HC Deb 13 August 1890 vol 348 cc853-96

16. £47,500, to complete the sum for Law Charges.


I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £500, the salary of the Public Prosecutor. What I have to say is in regard to the nonintervention of the Public Prosecutor in the matter of the great public frauds and scandals which are taking place every day in connection with the promotion of bogus companies and matters of that kind. It is a very pressing matter. You cannot take up a newspaper without seeing numerous trials and other reports in which these proceedings are dealt with. Only the other day I saw an account of a company having been got up with a capital of something like £290,000, £190,000 of which was spent in promotion money. The grossest frauds have been perpetrated, and I cannot see why, in cases of this kind, the Public Prosecutor should not intervene, as he would do in other countries. I do not refer to this matter in order to bring a charge against the Public Prosecutor himself. He is an acquaintance of mine, and has always treated me very civilly. I am glad the Attorney General is here, because the rules bearing upon the Public Prosecutor were prepared by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and what I have to complain of is these rules. No doubt the Public Prosecutor is a very useful institution. No doubt his action is beneficial in regard to thieves and wife murderers, and so on, but useful as he may be his action is not so essential in such matters as it is in regard to the subject with which I am dealing, because it is obvious that the police can deal with cases of that sort without the advice of the heads of a Parliamentary Department. You do not provide prosecutions for the frauds to which I have alluded, although I think the law is strong enough to touch those frauds, but it is a question of initiating a prosecution. That which is everybody's business is nobody's business. You do not find members of the public very ready to throw good money after bad, and, therefore, I say that it is in cases of this nature, when the public have been defrauded by the promoters of bogus companies, that you want the action of the Public Prosecutor. By the existing system you establish a Public Prosecutor, who is told that he is not to prosecute when there is reasonable probability that private persons will undertake the work. You say he is only to act in cases where private persons fail to prosecute. When one looks at the proceedings in Courts of Justice, it is palpable that there are numerous cases in which private prosecutions fail, because it strikes most people as a monstrous folly to throw thousands of good pounds after hundreds of bad. Even when in cases of this kind private individuals do prosecute, in 99 cases out of 100 you do not find the fraudulent promoters of companies brought to justice. There may be some objection to introducing a personal matter, but there is a particular matter in which I have had some personal experience, and I would refer to it as an illustration of my case. It touches somewhat on the privileges of this House. In the case to which I refer, a compulsory winding-up order has already been obtained against a company, and, therefore, the case is not sub judice. I am one of those cautious people who never in my life, until the other day, took a share in any one of these companies. But at the beginning of last year I fell into a trap, in common with a large number of other Members in this House, and of Members in the other House of Parliament, and in company, I may say, with a great many respectable people. This was one of the newest form of companies purporting to act on co-operative lines. The old Co-operative Associations having proved successful, a form of fraud has been adopted on the lines of Co-operative Associations. People get up bogus companies under the name of Co-operative Societies. Well, at the beginning of last year we did not know what we do now, and hon. Members were pestered—as we all are from day to day—by a circular issued on behalf of persons who wanted to sell coals. As the world cannot get on without coals, and as every householder has, to some extent, to deal in them, I thought it would not be a bad thing to be relieved of all difficulty in the matter of my coal supply. A Coal Consumers' Supply Association's Circular was sent to me, and, as I say, I, in common with a large number of other people, fell into the trap. I paid £54 into the company, and I may here remark that I have no interest in this matter, because my £54 is gone. I took the shares, because I saw that the concern was to be administered on co-operative principles, and because I saw that the Council of Administration numbered many Members of this House, many Members of the other House, and a number of retired Indian civil servants. I thought it would be a good thing, and I did not for a moment dream that it would not be otherwise than honestly managed. [Cries of "Divide!"] After I had paid my money, I found every one of these gentlemen repudiated the use of his name, saying that he had given no authority for it to be used. I maintain that it was almost a breach of privilege of the House to use the name of Members of the House in this fraudulent way. [Cries of "Divide!"] We formed an association of shareholders, and applied to the Court. The Court decided in our favour, and I hold, therefore, that the case ought to be looked upon as a criminal matter, and the Public Prosecutor ought to take up the subject and inquire into it. As a matter of fact, I went to the Public Prosecutor, who received me very kindly, but told me nothing could be done. He said that we must prove our case first and prosecute afterwards. We did our best to prove our case. We went into Court, and Mr. Justice Kay decided in our favour. He decided that our names ought to be removed from the list of shareholders, because we had been misled by the fraudulent use of those names. We tried to bring these men to justice. We spent £2,000 or £3,000, and obtained an order for the compulsory winding up of the company. It is now being wound up—[Cries of "Divide!"]—but I do not see that the Public Prosecutor is taking action in order to bring these men to justice. It seems that the promoters of the company are claiming a right to appeal, as the case has been decided in favour of the shareholders. That appeal has not yet come on, and Heaven only knows when it will. [Cries of "Question!" and "Divide!"] It is not likely that the shareholders will bring a criminal prosecution against these promoters, as they will not care to throw good money after bad. My point is that, in a case of this kind, the Public Prosecutor ought to move in the matter. [Cries of "Divide!"]

(3.22.) MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I should be sorry to see public money expended in protecting Members of this House from unfortunate investments, and I must say I think the present Secretary to the Treasury is too strong a guardian of the public purse to allow the public to spend those thousands which private shareholders will not spend. I must accentuate the protest made a short time ago by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton. This is a Vote on which I should have liked to raise a discussion on a question of public policy as to the position of the Law Officers of the Crown, and the desirability, or otherwise, of their devoting their full time to the Public Service. I should like to raise this question of public policy, but it would be a waste of the time of the House and an abuse of the Forms of the House to go into such a question at the present period of the Session, and looking at the present attenuated state of the House. When next Session comes, however, we must claim, and I hope we shall succeed in obtaining, an early consideration of some of these important Estimates. This question may then be properly raised. At present I pass this Vote, as I shall pass them all, sub silentio. I rose for the purpose of reserving the point I had in my mind to a more proper occasion.

*(3.24.) SIR R. WEBSTER

In my opinion it would be the worst possible step in connection with the office of Public Prosecutor if it were to be thought that it was the duty of this official to undertake the vindication of the rights of private individuals in civil matters, and the grievances of the many individuals who feel as sore as the hon. Gentleman opposite does at the loss of his £54. The rules sanctioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) and Lord Herschell, and drafted by myself, have now been in force four years, and, I think, have been found to work admirably. If you wish to make the Public Prosecutor take up such matters in order to redress civil wrongs which assume the aspect of criminal fraud, you would have to add four or five times the present amount in this Vote. The time of the Public Prosecutor would be taken up almost wholly with these cases, and you would require a staff two or three times as large as the existing staff. Speaking from my own experience, I must say that I shall be bound to resist as strongly as I can any attempt to put the burden of applying remedies which ought to be undertaken by the people aggrieved on the shoulders of the public. If I may say so, without intending to refer to anybody in this House who may have been entrapped by fraudulent companies, anyone who has been fool enough to invest his money in bogus companies should vindicate his own rights, and not expect it to be done at the expense of the public. With regard to the point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton opposite desires to raise, no one can feel more strongly than I do the importance of it. There have, however, been two Debates upon it in this Session and last. Still, I thoroughly understand that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to reserve his position and not to commit himself by allowing the Vote to pass unchallenged.


The two gentlemen who have spoken are two lawyers saturated with English law, and it would require a surgical operation to get into their heads the notion that the Criminal Law ought not to be put in force by private individuals, but ought to be put in force by the Public Prosecutor. I do not suggest that the Public Prosecutor ought to operate so as to uphold civil rights; but I maintain that in such a case as that I have mentioned, we ought to have the same remedy against persons who make us the victims of their fraudulent transactions as we should have against anyone who picked our pocket. No doubt, if cases of this kind were dealt with by the Public Prosecutor, we should require a more extensive Department, but that, I maintain, we ought to have. [Cries of "Divide!"]

Vote agreed to.

17. £43,133, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Legal Expenses.

18. £263,900, to complete the sum for the Supreme Court of Judicature and Land Registry.

19. £396,886, to complete the sum for County Courts.

20. £12,594, to complete the sum for Police Courts, London and Sheerness.


I have frequently divided the House on the subject of this Vote, because I consider that the country outside London is being robbed by it. I will not discuss the matter now, because such a discussion as is now possible would not be consistent with the dignity of the House.

Vote agreed to.

21. £456,701, to complete the sum for Prisons, England and the Colonies.

