§ LORD ELCHO (Ipswich)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public advantage is gained by holding separate Assizes at Bury St. Edmunds, where there is no gaol accommodation; whether he is prepared to consider the advisability of doing away with these Assizes; whether, while the matter is under the consideration of the Government, he will, in order to prevent the repetition of cases of innocent men being taken backwards and forwards in chains between Ipswich and Bury, forbid absolutely the use of chains and irons in the conveyance of untried and tractable prisoners; and whether the practice of indiscriminately chaining untried prisoners together, and conveying them backwards and forwards from the gaol to the place of trial, prevails anywhere else in the United Kingdom?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,) Birmingham, E.The question of holding Assizes for the County of Suffolk at Bury or elsewhere cannot be determined 1811 solely by the absence of gaol accommodation. There are many places where there is no prison and where, nevertheless, Assizes and Quarter Sessions are held. Before doing away with Bury Assizes the Government would require evidence that local opinion was in favour of the change, and that it would promote the convenience of Judges, magistrates, jurors, and witnesses in civil and criminal cases. So far as Prison Authorities are concerned, they would prefer an Assize town in which there was a prison, and I hope the Local Authorities will feel the necessity of providing accommodation for prisoners awaiting trial, so as to obviate the necessity of conveying them backwards and forwards. I am informed that there is no practice of indiscriminately chaining untried prisoners together. Old offenders and first offenders are carefully kept separate. I have more than once given instructions that handcuffs and chains are not to be used unless a prisoner is violent or an escape or rescue is apprehended. But throughout England the use of handcuffs and light chains in cases of necessity is permitted by the Prison Rules; and so long as Governors of prisons are criminally responsible for an escape they must be allowed some means of securing prisoners in places where they might easily run off. It has been considered in practice less conspicuous, less offensive, and more secure to handcuff one arm to the warder's arm than to have a warder holding each prisoner by the collar. I am quite of opinion that untried prisoners should be treated with as much consideration as is consistent with their safe custody.