Military Prisons. (Hansard, 5 July 1879)

HC Deb 05 July 1879 vol 247 cc1551-606 1551

§ Clause 131 (Establishment and regulation of military prisons).

§ Amendment proposed, in page 70, line 15, after the word " correction," to insert the words "not exceeding twenty-five stripes in the case of corporal punishment."—(Mr. Sullivan.)

§ Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."

§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "stripes," in order to insert the word " lashes,"—(Mr. Secretary Cross,)—instead thereof.

§ Question proposed, " That the word 'stripes' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
rose for the purpose of making a request to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to withdraw his Amendment, in order that an Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) might be proposed to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman would see that if his Amendment was first disposed of, and the words which he proposed to insert were inserted, it would be impossible for his hon. Friend the Member for Meath then to bring forward his Amendment. Under the circumstances of the case, and in consequence of events that had taken place, he thought it would be desirable that the hon. Member for Meath should have an opportunity of bringing forward the Amendment which stood in his name. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that a short time ago, when this subject was under discussion, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War made an appeal to the Com- 1552 mittee, which it was very difficult for the Committee to resist, and which was also supported by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition (the Marquess of Hartington). He stated that if the Committee felt any confidence at all in him, they ought to leave the administration and the settlement of such details as the nature of the instrument by which punishment was to be inflicted to him. Unfortunately, after what had taken place in the Committee on Friday last, they could no longer allow this question to rest in the hands, even of the most honourable and most humane of Secretaries of State for War. They found that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had so much business to attend to that he had no time to make himself acquainted with details, but had been misled by false information, which he had received from subordinates; and, under these circumstances, it would put the Committee in a wrong position if matters were left in their present position. It would be within the recollection of the Committee that in the previous discussion which had taken place upon the subject, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, in reply to a question of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), assured them that the instrument which was used for inflicting these punishments was a cat-o'-nine-tails without knots. Now, the question whether the cats were with or without knots upon the nine tails was one of very great importance. It depended upon that whether the punishment, which they all regretted should be administered, should be administered consistently with the dictates of humanity—should be as lenient as was consistent with the maintenance and preservation of discipline—or whether, on the contrary, that the instrument intended deliberately to inflict the greatest amount of torture should be that in use in the British Army. Since these statements were made, the right hon. and. gallant Gentleman had admitted that he was misinformed, and that the cat was a cat with knots in the tails. He (Mr. Chamberlain) had been to see the instrument; and he would venture to say that it was simply impossible to imagine a more brutal instrument for inflicting a brutal punishment. The instrument, which had been sometimes referred to as the "Marine cat"—which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had 1553 stated was the instrument in use in the Army, consisted of nine tails of thin whipcord, and these had upon them nine or more knots on each tail. There was not the slightest doubt that when that instrument was applied by a powerful man, with a downward motion, in the usual way, every one of those knots would remove a piece of flesh from the back of the sufferer. He thought that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had misled the Committee—unintentionally, of course, but without the slightest blame—and that the punishment that would be really inflicted by this instrument was not the punishment which they had been discussing, or which the Committee had any conception of up to the present time. The punishment which such an instrument would inflict was, he thought, in fact, not one which the Committee would allow to be inflicted. Under these circumstances, and having regard to the feelings expressed on the subject, he trusted that the Government would see its way to re-consider this question, and to ascertain whether it would not be possible to meet those views, and to relieve the British soldier from the possibility of being subjected to this brutal and degrading punishment. He did not think that there was one single argument which had been used in this debate in favour of the punishment of flogging which could not be used with equal force in defence of the thumbscrew. They were there in the 19th century discussing as to the amount of torture which could be inflicted on soldiers, and using instruments which they thought had been discarded altogether. And the punishment they were considering was worse than the thumbscrew; for after suffering the thumbscrew a man could go away without carrying with him in after years permanent marks of his degradation, and losing his self-respect. He (Mr. Chamberlain) did not threaten that if this Bill wont through, in its present form, 500,000 men would meet in Hyde Park; but he did say that if the question were understood in the country—as it was not, owing to the necessarily brief reports published of the proceedings in that House—there would be, and he should say there still might be, a very great and general agitation of the constituencies against the retention of such 1554 a brutal punishment for the British Army—a punishment which had been abandoned in every other European State. When the General Election came on inquiry would be made as to the conduct and action of the Government in the matter; and it would be a very difficult question for hon. Members to answer as to how they had given their votes upon the question of flogging in this Bill. He was convinced that the vote which Her Majesty's Government was pushing on was a vote against the convictions of a large majority, and did not represent the real feeling and sentiments of the Committee with regard to this punishment. It only represented the desire of hon. Members opposite to give every support they could to Her Majesty's Government in the proposals it might advance. He believed that hon. Gentlemen opposite, like every hon. Member on his side of the House, would experience a general feeling of relief if Her Majesty's Government could see its way, even at the last moment, to abandon this punishment. An attempt had been made, at different periods during the debate, to describe the opposition which had been made to the Bill as Irish obstruction. He would venture to tell the Government that they were mistaken in supposing that the opposition to this principle of corporal punishment was confined to Irish Members, or that they had any ulterior view in regard to the matter. The feeling, so well expressed by Irish Members again and again, was shared in by English Members; and, so far from the opposition to the infliction of that punishment being confined to Irish Members, the Division Lists would show that many English Members had voted against the retention of the punishment. If Irish Members were guilty of obstruction, he said English Members were decided to adopt the same course—call it obstruction, or systematic opposition, or what they would—and he believed that in taking that course they would be supported by a vast majority of their constituents out-of-doors. He would, therefore, urge the Government to get rid of this stumbling-block in the way. If the Government would but remove it, he would venture to promise them that they would get through the remaining clauses of the Bill in the Committee that afternoon. [" No, no "] Well, he spoke 1555 for himself and his Colleagues; but, at all events, he might say that they were prepared to withdraw all further opposition to the Bill, if that objectionable provision were removed. By taking that course the Government would get rid, in a comparatively short time, of everything which could be considered in the nature of obstruction.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he did not think that the general question of flogging in the Army was well raised on this particular clause, for the clause had nothing whatever to do with flogging in the Army, but only in prisons, whenever by the prison rules it could take place. Flogging in the Army was provided for by the earlier clauses of the Bill; and he should have thought that the better course to have adopted would be to have discussed this question on the Report. With regard to the proposition that had been made to him by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), the Government would give every facility for the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to move anything he might wish. But the fact was, that the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had an Amendment upon the Paper, which could not be accepted in its present state, and to that he (Mr. Assheton Cross) had proposed an Amendment to alter the word " stripes " to " lashes." If that were done, the matter would be settled; and, therefore, he should suggest the insertion of his Amendment in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth.

§ Mr. HOPWOOD
said, that he should be sorry to commence a general discussion upon this subject; but he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would see its way to intimate to the Committee some considerable modification in its views. He hoped that the Government would yield upon the matter. If that were done at that moment, he really did think that his lion. Friend's (Mr. Chamberlain's) prognostication would be realized. For his part, he must disclaim any desire to block or obstruct the Bill; hut, so far as they had obstructed it, their opposition had been justified. Her Majesty's Government had yielded, in many important particulars, after a considerable amount of pressure; and he thought that they ought, therefore, to make an allowance 1556 for them, and to consider that they were justified, to the full extent, in what they had done: for if they had not opposed the Bill to the full extent of the means in their power they would not have succeeded so far as they had. Could not Her Majesty's Government hold out some hope to them that what was urged upon them from all sides of the House should be seen to? He was sure that the question would grow; and that a number of hon. Members who now voted for the retention of this punishment would have cause to regret that they had done so.

§ MR. RYLANDS
thought it would be well for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to consider the point which had been raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). If the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were not withdrawn, it was clear that the effect of its adoption would he to preclude the proposal of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) being brought forward.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
thought that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was mistaken as to the effect of the proposal which he had advocated. He (Mr. Assheton Cross) would further point out that the Amendment, to which his own proposal was an Amendment, was entirely in the hands of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), and could not be withdrawn, except with his sanction.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, that it could be withdrawn, with the consent of the Committee; but that consent could not be given, as the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) was not then present.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he had an Amendment on the Paper which he gave Notice of last night, the object of which was to except corporal punishment from the list of punishments which might be inflicted in military prisons. He had an idea that personal correction included a great many other things besides corporal punishment. They had now seen the cats, and were able to see that the prison cat used was of such a severe description as would, in all probability, very materially alter the views of the Committee. If the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth was amended by the words pro- 1557 posed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, it would preclude him (Mr. Parnell) from moving his previous Amendment, because they would then have agreed to the words " corporal punishment." On the other hand, if the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment, and allow that of the hon. and learned Member for Louth to be negatived or divided against, that course would not preclude him from moving his previous Amendment. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman could be brought forward afterwards, if the Committee decided to retain corporal punishment in gaols. That appeared to him to be the only course by which the Committee could be enabled to come to a decision upon corporal punishment in gaols in view of the new evidence that they had had that day. Then, if the Committee still decided to retain corporal punishment in gaols, they would have the advantage of the reduction of lashes proposed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department; whereas, if the right hon. Gentleman went on with his Amendment, they would be placed in this position—those who desired the abolition of corporal punishment would be compelled to oppose his Amendment to reduce the number of lashes. The only fair way, in his (Mr. Parnell's) opinion, was for the right hon. Gentleman to allow the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth to be negatived, then he could take the sense of the Committee upon the question of corporal punishment.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that he had always been willing to give the Committee all possible information in his power. When he had spoken on this matter he had always asked the Committee to remember that he spoke with the responsibility of the maintenance of discipline in the Service. He thought that if hon. Gentlemen opposite looked to the discussion throughout, they would feel that in what the Government had thought it its duty to advocate it advocated from a sense of duty—he might put it more plainly, that there was as much humanity on one side of the House as on the other. That being so, he might go one step further, and say that it would not escape observation that he, perhaps, deserved some little censure for 1558 not having placed upon the Table of the House the Schedule which he had promised. In deciding upon that, they had to remember, on the one hand, that they must insist upon carrying out strict discipline under all circumstances of the Service; and, on the other hand, that they could not refuse the military authorities the means by which alone, under certain circumstances, they could carry it out. He was not in a position to make any statement upon that occasion; but, having carefully considered the matter with his Colleagues, he would ask the Committee to receive an assurance from him that when he came to move the Schedules—the words " corporal punishment" having already been agreed upon—when they came to those Schedules, it would be his duty to make a statement that he had no doubt would be satisfactory to the Committee. He must point out, at the same time, that the chief point that arose in his mind was that discipline must be such as could be carried out in the field as well as at home. If persons would look at the recorded opinions of men like Sir Charles Napier, Sir Garnet Wolseley, the Duke of Wellington, and others, they would see that discipline in the field must be prompt, and in some cases must be severe. He would quote from recollection that Count Von Moltke, speaking in the German Parliament upon a point of discipline, said that punishment should be " sure and sharp," and he could not agree with those who thought that punishment should be " short and mild." With this explanation of his views, he would ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) not to raise the general question until they came to the Schedules, when he trusted that it would be in his power to give some explanation to the Committee.