(3.31.) MR. J. O'CONNOR

I am sorry I cannot enter into the spirit of the arrangement which has been referred to from the Front Opposition Bench, but I cannot allow the Vote to pass sub silentio. In bringing under the notice of the Committee the treatment of certain prisoners in Chatham Prison, I shall be obliged to call attention to a Report issued by the Visitors to the prison last year. I wish to dissociate the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary from many of the animadversions I shall have to make on the treatment of the prisoners except in one respect. The charge I have to make is that the prisoners whose case I intend to bring under the notice of the Committee have been treated with special severity. The truth of the statements made during the past few years concerning the treatment of these prisoners was denied by the Home Secretary, but they were so persisted in that the right hon. Gentleman gave instructions for a Special Committee of Visitors to investigate them and make a Report to him. That Report states that no special feeling existed in the minds of the officials with regard to these men, but the Report is founded only on the evidence of the accused parties. No account is taken of the statements of the prisoners themselves; but if their statements are only to be set aside as worthless, why were they asked to make statements at all? That there was special feeling on the part of the officials of the prison towards the prisoners I will show from the statements of some of the prisoners themselves. There is, first, the statement made by Henry H. Wilson. He complains that the line of treatment to which he and others have been subjected has been decidedly harsh and unjust; that it differs from that to which the ordinary class of prisoners have been subjected, and that the difference is due to the political nature of the offence. He says— ''The bitter hatred of the average Chatham officer to the Irish Fenian makes itself felt in a thousand ways. And he complains of the fostering of this spirit of hatred by the authorities. In Millbank Prison he says he never experienced a single annoyance, being treated like an ordinary prisoner. Another prisoner, Egan, says— The officers employed another prisoner to give me a piece of newspaper so as to get me punishment. He says— Prisoner afterwards told me he was put on me by an officer. Daly, another prisoner, says in his evidence that one of the officers said to him— The great trouble with you fellows is that some of the officers here cannot get out of their heads the crime you are charged with. These statements show that these men were specially selected by the warders for petty persecution because of the crime they were charged with and because of the sentences they received. When sent to Chatham Prison, the prisoners were determined to behave themselves properly. I believe they were a class of men who would feel it to be to their interest to conform to the rules of the prison, and endeavour to get their sentences mitigated if possible. One of them—a man named James M'Grath—was studying Spanish in prison with the view of getting employment on his release as a sailor on the Spanish main. He expressed a wish to be supplied with an epitome of navigation in the Spanish language similar to Norie's Epitome of Navigation. He wished to improve his mind in order to take up an important position on his release. It is also found in the body of the evidence that Daly asked for Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and we also find that Dr. Gallagher asked for a Latin grammar, and, when that was denied him, for a French grammar and dictionary. I direct attention to these facts to show that the men of whom I am speaking were of such a turn of mind that they were not necessarily disposed to wilfully break the rules of the prison, that they were men who had hopes for the future, and that, having hopes of liberation, they were likely to conduct themselves in such a manner as would commend them to the authorities. My statement from this Report is corroborated by the statement made to me by Daly two years ago, when I advised him. during a visit 1 paid him to be amenable to the Prison Rules, to be respectful to the officers, and to conform to the discipline, as it would be undoubtedly the best for his peace of mind and happiness, if happiness I can call it, to adopt such a course of conduct. He informed me that he came to the prison fully determined to make the best of his unfortunate position, but that he was driven from that decision by the persecution of the officers. I have said there was a conspiracy to cause these prisoners to break the rules. On page 84 of the appendix, paragraph 11, Egan says that the officers employed another prisoner, to give him a piece of newspaper so as to get him punished, and on page 183, paragraph 59, Daly says a prisoner put a small bit of newspaper in his hand, and it was cut so neat and square that it could hardly have been cut by a prisoner. He had only a glimpse at it; but he noticed that the type was nonpareil, and that it contained the names of Sir Henry James and of Parnell and Davitt. He destroyed it immediately after it was given to him, as it was suggested it was a trap. On the following Tuesday, the 25th of February, the same prisoner put another piece of newspaper in his hand, saying, "Be very careful of it, and give it me back after dinner." At 181, paragraph 27, Daly says his mind was filled with the horrible thought that some of the officers were trying to cause him to break the peace, and that he would be flogged. O, God! the thought was more than I could endure. I said to myself a hundred thousand times during the long, weary nights at this time, death at your hands is better than life and being flogged. On page 186 Wilson says that from time to time they were brought up on false charges and punished. One instance he gave was that on one occasion a man named Saunders was sweeping down the steps in the passage leading to the Roman Catholic Chapel. Wilson and others were at the head of the steps, and an officer who was at the bottom of the steps picked up out of the dust what Wilson afterwards learned was a piece of newspaper. Ten minutes afterwards Wilson was searched, put under report, and the next day brought before the Governor and charged with having the newspaper in his possession. "The Governor" was indignant, says Wilson, "when I declared the thing a pure fabrication." The Governor replied that it was suspicious, and upon mere suspicion ordered Wilson to solitary confinement on bread and water for 23 days. Wilson afterwards complained to the Director, who simply said, "Don't do it again." Under all the circumstances, I cannot help thinking there was, on the part of some persons in the prison, a conspiracy to drive these men from an attitude of conformity to prison discipline. The charges that I have to make against the prison officials are, perhaps, not very grave. The unfortunate prisoners themselves do not say they are. Wilson said to the Visiting Justices— In drawing your attention to my treatment, I may remark that what may be considered a small or trivial matter at first sight becomes, when repeated and continued for a year, a very serious matter for one placed in my present position. That is what the prisoners have to complain of—that they are being subjected in a thousand little ways to a system of petty persecution and annoyance that is driving them from the attitude of being well-conducted prisoners into careless, and, if you like, incorrigible ones. The officers are accused of driving Daly into what the Visitors have declared to be an assumption of illness, and of drawing Gallagher into a shamming of madness. I am not surprised they have assumed these things, and it is a deplorable state of things that in a prison, where men should be treated, at all events, with some humanity, these prisoners have been subjected to such petty annoyance, that one man is accused of pretending to be insane and another pretending physical infirmity. The shamming of illness is likely to bring on illness, and the shamming of madness invariably brings on madness, a fact which Dr. Gallagher must himself know. Let me again turn to the statements of the prisoners— Some time about the month of November 84 A. W. Durgan came to my cell between 6 & 7 A.M., and said 'you're making a lot of noise with that tin ware of yours.' I said I was not making any more than I could help in cleaning it. He said if he heard me making any more noise he' d put me on report. He put me on report next day & said he heard me telegraphing to the man in the next cell. This was absolutely untrue. I got two days bread & water. On the 2nd January 86 Warder Bass came to my cell before prayers in the morning, looked in through the trap and said, 'you look rather excited' he then charged me with telegraphing. I answered and said, 'I have not been telegraphing,' he said 'Your a bloody stinking bare-faced liar,' he put me on report, I got two days bread & water. About this time I complained to the two officers in charge, of not being allowed either salt or a spoon to season or eat the gruel I got, and said it was unchristian like, whereupon one of the officers Parker No. 2 said, 'do you call yourself a Christian?' I did not answer the question. He then said, 'I'll eat my bloody head sooner than admit you to be a Christian.' Sometime in January85 (I think) A. W. Benny came to my cell to tell me to stop humming. I told him I would do so, that I did not think he could have heard me, I then closed my door, he open'd it again and said 'What did you mean by shuting the door, did you mean an indignity to me.' I assured him nothing could be further from my mind & that I was very sorry he should think so. He then said, 'if he thought I did he'd put me on report.' He then went away, and after an hour or more he came back and had me put on report, I asked him what for, he said, 'little said is soon mended.' He charged me next day with insolently banging the door in his face and singing in my cell. 2 days bread and water. Daly explains that what he was humming was the air of a hymn he had heard in the chapel, and he was humming low so that he thought nobody could hear him outside the cell. He was humming to himself, he says, for his own recreation. In March 85 the officer one day gave me needle & thread to stitch a lot of buttons on my clothes, which caused me to be one oz. short in the quantity of oakum I picked that day, for which I got 2 days bread & water without any bed and very strang this was a day or two after my complaining to the Doctor about not getting exercise. Doctor gave me one 1b. to pick. All through this time & for years after, but about this time especially our lives were made very miserable indeed, through the conduct of the officers on night duty, who seemed to amuse themselves more than anything else, night after night, month after month, banging the trap doors of the cells which made a horrible noise at night, so much so that it was utterly impossible to get sleep, only when quite exausted, and then it was broken every hour. And now I turn to Egan's statements, and I will show that these men have the same complaint to make, although they could not have been acting in concert. I turn to paragraph 8, on page 184, where Egan speaks of the language used by the officers. I cannot quote the language, decency will not allow me, and I will not offend the ears of the Committee with it. This language was used every day by the warders, remonstrances only brought about Reports, and Reports brought punishment. For declining to work in order to see the doctor they were reported and punished; for refusing to take medicines when ordered they were reported and punished. With regard to the bad language, Egan says we have been poor, but we were never used to such language as this. I turn to his evidence. He complains to the visitor of the language of a warder named Parker, and the visitor asks— 2103. "You complain of his language specially?—I complain of his language specially; at one time I told the Governor about it, and he said, 'Why do you not put it on your slate?' I said, 'Unfortunately my slate has been taken from me for a cause which I do not know.' He said, 'Well, I will allow you a slate for a time,' but I said, 'I am perfectly well aware that it would be useless for me to make a complaint; therefore I decline the slate.' Now I turn to Question 2076, in which he refers to the annoyance to which he was persistently subjected of slamming of the trapdoors during the night. You say it was done, you think, for their amusement?—Yes, because I spoke to Mr. Ruffell about it; I spoke to the officer on duty, and he said, 'I cannot have it altered.' Then I spoke to Mr. Ruffell, and from speaking to Mr. Ruffell, that night the officer did it worse, came at night to my cell door, slammed down the trap and banged his lantern on it, banged it up again, rushed down stairs, came up again to me, banged it down, banged the lantern again, and then slammed the trap up again, rushed down again and let me alone for about half an hour; that is three or four times in the space of three-quarters of an hour. This officer kept that on the whole night every hour continually. 2084. "Do you think they try to wake you by throwing the light in your eyes?—Yes, some of the officers will keep the light upon you for a length of time, right upon you eyes. I do not say that all the officers do that. I have known an officer take a stool and throw it down all the steps, for the purpose of waking us up at night. 2085. "For the purpose?—Yes, taking up a stool or something of the kind and throwing it downstairs. 2086. "You may have heard it fall downstairs, but what reason have you to suppose it was thrown down?—I do not know what object they would have for taking anything of that sort upstairs. You would be astonished if you knew what little tricks they get up to for the purpose of annoying. These are some of the petty persecutions to which I have referred, and go to justify the statement of the prisoners. Now, the rules were not read to these men when they arrived at Chatham Prison. I know the Governor says they could have had them read if they had asked for them, but the men knew nothing of the rules, and so for a very long time they lost their exercise and were compelled to walk in the yard. This is Egan's evidence on the point— 2062. "Then as regards your exercise, you say you did not have an hour's exercise, and you say' I was kept at ramming and lowering the yard by beating it with what is called a ram until the flesh was torn from my hands. I wish particularly to be questioned on this matter and give further information.' Every morning the rams which are wooden affairs that you pound the ground with were put out ready for Daly and myself to take out, and there were five yards, and we had to keep beating those yards in this way (indicating by gesture); it is not an ordinary ramming. I was shown how to do it, that is to beat it with all my might as hard as I could. My hands were strange to the work. First they became a mass of blisters; the next morning I was taken out again, and, of course, the blisters broke by the ramming; the next morning out again in the same way; the blisters were partly healed up in the night, and during the day they would come on again and break again until, on one occasion, Daly showed the officer the state of his hands. They did not actually know how my hands were at the time till I showed the officer, and he was quite astonished. That was the effect of ramming. He complains that he was not made acquainted with the rules, and did not know to what he was entitled. Well, these are some of the means employed at Chatham Prison to improve prisoners morally and physically, and I think it would require an army of chaplains to counteract the effect of the language and conduct of the warders. In paragraph 59 of their Report the Visitors say— Great complaints are made by the prisoners as to the coarse and insulting language used by the officers in their presence, or addressed directly to them. We do not propose to go into this matter at any length, as we find that the officers chiefly complained of have left the prison, and that in all cases in which definite complaints have been made, the officers have been cautioned. From answers given by officers still in the prison to our questions as to the others who have left, we think that the prisoners have had cause to complain in this respect; but we are satisfied that care is taken to prevent the use of bad language, and that, to use the graphic expression of Warder Beel, if the language of the warders 'is not all Parliamentary talk, still it is passable talk;" and, by the admission of the prisoners, matters have now improved in this respect. Speaking generally on this subject, we think that it cannot be expected that the subordinate officers will keep such constant control over their language as to avoid, at all times, the use of expressions calculated to give offence. Now, it is alleged by the prisoners that the visits of friends on the days allowed were in a manner that appears systematically prevented by the prisoners being put under punishment. Here is Egan's evidence on this point:— 2212. Then you say, 'When I am entitled to a visit my wife has always to write for order, and sometimes after she receives it and is prepared to visit me, receives a countermand '; that would be only, I suppose, on account of your getting into trouble?