PRISONS BILL.

HC Deb 24 March 1898 vol 55 cc835-88

[On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval, the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Prisons Bill was read.]

Motion made, and Question proposed— That the Bill be now read a second time.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY,) Lancashire, N., Blackpool

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to occupy very much of the time of the House in explaining the provisions of this Bill, the Second Reading of which I now desire to move. The fact is, that I have given to the House a good deal of information, what I believe they will feel is almost an excessive amount of information, as to what has been going on in regard to our prisons during the last two or three years, and quite an adequate amount of explanation of the Bill which is now before the House. The House is in possession of the statement, drawn up by the Prison Commissioners, of what they have done up to the present time on the recommendation of the Committee, presided over by my right hon. Friend on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. H. Gladstone), whose services and those of his colleagues upon that Committee I desire, on behalf of the Government, cordially to acknowledge. I have also laid upon the Table of the House an explanatory memorandum, which deals with the proposals of this Bill, and the rules which I propose to make under this Bill if it becomes an Act, and a further statement which is very important, showing what portion of these rules are really old rules, which are now in existence, either as being made on the authority of the Secretary of State or as statutory enactments, and what portions of them are either alterations or additions, proposed to be made under the powers of this Bill. Therefore, Sir, there is, I think, a considerable amount of information in the possession of the House with reference to the proposals of this Bill. Sir, the Report of the Committee over which the right hon. Gentleman opposite presided was a very exhaustive and a very full Report, and there were a good many of the recommendations of that Committee which the Secretary of State was able to carry out without either consultation with the Treasury or special legislation, and a great portion of this work, I think it will be found, I have been able to do. There was a certain number of other proposals of the Committee which required the consent of the Treasury, and those also have been given effect to. But there were other proposals which required legislation, so that if I endeavoured to give effect, as I desired to do, to the recommendations of the Committee, it was necessary to ask Parliament to sanction legislation. But, Sir, when I came to consider the subject, I thought it was a proper opportunity for reviewing the whole field of our prison enactments, and for seizing this chance of introducing legislation, which, if it could not at the present moment absolutely enact a new code, should at all events be an amending Bill tending in that direction. Now, Sir, broadly speaking, I think the fault which is to be found with our prison system, apart from any criticisms which may be made upon it, on the ground of harshness and so forth, which I do not deal with now, is its want of elasticity, by which, it will be understood, I mean there is a vast number of statutory rules which cannot be dispensed with, and there is a lack of power for the individual treatment of cases which come under the attention of the Secretary of State. Therefore I think it may be fairly said that there has been, and the Report of the Committee will show it, a certain reaction against the uniformity which was the aim—the principal aim—of the Act of 1877, and, indeed, of the Act of 1865, which preceded it. The work of securing that uniformity, Sir, was almost entirely the work of the late Chairman of the Prisons Board, Sir Edmund du Cane, and I think everybody interested in the prison work of this country ought to recognise the great ability and energy which Sir Edmund du Cane brought to bear upon that subject, and the immense public value of his services. Now, Sir, the Act of 1877 was not so much an Act to amend the administration of our prisons as it was an Act for dealing with local taxation reform which gave to the Imperial Government of this country the administration of our prisons, and that Act has had the result, as I believe, of doing away with a great many of the abuses which existed in some of our local prisons, and of making our prison system uniform. In fact it now enables us to face the question of prison reform, if we desire to do so, with a clear view, and with the fact before us that we have a real and substantially uniform system, both for our convict and local prisons throughout the county, with which to deal. This Bill, therefore, as an amending Measure, has for its primary object the creation of powers for applying differential treatment or classification, or any word of that sort that you wish to use, to our prison population; and what I am anxious to do in this Bill is to go as far as I can in the direction of this differential treatment of our prison population, as is consistent with the proper punishment of criminals, the maintenance of discipline, and the protection of society. This Bill is not a revolution of our prison government. I hear some hon. Gentleman on the other side cheering ironically, but I do not know what kind of revolution they desire; this is a Bill which enables a great deal to be done with regard to our prison treatment, which can be done with advantage, and which I hope we shall be able to do. The Bill is partly a modification of the rules connected with our present law, and it partly gives power to do a great deal more. The fact is that we ought all to acknowledge that we do want power to