§ MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true, as stated in substance in the "Manchester Guardian" of a recent date, reporting the Salford Hundred Quarter Sessions and the discussions of the Bench of Justices, that the Chief Commissioner of Prisons, Sir Edmund Du Cane, presented himself some time since at the Salford Gaol, unannounced and unknown, to the warder, and, being admitted through 1648 the outer door, ordered the warder to open the inner iron gate; whether the warder, pursuant to the rules of the Justices, declined to open the gate to a stranger, and requested to know his name and business; whether the account is true, which states that the Chief Commissioner of Prisons shook the iron gate in anger, and tried to take the keys from the warder's hands, and, not succeeding, then stated who he was, and was admitted; whether the warder for this was, by Sir Edward Du Cane's order, immediately put on six months' probation as a punishment; whether that order has ever been formally revoked, and when and whether care will be taken that the warder be not prejudiced; and, whether there will be any objection to lay the Correspondence and Papers relating to this matter upon the Table?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSSir, the first paragraph of the hon. and learned Member's Question is substantially true, with the exception of the word "unannounced." As to the second and third paragraphs, the rule of that gaol consists of two parts—first, persons desirous of seeing the Governor should be politely asked what is the nature of their business and detained pending the receipt of orders; secondly, a Visiting Justice or a Justice of the Peace having jurisdiction in the prison is to be admitted at once; if a stranger, the gatekeeper will inquire his name. The Commissioner says, "He told the gatekeeper who he was and his office at once." The gatekeeper says, "He ordered me twice to open the gate before he told me that. I said I could not allow any stranger to enter the prison without sending his name and the nature of his business to the Governor. He said, 'I am the Commissioner; open that gate,' &c. He shook the iron gate and tried to take the keys out of my hand. I sent up to the Governor and Sir Edmund was admitted." It is only fair to state that the Commissioner says he never touched him. I am asked whether the gatekeeper acted pursuant to rule. If the case fell within the first part, he certainly did, and he ought to have been rewarded rather than punished. The Commissioner, however, being a Visiting Justice, came under the second part of the rule. Therefore, I cannot say that the officer acted "in pursuance of the rule; "but it was only 1649 a mistake through over zeal and not one, in my opinion, deserving of punishment. However, though not degraded in rank, he was afterwards put on probation for six months. This was cancelled in December by a Minute of the chairman on the report of the inspector, and the inspector made the announcement to the gatekeeper in the presence of the Governor and principal and senior warders. I can only repeat now what I informed the Visiting Committee, that I very much regretted the incident; that I had fully expressed my regrets to the Commissioner; that I had insured that no injury should happen to the prospects of the gatekeeper in any way; and that I had received from the Commissioner the expression of deep regret at having been so betrayed into impatience on being, as he thought, improperly refused admittance, contrary to the rule and the usual practice. Sir Edmund is a public officer of long standing and experience, and his hard work, his ability and efficiency have constantly received high praise. I can only add on his behalf that no one regrets this incident more than the Commissioner himself. In these circumstances, I cannot see that any good would come from laying any Papers on the Table.