§ Mir. CHAMBERLAIN
said, that he was sure hon. Gentlemen would acknowledge that he had imputed nothing in the nature of want of humanity to hon. Members opposite. He had heard with satisfaction the statement that the right lion and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had made, and which he hoped augured the intention of Her Majesty's Government either to abolish flogging altogether, or to reduce it to a minimum. He would point out that the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were rather outside 1559 the question raised by this Amendment. He was dealing with the question of discipline in the field; but the discipline to be enforced upon soldiers in the field was an entirely different question to the discipline to be enforced upon them in prison. He did not think that there would be any difficulty in coming to a decision upon this matter; for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had expressed his willingness to facilitate the matter. They desired to abolish corporal punishment in the military prisons. The argument in favour of corporal punishment in the field did not apply to soldiers in prison. That was a question which, in the first instance, they desired to raise. If they failed to bring over the Committee to their views, they were anxious to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was willing to reduce the punishment which might be inflicted. If the course which he (Mr. Chamberlain) had suggested were taken, then, when they had divided upon the Main Question, they would be able to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
would only point out that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) was not under his control; but on the understanding that that should be negatived he would consent to take the course suggested.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
said, he had heard with great pleasure the words of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and he was sure that what he had said would shed a ray of hope through the country, which would be terribly disappointed if the expectation was not fulfilled, as he (Mr. Hopwood) had little doubt it would be fulfilled, by Her Majesty's Government.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, there was one point in the otherwise very satisfactory speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to which he (Major Nolan) wished to allude. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that by means of corporal punishment alone military discipline could be maintained in the field. How was it they found that discipline could be maintained in the Armies of foreign States—in the German, in the 1560 Russian, in the French Army—without flogging? With regard to the quotation from the speech of Count Von Moltke, he had read it; but he did not think he went so far as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think. Ho could not help contrasting it with an observation in The United Service Gazette of a recent date. Great importance was attached to that paper, because it was well known that a gentleman connected with it was a great authority on German Army matters. There was a statement in that paper that during the wars of 1866 and 1871 there was not a single German shot or flogged for any breach of discipline. It seemed to him (Major Nolan) that that matter not only disposed of the necessity of flogging, but disposed of the very great argument which had been put forward by the opposite side of the House to show that if they did not flog they must shoot. They knew that there were facts connected with The United Service Gazette which made it extremely probable that any statement put forward by it upon the German War would be perfectly correct. If it was true that in the wars of 1866 and 1871 no German was ever shot or flogged, he thought that the argument that discipline could only be maintained by flogging, and if they did not flog they would have to shoot, fell to the ground.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he also had heard with great pleasure the exceedingly satisfactory remarks made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He would like to say one word, however, upon the general question, because he did not suppose that it would now be brought forward to any great extent until they had heard the promised statement of the Government. He had not taken part in the discussions on the Bill, as he had not much knowledge upon the subject; but he had watched it, during its progress, with very great interest: and he really believed that the time was come when it would tend both to promote the discipline of the Army and be to the general advantage that this punishment should come to an end. He thought that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could abolish this punishment it would be better for the discipline of the Army and for its general interests.
1561 If it was to be done at all, it would be infinitely better that it should be done by the Government themselves, if they possibly could do it. He made these remarks entirely in a conciliatory spirit. It was impossible to sit opposite the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and the other Members of the Government, and not to feel that they disliked this punishment as much as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen did upon this side of the House. He had no doubt whatever that the Government had been informed, by many persons concerned in the administration of the Army, that it was exceedingly difficult to keep discipline up without this punishment. But, on the other hand, they must remember that they had to raise an Army out of a free country. This was not the punishment of a civilized country; it was a barbarous and disgraceful punishment. Their great object was to raise the status of the Army. He thought the Government and the Horse Guards should have some trust in the Army of the future, and that they should believe that they would get on better without this punishment than with it. At all events, the result of these discussions had been very much to limit and curtail the punishment, and to place it under the strongest possible safeguard, and there could not be much doubt that it would be very little used, even if retained. They could not, however, suppose but that the question as to the retention of the punishment would be raised year after year on this Bill coming annually before Parliament until it was abolished. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would see their way out of these difficulties by informing the Committee, in their promised statement, that they had decided to abolish the punishment.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he was bound to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that a discussion upon corporal punishment generally did not arise on the clause then before the Committee. The clause they had under consideration only referred to the infliction of the punishment in prisons.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, he had taken very little part in the discussion. He desired, however, now to express his most earnest hope that Her Majesty's Government would give way to the feel- 1562 ing of hon. Members on both sides, and would abolish flogging altogether.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he had also heard, with the very greatest pleasure, the assurance of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. In corroboration of some views that he had lately expressed, he would mention the fact that the news of the flogging of men of the Connaught Rangers at the Cape was, as he had expected, producing a wide-spread agitation throughout Ireland.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the question of flogging in the field, to which the hon. Member was referring, was not raised upon the Question before the Committee.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he would not pursue the subject further at that time.

§ Amendment (Mr. Secretary Cross), by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, it was not the custom to allow an Amendment to be withdrawn, unless on leave being asked by the proposer, or by someone expressly authorized by him. The proper course to be taken would be to negative the Amendment, if the hon. Member proposing it should be absent, and had not authorized anyone to withdraw it in his name.

§ Amendment (Mr. Sullivan) negatived.

§ MR. PARNELL
, in rising to move, as an Amendment, in page 70, line 17, after " correction," to insert " excepting corporal punishment," expressed a hope that the Government would see its way to accept it. During the very interesting discussion upon the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) on Thursday last, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was good enough to say that he thought there should be some clear distinction between the prison treatment of soldiers convicted of breaches of military discipline and the prison treatment of soldiers convicted of crimes of a disgraceful or immoral character and all offenders against the ordinary laws of the land. He (Mr. Parnell) was encouraged, under these circumstances, to hope that the right hon. Gentleman might see his way, if not to accept his (Mr. Parnell's) Amendment in its entirety, yet to except the punishment 1563 of flogging from the punishments that might be inflicted for breaches of prison discipline upon military prisoners confined for breaches of military discipline. He would be content to leave to the regulations of the Prisons Act the treatment of offenders, whether military or civil, who might be convicted of offences against the laws of the land of a disgraceful kind. He thought that prisoners who committed offences of a disgraceful kind against military law should be in the same position as other civil offenders. But he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would agree to except from the same prison discipline soldiers not convicted of those crimes, but merely breaches of discipline. Since this matter was discussed on the last occasion, they had seen specimens of the prison cat; and he thought that every hon. Member who had seen the cat would admit that it was an instrument of punishment that ought not to be allowed to be in use anywhere. The handle was exceedingly heavy, and the lashes were exceedingly long, and there were a number of solid knots upon it, which, when the punishment was inflicted by a powerful warder, were calculated to make a very considerable lacerated wound. The cord of which the lashes were composed of was of an unusually hard description, differing from any other cat inspected by hon. Members. This instrument seemed to have been expressly designed to inflict as much pain and punishment as possible by means of an instrument of that character. He merely mentioned this as an additional reason why, in the case of soldiers merely confined for a breach of discipline, and not for an offence of a disgraceful and immoral character, they should not be made liable to be punished in this manner. To the prison rules now under discussion he (Mr. Parnell) had moved an Amendment against the punishment of flogging altogether; but the Committee decided against him, and the punishment was retained—limited, however, to 36 lashes. The right hon. Gentleman himself now proposed to limit it, in the case of military offenders, to 25; but it appeared to him (Mr. Parnell) that for the sake of argument, admitting that there was any ground for the continuation of flogging in the Army—he did not really admit it—that could not be considered a reason why the punishment should be retained in prisons, especially 1564 military prisons. They had a soldier in prison, entirely under their control, and they had no difficulty in inflicting any punishment upon him. They did not want him to do duty, neither were they anxious to punish him so that the sight of his humiliation should exercise a salutary influence upon the other soldiers. The men were always flogged in private, and not before their comrades, and by the ordinary rules many other punishments could be inflicted. They could put the prisoner in solitary confinement by order of the magistrates or visiting justices, even in a dark cell; they could nearly starve him—that was to say, put him on bread and water for 14 days, and reduce him, so as to render him perfectly amenable to the discipline they desired to keep up in the prison. There was, therefore, no shadow of a ground, as far as he could see, for the retention of this objectionable mode of punishment, much less for its application to soldiers who had not been guilty of crimes in themselves disgraceful or immoral, but in the character of breaches of discipline merely. Some slight breaches of military law were punished by committing the soldier to prison for 40 days; and was it right if, while he was confined in prison ho happened to lose his temper, and make some irritating disrespectful observation to a warder, or even strike him, that he was to be flogged for that? Surely that could not be allowed to continue. Ho trusted that the Committee would think that he had made out a good case for the abolition of this punishment with regard to the class of criminals they were now dealing with, and he hoped that his proposal would be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he was perfectly willing to put imprisoned soldiers on the same footing, and under the same restrictions, as any other prisoners. But that was all that he felt able to do at the present moment. 'The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), with a very few verbal alterations, would practically do all that had to be done. Corporal punishment, of course, could not be inflicted for light offences; and it was only for repetition of offences, or for very serious offences, that the gaoler was entitled to inflict this punishment. It was absolutely necessary, for the pro- 1565 tection of the warders, that there should be this power of punishment. He entirely agreed with hon. Members opposite that it should be used as little as possible; and so strongly did he feel that, that only quite lately he sent out a Circular to all the gaolers, that this punishment was not to be resorted to, and the Visiting Justices were not to be asked to sanction its infliction, except in cases of absolute necessity. He could not go further than that at the present moment; and he must ask the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to consider that since they discussed this question in 1877, he Mr. Cross) had appointed a very careful and excellent Commission to consider the whole question of prison discipline. He could only say that if they could recommend, after careful consideration of the matter, that this punishment should be abolished, he would immediately give effect to that recommendation. Until, however, he had received their Report, and saw what they were prepared to do, he would not be justified in making a change of that hind. The Commissioners had gone very carefully into the matter; and if, as a. consequence, they were of opinion that this punishment should be done away with, he would certainly follow their advice: but until that advice was presented to Her Majesty, in the House of Commons, he did not feel justified in making any alteration in the present system. Therefore, he hoped this matter would be allowed to stand over until that Report was presented. As to the instruments in use, ho wished to explain that there was formerly a different kind of cat in use at the prisons. The Commission of 1872 or 1873, however—a Royal Commission, of which Lord Grey was Chairman—recommended an alteration, because, in their opinion, that cat was not severe enough for the purpose for which it was necessary: when, in consequence of that, his Predecessor in Office authorized the use of the particular cat which had been employed ever since.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, he could not but admit that the statements by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and by the Secretary of State for the Home Department had altogether changed the circumstances under which they approached the consideration of this question. He 1566 felt for himself—of course, he was only entitled to speak for himself—that it would not be justifiable in them to continue any further opposition, at the present stage, to the flogging clauses of this Bill. He sincerely hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would be contented with the assurance that he had just received, and would withdraw his Amendment. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had stated that the prisoners could not be punished except for serious offences. He begged to call his attention to one of the prison rules, which enacted that for the following offences, committed by prisoners convicted of felony, and sentenced to hard labour, corporal punishment should be inflicted. Amongst the offences named were the following Repetition of insulting or threatening language to any officer or warder of the prison." That might be a serious offence; but, on the other hand, an ill-tempered gaoler might report language which would not justify this severe punishment. Again, a second clause included wilfully and maliciously breaking prison windows. Surely, to break a prison window was not an offence to justify a severe flogging. He only called attention to the matter, however, with the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would deal with it.

