§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that, under the instructions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, two prisoners suffering from smallpox in its acutest stage were removed from Shrewsbury Gaol to the Atcham Workhouse, a distance of five miles, the one on the 7th March, the other on the 26th April; whether, in consequcence of the virulence of the disease, no officer of the prison was sent in charge of the prisoner, David Lewis, to the workhouse; whether the inevitable exposure of the prisoner during the journey endangered his life; whether the sentence of David Lewis was unexpired, and was commuted by the Home Secretary for the purpose of endeavouring to give technical legality to the removal; and, whether he will inform the House of the date on which the notice of the commutation of sentence was received by the governor of the gaol, and the specific reasons for such commutation?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)Yes, Sir; it is true that these two prisoners were removed suffering from small-pox, but not in its acutest stage. On the contrary, they were in a condition in which they might properly be removed. The prisoner Lewis was removed in charge of the Sanitary Inspector, who was specially asked by the medical officer to undertake this duty because of his exceptional experience, such as a warder could not possess, and not in consequence of the virulence of the disease. The prisoner was removed in a covered conveyance. The patient is now going on satisfactorily, and there is no reason to think that his health was in any way affected by the mode of removal. In accordance with the usual practice, having received a certificate that the prisoner's removal was desirable on medical grounds, I advised the remission of the remainder of his sentence—namely, two months of a 12 months' sentence. The instructions for the removal reached the prison on Monday, the 26th. The usual Order of the Home Office was received on the following day. I have no reason to doubt that the removal 760 was, under the circumstances, expedient, and that all proper care was taken in the case. I may add that the prison is at present undergoing partial reconstruction, and there is no available space for the insulation of a case of this nature; and, moreover, I understand that the workhouse infirmary at Atcham is used for infectious cases, including small-pox cases.
§ In reply to a further Question,
MR. CHILDERSsaid, it would partly depend on the condition of the prison whether, if a prisoner was affected with disease of this kind, he should be removed. In the present case, it would clearly have been wrong to keep him in prison.