not been independent information? That was a particular instance of the uselessness of information obtained through official Reports to the House. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed.
§ MR. HENLEYcould not conceive anything which would place a court of quarter sessions in a worse position than that of having a report made to them with which they had no jurisdiction to deal. But a greater objection to such a report would be that, being public, comments in the public Press might be made upon wrong or abuses detailed in it at the very moment when the Secretary of State might have amended what was complained of.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENasked if there was anything in the Bill to prohibit the visiting justices from presenting their reports to the courts of quarter sessions? According to his view nothing could so prevent them if ordered by the court which appointed them. On the other hand, to give them a statutory direction to report to the quarter sessions always when some of their reports might be of a confidential character to the Secretary of State seemed to him unwise. His chief objection to the Amendment, however, was that they were by this Bill taking away from quarter sessions the power of managing the prisons, and they could therefore take no action upon such a report if made to them. As a chairman of quarter sessions he would rather that his court did not receive a report upon which it could take no action.
§ MR. WHITWELLdid not see what would be the use of reporting to a body which would have no power to correct abuses or remedy evils.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEurged that there was a great deal about these matters which the public ought to know; and there was nothing in courts of quarter sessions—which were still to be entrusted with the administration of justice—that would make them unfit to be the recipients of information which he thought the House would do wrong if it did not insist on their having furnished to them.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKthought the Amendment perfectly reasonable, and urged the Government to concede it.
§ MR. BIGGARalso supported the Amendment.
§ MR. WHALLEYpointed out that under the Bill the prisons would be placed under the management, to a great extent, of Roman Catholic chaplains, and thought it was therefore of the utmost importance to give the magistrates a controlling power.
§ MR. PARNELLstated that the only effect of the Amendment would be to ensure immediate and local publicity to the reports of the visiting justices.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
§ Question put, "That the words furnish copies of their report' be inserted after the word 'also' in the proposed Amendment."
§ The Committee divided:— Ayes 59; Noes 114; Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 21.)
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.