award adequately severe treatment to those who are really criminals, and to mitigate the treatment for those who are not really criminals in our prison population. My whole proposal is based on the idea of consolidation in dealing with all parts of the prison code, local and convict, but in the first instance it is necessary to bring in this amending Bill, the Second Reading of which I am now moving. Its principal provisions are intended in the first place to provide for that amalgamation of administration which is contained in Clause 1 following the recommendations of the Committee of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The directors of convict prisons, as the House knows, appointed by the Secretary of State under the Act of 1850 and the Prison Commissioners appointed under the Act of 1877 are in practice the same persons, and I propose to give effect to that which is the existing practice, and to secure that there shall be one report and one set of figures, and that the inspectors who are now available only for the work of local prisons shall have their work extended to the inspection of convict prisons. Sir, the next proposal is, and it is a very important one, that the Secretary of State should have power to make rules both for convict and local prisons. At present, as the law stands, the rules for convict prisons are made by the Secretary of State, as the executive officer, without laying them before Parliament, and without Parliament knowing anything about them. For local prisons the rules are mainly statutory under the Act of 1865, but there is some supplementary power given to the Secretary of State to make certain qualifying rules under that Act, or the Act of 1877. Sir, as I have said, the system has been found to be too rigid. At all events, I believe that was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's Committee, and this Bill is intended to do away with the unyielding character of that statutory code, and to enable the Secretary of State to make rules and lay them before Parliament, thus bringing before Parliament the whole of the penal rules of this country. The second clause is intended to give those powers. It goes on to say that those powers shall include the power of regulating the nature of the hard labour to be carried out in our prisons, and, secondly, it takes power to make rules which will deal with the classification of prisoners. As regards hard labour, the clause is a wide clause, and it enables regard to be had in the making of the rules to the sex, age, industry, and conduct of the prisoners. This, Sir, is a very important advance and a very important power to give to the Secretary of State, because hitherto the rules affecting prisoners sentenced to hard labour have been very inflexible, and have inflicted, I do not say injustice, but, at all events, hardship upon prisoners which, if the administration had been able to discriminate, they would have been very glad to alleviate. I believe I am correct in saying that the Scotch Prisons Act of 1877 contains a clause to this effect. Then, Sir, with reference to Classification, the first point relates to the question of juvenile offenders. There can be, as I believe, in the whole of our dealing with the criminal population of this country nothing more important than keeping our juvenile population as far as possible out of prison. To send our unfortunate young offenders to prison is the very last thing we should do. The next thing we ought to do, if we must send them to prison, is to keep them as far as possible separate from the older and habitual offenders of the criminal population. I hope that the statement made by the Prison Commissioners in the Paper which has been laid before the House will show that so far as the power possessed by the Secretary of State goes he and the Prison Commissioners have done all that could be done in the matter without legislative powers during the last two or three years. I should say, in the first instance, that although the First Offenders Act has not been used to the full extent to which it might have been used, yet there is an increasing disposition to use it, and I find, at all events with regard to juvenile offenders, in the last Report of the Prison Commissioners, that there were only 42 juvenile offenders in prisons at that time, at the end of the year, as against 89 and 127 in the preceding years. Then, Sir, we have made an experiment in collecting juvenile prisoners who are committed for one month or longer in certain local prisons, with a view to their separate treatment, and I am happy to say that I have seen nothing but the best reports of that experiment. I think that, so far as it can be done, it is desirable to carry that reform still further, and that the arrangement, combined with an extended use of the First Offenders Act, will do something towards the classification and separation of our juvenile offenders. Sir, the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman opposite recommended that the age of juvenile offenders should be raised from 16 to 17. The House will see that in the rules now proposed it is not provided definitely that the age shall be raised to 17, because I believe it is the fact that in that class which is unfortunately predisposed to criminality, not from their own fault very likely, there is a great deal of precocious ruffianism, and it is much safer to make enactments such as those contained in these rules, which will enable us to treat as juvenile offenders any prisoners who, in the opinion of the governor, the chaplain, or the visiting justices ought to be classified as juveniles, although they may declare themselves to be over 16. That, I believe, will have the effect of doing what the Committee desired, to enable a distinction to be made between some of these young prisoners, who, although they