—Nothing was more easy than to stop a man's visit by saying he was talking, and then write an account of it to the man's wife. 2213. But do the warders know about your visitors; how could they stop them?—If I were to come here and make a complaint to-day, at dinner-time it would be known all over the prison in the course of half an hour. 2214. Do you suggest that you are falsely punished in order that your visits may be countermanded?—Certainly, I say that. 2215. By which of the officers?—I do not know when those countermands arrived; but if my wife were to give the date of the countermands you would find the punishments were inflicted at the same time. This is corroborated by the evidence of other prisoners. Now, I put it to the Committee, is it not the very refinement of cruelty to deprive a man who is sentenced to a life-long imprisonment of the hope of seeing a relative as the many months go round? I may say I have myself on many occasions had the intention of going to see these prisoners, knowing, through various means, that these men were ill-treated, and being anxious to hear their story from themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for West Limerick and I applied to the Governor for orders to visit the prisoners, and invariably we were told they could not see visitors because they were under punishment. On the few occasions when we did visit them it was by the courtesy of the Home Secretary, who gave us special orders. One other instance of petty persecution, and then I pass to other matters. In winter time the prisoners, in taking exercise, are compelled to walk slowly; in the heat of summer weather they are compelled to walk fast. Now, the Report has much to say about penal cells, and the Visitors say the prisoners are better off in these cells. The cells are larger, and they are more secure; but in not a few of the differences of treatment the difference is to the disadvantage of the penal cell prisoners. When in these cells a man is ill he is treated for illness which other men would be sent to the infirmary for. There was a fatal result to this in the case of a man named Deasy, who, being ill, was treated in his cell, and was obliged to get out of his bed, go to the trap-door for his medicine, and totter back again to his bed. So he was treated until at death's door, and then he was removed to the infirmary to die. In these cells there are no stools; the prisoner is compelled to sit on a portion of a cut-down mast, chained to the wall, and so arranged that at the time when the prisoner is entitled to read a book he is unable to see from the light of the gas. It is cruel to deprive an educated man the solace of reading a little, and the rules allow it when work is over, but these rules are mockery and delusion. The penal cell prisoners are compelled to walk from their cells to the bath almost nude, and the warders even used to bring in strangers to see these prisoners take their bath. If a garment had to be mended, this class of prisoners must go without that garment until it is returned from the tailors' shop. They are always obliged to stand at attention, while other prisoners can sometimes stand at ease. Egan says— Major Clayton came and told them on several occasions, 'These men must be always kept with their hands by their sides.' I admit that some of the things of which I am complaining have been remedied. But I want to point out that the harm has already been done, and the fact that the Visitors ordered these changes proved that the treatment of these prisoners had been exceptional. The Report states that the treatment complained of was not fostered by the superior officers of the prison. I reply that it was, for Egan in his statement says that on one occasion, when he complained of the conduct of the warder, the Governor told him if he made further complaints he would come to grief. Gallagher, James Donelly, and John Daly also made assertions to a similar effect. Now I come to the case of Wilson, who says— 4. I found it almost impossible to see the Doctor when I felt unwell. The officers would'nt take my name, or rather they used to ignore my request. I complained to the Director about the matter, but that did'nt mend matters. Some time after seeing the Director, I got an opportunity of speaking to the Medical Officer while inspecting us. He told me he'd attend to the matter. In the course of the day I was brought to the Infirmary and examined—on the way over I was stopped by Mr. Bass the Warder who had then charge of the separate cells. 'What are these lies you have been telling the Doctor' he asked, I tried to explain but he stopped me with 'Well at all events you'll do three days bread and water for it. Now, here is a man who finds it necessary to make a statement of what?—he finds it necessary to make a statement to the doctor, and he is prevented from seeing the doctor, after which he complains to the doctor that he is hampered by warders, and the warders take umbrage of the statement. They report him to the Governor, and the Governor gives him three days' bread and water, I think, for making this complaint. Well, then, Daly, at page 179, paragraph 7, makes a similar complaint, as follows:— An officer Mr. Memory came to my cell with a dose of physic (casteroil) and ordered me to take it. I thanked him, told him I was alright didn't want any physic, He said I'd have to take it anyhow, I reminded him that I did not complain to the Doctor, nor did he order me any physic, He then shouted to Warder Bass that I wasn't going to have it, Warder Bass shouted back Make him take it you—Whereupon Memory assured me I'd have to take the physic or his cosh, I took the physic, and soon after vomited up again and escaped the purging. The next day I mentioned the matter to the then assistant surgeon who laughed and seemed to think it a good joke. I subsequently brought the matter under the notice of the Director, with the result that the man who did not give me the physic was punished, and the two who did got scot free. The Director said to me then, the less complaints I have to make about the officers, the better for myself. How is it possible, as Mr. Egan says, at Question 2112, that he could not complain to the Governor but he gave him bread and water? How can Visitors come to the conclusion that these petty persecutions were not fostered by the principal officers of the prison? When they complain, as I have shown—and these things have not been contradicted because they were recorded on the prison books—yet this whitewashing Commission of Visitors finds that the Directors did not foster these petty persecutions. I say that they did, and of this there is ample proof in the Report, if anyone wishes to go through it. Now I come to another and a very serious part of the charge which I make against the officers of the prison. The Report of the Visitors says that— The medical treatment of the prisoners has been careful and judicious. Well, Sir, I need only allude to the death of Deasy, as one instance of the careful and judicious medical treatment in the prison. But I think I will find better proof of the careful and judicious medical treatment in the evidence of John Daly, at page 180, paragraph 13— On the morning of Sunday, —which, according to William Walker, would be the 14th of September— I applied for Medical treatment. I was taken to the infirmary but did not see any of the Doctors. Assistant Warder Durbin who was then Medical Compounder gave me a dose of physic, which done me no good. The diarrhœa was most violent all that night, packed up & went to the infirmary on Monday, diarrhœa still violent, saw Dr. Walker at 11-30 A.M., told him I was sick almost to death. He laughed & said I'd have to go back to my work, yet I was kept in an infirmary cell all that day without receiving any Medicine whatsoever until about 5-45 P.M. one of the Nurses gave me a dose, I was then taken back to my cell. Monday night diarrhœa if possible worse than ever. Tuesday Morning whilst geting off my knees from prayers My bowels relaxed, and my clothes became a mass of filth, I was taken to the infirmary but the officer in charge (Warder White) would not admit me though he was told the state I was in, until I went to the penal cells and changed my working boots for shoes get my books etc, then and only then was I admitted. The officer then ordered me into a bath to wash myself and the clothes, this bath was composed of cold, absolutely cold water. The infirmary door was open most of the time I was in the bath, I became chilled. The next day, Wednesday, I was pronounced dangerously ill inflamation of the bowels. Is it to be wondered at? A man suffering for days from diarrhœa—most seriously suffering—so much that he has to be ordered into a bath to wash himself and the clothes he was wearing. He was sent into a cold bath until inflammation of the bowels set in, and this is the treatment that the Visitors declare to be careful and judicious. Now, on page 182, paragraph 7, we come to more of this careful and judicious treatment. I come to this very serious part of the indictment against the prison officials which is known as the belladonna poisoning, and here, I think, we will have considerable evidence as to the careful and judicious treatment of the prisoners. On the 18th of November, Dr. Voisey saw Daly and told him— To continue the powder, and I will also put you on Medicine, this was at 12.30 p.m., at 1 o'clock I got the first dose. The effect of that was to cause my face to flush (I thought) then great thirst, with slight pain in the stomach, I drank a large quantity of water. At or about 5 P.M. Compounder Durbin came, opened the trap-door and said, Daly, have you got enough of the powder; I said yes, thank you, I then said, Mr. Durbin, will you please mention to the Doctor that this medicine has a very strange effect on me; I said it has caused me most violent thirst, it is almost impossible to hear: the answer to this was, When you speak to an officer, you should do so in a proper manner.' I said, 'what do you call a proper manner?' He said 'You should say, sir.' He then banged the trap, and went to the two officers who were bathing prisoners, and told them what he said. I had spoken to Mr. Durbin manys the time and oft always the same, never more or less respectful than on that night. He never before found any fault with my manner of addressing him, his knowledge of drugs ought to have told him there must be something wrong with the medicine, from what I said to him, if he had been ignorant of the fact before, besides the prisoner who gave me the medicine is a Doctor or was. Anyhow for reasons best known to Mr. Durbin himself, he did not convey my message to the Doctor. I took it for granted that notwithstanding his indignation, he would not dare to suppress my message, and therefore notwithstanding all I suffered that night, I took the third dose next day. The symptoms were as I have already described, burning of the face, thirst, the intensity of which no language can convey, loss of sith (sight) stoppage of water, something like electricity shooting through my blood, biting in, punching me now here, now there, with pain in the stomach. The third dose intensified all the symptoms, and left me quite unable to walk. I also lost the use of my speech. I had to be taken by two men upstairs in the Infirmary. While downstairs in the infirmary, Mr. Durbin came (in the absence of the Doctor) and opened my eye, looked into it, said pshaw, and that was the last I saw of Mr. Durbin. He then states he was placed in the bed, and at paragraph 48—I cannot help quoting a statement of Daly's as to his feelings on this occasion—he says— I cannot keep my mind from going back to that terrible night, shot as it were, full of strength and in possession of all my faculty, into the presence, almost, of the great unknown God, looking as it were in to that great long awful uncertain eternity all alone, no kind loving voice to give me hope—,what could compensate a man for that? and yet I think Dr. Walker will say that I did not act like unto one whose conscience had been stained with crime. Now, I shall have to refer the Committee and the Home Secretary to the evidence of the Medical Inspectors themselves. I refer to page 191 and 193 of the statement of Dr. Walker, one of the prison doctors. Dr. Walker says that Daly's symptoms were as follows:— Vertigo, dimness of vision, pupils widely dilated, dryness of the tongue, difficulty in speaking, great thirst, intense itching of the skin, and difficulty in passing water —mind, these are the many symptoms that Daly himself described; clearly showing that Daly did not exaggerate his case, as some medical officers sought to make out. His symptoms were such as would be produced by an overdose of belladonna, and on making inquiries I found that he had been taking a mixture containing 10 minim doses of tincture of belladonna. As his condition was rather alarming I at once sent for the assistant surgeon to see him, who arrived at the same conclusion as myself, namely, that he was suffering from atropism. We therefore immediately injected morphia subcutaneously, and administered an emetic of sulphate of copper, and sent him to bed. About 10 minutes afterwards, as the emetic had not acted, it was decided to use stomach pump. The tube was only partially introduced, however, as it produced vomiting, and it was therefore withdrawn. The amount vomited was not great, and a second attempt was therefore made to introduce the tube, which instantly produced the desired effect, copious vomiting being set up thereby. I saw him frequently during the afternoon, and at 8 o'clock in the evening all urgent symptoms had passed off. Now, that is the statement of George E. Walker, the medical officer, made to the Governor. These symptoms are corroborated by the assistant surgeon, and it is unnecessary for me to read them to the Committee, because they only confirm Dr. Walker's evidence; but I shall have to refer to these doses of belladonna. Now, with regard to the administration of this belladonna, it is a curious thing that Durbin, the compounder of the medicines, was, upon the Report of the two medical officers of the prison, degraded in his position and removed from the prison. That was at a time after the investigation of the circumstance had taken place—after the analysis of the belladonna had been made by competent chemical and special authority in London, and the strange fact is that, after the visitors go down, and make an investigation of the prison, they have before them the same Report on which the doctors acted with regard to Durbin, and what is the result of their deliberation? They ordered Durbin to be reinstated in his former position: they find that Durbin is not to blame, and that the doctors were not wrong. How is that? Somebody must be wrong, and yet they reinstate Durbin, and find that no wrong is done to the doctors in reinstating him. This Commission of Visitors seems to have been specially organised for the purpose of white washing everybody down in Chatham Prison who had been in charge of the prisoner. Now, I shall not base my case on whether Durbin was well disposed to the prisoner or not. At all events Daly was poisoned. There can be no doubt about that. Either it was due to neglect, or to deliberate ill-treatment on the part of the compounder. But whether it be one or the other, what I claim is that Daly is entitled to compensation, either for the neglect or for the deliberate ill-treatment of the warders in charge, but to say that this prisoner was medically treated with care and judiciousness, under these circumstances, is something too much to ask us to believe. Now, the Report itself, at paragraph 148, says— We have treated this portion of the case very fully on account of its importance, and we find—