§ MR. E. JENKINS
said, he would like to perfectly understand what it was the Secretary of State for the Home Department had offered. As he understood, his hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) had pointed to the fact that there was a class of persons who, after having committed certain offences, were liable to corporal punishment; and what he desired to know was, whether it was clearly understood that the right hon. Gentleman would narrow the right granted under this clause to make regulations with regard to the flogging of soldiers in prisons, and would agree that soldiers should be put on precisely the same footing as other persons?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
, interrupting, said, what he proposed was, to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), which then would run something like this— Nor authorize corporal punishment to be inflicted for any other offence, or for an offence 1567 for which such punishment could be inflicted in prisons, under the Act of 1865.

§ MR. E. JENKINS
thought that they wanted also the insertion of the words " under such circumstances."

§ MR. RYLANDS
thought it was not quite satisfactory to the Committee to be told, as a justification of the continued use of this very objectionable instrument, that it was determined upon by a previous Commission. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance with regard to the cat employed in the prisons.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the whole question of the cat employed in prisons would have been considered before but for the appointment of the Commission, to which everything had been referred; but for that Commission the question would already have received his consideration.

§ MR. BIGGAR
did not think his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) should withdraw his Amendment. The assurances that they had received from the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches were of the vaguest description. The right hon. Gentlemen simply confined themselves to generalities. They said, what was no doubt very true, that they were personally very much opposed to this system of flogging; but then they sheltered themselves behind the decisions of former officials, and of the private recommendations of persons who were not responsible to the House, and of whom the House did not know. In opposing a clause of this sort, their primary duty was to see that the instructions given were so explicit that no mistake could be made, and that their views should be entirely carried out. With reference to prison discipline, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department constantly protested, in the most vehement terms, during the passing of the present Act, his desire to act with humanity to prisoners, and his desire that they should be treated in a very lenient manner. But in all that discussion he did not tell them that the cat was in use in prisons, such as had been described to them that day. It was thoroughly different to the one in operation in the Army. Seeing that this system of prison discipline was carried on as it was, he (Mr. Biggar) thought the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of what any Com- 1568 mission might report, ought to give way; because, after all, a Commission had only to take evidence and make recommendations. The right hon. Gentleman would be able to carry out their recommendations, which, after all, were simply the opinions of so many gentlemen. He (Mr. Biggar), himself, would be very much in favour of fighting this question on this broad issue to a final settlement. His reason was, that persons in gaol were very much worse treated in the matter of flogging than anyone outside; because they were, in the first place, utterly powerless, and without any public influence to support them. In places of that kind, they ought to be treated with much more humanity than in the case of soldiers in the field. Yet they found that this prison cat was a much more terrible weapon than any other cat, and it could be used for very trivial offences; besides which it could be used without coming under the gaze of the public, and without being subject to public opinion, as were the cats used in the Army and Navy. To say that a man was to be flogged to death, as he might very probably be, with such an instrument as they had seen in the cloak-room, for using what a prison warder might be pleased to call insulting language. seemed to him to be a thing which could not be maintained. In short, it seemed to him that those persons who supported such a proposal must surely wish that there should be no British Army; or, that if there was to be a rank and file, that it should consist of men of the vilest description possible.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, after the statement they had heard that afternoon, there could be no doubt the Government were about to yield to the opposition which had been raised. No one could doubt, who had watched the last meetings of the Committee, and had seen the diminished opposition the Government had felt it necessary to give to this system of punishment, that their opinions had altered under the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Ho must say that the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department was one of a very serious character; because, although no one would doubt the kind and amiable character which distinguished that right hon. Gentleman, still there was a point in his 1569 statement which showed how absolutely desirable it was that further limitations should be made to the use of the cat. The right hon. Gentleman stated that if the military prisoners should be treated as civil prisoners, surely it was unjust that men, simply because they were soldiers, should be subject to a harsher system—

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, they never were; but as the clause was drawn it would have permitted a harsher treatment than had been given before. His statement was, that he would consent to the insertion of words which should make the treatment of soldiers the same as that of civil prisoners.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, that was a very satisfactory statement; and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would take care that this punishment should not be inflicted, unless it was absolutely necessary; but it was clear that if the Committee had not raised opposition—