  1. 1. That the prescription of belladonna was proper in itself;
  2. 2. That the prescription was properly made up;
  3. 3. That the effect of the mixture on Daly was caused, not by any error on the part of the compounder, but by the fact that the tincture of belladonna used was considerably above the average strength;
  4. 4. That the Prison Authorities are not responsible for this extra strength;
  5. 5. That the effect of the medicine on the prisoner was entirely due to misadventure; and
  6. 6. That the compounder was not in fault for not reporting to the doctor after his interview with Daly when the second dose was administered, as nothing was then said which made it his duty to do so."
Those are the findings in respect to belladonna of the Visitors, and I will now ask the Home Secretary and the Committee to turn to the evidence of Mr. Risdon Bennett, page 195— The result of Dr. Stevenson's analysis to my mind sufficiently explains the symptoms presented by Daly, after taking three doses of the mixture, without assuming that he was the subject of any special idiosyncrasy as to the action of belladonna. Because, will the Committee believe it?—the Visitors, trying to whitewash the officers, endeavoured to show in their Report that the effect of the belladonna on Daly was due to idiosyncrasy on his part. But the doctor himself says that it was not idiosyncrasy. What was the result of the analysis? The result of the analysis made by Dr. Walker showed that the mixture contained from two and a half to four times the amount of belladonna prescribed by the assistant surgeon, and it proves that Daly's symptoms were due to an over dose of that drug, and not to idiosyncrasy on his part. That is a statement made by Dr. Walker, the medical officer, based on a Report of the chemical analyst. It is corroborated by Dr. Voisey, and it is unnecessary for me to quote for the information of the Committee the highly technical analysis made by Mr. Stephenson. But although that is the analysis, the statement of the two doctors in the prison responsible for Daly's health, and the statement of the special doctor sent by the Home Secretary, all agree that Daly had from two and a half to four times the belladonna he was ordered. This whitewashing Commission, at paragraph 148, say— That the prescription of belladonna was proper in itself, and that the prescription was properly made up. After that, who can attach any importance whatever to the Report of this Commission? Well, Sir, I think that it will be very difficult for the Home Secretary to justify this action of the authorities towards Daly in respect of their method of treatment. I shall leave it to the Committee to judge whether, from the medical point of view, these prisoners have been treated as prisoners ought to be treated—and as the Visitors declared they had been treated—with care, medically and judiciously. My assertion with regard to the prisoners is that Daly has been, beyond dispute, poisoned in the prison, that much suffering was entailed upon him, not only by the overdose of belladonna, but also by the inflammation that was brought on by the administration of the cold bath, and that, on account of the suffering that was inflicted upon him, with carelessness and neglect, he is entitled to compensation at the hands of the Government. Before I pass from this ill-treatment, I desire to read in corroboration of the statement a letter of a convict who has served his time in Chatham Prison. I know very well that the Home Secretary will quote very largely from the Report of the Visitors. What I charge is that, these Visitors being the ordinary Visitors of the prison, some of them had already investigated these cases and reported on them.




Yes. Mr. Selfe did so.


No; Sir John Lennard.


Every one of the prisoners in his evidence alludes to the fact that he had been visited, and therefore we find that these Visitors were asked to sit in judgment on themselves. I know very well that the right hon. Gentleman associated with the ordinary visitors two working men—Mr. Shipton and Mr. Drummond. There is historical evidence of the fact that when men of that class are associated with others of high position, of great learning, they very often lose their interest, very often are overshadowed by the position and by the attainments of those of a different class with whom they are asked to act. I need not quote the historical evidence to the right hon. Gentleman. But I will ask the attention of the Committee to a letter which I received from a man who has served his time in this prison, and was there at the time of the other prisoners. I will not give the address nor the name of the writer, but I will hand it to the right hon. Gentleman, so that he may judge of its bona fides. This letter is addressed to an hon. Member of this House, and the writer says he wishes to speak of the grievances of James Egan, who was discharged from Chatham on the 21st July last— Kindly allow me to say a few words respecting the treatment of the Irish dynamite men, for that is how they are known in prison. The statement of the Visitors is that these prisoners are not known by a special name, and that they are not subjected to special treatment. But here you have the very prisoners aware that they are known by the special name of dynamiters. The writer says— I was working in the same party with Egan, Featherstone, and Gallagher. The latter prisoner has been so cruelly treated as to make him unfit to behold. He was in the Infirmary when I left. I believe he is suffering from mental aberration, induced and consequent upon long continued and bitter persecution. … I do regard such treatment as tantamount to murder, screened and delicately nurtured by the law. Apropos of complaints, it is my experience that they are not attended to, and a prisoner fares worse after complaining. During my time they sent an Irish prisoner, named O'Donnell, to be punished in the cold cells, and a few weeks after his punishment he died, suffering pulmonary consumption. I saw a prisoner who was nearly poisoned by belladonna. They put it down as an accident, but—— And here follows a long stroke. I have no hesitation in stating that the general treatment of the prisoners in Chatham Prison is an indelible disgrace to the whole prison. Now, I wish to pass from the subject of ill-treatment to the only other branch of the subject to which I will refer, and that is the manner in which Daly was allowed to be approached in prison by Piggot and other people connected with the Times newspaper. I will read only a very small portion of Daly's evidence in connection with this matter. There is some difference of opinion between Daly and the Visitors, but I think Daly's explanation of the visits is the correct one. On page 51 of the Report, Daly said he was visited. He said he wished to call attention to the fact that he was being brought in contact with a gentleman from the Times newspaper, who had proposed terms which he had rejected. He protested that it was unfair that he should be subjected to such an ordeal. He said that he had been told that any person who gave evidence would receive a certificate of protection. Now, it would be perfect nonsense to say that a certificate of protection was at all necessary. The Visitor said to Daly:— The certificate of indemnity would be an indemnity against any proceedings upon matters upon which you gave evidence. Now, in the case of a man sentenced for life that might not mean much, but being sentenced for life does not necessarily mean that you are to spend the whole of your life here. Daly answered— That is one of the constructions you may put upon it. But place yourself in my position, and then put a construction upon it that would be 'the natural one.' Daly knew very well what it meant, and it was useless for the Visitor to attempt any other construction. The only construction that could be put upon it was that, "if you become an informer, you will get a certificate of protection to save you from the vengeance of the dynamiters and Land Leaguers, and you will be able to walk a free man about the country with a Government certificate of indemnity in your pocket." That is the construction Daly put upon it, and no reasonable man will say that it is a false or exaggerated construction. This is where I conceive the House has behaved badly, in allowing this poor, persecuted, poisoned prisoner to be tempted by the offer of freedom into, perhaps, committing perjury, if he was capable of doing it. The Home Secretary, who should have stood between this poor prisoner and the temptation dangled before him, allowed him to be visited once, twice, aye, a third time, by persons who had this disgraceful object in view, of tempting the poor man, under these distressful circumstances, to, perhaps, invent stories, and to buy his freedom by giving false evidence before the Commission. But they were dealing with a man. Daly's answer to his tempter was an answer which, I think, ought to go far to conciliate many of those who sit opposite. If one word of mine in support of what you state would let me march a free man out of that gate, I refuse to speak that one word, and I will remain here till I rot. That is the answer of a man, and it ought to go far to attach to him the sympathy of many who had hitherto been his opponents. The Protestant chaplain of the prison states that these prisoners were well-conducted men, and that they were treated to unnecessary violence. It has been said that one feigned madness, and another illness. I believe the men are too intelligent to endanger their health, or to assume madness. I hope I have proved that they have been subjected to this special treatment, because of the political nature of their offence. What crime have they been guilty of? Murder? No, they committed no murder. There were no lives lost in the transactions which took place, and with which they were connected. Have they been tried for robbery, or any other heinous offence? Nothing of the kind. They have been tried and sentenced for a political offence. The very wording of the charge made against them was "treason-felony." That proves the political nature of the offence. And it is because of that political offence that they have been subjected to this special treatment all along. Now, there is a great doubt as to whether Daly was connected with this dynamite scare. In the inquiry that took place, the Head Constable of Birmingham, who made the arrest, and found the dynamite on the premises of Kelly, Daly, and Egan, declared that the whole thing was a "put-up job" by the Irish police. That idea is deeply rooted in the Irish mind; the Irish people firmly believe that these men are innocent of the charge. You will never eradicate from the Irish mind the belief that John Daly and Egan are entirely innocent. I knew Daly in the past, and he was a man utterly incapable of engaging in the dynamite transactions. Daly was a Fenian, and he remained a Fenian up to the date of his arrest. He was one of those men who believed in redeeming his country by establishing her national independence by force of arms. I believe he was a man whose conscience revolted against a system of warfare which involved in common slaughter innocent people. I do not know the other prisoner at all, but the belief deeply rooted in the Irish mind is that these men are suffering innocently. I appeal for their discharge on the ground of the special treatment, the indignities, and the careless medical treatment to which they have been subjected. I believe on these grounds I am entitled to demand for them compensation. Had it been an ordinary prisoner who was poisoned by a treble dose of belladonna, I believe that the Home Secretary would have come to his relief long ago, and would have given him freedom. These men have been imprisoned since 1884, and allow me to point out that the causes for which they were imprisoned have passed away. We hear no more of explosions in Glasgow and London, or elsewhere. I am glad that a policy with which I never agreed—and I am sure I speak the mind of nearly the whole Irish nation—has been abandoned as a policy which is futile and wicked. There can be no object except the object of revenge in keeping these men in prison any longer. I would point out that England, and England alone, has been exceptional in the treatment of her prisoners. In France the communists have been liberated, and many of them now fill public places with advantage to their country. In this House we have amongst us an hon. Member who was sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered by Her Majesty's Government. That sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life. He was exiled, but was afterwards allowed to come home. Under the softening influence of native land and family, this gentleman, once sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, is now to be found sitting on these Benches, aiding Her Majesty's Government to make better laws for the government of the people. I merely make these remarks, in passing, to strengthen my case. But I put my demand more forcibly and more specially upon the injuries which have been inflicted on these men, and also upon the fact that the case is one for the exercise of grace. I trust that, in making this request for justice and mercy, I have, at all events, based my case on evidence which appears conclusive, and that those who wield the power of this realm will not consider that that power will be diminished by the exercise of the attribute of mercy, or endangered by the release of these men for the remainder of their lives—lives which must be spent in undoing the evils brought on them by the unjust, harsh, and barbarous treatment to which they have been subjected.


If I follow the hon. Member, who has addressed us with considerable warmth on behalf of these prisoners, with brevity, I trust he will not consider me wanting in respect. Of course, the Government are entitled to see to the safe custody of these men, and that chances of escape shall not be given them. I presume the hon. Member will also concede that these prisoners, like any others convicted of crime, shall be subject to the ordinary penal discipline, while, on the other hand, no exception ought to be made against them. I am sure, from the manly tone of his address, he will admit that these prisoners ought to be subjected to the same rules as other prisoners. But if the prisoners suffered anything like the petty persecutions which he has described, if there be the slightest proof of the allegation that traps were laid for these prisoners in order to induce them to commit actions for which they might afterwards be punished; if it can be proved that false charges were brought against them, for the purpose of depriving them of one of the comforts of prison life—the visits of their friends—if there was any solid foundation for charges of that sort, I believe no punishment would be too severe for the punishment of prison officials guilty of conduct so dastardly and so wicked. I am bound to ask whether the statements made by these prisoners are reliable. Without making any imputation on the veracity of the prisoners, I may say it is not unnatural that a prisoner's mind should get into a morbid condition of doubt and dissatisfaction with all that surrounds him, and that this should lead to exaggerated impressions of what took place. Prisoners in all prisons are apt to make fanciful complaints about the hostility and illwill which they imagine the officials feel towards them. I would appeal to the common sense of the hon. Member whether such complaints as those upon which he has dwelt are likely to be true. Let him remember what is the organisation of such a prison as Chatham, where there are something like 1,000 prisoners. There is no reason why these particular prisoners should be subject to illwill, ill-treatment and animosity, rather than, perhaps, much worse prisoners in the same prison.Primâ facie, therefore, it is improbable that in a prison of this sort, subject to strict rules laid down by Parliament, anything like exceptional malevolence could be exhibited to a particular class of prisoners. If the hon. Member looks at the past career of the Governor of the prison, I think he will agree that his experience and his character entitle him to respect. There is also a Roman Catholic chaplain, who seems to be a man of kindly heart, and disposed to sympathise with these men.