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
must again beg pardon for interrupting. He had been entirely mistaken. He had never said he would take care nothing should be done in the future which was done in the past. What he had undertaken to do was to put in words which should, by statute, prevent the soldier being treated more harshly than he had hitherto been treated.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
replied, that he took down the words of the right hon. Gentleman, and he would state what they were. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would take care that military prisoners were put upon the same footing as civil prisoners, and that these punishments should not be inflicted, except upon actual necessity. Now, he had said he was prepared to act upon the recommendation of a Commission which was about to report on the whole question of prison punishments; and if that Commission reported that flogging should be abolished in prisons, that he was prepared to accept that recommendation. Now, would it not be much more gracious if the Government were at once to yield to the Irish Members and their friends on this question, than to hold out any longer? That Commission was sure to report in favour of the abolition of punishments of this character, and it would be far better if the Government would yield before the end of the discussion. Anyone could 1570 read that that was coming upon the lines of this discussion; and, in fact, he was satisfied that the Government meant to give way. Then let them do it now. Then the Committee could proceed at once, and the Business of the House could no longer be stopped. He could not resume his seat without expressing, in his own name, and in the name of many thousands in the country, the great satisfaction which would be felt at the determined resistance which had been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He spoke not only of those who came from Ireland, but of others who shared their opinions; and he honestly endeavoured, in conjunction with them, to erase altogether from the Statute Book punishments which shocked the feelings of the English people. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had told them that if they abolished this punishment—as he himself believed the Government did intend to abolish it—that it would improve the morale of the British Army. As the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had told them that he would abolish it, if the Report of the Commission was in favour of doing so, he (Sir Robert Peel) could only say it would be far more graceful that the appeals, made night after night for three weeks to the Government, to honestly and frankly say that which they most probably intended to do, should be complied with. It would immensely relieve their supporters on that side of the House. They hardly knew what course to take in the matter. There were many hon. Gentlemen on the Benches near him who listened to the debate, and were prepared to support the Government; but when they saw the Government could not relinquish the position they originally took they were placed in a very difficult position, not knowing whether they should get up and support the Government.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
observed, that he had listened attentively to the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel); and he was bound to admit that there was an impression amongst hon. Members on that side of the House that the Government did intend to give way on that question. He was, therefore, going to put a question plainly and directly to the 1571 Government, because they had no right to keep hon. Members in that position. He, and other hon. Friends, came down honestly to support the Government, having quite as much regard to humanity as any hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, in that which they believed to be imperatively necessary for the discipline of the Army, which they desired to see maintained with all those traditions and in that high state of discipline for which it had been so remarkable. That being so, they had a right to ask whether it was the intention of the Government to give way; because, if that were the case, Ministers ought not to call upon them to make statements, if at the end the whole question was to be sacrificed, and that it was to go forth at the last that the Government were in the wrong, and that the few Members who opposed them were in the right. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, then, should let them know distinctly, in the necessities of the discipline of the Army, whether he meant to maintain this corporal punishment? With regard to the statement of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), concerning the treatment of soldiers in prisons, he should like to tell that hon. Member that he, himself, had had a very long experience, for he had been a visiting magistrate for over 30 years, and during the whole of that time he was only once called upon to flog in the gaol he visited. That was in the case of a soldier—a French soldier—who had endeavoured to murder, or, at any rate, to violently assault the warders as they came round. He would like to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite whether that was not a proper case, or whether, supposing soldiers put in a prison, under such circumstances, ought to be subjected to any different treatment, or were to be able to combine to take the life, for instance, of the warders of the gaol, without fear of corporal punishment; while other prisoners in the same place would be subject to that punishment? Generally speaking, soldiers in civil prisons were placed there for long sentences for very grave crimes. Why should such men be put in a different position to civilians in that prison? In fact, no discipline could be maintained unless all were treated alike. Again, when the prisoner was brought before the visiting justice by the gaoler, in order 1572 to be sentenced to corporal punishment, two visiting justices were required to he present; and they were required to take down, in writing, the evidence of the warders, and of the Governor of the gaol, on oath, and afterwards they must say whether the offender ought to be flogged or not. He would ask the lion. Member for Meath, whether he really thought that men in the responsible position of visiting magistrates in a gaol would be likely, if they could possibly help it, to inflict a punishment of this sort, unless they knew it was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of discipline? It must be remembered that there were a great many prisoners in these prisons with very few persons to control them. If they did not keep up discipline, they might just as well not send a man to prison at all. A good deal of stress had been laid on the cats they had seen in the Oriel Chamber. He was exceedingly sorry these cats were placed there. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] If the hon. Member for Cavan would wait until lie (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had finished, he would not laugh, and cry " Hear, hear !" in that way. The hon. Member had described these cats as instruments of the greatest torture. Well, if they were used in the state in which they were exhibited, they would be instruments of the greatest torture; but he could affirm, as far as he knew anything about it—and he had seen cats used both in the Army and in the prisons—that the cat which was nearest to that used everywhere was the cat which was called the " Marine cat," except that it had no knots on it. That he believed to be the proper cat to be used for all purposes, whether in the Army, Navy, or prisons; and if one cat of that pattern could be adopted for the whole he believed it would be far better, and no one would have a right to complain.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
wished to say a very few words on the position in which the Committee then stood in regard to this question of corporal punishment. It had been very frankly admitted, by hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House, that there was no question of humanity on one side of the House or the other. As far as any feeling of humanity was concerned, they were all extremely sorry to have the necessity forced upon them to consider 1573 punishments of this sort. On the other hand, the Government were, in this matter, in a most responsible position. They were hound to consider, not only what might be ordinarily the first feeling suggested on considerations of humanity, but they had to consider, also, the maintenance of discipline and the maintenance of proper order under circumstances of very great difficulty and temptation. Therefore, going for a moment beyond the limits of the prison Amendment, and referring to the question of punishments in the field, there could be no doubt that there was a most just susceptibility on the part of the public, and on the part of lion. Members in the House and elsewhere, as to the maintenance of proper order and good conduct amongst our troops in the field and for the prevention of outrages. It was always a matter of great difficulty how they were best to restrain these outrages; and they had to consider if corporal punishment was absolutely and essentially necessary for that purpose. Similarly, in the case of prisons, they had to consider the question of how discipline was to lie maintained; and if they had to subordinate the first emotions of humanity to other considerations in the course of these discussions, the Government had been obliged to maintain and assert a stricter and severer view than that suggested by those who were merely actuated by the first emotions of humanity. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, however, had now declared that they were prepared to consider this question as a whole; and his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War had stated that he would be prepared, at a subsequent stage of the Bill, to make a statement to the Committee as to the views of the Government on this matter. Under those circumstances, the hope had been expressed that they might be spared an irregular discussion upon the whole question of corporal punishment, and that they might now consider this question of prison discipline alone. Then, with regard to this question of prison discipline, they were all agreed that military prisoners must be treated in the same way as civilians, and that they could not have two systems of discipline in the same prison, if soldiers were confined with civil prisoners, it was evident they 1574 must have the same code of regulations with regard to one class as the other. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had, in fact, stated that lie was perfectly prepared to accept an Amendment carrying that out—an Amendment very nearly similar to that of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), proposed with that object. Then, again, with regard to the question of what those regulations were to be. His right hon. Friend had informed the Committee that that was a question which was engaging his serious attention, and that he had appointed a Commission which was to advise him on the whole subject. He thought that if the Committee looked at the whole matter fairly they must see nothing more than that could be reasonably expected from the Government at the present time, and they might be very well content to leave the matter in the hands of his right hon. Friend. He now earnestly hoped that they might proceed with this business, and not be required to go into a general discussion, over and over again, of corporal punishment. The Committee must surely see that it was far more important and more advantageous to proceed with the Bill, and then, in due time, after the statement of his right hon. and gallant Friend, to again discuss the question.

§ MR. CALLAN
thoroughly agreed that there should be but one system for both civil and military prisoners. Ho was, however, informed that in the military prisons of the present tune the senior military officer in the district, who might be only a captain, could be sent for by any prison official, to go to the prison on complaint of misconduct of any military prisoner, and, at his own discretion, for any ordinary offence, could order the infliction of 25 lashes, without getting any other authority, and without a court martial.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
replied, that ho had been asked a question as to that very point a short time before, and he could not at present answer it. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had, however, stated at a very early stage of the Bill, that he was desirous to make the rules in all prisons the same.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
explained, that the visitor of the prison must be a field officer. He was detailed for a week 1575 as visitor, and he was always a field officer.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, that his information was derived from an hon. Member of that House (the O'Donoghue), who was not then present. He was informed by that hon. Member that, while he was only a Militia officer, he was sent for to a military prison; a complaint was made to him, and he was asked, in the exercise of his discretion, to order the infliction of 25 lashes, which, to his credit, he declined to do. He was quite sure the hon. Member would not mind his name being given; and he might mention that it was the hon. Member for Tralee, who at the time was serving with the Kerry Militia.

§ MR. RYLANDS
simply rose in consequence of the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the opinion which he had expressed that, under the circumstances, hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House should accept the assurance which had been given by the Government, and should be satisfied with it. Now, he (Mr. Rylands) was bound to say for himself that he could not feel quite satisfied with the statement emanating from the Front Bench. Two Members on his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) own side of the House, each of them men of position, had appealed in direct terms to the Government. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth (Sir Robert Peel) had said what he (Mr. Rylands) and his Friends on that side were quite disposed to believe—that, in watching the course which the Government had taken, it was quite evident that they were intending to yield to what appeared to be the general feeling of many hon. Gentlemen on both sides. He (Mr. Rylands) had no doubt that that feeling did exist, and that it was mute so far as hon. Members opposite were concerned; but, still, he knew there were hon. Members on that side who would not be indisposed to support the views which had been expressed by hon. Members sitting around him. Then the hon. and gallant Baronet, whom they all respected for the independence of his views (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), made another appeal to the Government to tell them its intentions. The hon. and gallant Baronet told them that he entirely disapproved of the tendency which the Government had shown in the 1576 direction of more leniency; and he expressed his regret that these cats had been deposited in the House for the inspection of hon. Members. Undoubtedly, however, the opportunity which they had had of inspecting these cats had a most important bearing on this question, because that exhibition proved that Ministers on the Treasury Bench were entirely ignorant of the instruments of torture used in different branches of the Public Service. If that was so, what were they driven to believe? They must believe that what they had felt all through these debates—that the Treasury Bench were under an influence outside the House, not to yield to the pressure put upon them by hon. Members around him (Mr. Rylands). The Government resisted that pressure, and talked about obstruction and waste of public time. For his part, he thought the greatest obstructionists in this matter had been the Government themselves. He could point to hours spent in that House in impressing upon the Government concessions, which, after debates for hour after hour, they had at length conceded. All those debates occupied a large amount of public time. Why were they not conceded before? Because the Government were not convinced that he and his Friends were right in their views? For his part, he believed the Government were convinced at the commencement of these debates, and that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for the Home Department would have given way to the views expressed in the House, but for the influence exercised on the Government outside the House. [" No, no ! "] He was stating what could not be denied. There was an influence in the Army which regulated all these, and overrode the judgment of the Government. He believed a large amount of public time would have been saved if the Government would have exercised their own authority, an authority which was supreme. When they were convinced, they should have at once expressed their convictions, and not have held back, because they were anxious to meet views outside the House, and to justify themselves in the eyes of persons of great authority in the administration of the Army. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished this Bill to pass, let 1577 the Government exercise their own authority. Let them yield to the conviction forced upon them, and say at once they would carry it through in the form that had been suggested, and would not have their hands bound down by influences outside the House, which did not appear in the discussions in which they were engaged.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he must again point out to the Committee that the Question before it was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell).