And he has recommended their removal.


Yes; he has suggested their removal on grounds which I have not now time to discuss. Although it may probably be that some of the subordinate warders may be somewhat harsh; that they may be coarse in their language and harsh in their manner, yet anything like systematic persecution is in the highest degree unlikely, while the warders are under the superintendence of a staff of men of the highest character, and where there are medical men and chaplains whose relations with the prisoners are relations of mutual kindness and friendship. The chief warder is spoken of by one and all the prisoners as a humane and kindly man, who is always ready to interfere on their behalf, and to punish the subordinate warders if they are guilty of any excess of duty. In consequence of the complaints made by hon. Members of the House who saw the prisoners, I directed a special inquiry. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the Committee who held that inquiry as a "whitewashing Committee," but that observation is entirely unfounded and entirely unfair. The inquiry was conducted by the ordinary Visitors of Chatham Prison. Sir J. Lennard, the Chairman of the Committee, might be considered to be not in sympathy with the prisoners; but anyone who knows him knows him to be a kind-hearted gentleman and a man of perfect rigidness of character. Sir J. Lennard has for years been one of the Visitors of the prison. The other two men, Mr. Shipton and Mr. Drummond, whom the hon. Member described as working men, were appointed by my predecessor in office, and they are, I believe, men whose political views are opposed to mine. I have never seen them. They owe me nothing, and I have not the slightest influence over them. They are persons who are absolutely independent. I left those gentlemen perfectly free to conduct the inquiry as they thought fit, and I added to the Committee Mr. Selfe, the County Court Judge of the district, as a man specially skilled in the investigation of truth. To speak of these gentlemen as a "whitewashing Committee," who set about the inquiry with the deliberate purpose of disguising the truth, seems to me to be gravely unjust. There is not the slightest ground for imputing partiality or want of independence to this body of Visitors. The reason why Visitors are appointed is that they may see for themselves at the prison whether things are rightly done or wrongly done. I have listened with the most anxious patience to everything that has fallen from the hon. Member, and I have not heard anything to cause me in the slightest degree to doubt the strict impartiality of the action of these men. The hon. Member will admit that this Report of the Visitors does exculpate the prison officials from anything like wilful maltreatment of prisoners. Nothing can be more distinct than the finding of the Visitors on the various points the hon. Member has gone through; and as the Report is in the hands of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, I am certain none of them will challenge the description I have given. The hon. Member has alluded to the most unfortunate incident of the overdose of belladonna which was administered to Daly, and has adopted the opinion which Daly put before the Visitors that he was purposely poisoned. I do not think the hon. Member has done justice to the evidence. The whole story is now as clear as the light of noonday. Daly, after taking three doses of a prescription, which was admitted to be a proper prescription, containing 10 minims only of belladonna, exhibited some of the symptoms of belladonna poisoning, upon which he was sent to the hospital; and by the application of the stomach pump—the emetic not having acted—he was, in the course of 24 hours, relieved of those symptoms. I instituted an immediate inquiry to ascertain who was at fault, and the first analysis of the mixture showed that it contained more belladonna than had been prescribed. The inference I drew was that that was due to the carelessness of the compounder, but then came the inquiry by the Visitors, who called in Sir Risdon Bennett. The compounder said the error was not his, and it was discovered that the compounder had taken the tincture from the bottle of tincture of belladonna in the prison store. Upon the contents of that bottle being analysed, it was found that the tincture was far beyond the ordinary strength of the British Pharmacopœia, and that consequently, although the compounder had taken only 10 minims, he had compounded an excessive quantity of belladonna. Who is to blame for that?


Certainly; who is to blame?


The Visitors found that the tincture of belladonna had been bought by contract from the best wholesale houses, and that consequently the prison officials were not to blame in relying upon it.


My version of the matter is that it was proved on investigation that evaporation had taken place, and that therefore the belladonna had become from two and a half to four times the ordinary strength. Who was responsible for this mistake if Durbin was not?


The hon. Member is not accurate; it could not be proved that evaporation had taken place, and the conjecture came from Durbin himself. He said— You blame me for putting in too much tincture, but I am not sure that the tincture had not become too strong by evaporation. There is no proof that evaporation had taken place, so that the only theory is that it was supplied of, too great strength, and that the wholesale house is to blame. At all events, Durbin was acquitted, and all those immediately concerned in making up the prescription for Daly were acquitted from blame, and yet the hon. Member suggests that something like an attempt to murder Daly by too much belladonna was made. This, think, appears a very extravagant charge, and I confess that I can understand the temper in which the Visitors have declared it to be utterly unfounded. But I do not want to press this point unduly. I can assure the hon. Member that I shall continue to be as vigilant in the future as I have been in the past to check anything like harshness in the treatment of any prisoner, and I think that the inquiry which I directed into the whole case shows that at least I was actuated by no feeling of hostility to these prisoners. With regard to the statements of Daly referred to in the speech of the hon. Member in connection with the visit of Mr. Soames, Major Clayton, the Deputy Governor, who was present at the interview, denies those statements. I would appeal to the common sense of the hon. Member whether it is conceivable that a man in Mr. Soames's position, with his professional reputation at stake, would in the presence of the Deputy Governor of the prison have made offers which would have laid him open to an indictment if brought home to him. The story in itself is so improbable that one would require very strong evidence before believing it; and when Major Clayton entirely denies all those statements which go to suggest that Mr. Soames offered the slightest improper inducement to Daly to give evidence, or, still more, to give false evidence, I think that the conclusion at which the Visitors arrived—namely, that there was no truth whatever in the story—appears to be the only possible one.


Did Mr. Soames say that he would use force if necessary?


No; Major Clayton, when a part of Daly's statement was read to him, and he was asked whether Mr. Soames said he would be forced to take Daly to London to give evidence, said "nothing occurred whatever of this character." I do not ask the hon. Member to accept anything but the ordinary canons of evidence, but I think it is one of the ordinary canons of evidence that, when a person who has many reasons for exaggerating a particular question makes a statement which is capable of being contradicted by a person who is perfectly disinterested, and that disinterested person absolutely denies the statement made by the interested person, and when that statement is in itself of the highest degree of improbability, namely, imputing that a person has made a statement in the presence of a witness which would make him liable to be sent to Chatham himself as a prisoner, we should accept the contradiction given to the statement. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member into the very eloquent and feeling appeal he made for mercy for these prisoners. I do not think this is either the time or the place to discuss that matter. My only object was to answer the hon. Member who seemed to me to do injustice to the prison officials, and, having done that, I will say no more.