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
wished to keep himself as much as possible to the Question before the Committee; but he could not help supporting the appeal of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). He hoped he should not be out of Order in saying his hon. Friends below the Gangway were very much to be congratulated on the success of their endeavours. At the same time, it would be hardly fair to press the Government much more. It was almost impossible that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could say much more than he had done. If his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) was right in supposing that persons outside the House had to be consulted, who were, as he supposed, persons very high in the administration of the Army, they could, indeed, hardly think the Government would consider themselves justified in taking a very prominent step of this kind, without, at any rate, having informed those persons of what they were going to do. He did not think they could expect the Government to go further than they had gone that day. But he did trust that the Government would feel that the progress of Public Business would be very much facilitated, if they would take the very earliest opportunity, after that day, of stating what was their final conclusion. In regard to the question before the Committee, his hon. Friend ought to succeed without any difficulty, for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department needed only to have the matter brought to his attention to give way; and it was now generally understood that there was to be no difference in the punishment of a soldier because he was a soldier. He understood the right hon. Gentleman most distinctly to say that, and they should rely upon his carrying 1578 it out, so far as the clauses of the Bill required, and in administration afterwards.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, although the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) declared that the cats on view outside were not those in use in prisons, he (Mr. Biggar) thought he was justified in thinking that they were, for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department evidently thought so himself, and explained how that particular cat came to be recognized as the cat of the English prisons. The hon. and gallant Baronet did indeed say that that cat was not in use in his prison. That was a very grave imputation upon the way in which the right hon. Gentleman discharged his duties; for it meant that the general instructions he gave were not carried out as they ought to be. It was very important that they should have all the instructions with regard to this question set out in the most definite manner, and that it should not be left in the least to chance, because the system of flogging men by chance seemed liable to some abuse. Then, again, the hon. and gallant Baronet said the only case where he had ordered flogging was in the case of a Frenchman, who had conspired to murder the prison warders. He thought that that grave offence should not have been settled in a summary manner, but that the man should have been brought formally before the magistrates, and not to the Assizes, when he would probably have got penal servitude for life. He hoped the Government would give them a more explicit statement on this matter. He had listened very carefully, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very explicit as to what the Government meant to do. It was still a toss-up chance whether they would fight it out, or surrender at discretion. He did not think he had ever heard, in all his experience, a number of speeches more ambiguous than those which had been delivered from the Government Bench on this particular question. Right hon. Gentlemen got up and talked; but when. they sat down they always left him, at any rate, in very great doubt as to what they meant to do. With regard to the treatment of prisoners, he contended that soldiers ought to be treated very 1579 much better than ordinary criminals, because a soldier was, at any rate, assumed to be a man of decent character. He should not be expected to consort with men who had been sentenced for crime, and who probably were confirmed thieves. But the Secretary of State for the Home Department had taken credit to himself for saying that he would not treat them worse than any others. Ho did not think the right lion. Gentleman deserved any credit for that statement; and he did think that the Amendment should be argued, and that the Government should accept the Motion of his lion. Friend.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, no doubt the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E Forster) would have an effect, when he urged the Committee to accept the assurances of the Treasury Bench, and to allow this matter to be postponed; and when he added, moreover, that it was almost impossible for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to give information on this point. He (Sir Robert Peel) would point out, however, to the right hon. Gentleman, that last Thursday fortnight they were promised the Schedule of the offences for which flogging was to be inflicted, and yet that was not at present before the Committee. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman said that the Committee should accept a suggestion that this question should be postponed, he did not think they could allow that, in fairness, after the discussion that had taken place. What had they not done by their perseverance? The Secretary of State for the Home Department had only required to have one matter brought before him, in order that lie might yield to the wishes of the Committee. If they might congratulate themselves on the success that they had so far obtained, surely, by a little more pressure, they might now gain, without further delay, the opinion which the Government had promised to give. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would be prepared on a subsequent date to make a statement on this subject. What they demanded was that that statement should be made now. It surely could not be difficult to make a statement of that nature; and he, for 1580 his part, did not believe that satisfactory progress would be made with this Bill, unless the assurance was given to lion. Gentlemen on that side of the House, as well as on the other, as to what the intentions of the Government were on the subject now before the Committee.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
thought that all they had heard from the other side of the House ought to impress on the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) the fact that good Conservatives 11. ere expected to vote straight and ask no questions. He was afraid from what he could see that the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be very satisfactory; and, certainly, the assurances on this especial point given by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, were by no means what he (Mr. O'Donnell) wished. In these cases of flogging in prisons, they had first to consider who were the prisoners to be flogged; and, next, what were the crimes for which they were to be flogged; and, thirdly, what was the instrument of torture with which flogging was to be inflicted. On all those points they ought to receive careful information. He could not but think, when the Secretary of State for the Home Department said ho would draw no distinction between the soldiers who might be incarcerated for purely military offences, and ordinary ruffians, he distinctly went away from the position which the Committee believed he was prepared to occupy some time ago, and that when he now said that he would draw no distinction he receded from the position which his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), at any rate, believed the right lion. Gentleman had taken up some days ago. Then, again, they knew nothing about the crimes for which flogging was to be administered. At least, all that they did know was very unsatisfactory. A prisoner in the gaol could be flogged for using insulting language to a warder. They were told that warders must give their evidence on oath. That washy no means satisfactory, for in every trial which took place, in which prisoners were committed, there was evidence on oath, given against them; yet, in spite of that evidence, the jury did not believe them. Then, as to the instrument with which torture was to be inflicted, he did 1581 not think anything could excuse the infliction of such flogging, supposing it was to be continued by such a thoroughly abominable weapon as that which was on the premises of the House at that moment. It was an instrument that might be put in competition with the Russian knout, or with any other instruments of torture known in the civilized, or the uncivilized world. He could not help being struck by some remarks of hon. Members who were examining these instruments of punishment. One hon. Member took up this prison cat, and said — "Well, this is a fearful weapon; but it is not too severe to lay on the back of such a ruffian as a garotter." He (Mr. O'Donnell), himself, might not have been indisposed to agree to a certain extent in that sentiment; but the Committee must remember that not merely were garotters liable to punishment by this cat, but every person who used insulting language to a warder was liable to be flogged with it. Thus, soldiers imprisoned merely for insubordination might get the same punishment. Again, they knew nothing of the offences which were to be punished with flogging, and many of them might be altogether undeserving of that fearful punishment. Thirdly, they had no satisfactory assurance with regard to the weapon to be used. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex had made a statement as to the cat he used in his prison, which merely had the effect of conveying a very serious imputation against the uniformity of prison discipline under the Secretary of State for the Home Department. While, therefore, they had good reason to be satisfied with the main assurances of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, he thought those given by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the special point under discussion, could not give any satisfaction to hon. Members on that side of the House, who had been protesting so long against this system. He was afraid, however, they would get no satisfaction; because influential Members on the Government side who had asked distinct questions on the subject had been thrown over by the Government.

§ SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY
said, that if hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House were to indulge 1582 in as much talk regarding that Bill as some hon. Members on the other side, not only would the Bill never get through, but no other Bill would pass the House. The great difference between the two sides of the House was, that while hon. Members on the Liberal side below the Gangway were in favour of abolishing flogging altogether in the Army, they on the Conservative side were in favour of flogging being continued, but surrounded with safeguards, and with an instrument which should not be an inhuman one. They believed the Government would give all that, if they were allowed; but they did not think the way to get these safeguards was by obstruction. He trusted the Committee would now be allowed to proceed with the Bill.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he would endeavour to explain the real effect of his Amendment, as some misapprehension seemed to exist concerning it. It had been misunderstood both by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Sir Graham Montgomery), and those who had preceded him. It had not for its object to abolish flogging in the Army generally; but flogging of military prisoners convicted of offences against this Act, which were not of an immoral or disgraceful character—in fact, for breaches of prison discipline while in prison. That was the nature of his Amendment, which he desired to explain to the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he had been in his place, which he was not. He certainly thought that the right hon. Gentleman ought to be in his place at that time, and he did not see how they could come to a satisfactory conclusion in his absence, for he was more concerned in the matter than the Secretary of State for War. It had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that the Secretary of State for the Home Department was willing to give them all they wished. But he was willing to do nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman had distinctly withdrawn from the position that he assumed on a previous occasion with respect to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock). The right hon. Gentleman promised then that sentence of imprisonment upon soldiers inflicted by 1583 courts martial should be carried out in military prisons only, or if in civil gaols, then entirely separate from civil prisoners; and that only soldiers who had been sentenced by court martial to be dismissed with ignominy at the expiration of their term of imprisonment should be imprisoned in civil gaols with ordinary prisoners. Thus, a very broad distinction was drawn between military offenders and ordinary offenders. What he was now asking the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to do was to widen his decision with regard to military prisoners. All that the right hon. Gentleman had promised them on the present occasion was, that military offenders should not be treated worse than ordinary criminals. That was a distinct withdrawal from his previous position, and was totally a retrograde step? He (Mr. Parnell) felt very great dissatisfaction at the alteration in the position of the right hon. Gentleman, and he was sorry that flogging for prison offences should not be abolished in the case of military prisoners, who had been convicted of offences not of an immoral, disgraceful, or fraudulent character. The right hon. Gentleman had previously stated that he would agree to a more lenient treatment; but now he said that the only thing he could do was to give this class of prisoners the same treatment as other criminals. This made it necessary for them to urge their views upon the right hon. Gentleman in order to prevent a misunderstanding. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had stated that he had never known, in the course of his experience as a Visiting Justice, more than one flogging taking place in prison. But let them take the case of a man who had conspired to murder a warder. For that offence the punishment of flogging, sanctioned by the rules, did not seem to be exactly the right kind of punishment. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had promised to give them military prisons for soldiers; and there would, therefore, be no difficulty in carrying out the proposal which was embodied in his (Mr. Parnell's) Amendment. It had been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Baronet that the Visiting Justices had to inquire into the breach of prison dis- 1584 cipline before flogging could be inflicted. But that provision was introduced at his (Mr. Parnell's) instance in the Prisons Act of 1877, and was a concession granted by the right hon. Gentleman. The argument of the hon. and gallant Baronet seemed to be that they could not have two sets of prisoners in a gaol with different disciplines. But it was the promise of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department that these two classes of prisoners should be kept entirely distinct, and, where possible, confined in different gaols. They should remember that some of these prisoners would be confined in prisons not under the right hon. Gentleman, but under the Governor General of India. There was no reason in saying—" We will wait until the Penal Servitude Commissioners have made their Report before we consider the necessity for the abolition of flogging."Those Commissioners were only inquiring into the discipline in penal-servitude prisons, and not in ordinary prisons, to which this provision applied. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) had both assumed that flogging was to be abolished in the Army. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had assumed the same thing. They all assumed it, and he (Mr. Parnell) was very much disposed to assume that, because flogging was to be abolished in the Army, it would also be abolished in prisons. [Mr. ASSIIETON CROSS: No, no !] As the right hon. Gentleman did not agree with that conclusion, it entirely altered the case, and he should be obliged to press his Amendment.

§ MR. RITCHIE
observed, that the statement had been made that hon. Members on that side of the House were in favour of flogging, and that on the other side of the House they were in favour of its abolition. For his part, he must distinctly disclaim the accuracy of that statement. Not only was he opposed to flogging, but he had always held very strong opinions against that punishment. He did not think that the remark was justifiable, in a general sense, for, so far has his observation went, hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had expressed themselves as strongly in favour of flogging as hon. Members on the Government side. It 1585 was altogether a mistake to assume that this matter was one for one side of the House or the other, or was at all a matter of Party. Members of either Party were upon both sides of the question. For his part, he had never voted for flogging, either in the Army or in the Navy, knowingly. He had considered the matter carefully, and had come to a conclusion against it; but as he felt that it was a matter in which the opinion of the military authorities ought to have great weight, he did not like to take upon himself the responsibility of voting against them; but, at the same time, he could not bring himself to vote for the punishment. In his opinion, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to flogging in the Army and Navy, ought to have been at once accepted by all hon. Members in the Committee, whether they were in favour of flogging, or whether they were opposed to it. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the matter would receive the careful consideration of the Government; and he himself earnestly begged the Government, if they did not feel perfectly convinced that this punishment was one for which there was a strong necessity, that they would take upon themselves the responsibility of abolishing it. He thought it would be unfair to press the Government at that time, after what they had said. The Bill was not likely to leave the House just yet, and there would be many other opportunities for hon. Gentlemen on either side to again urge this question upon the Government, if the explanations that they had promised to make were unsatisfactory. What he had said had entire reference to flogging in the Army and Navy, for with respect to flogging in prisons he held a totally different opinion. He did think that the crimes for which that punishment was now given in prisons were crimes which were deserving of a punishment of that nature. And, therefore, while he would strongly urge upon the Government the desirability, if they could by any possibility see their way to do so, to give their favourable consideration to the abolition of the punishment in the Army and Navy, he would not urge upon the Government to do more than the Secretary of State for the Home Department had promised with reference to 1586 flogging in prisons—namely, that there should be no difference in the punishment of prisoners whether soldiers or civilians. He (Mr. Ritchie) did not think that the Government would be justified in promising more than that. He earnestly hoped that the Government, when they came to make a statement upon the matter, would be able to tell the Committee that, after careful consideration of the question, they were prepared to recommend the abolition of the lash. He thought that hon. Members, who had so persistently brought this question to the attention of the Government, ought now to rest satisfied with what had been said, and allow the Bill to proceed.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
thought that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was under some misapprehension; and as one who had supported him throughout in his opposition to flogging he must appeal to him to withdraw his Amendment. He did not think it was fair to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, at the present time, to abolish flogging in prisons. He had told them that the matter was under his consideration; and they did not know whether, on another occasion, he would recommend its abolition. Personally, the right hon. Gentleman had expressed himself opposed to punishment of that character, unless absolutely necessary. They had his assurance that nothing would give him greater pleasure than to be able to abolish it. They had, further, the assurances they had obtained from admissions on the part of the Government that there was an intention to abolish flogging in the Army. The whole practice of flogging had received a mortal blow. And when flogging in the Army had been abolished, he did not believe that flogging in prisons could be maintained for long. He thought that his hon. Friend rather damaged the cause which they all had at heart by pressing his Amendment.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would not give way upon this point. As he (Sir Alexander Gordon) understood the matter, there would be two different systems of punishment in the same prison. Soldiers were not to be submitted to corporal punishment for offences to which other prisoners would 1587 be subject. The effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would be that soldiers would be able to commit offences in the sight of other prisoners in gaol, and vet be exempt from the punishment to which the others were subjected. In his opinion, if the punishment was necessary for one set of prisoners, it was necessary for the other. He hoped that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would accept the advice of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), and not press his Motion.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
joined in the appeal to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) not to press his Amendment. He would have many opportunities of again bringing the question forward, if the expectations which had been held out to the Committee were not realized. He could say that he had sometimes helped the hon. Member, when others had fallen away from him; and, therefore, he was sure that he would consider the advice that he tendered him on this occasion. He trusted that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. C. BECKETT-DENISON
said, that the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), if they remained uncontradicted, would, in his (Mr. Denison's) opinion, give rise to future trouble and misunderstanding. He had stated, with respect to what had fallen from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, that he had understood that the Government were about to abolish corporal punishment in the Army. [" Hear, hear! "] That cheer assured him that he was not mistaken in the interpretation which he had placed upon the words of the hon. Member. He had listened to every word said by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and he thought that the interpretation of the lion. Member was incorrect. The point was this—the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had once or twice, during the discussion, said that he should he prepared to make a statement to the House upon this subject. He (Mr. C. Beckett-Denison) personally understood, and he believed that every other hon. Gentleman upon the Government side of the House also understood, that there were certain exceptional offences, in connection with Armies in the field, which would be 1588 placed in the Schedule, for which corporal punishment would still be enforced. It was essential to both sides of the House that they should be put in full possession of the facts—one side believing that corporal punishment was about to be abolished from the combatant forces; and the other side of the House being asked to come down and support the Government in maintaining the discipline of the Army. If the Government were about to abolish corporal punishment, let there be no misunderstanding on the subject; but let there be such a statement as both sides of the House could appreciate. He had risen to make these observations in consequence of the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Birmingham. They were, at that moment, engaged in the discussion of prison discipline, and so much had been said with regard to the general subject, and it had been so differently treated in the various phases of the discussion, that he thought they would, on the next occasion, be in considerable difficulty, and have, perhaps, a great amount of wrangling as to what had been actually said then. He protested against the interpretation. He might be wrong, for lie was not in the confidence of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War; but if it was the intention of the Government to abolish corporal punishment for all offences, whether in the field or at home, then he thought that hon. Members on that side of the House, who had simply discharged the duty—to them a disagreeable one—of upholding the Government, by voting for what they had considered, up to that moment, to be necessary for the maintenance of discipline, were placed in a disadvantageous position, in which they ought not to be placed.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
wished to contrast the speech of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Beckett-Denison) with that of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie). He did not think that the statement of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was quite accurate. He had taken the trouble to look at the Division Lists upon the question of the abolition of corporal punishment, and lie had not recognized more than one or two Members from the Conservative side of the House Who voted for the abolition of the punish- 1589 ment. He recognized some Liberal Members who voted for its retention, and a very few Irish Members, he was glad to say. He thought there was a stronger feeling for the abolition of the punishment on that side of the House than on the Government side. He wished to call attention to the speech of the hon. Member for the West Riding, who had rather urged upon the Government the retention of this punishment. It was true he did not really urge the Government to retain the punishment; but he cast up the reflection at them that they were behaving ill to their supporters. It seemed to him (Major Nolan) that nearly all hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House were in favour of the abolition of corporal punishment, while many hon. Members on the other side urged the Government to retain it. He thought that the Government were anxious to throw it over, as they had come to the conclusion that it would do more harm than good; but were restrained from doing so. Now that the attention of the country had been drawn to this subject of corporal punishment it would not leave it; and those debates would be perused by the classes from which the Army was drawn, and would have a great effect upon recruiting in time of war—the retention of this punishment, and the debates which had taken place upon it, would have a very deleterious effect upon recruiting. The Government must wish to have a strong Army; but they could never hope to have one, if they retained this punishment. And what was the use of retaining merely a fragment of this punishment? He would point out to the Government that so long as they retained even a fragment of the punishment, the agitators would have something to lay hold of; and so long as the agitators brought this question foward, so long would an evil effect upon recruiting be produced.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that the speeches which had recently been made turned upon expressions which he had used in the course of that evening; and, perhaps, he might, therefore, be allowed to endeavour to put the Committee in possession of what he had actually said. With respect to the question of corporal punishment in prisons, that matter had been dealt with by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of -State for the Home 1590 Department; but, in connection with the matter, a discussion had arisen upon the whole question of corporal punishment, and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had made au appeal to him (Colonel Stanley) to state Ins views upon the point. He had endeavoured to do that, so far as ho could, without interfering with the Business of the House. He bad felt it his duty to explain, as clearly as possible, the position in which he conceived himself to be placed. The decision of the Committee with regard to corporal punishment in respect to the Army and Navy had been given; but lie had been asked to go back from that decision. When he stated that he would prepare a Schedule containing all the crimes for which the punishment was to be inflicted, and under what circumstances it should be inflicted, he was not aware that the matter would be one of such exceeding difficulty as lie had afterwards found it. He had exposed himself to censure for not having already laid this Schedule upon the Table of the House. He would venture to claim for the Government side of the House the same amount of humanity as was possessed by the Opposition; and he therefore deprecated any such observation as that of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, that particular persons were in favour of corporal punishment and others were for its abolition. Whatever view they took in that House, it should be understood that what they did was in performance of a duty; and if hon. Members on his side of the House supported corporal punishment, they did so because they believed it was necessary in order to maintain discipline. What lie said when he spoke before was, that not having received all the information which he hoped to do, he did not feel himself then in a position to state more definitely what he would do on this matter; but that when they came to the Schedules, and that portion of the Bill which defined the circumstances under which the punishment should be inflicted in the field and on board ship, he trusted that he would be able to make a statement to the Committee. Ho would ask the Committee, therefore, to bear in mind that the primary consideration in a measure of this kind was the responsibility under which he felt himself for maintaining discipline. He hoped that 1591 the Committee would see that while, on the one hand, they were pressed for not sufficiently maintaining discipline in the Army; on the other hand, it would be unfair to officers in the field, who were responsible for the good order of the troops, if sufficient means were not given them to repress crime. That was the substance of what he had said before, and he was most anxious not to take from, or add anything to, that statement. He could not be answerable for the constructions that hon. Members had placed upon it; but he had endeavoured, as accurately as he could, to repeat what he said at an earlier period of the debate. He hoped that the Bill would now be allowed to proceed.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
thought that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had omitted a few words to which he (Mr. Chamberlain), in common with other hon. Members, had attached the greatest importance. As he understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, he said that upon the Schedule he would be able to make a statement, and so he continued—" which will be satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen opposite," or something to that effect. He (Mr. Chamberlain) did not pledge himself to the exact words; but he would pledge himself to this—that he had distinctly heard the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that the statement he would make would be satisfactory. When such a statement was made in the face of the determined opposition to this measure—almost the whole of which had been directed against the practice of flogging—it was not to be wondered at that he himself, as well as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) and the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), and other hon. Members, should have understood that he was desirous of seeing whether he could not carry out the views of the opponents of the measure. It was understood, however, that there were difficulties in the way, and that there were parties to be consulted. They were prepared to make allowance in respect of these matters, and not to press the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on that occasion; but it seemed now that the matter had assumed a totally different complexion, for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had withdrawn what he had stated.