(5.55.) MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

What I have to say on this matter can very soon be said. I feel it my duty to declare that the inquiry has not been satisfactory in the constitution of the tribunal, in the mode of its proceeding, or in its results. One unanswerable complaint is that whereas the inquiry was granted on the demand of Irish Members of Parliament, and the prisoners concerned were nearly all Irishmen, nobody connected with Ireland took part in the inquiry. The case would have been very different if there had been on the Commission any one Irishman, but we found no such man, and the fact is one upon which we are entitled to lay stress in reply to such eulogies as we have heard to-day. But I complain not only of the constitution of the inquiry, but also of its proceedings. If the prominent interest had been the elucidation of the truth, the prisoners and the officials, one would think, would have been brought face to face, and opportunity would have been afforded for cross-examination by counsel or otherwise. Nothing of the kind, however, took place here. The prisoners were examined in the absence of the officials, and the officials in the absence of the prisoners, and there was no cross-examination such as is allowed in the ordinary Courts of the country. I submit that any impartial man who goes carefully through the documents will come to the conclusion that these Irish prisoners have not received that equal treatment which is their right. There is at least one common ground between the Irish Members and the Home Secretary, and it is that prisoners subjected to like sentences are entitled to like treatment. He has admitted as much himself. I am sensible that the Home Secretary has refrained from any references to the acts charged against these men, and of the acts of which they were convicted, which might tend to obscure the sense of justice in the minds of the House and the country. It will not be denied that these acts were not devoid of a political element. The acts of these prisoners had an element of a political character about them. They did not lead to any loss of life or to any great destruction of property, and the presumption is that they were not intended to lead to loss of life or to a great destruction of property. I speak with the utmost frankness when I say I believe that these acts were intended to produce apprehension, which apprehension might lead to certain political results. The common ground between the Home Secretary and myself is that equal sentences ought to be equally treated. But are these prisoners treated equally with other prisoners? It may be difficult, even impossible, for even the best Administration to clear the minds of minor officials of prejudice in regard to certain prisoners, but I think the present Administration might have done a great deal more than they did in this direction. It is pretty clear that so far as the minor officials are concerned these unfortunate ill-fated men were made the victims of a system of sleepless malice. Do we not find it all through the Report, do we not find it suggested in the contradictions of the officials themselves, do we not find it established in the very recommendations of the Commission? Is it not most clear that these men were made to feel their nationality and the nature of their crime in every detail of their physical existence, and even in every phase of their mental lives? They were meant to feel these things in their clothing, in the manner of taking their bath, in the mode of their exercise, in the labour which left them with lacerated and bleeding hands, in the night time, when even the most infamous prisoner might be left for a eertain period of repose. It is also clear that these men were men of education, men of some sense of self respect, men not at all of an uncontrollable type, men who had intelligence enough to know from the beginning that their best course was to subordinate themselves to the discipline of the prison, and who were disposed to do so. I think it is abundantly clear that these men were goaded by small and incessant irritations into breaches of discipline in order that they might be cut off from human sympathy. Language of the most obscene and filthy description was habitually used to these prisoners by the minor officials of the prison. No doubt it is difficult to make the conduct of the minor officials all it ought to be, but, on the other hand, the Government might do more than they have done, because I believe of the minor officials in English prisons, just as I believe about the minor officials who baton the people in Irish market places, that they do what they think the Government wish them to do, what they think the Government will regard with favour, or, if not with favour, with some sympathy. I am inclined to think that if the Government had emphatically and in good faith condemned these odious proceedings as they deserve, these unfortunate Irishmen would have been saved from the indignity and torture of having such language continually applied to them. I have said their offences were not quite devoid of a political aspect, and I think that mercy is a plea that may be well considered at any time. Whilst I should not be justified in pressing for a decision at this moment, it must be remembered that the main function of criminal law is deterrent. Considering that these men have been subjected to particularly heavy punishment, because of the feeling of the prison officials, I think the time has come when it would not be amiss if the Home Secretary held out some hope of abbreviation of the term of imprisonment. I believe that to hold out such a hope would not be repugnant to the ends of justice. One man is beyond all help, because he lost his life on account of purely wanton treatment. Daly was subjected to great suffering and danger. It is easy to get rid of the case by pointing to a store bottle, but it is a strange thing that the respectable firm which supplies the prison with drugs has not sent them any more store bottles of that kind. There has been no belladonna poisoning amongst the public; no one else in Chatham Prison but Daly was poisoned. I am not satisfied with the theory of the store bottle, and, even if the theory were made good, I maintain that the medical system which allowed the substance in that bottle to be used without examination, is a system which, so far from deserving to be described as careful and judicious, as it was described by the Commission, is the negation of a system, and deserves the severest condemnation. If the Government judged it to be possible to shorten the sentence of some of these prisoners, or to hold out the hope that absolutely good conduct would lead to an abridgment of the term of imprisonment, I am confident it would be helpful to the true interest of society in these countries, which true interest is harmony and good feeling between the different classes and nationalities, subjects of the Queen. I also trust the right hon. Gentleman will, in a manner that will lead to no mistake as to his intention, make it clear that he does not favour, but condemns, especial cruelty or especial coarseness of language, and, in regard to these Irish prisoners, I urge this point because, unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman did, not long ago, allow various persons to enter prisons and make offers of liberty and fortune to Irish prisoners if only they would give certain evidence. There seemed to be no particular anxiety, either on the part of the Government or their friends, that the evidence should be true. The right hon. Gentleman, who was, so very recently, so lax as to allow these proceedings to take place, is now so stringent that he will not allow communications to take place between these unfortunate prisoners and the Representatives of the people in this House. The knowledge of what the right hon. Gentleman has said with regard to the agent of the Times, the knowledge of what he is doing now with regard to the wish of the prisoners to hold consultation with Members of Parliament, naturally suggests to the officials of the prison that he is not really desirous that these Irish prisoners should receive fair treatment. One other suggestion I have to make. Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that some of these prisoners, who were in other prisons before they went to Chatham, have not made the same complaint against their former place of confinement that they have made against the management of the prison within the walls of which they are now immured? Does that not suggest that these complaints are not wanton, are not dishonest? The prisoner Wilson contrasted his treatment in the previous prison to his treatment in Chatham. Is there not something like a suspicion of honesty in that distinction? It appears to me that there is some specially cruel system at Chatham, or else that the warders at Chatham as a class are not so well qualified to deal with cases in which natural prejudices are brought into play. Suppose these prisoners' complaints of their treatment are excessive, will not the right hon. Gentleman admit that the fact of these complaints having been made, of this inquiry having been forced upon you by our demands in this House, renders it almost visionary to hope that equal treatment will be given to these men in future? I respectfully press upon the Home Secretary to consider, during the recess, the advisability, in the first place, of shortening the term of imprisonment of these men, and, in the second place, of removing these prisoners from a prison where they cannot receive fair treatment to some prison where they may receive it.

(5.16.) MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

As one of those who generally sympathise with the Home Secretary, as, for instance, when he was attacked last night, will he allow me to say that the tests he has asked us to apply to this case tell against himself. Take the case of Mr. Soames. The right hon. Gentle-man said it was most unlikely that Mr. Soames would threaten that force would be used, because Mr. Soames would have laid himself open to an indictment. Let me apply that test. Mr. Soames says he would have laid himself open to an indictment. So would Shannon. Shannon admitted having administered an oath in prison. Shannon was the solicitor to the Times as well as Soames, and he administered to Delaney an oath of an illegal character. He was not indicted. He is walking about the streets, and he remains the faithful servant of the Times. His brother was promoted in the Registry because of his zeal and diligence. Major Clayton, on page 144, question 553, admits in substance Soames's threat, that if Daly refused to give evidence force would be used. He says that when Daly declined to give evidence Mr. Soames said, "Well, perhaps we shall find some means of making you." Mr. Soames was admitted into the prison for the purpose of bullying and tempting this unfortunate man, placed in the terrible position he was in. I think Major Clayton might have spared us the statement he made, that Daly was very declamatory. Here is an unfortunate convict with no ray of light left in his life, and with no friend to cheer him. He is approached by the agent of the greatest journal in the world—a journal backed up by Her Majesty's Ministers—a journal with untold power, and if not with untold wealth, at least with untold promises at its command. What prospect did Mr. Soames dangle before this prisoner's eyes? He could not punish, because Daly's cup of punishment was already full. He could only tempt. He goes to Daly loaded with bribes. Is the temptation offered to Daly that of appearing for 24 hours in the witness-box before Mr. Justice Hannen, and having a day's excursion to the Probate Court? Will any man under the rank of Home Secretary believe the suggestion? How did Soames wind up? Having exhausted what I suggest was temptation, he used threats. Major Clayton, instead of finding language of some denunciation to condemn the words and conduct of Mr. Soames, makes use of a sneer at the expense of the unhappy convict. He says that Mr. Soames's attitude was uncalled for, but that Daly's attitude was declamatory. This is one of the officials in whom we are asked to repose confidence. A statement of that kind gives us the measure of the man. It is under a man of this kind that this unfortunate convict has to serve his days. Under the Governor, as the Home Secretary admits, there is an army of brutal warders. Of course, we do not expect to have gentlemen for warders. But out of a brothel no man would soil his lips by using the language which is quoted in the Report as having been used by these warders. To whom does an appeal from these warders lie? To Major Clayton, who thinks it is a matter to be sneered at that Daly had escaped from the wiles and spurned the bribes of the agent of the Times. These things being so, our claim is that Major Clayton has written himself down as a man unfitted by his prejudices to remain in charge of these men. The Home Secretary forgets, when he speaks of the impossibility of these things happening in a large prison like Chatham, that these prisoners are not mixed up and down among the other prisoners, but are kept in a separate ward and apart from other prisoners in a sort of "Lock" Hospital. When we come to consider the statement of the poisoning of Daly, remember that the man was not sentenced to be poisoned; but the man was poisoned, not once, but three times. Now, remember there is a belief among convict prisoners that there is a practice among prison doctors of administering drugs in order to reduce prisoners to a state of subjection. It may be totally unfounded, but it is a common tradition. We know that this practice is officially accepted in Russia. Of course, if I were "Stepniak" or the poet "Swinburne," and my remarks directed to the encouragement of assassination, they might be hailed with delight; but, being only an Irish Member pleading for justice to a convict, the case is wholly different. There is a traditional belief among prisoners that refractory prisoners are in English prisons treated as prisoners admittedly are in Russian prisons. We have it in evidence that castor oil was administered to Daly when. it was not ordered by the doctor. Of course, it is unpleasant to go into these details; but remember that upon this administering of castor oil follows the overdosing with belladonna. Warders are brutal, says the right hon. Gentleman, and it is perhaps an accompaniment of their employment; but then remember that the compounder of drugs is of the same class as the warders. When we turn to another case, that of Flanagan, is it not palpable from the ravings of this unfortunate man that there is nothing to justify the imputation of shamming? He is not a member of a Society for promoting Nihilism or recommending the assassination of a friendly Sovereign. This man says, in answer to a question, "I have not the slightest complaint to make." How, then, can you suppose this man is shamming when such an answer would defeat his own object? Observe his replies— 179. (Mr. Shipton.) I see, you claim to have certain supernatural powers over all the known nations of the earth, including Christians, Turks, Jews, and Gentiles?—I am under the impression that you are aware of my meaning. I trust that you will excuse me, and I will give you a definite answer to that. T have power to show great signs and wonders by shutting the organs of my body, that is quite beyond your comprehension; but I leave it to others to prove that I have power to show great signs and wonders in the earth by shutting the organs of my body. 180. But you claim to have supernatural powers over the known nations of the earth?—No; I say that I believe other people are invested with that power, not myself. I do not claim to have power over the nations of the earth. 181. (Chairman.) You say that this prevents you from giving a full account of yourself?—Yes. 182. Why?—Because I cannot make it publicly known that I have power to show great signs and wonders in the earth by shutting up the organs of my body. I did it last time the dockyard clock was changed, at the hour of 8 o'clock; there were certain changes made in the dockyard clock through it. 183. Have you been in the infirmary at all? Yes, I have been there on two occasions. 184. What were you treated for?—I had an accident in 1885; and in 1886, upon which occasion I had a boil on my arm. 185. (Mr. Shipton.) What was the nature of your first accident?—It was simply through some metal dropping on my legs. I was carrying some metal to the furnace, and some metal dropped on my legs and I got burned slightly. 186. What was the next?—A boil oil my right arm. 187. (Chairman.) All you wish, as I understand, to complain of, is that you have not had any visitor, and that you did not get an answer from Mr. Poole; is there anything else?—No; I do not wish to make any complaint of anything else at the present time, except that I wish to be brought into communication. I am perfectly certain, from the changes which have occurred in the dockyard clock, that some events have taken place. Last Wednesday, at the hour of 8 o'clock, during the time the dockyard clock was chiming, certain" changes were occurring. That is a point which I could not make public; if I did, the public would laugh and scoff at me. 188. Could you make it known to us?—I could, at the proper time; but I have not the slightest complaint to make to either of you gentlemen. Now, is it not absurd to suppose such a man is in his right mind? In truth, the man is mad as a March hare, and you persist in believing he is shamming. Why do not his answers supply an answer to that? Would he, if shamming, say he had no complaint to make? By no phantasm of political violence do we suggest that the Home Secretary has any wish or belief that these prisoners should be or are treated harshly. But do we not know that denials of ill-treatment were made in reference to Fenian prisoners years ago, and did we not find, when inquiry was ordered, that O'Donovan Rossa was chained for 40 days and compelled to lap his food like a dog; that he was bound, and, during the hot months of July and August, confined in a dark cell at the mercy of the meanest insect of God's creation? Do you wonder that he should lose his mental balance and indulge in dynamite ravings? Do we not know that Mr. Davitt was yoked to a cart and compelled to drag stones about? We do not doubt, however, that then, as now, the Home Secretary of the time was actuated by the desire simply that the law should be properly administered. This man Daly has been a determined opponent of ours and of our Parliamentary action. I remember in Loath he carried his opposition to a deadly extreme, and flung bombs into the house of a Member of our Party. His view was that we were the enemies of the Irish cause, and that the only way to free Ireland was by the sword. To this man Pigott, Mr. Soames, and Mr. Littlechild were allowed to pay visits, and my application was refused. I do not know that Daly would have consented to see me, for he is a man of determined political views; but, at least, I think that an Irish Member has as good a claim to have his application granted as Mr. Soames. There is another man in Chatham Prison whom every man in Ireland, I may say, believes to be innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. Daly stayed at the house of Egan at Birmingham, and in that house the bombs were discovered. It was strong evidence against Egan, and I cannot blame the English jury that found him guilty. However, Daly has throughout declared that Egan was not in his confidence and had no part in his designs, and in the most solemn manner asseverated this at the trial. That is the view entertained in Ireland now. This is what Daly says:— I wished to see Mr. Egan because as a dying man I wished to ask his forgiveness for the great wrong I had done him. I wished to say with my dying breath almost in the presence of the unknown God, and in the presence of witnesses, that during the time I lived in his house at Birmingham he never at any time had my confidence, he had no share in my political sentiments no more than the child unborn. Now, Daly believes himself dying but this request of his was refused. Really I do not think that the discipline of convict prisons should be carried to the pitch of the abandonment and abnegation of every trace of humanity. I think a little of English generosity might be extended in such circumstances. Imagine the indignation of the sentimental English people, some of whom were ready to rend the Home Secretary because he hanged a scoundrel who murdered his father; imagine the storm that would have been raised had Mrs. Maybrick prayed for the consolation of asking the forgiveness of an accomplice and had been refused! Surely a little common sense, not to say justice, should have allowed my lion. Friend the Member for Wexford the opportunity of talking freely with Egan during his visit. These men have borne their sad and miserable position in gaol with great dignity. Dr. Gallagher, one of the prisoners, is, I am told, being fast tortured to death, and this I have on the authority of a letter written by an English convict. I think we are entitled to some consideration at the hands of the Government. The House knows of the shadow of prejudice resting on the case of these men, and that makes it all the more necessary for some of their countrymen to stand up for them and endeavour to get applied to them the law of England as understood by and practised upon Englishmen. It is our duty to see that these Irishmen, sad and mistaken as has been their career, get the same measure of just treatment as Englishmen, Russians, and Chinese have within the walls of English prisons.