1592

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that he had unquestionably used the words attributed to him. He did say that be hoped to make a statement which would be satisfactory to the Committee.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
thought that the Committee were entitled to a little more explanation upon this matter, and that no doubt should be suffered to remain. He did not think the statement could be satisfactory, when one side of the House understood one thing, and the other side of the House understood another thing. He could assure the right hon and gallant Gentleman that, as far as he (Mr. Chamberlain) could judge, there was a strong feeling to withdraw any opposition to the Bill, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman hoped to make a statement which would be perfectly satisfactory to the Committee; but if that was not the expectation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and if he did not intend to convey to the Committee that the Government were prepared to make any concessions beyond those which they had made on previous occasions, then he (Mr. Chamberlain) thought the continued opposition to the Bill perfectly justifiable. Let him point out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the right lion. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) very distinctly appealed to him in the same sense; and he could not conceive that he could have so far misunderstood him as would appear to be the case, having regard to the views expressed by the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. C. Beckett-Denison). He might point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had also fallen into the same error as he (Mr. Chamberlain) had as to the construction of the words of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that he had withdrawn nothing, and that he entirely adhered to what he had previously said—he adhered to what he had said at an earlier period of the debate; but it was absolutely impossible for him to give any more definite assurance then.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
remarked that he had again and again said he accepted the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement, as indicating on the part of the Government a willingness, if not au intention, to abolish flogging in the 1593 Army. He was still under that impression, and, therefore, he should abstain from further opposition at this stage of the Bill.

§ MR. ASSHETON
said, the statement just made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was precisely the same as that which he made at the beginning of the discussion.

§ MR. MONK
thought that the last statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was perfectly satisfactory. It was clearly the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make further investigations with regard to this question of flogging; but this concession could not be made until the other authorities connected with the Army had been consulted. Really, under the circumstances, he thought that this Amendment should be withdrawn, and the Bill allowed to go on.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
considered that it would be better if the Government announced that, on some future, but early day, they would make a statement on the question of flogging. They could see that the Government was placed in great trouble and, difficulty; but it was not their fault. If the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. C. Beckett-Denison) had only waited a day or two, and not insisted upon an explicit declaration, the Government would not have been placed in a difficulty. He thought the best course would be for the Government now to postpone the clause, and not to bring it forward until they made their statement.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
said, he rose for the purpose of making a suggestion of very much the same character as that of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). The Government had made a statement that evening of considerable importance. He believed that it had been said that a statement would be made when the Schedules were moved. As so much appeared to turn upon the character of this statement, he should now ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether it would not be possible for him to take an earlier opportunity than the Schedules would afford of making the statement? Perhaps on a Motion to report Progress such a statement might, without any irregularity, be made. It would be, however, much more con- 1594 vincing to the Committee if the statement could be made at as early a period as possible. The Government were evidently not prepared to make that statement now; but, perhaps, it would not be too much to ask that the statement should be made on Monday next, or on some other early day. He should be inclined to think that the earlier that statement was made the sooner they would be allowed to proceed with the discussion of the clause.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the Government would be anxious to make a statement on the earliest day on which they might possibly do so; but, at the present time, it was impossible to say more than that the subject should be brought before the House without any unnecessary delay.

§ MR. PARNELL
did not see how they could proceed to the discussion of the clause until they had heard the statement of the Government with regard to flogging. He would point out that the provost-marshal clause had been made a postponed clause, and that was one of the clauses connected with the question of flogging.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
rose to a point of Order. He did not think the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was in Order in discussing a clause not before the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN
thought that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was not discussing, but only referring to, another clause.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought they could not discuss this clause until they knew the decision of Her Majesty's Government on the question of flogging. Perhaps it would be best to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they would inform the House at as early a day as possible of their decision, and would give an opportunity for discussion. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.

§ Amendment (Mr. Parnell), by leave, withdrawn.

§ Amendment (Mr. Secretary Cross), agreed to.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he would then move an Amendment, of which Notice had been given by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. 1595 Chamberlain). It was to insert on page 70, line 17, after the word " severe," the following words:— Nor establish other occasions for corporal punishment; that was, that no other punishment should be inflicted than those enumerated in the roles approved by the Secretary of State under The Prisons Act, 1877.

§ MR. PARNELL
did not think that this Amendment went far enough. The further consideration of the question of flogging was postponed until they had heard the views of the Government; but this Amendment empowered the prison authorities to inflict corporal punishment upon military offenders in all cases in which civilians were liable to the punishment. Under the rules, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department allowed corporal punishment to be inflicted for offences for which it ought not to be permitted at all. For breaking windows, or otherwise destroying prison property, or making a disturbance, or doing any other act, or misconduct, or insubordination, a prisoner could, under the rules, be sentenced to receive corporal punishment. It should be remembered that prisoners frequently lost their reason from solitary confinement, and it was very likely they would make these disturbances, and yet for such offences corporal punishment was to he inflicted. There was another difficulty in connection with this matter. Some of the prisoners who would be confined under the Bill would be in prisons under the direction of the Governor General of India. In this country, no flogging could ho inflicted in prisons but by the order of the Visiting Justices; but in India they had no magistrates and no independent tribunal, and, therefore, it remained with the gaoler to inflict the punishment whenever he pleased. All these circumstances were exceedingly unsatisfactory. He did not think that this matter should be settled, until they had heard the views of the Government upon the question of flogging. Moreover. if this Amendment were accepted, he did not think that it would be in his power to move an Amendment which he proposed to do, limiting the power in regard to corporal punishment.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the Amendment of the Secretary of State for the Home Department limited the cases to which corporal punishment 1596 should be inflicted under the Act to such offences as those for which the punishment could be inflicted under the Prisons Act of 1877. It was not absolutely impossible, after such an Amendment had become part of the Bill, to introduce another Amendment proposing that it should only be inflicted under certain circumstances; but the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would ho out of Order in moving that it should be inflicted in a less degree.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought, perhaps, it would be better to omit the Proviso. His object was to be enabled to move an Amendment limiting the amount of punishment which it was at present lawful for the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under the present rules, to inflict; and to limit it to offences for which at present it could be lawfully inflicted.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the hon. Member would be quite out of Order in moving that Amendment. Any matter concerning the Prisons Act did not come within the scope of this Bill.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
said, that if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department were agreed to, it would be impossible to inflict flogging for any offence which did not come within the rules in the Prisons Act. He did not think that it would be possible to reduce the punishment in military prisons to less than what was given to civil offenders.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that he only wished to point out that it was not competent for any Amendment upon this clause to deal with punishment of civil prisons.

§ MR. PARNELL
wished merely to reserve to the Secretary of State for the Home Department the same power which he at present possessed under the Prisons Act of 1877, to inflict punishment upon military prisoners. It was really important that they should have power hereafter, by means of a new clause, to be in a position to limit the power of inflicting punishment upon military prisoners.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the hon. Member would be in Order in moving what he proposed as dealing with any persons affected by the Bill.

§ Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

1597

§ MR. PARNELL
observed, that the question at issue was as to the pattern of the cat. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had declared that a pattern was adopted by Earl Grey, as Chairman of the Royal Commission, because the one previously in use was not sufficiently severe. [" Order, order!"!]

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that there was no Question before the Committee.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he would move the following Amendment in page 70, line 18, after the word " England," to insert these words— And that the instrument to be used in the infliction of corporal punishment shall be according to the sealed pattern of the cat of nine tails approved by the First Lord of the Admiralty, dated 7th December, 1877, from the Royal Marine Office, and endorsed W. J. Rodney, Deputy Adjutant General,' but without knots.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment, as he (Mr. Cross) stated some time ago the whole subject was now engaging the attention of a Royal Commission. He was awaiting their Report, and ho should be very much guided by their decision. He was speaking of the one with knots, not the one without knots; and he was bound to say that persons of very great experience had very different opinions as to the severity of the one or the other. The whole matter had very much better be left entirely to the Commission.

§ MR. PARNELL
asked if the nature of the cat was before the Commission, because this was a question which had come up very recently?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
knew that the Commission had inquired into the whole question of flogging; but, of course, he was not in the secret of their deliberations. He knew, however, that they had taken evidence on the matter.

§ Mr. PARNELL
, under the circumstances, would not press his Amendment, although he did not regard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as at all satisfactory. In fact, he did not regard any statement that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman that day as satisfactory, and they were in singular contrast to the attitude of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He hoped the Report of this Commission would be out very soon, be- 1598 fore the Bill left the House, and he would postpone further opposition until he saw it.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdawn.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, his next Amendment had nothing whatever to do with flogging. He proposed in page 70, line 18, after the word " England," in the same place as before, to insert these words— Subject to the Prison Act of the fortieth and forty-first Victoria, chapter twenty-one, and that all the regulations in the Prison Act of 1865, and in the aforesaid Act, as to the duties of gaolers, medical officers, and coroners shall be contained in such rules.

THE CHAIRMAN
observed, that the Amendment required the word " Provided" inserted after the words "twenty-one and."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
observed, that the clause as proposed to be amended could not possibly work; but he had no objection to the principle. If some such words as " so far as, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, may be applicable," were added, he would accept the Amendment. Otherwise, certain statutes would be applied to places where they were utterly inapplicable. In India, for instance, he did not know that there were coroners, and it would he necessary to consult with the India Office on the subject. That lie would do before the Report was brought up.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought it was the duty of the Government to provide sonic substitute for coroners' inquests in cases where prisoners died in gaol in India. The right hon. Gentleman had not given them the slightest intimation as to whether he considered it desirable or not, when a prisoner died in India, that an independent inquiry should be held into the cause of his death. When the Prisons Act was passing through Committee the right hon. Gentleman agreed that these coroners' inquests should be held in Scotland and Ireland, where they had not previously been in vogue. There were no such things as coroners in Scotland; but the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate met him (Mr. Parnell) in the fairest possible way, altering his Amendment for him, and inserting the words " procurator-fiscal" instead of the word " coroner." No provision in that Act had been more advantageous, or had proved itself to be more necessary, than 1599 the power so given of holding inquests on persons who died in prison. Since the introduction of the clause, several prisoners had died in gaol, and they had had fearless and independent verdicts returned by the coroners' juries from which the greatest possible benefit had been derived. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: Hear hear !] The right hon. Gentleman had himself acknowledged that, and, in fact, he was so impressed with the verdicts given in the cases of a prisoner named Nolan and of the late Sergeant M'Carthy, a political prisoner, that he caused independent inquiries to be made into the causes of death. By this clause they were asked calmly to give up to the Governor General of India the power to make regulations in regard to this matter. He wanted to know what provision there was in India for these independent inquiries? He was surprised at the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to insert the suggested words, the effect of which would, practically, be to destroy all the good contained in the Amendment.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, no one had a greater appreciation of coroners' juries than he had. They were most valuable and proper institutions, and he would be glad to see them established everywhere. But what he wanted to point out to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was, that his Amendment, as it stood, would defeat the object he had in view; while, on the other hand, the alteration he had suggested would help him to realize it. As a matter of form, ho would propose to add to the Amendment the words " so far as the same can be made applicable." If better words could be suggested for carrying out the same object, ho would willingly accept them.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
, as a Member of a Committee which had sat for a greater part of the Session on the consolidation of the laws relating to coroners, thought it would be quite desirable to extend to soldiers dying in prisons outside this country the same protection that persons dying in prison in this country already enjoyed. But he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had at all met this Amendment in a hostile spirit. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman suggested the addition of certain words 1600 without which he (Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice) was bound to say, in his opinion, the clause would not work. Therefore, if he might be so bold as to offer a suggestion to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), he would advise him to accept the addition of the words suggested, or some others analogous to them.

§ MR. HERSCHELL
thought, even then, the Amendment would not run quite correctly. He would suggest that it should run that these rules should contain provisions similar to those in force in other prisons in the United Kingdom as to medical officers, coroners, and so on, and that due provision should be made for similar inquiries elsewhere. It was impossible to go into the matter much more definitely than that. The way in which what they desired was to be carried out must be left to those who had the framing of the rules. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, he understood, was quite willing that the provisions in the United Kingdom should be extended elsewhere; but some little alteration of the words would be required.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, if the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would take the words he had proposed for the present, he would consult the draftsman to see if better words could be put in to secure the object. He could not do more than that.

§ MR. PARNELL
remarked that it would be better to leave out the words " and coroners " altogether, and to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell). The clause would then read— And that rules shall be adopted providing for independent inquiries into the deaths of any prisoners in these gaols in a similar way to those inquiries carried out by coroners.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
begged the Committee to remember that it was absolutely impossible to draft an alteration in a clause in this way. No lawyer, even, could do it. What he had said should satisfy the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that the matter should be carefully considered afterwards.

§ MR. BIGGAR
was of opinion that it would be much more convenient to discuss the matter at that time. They had had so much experience of the ambiguity 1601 of Ministers on particular questions, and of their uncertainty afterwards as to what they did say, and as to what they did mean, that it would be much more safe to do the very converse of what the hon. Gentleman proposed, and to adopt the Amendment as it was proposed by the hon. Member for Meath. If the words were not found suitable, the Government could suggest an Amendment, and that would be by far the most satisfactory way. Otherwise, afterwards, the Secretary of State for the Home Department might say that he said something, and somebody else might say he said something else, and they might have a very long discussion as to what actually was said.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
observed, that the Amendment suggested by the Secretary of State for the Home Department was "where he thinks practicable." Did they understand from that that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of this inquiry, and pledged himself that he would introduce words securing independent inquiry in India?

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
said, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department only asked that the words should be put in a workable shape, and that the inquiry should be, so far as they could. be, made applicable. Substantially, he accepted the Amendment, with a small rider to it, and that was really the question before the Committee. He had hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath would not insist on moving the second Amendment which he had just threatened; because he must see it was impossible for him, or anybody else, or even the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Herschell), to draft an Amendment upon a complicated matter of this kind at a moment's notice. If the draftsman found that the words suggested did not exactly carry out the unanimous intention of the Committee, he would see that other words would be brought in which would carry out that intention.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
would state exactly what he had done in the matter. He wanted, if possible, to make this clause convenient to work; and he had had two legal gentlemen with him for nearly an hour that morning, and though they drafted a number of Amendments, they neither of them could draw one which was satisfactory. The parti- 1602 cular clause as to India would require very grave and serious consideration; but the words he proposed he thought were sufficient to carry out what was desired.

§ MR. PARNELL
wanted to know whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department thought there ought to be these independent inquiries in India, and whether he would introduce words to insure that these independent inquiries should be held.?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
answered, that he could not state his intention more clearly than he had already done.

§ MR. PARNELL
begged to move to report Progress. The right hon. Gentleman had distinctly evaded replying to his question. ["No, no!"] The right hon. Gentleman had most distinctly evaded replying to his question. He had asked whether he would undertake that the Amendment on the Report should be introduced into this Bill which should secure to the soldier dying in India the same independent inquiry which he obtained in England? The right hon. Gentleman had refused to give any answer to that question, although it was a fair and straightforward question, and one which ought to be answered.

§ MR. HERSCHELL
said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he would do so. He might be wrong; but he certainly understood that, and he was acting under that impression.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, this altercation confirmed what he had before said about the mischief of ambiguous statements. ["No, no!"] The right hon. Gentleman had distinctly said that he was in favour of the principle. The controversy now was whether he had said he would carry that principle into operation. His statement on that point might have been more or less ambiguous, because different Members formed different opinions as to what was said. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) thought one thing was said, while the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) thought another; and the right hon. Gentleman sat still and confirmed neither the one nor the other view. If he would get up and. say, "I will try and carry this idea into operation," it would save a great deal of time; while, on the other hand, if he did not wish to carry this idea into operation, 1603 he might say so, and they might argue the clause on its merits. He could not understand why, if the right hon. Gentleman were inclined to help Business, he should sit still and refuse to answer a thoroughly plain question.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
replied, that he never refused to answer any question at all. The question asked of him was one which he could not answer more than lie had done Already. He was in the hands of the Committee, and if the Committee wished him to repeat what he had said he would say it again. He was in favour of the spirit of the Amendment; but, as far as coroners were concerned, he said that the Amendment would not work, because he understood there were no coroners in India. He was altogether in favour of a free and independent inquiry in cases of death happening in prisons. Therefore, he proposed to put in the words " as far as the same can be made applicable." Therefore, he said that if those words were put in he would, before the Report, consult the draftsmen and see how this intention that there should be an independent inquiry could best be carried out.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
said, they quite understood what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and they wanted now to know whether he would go a step further and promise to use his great influence with the governing powers in India to bring about, on behalf of the soldier, that which this Committee desired to enforce? If he would give them that assurance, he could not do more. These were the points on which a little doubt and difficulty was arising. The words he had used left them in no doubt about his intentions; but they now wanted to know whether this was to be treated merely as draftsman's work, imposing no obligation on the Government, or whether he would press the Indian Government to carry out this change? That was the only point on which the Committee asked for some assurance of his feeling.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
trusted the Committee would refrain from pressing the right hon. Gentleman; for it seemed to him (Sir Henry James) that it was unbecoming to raise such questions as these. The right hon. Gentleman, in his opinion, had spoken as clearly and as definitely as he could. He approved 1604 the Amendment; but he could not approve it as it stood, because there were places where coroners did not exist; and, therefore, he proposed to add words applying the principle as far as was practicable. The right hon. Gentleman had said he would take counsel and see what words would be the best; and if he proceeded without such counsel, and hastily, on words drawn at the Table, they would get a result which would afterwards produce those inextricable difficulties of which they often had experience in the Courts.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry James) had rather administered a reproof to him. His hon. and learned Friend had said that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had promised to take counsel as to how this Amendment could best be carried into effect. He had not said that. He had said that he would take counsel with the draftsmen how they could put in words to carry this out as far as possible. But he had not said that he would press upon the authorities governing India and endeavour to induce them not only to carry this out as far as it was practicable, but to make it an effectual legislative enactment.

§ MR. HERSCHELL
thought the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had not listened very carefully to what was going on. He seemed to be under the impression that the Secretary of State for the Home Department said that he would merely consult with the draftsmen to see how far the Amendment could be carried out. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman had said that he was entirely in favour of an independent inquiry; that he thought there should be an independent inquiry in India as well as elsewhere; and that he would consult with the draftsmen to see how that best could be carried out. He had not at all limited what he had said by using the words " as far as possible." He understood the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman to be that he was entirely in favour of independent inquiry, and that he would consult the draftsmen as to how that could be most effectually secured. What more than that they could ask for he did not know.

§ MR. GREGORY
thought the first thing they should ascertain was, whether this was not already provided for 1605 in India. The Indian Penal Code had ' been in operation for some time, and the question was, whether this provision did not already exist there under that or regulations for the management of prisons? They were going to legislate for India without knowing what legislation on the point already existed in that country.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
said, nobody would complain of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) asking the question he did; but, for his part, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) did not conceive there could be any doubt on the matter after what had fallen from the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Ho had said, with perfect clearness, that it was his intention that prisoners dying in India should have the same legal privileges and rights as those enjoyed by prisoners similarly situated in England. He might remind the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), also, that ho could claim the promise of the right lion. Gentleman as the promise of his hon. Colleagues. If the right hon. Gentleman, as partly in charge of the Bill, gave a pledge on a particular point, it was not, as was supposed by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), that he did not bind his Colleagues. There was no such thing as a separation of Cabinet Ministers, and he must remind the hon. Member that the Office of Secretary of State was one Office, and all the different Members in it held the same position. Therefore, what was said by one and what was done by one was practically said and done by all.

§ MR. PARNELL
observed, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had amended his words. [" No, no! "] He (Mr. Parnell) had taken down the words on both occasions. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman said he would consult with the India Office to see whether anything could be done. Then, subsequently, when he (Mr. Parnell) moved to report Progress, the Home Secretary changed the expression.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he must point out to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that he said he would move to report Progress, but that he did not do so. [Mr. PARNELL: Oh ! yes, I did.] The hon. Member rose and 1606 said that he proposed to move to report Progress; but he sat down without making that Motion, and, as a consequence, there was no Motion now before the Chair.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he certainly had intended to move to report Progress, and if they had any doubt about it he would move it again. He did not, however, intend to persevere with it for the reason that the statement the right hon. Gentleman made now was very different to that he made a short time ago. He said now he would see how an independent inquiry could be carried out. That was a sufficiently satisfactory statement; but it was not the statement he made on the original Motion to report Progress. His statement then was, that he would see whether anything could be done. He begged now to withdraw the Motion. He must, however, tell the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) that he could not accept his suggestions as to how he should conduct himself. He should accept suggestions from the Chair, but not from anyone sitting on the Opposition Benches.

THE CHAIRMAN
stated that no Motion having been made it was impossible for any Motion to be withdrawn.

§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.