*(7.3.) MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

Before the Vote is taken, I wish to ask a question on a subject which is deeply interesting to some of my constituents, namely, with regard to the treatment of prisoners under the Vaccination Acts. I have repeatedly drawn attention to cases of this kind, and not infrequently hard labour has been imposed on prisoners, and that is contrary to the Act. Prisoners under these Acts are subjected to exactly the same indignities as prisoners convicted for more serious offences. I contend that a distinction ought to be drawn between offences of a grossly immoral and heinous character and offences under such Acts as these, where prisoners go to gaol for conscience sake. I have had brought under my notice many cases of cruel hardship suffered by persons on whom it is clear, from their sympathetic speeches of last year, neither the Chief Secretary for Ireland nor the President of the Local Government Board have any desire to inflict unnecessary indignity, or personal suffering or a sense of degradation, and I hope the Home Secretary will be of the same opinion. It is quite sufficient that these people suffer some restraint in their liberty. The Committee which sat last year and was presided over by Lord Aberdare reported more or less in favour of drawing a distinction between prisoners of this kind and those guilty of gross and of horrible offences. I think it is time for the Government to take this question in hand, and I hope they will succeed in solving this problem in the course of next Session. I have, in conclusion, to ask two specific questions, namely, what are the powers of Magistrates at the present time as to ordering prisoners under these Acts to be treated as first-class misdemeanants, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will issue a Circular to the Clerks of the Peace informing them as to such powers, and making it more widely known to the Benches of Magistrates that hard labour cannot be inflicted in these cases?

(7.10.) MR. SEXTON

It will probably economise time and save the Committee trouble if the right hon. Gentleman will now say what lie intends to do with regard to the representations made to him this afternoon.

*(7.11.) MR. MATTHEWS

I cannot, of course, pledge myself to take any particular action, but I assure hon. Members opposite that I will apply my mind to the whole of the suggestions made. With reference to the questions just asked by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I can only say that it is quite within the power of Magistrates to direct that a prisoner under the Vaccination Acts shall be treated as a first-class misdemeanant. What is more, it is the Court alone that inflicts the sentence that can so order. I have no power, when a man has been sentenced to simple imprisonment without a stipulation that he shall be treated as a first-class misdemeanant, to transfer him from the ordinary class to the first class. It is equally clear that hard labour cannot be inflicted for offences of this nature, and I believe that fact is thoroughly well known to Magisterial Benches throughout the country. In the one case which the hon. Member brought under my notice of hard labour being imposed, the mistake was purely accidental.


I am well aware that in the case which occurred in my own constituency the mistake was purely accidental, but I am also aware that in other cases elsewhere similar mistakes have been made through the ignorance of the Magistrates as to the law on the subject.


Well, so far as I can judge, it was a case of pure inadvertence. The hon. Member has raised one of the most knotty and difficult points in the Criminal Law. It is suggested that although a law is right, and although a penalty is properly imposed, yet, because amiable, good, honest people disagree with the law, a different punishment should be meted to them to that meted out to ordinary offenders. If the law is right and the man who breaks it is rightly visited with a penalty, is it not idle to talk about his high conscientious motives? Ought his high purposes to save him from the ordinary punishment of the law? I confess the hon. Member in advocating that is embarking on a very dangerous path. I have given consideration to the matter, and I find myself quite unable to make any logical classification of these offences which the hon. Member desires to see punished with special leniency.

(7.18.) MR. J. O'CONNOR

I had intended to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper, but I will forego my right, for I desire to accept the statement of the Home Secretary that the grievances of which the prisoners at Chatham complain will have his prompt and impartial consideration. I shall not, therefore, put the Committee to the trouble of a Division. I hope that as a result of the consideration which the right hon. Gentleman has promised the matter there will be no necessity for us again to trouble the House with the case of these unfortunate men. I think if the right hon. Gentleman will carefully look into the evidence of the Roman Catholic chaplain he will come to the conclusion that some mitigation of the sufferings of these men is most desirable. I might refer him to the case of Wilson, to which attention was drawn the other day by my hon. Friend the Member for Wexford, who declared that intervention in this matter was absolutely necessary as it was a question of life or death. We have reason to believe that the inquiry instituted a short time ago into the case of these convicts has made matters worse for them.

(7.21.) MR. A. O'CONNOR (Donegal, B.)

Will the right hon. Gentleman make any statement with regard to the result of the investigation into the case of Egan?


One of the Directors of the prison had a special interview with Egan, and inquired of him what he had to complain of. He complained, as a matter of fact, of the language of the warders towards him, and also of the nature of the food, exhibiting a mouldy piece of bread in carroboration of his statement. The Director investigated the matter of the food, and found that, as a rule, the bread distributed was excellent. There was no opportunity of inquiring whether on any particular occasion the bread was faulty.


The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the complaint as to the language of the warders is an old one.


Yes; he constantly complains of bad language being used by the warders


And has he not frequently complained of the quality of the bread?


I am not aware of that.

Vote agreed to.

22. £132,419, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools Great Britain.

*(7.24.) MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I wish to ask whether the Government propose to introduce their Reformatory Bill in the early part of next Session?


Yes; we hope to lay it before the House early in the Session.

Vote agreed to.

(23.) £22,033, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.

Forward to