declare themselves to be of a particular age, should really be classed as juveniles, and those who ought to be classed as adults. With reference to juvenile convicts, the last Report of Directors of Convict Prisons is, I think, a very interesting one. The House, will find that there has been a considerable diminution in the number during the year of our juvenile convicts. There were only two convicts under the age of 16 at the date of their conviction, as stated in that Report, and I cannot help hoping and believing that such a state of things as that is due to the action of the reformatory schools, which are, to the best of my belief, doing exceedingly good work in this direction. The question is often raised of a separate prison or of separate treatment for these juvenile convicts. I am afraid that it is true that a very large number of the juvenile convicts who are sentenced between the ages of 16 and 21 are really very bad subjects. I find that out of 209 cases—and I am now taking the same Report of the Prison Commissioners—only 29 of that 209 were found fit, after inquiry, to be put in the starred class. The great majority of them were guilty of grave crime after previous conviction. That is a very grave fact, because we are dealing with our juvenile convicts. Twenty of them were guilty of robbery with violence, 30 of murder or manslaughter, 40 of rape, and 10 of unnatural offences. Therefore you have got to deal with what everybody must admit is an exceptional class of ruffianism, which cannot be dealt with as first offenders, or juvenile offenders, even in the ordinary sense of the word. What we propose to do is to modify the rules which have debarred some of them from the possibility of entering into the starred class, to examine every case upon its merits, and try, so far as we can, to deal with each one of them under a policy of segregation. I believe it is true, even in the case of some of these young ruffians whom I have mentioned, and, possibly, mainly of those who have been guilty of sexual crimes, that after a sentence of imprisonment there is more possibility of their reform than there is of some of our habitual criminals. To go on with the question of classification under Clause 5, which is headed "Misdemeanants," it is proposed to make another class between the first and third class. The existing Acts under which the prisons are now worked distinguish from the ordinary prisoners those prisoners who are awaiting trial, debtors, surety prisoners, and misdemeanants who are not sentenced to hard labour, and this last class is to be divided into at least two divisions, whilst some power is given to make regulations as to treatment. No power is given in the case of misdemeanants not of the first class, and therefore in practice there is little difference between the treatment of the misdemeanant who is not sentenced to hard labour and is not of the first class and the ordinary criminal who is condemned to hard labour. Therefore the proposal is to establish a second class with less rigorous treatment. I have had many representations from Visiting Committees all over the country that such a thing would be very desirable, and I believe that everyone who has had any experience in prison treatment or discipline will feel that there are many classes of persons committed to prison who do require to be kept at some labour and some kind of restraint and discipline, but yet who are not really criminal, and ought not to be treated as such. They comprise, broadly, speaking, that class of people who are committed to prison in default of paying a fine. There are many classes of such prisoners, who have been guilty of offences for which the Legislature has directly provided that the punishment shall be the payment of a fine. They form a very inconvenient portion of our prison population, being liable to be dealt with too lightly on one side and too hardly on the other. The Bill enables these prisoners to be dealt with in another way, and, therefore, under Clause 5 a power is given to the Court to inflict such a sentence as, under the circumstances, is thought to be proper. [Sir H. FOWLER: Fining for misdemeanours.] I have considered that point, and I have come to the conclusion that it would be well to separate this class from possibility of association with felons. Another classification is the introduction of the star class in local prisons. The experiment of the introduction of the starred class in our convict prisons has been very successful. Since its formation in 1879 up to last September I think there were 2,183 males who were put in the star class; of these the number returned to penal servitude upon subsequent conviction was only 20, or something like 1.1 per cent. and of those whose licences were revoked only a small decimal; and of the females who were put into the starred class under the new system of 1879, numbering 93, not one returned to penal servitude after conviction. Therefore I say that that is a satisfactory trial, so far as it goes, of our starred class system in convict prisons, and it is proposed under the new rules to extend and develop this starred class in our local prisons. With reference to this classification, we get a kind of treble classification—first offenders, habitual, and juvenile—and it is proposed under the new rules to make the progressive stage system in our prisons a regular portion of our criminal system. In combination with that proposal is one which I am sure will commend itself to the House — namely, that, as in the case of penal servitude prisons, there should be a power to earn some remission of sentence in accordance with the industry and good conduct in the prison, to give an incentive to such good conduct while in prison. I believe that it is universall yadmitted that the power to earn these good conduct marks has a good effect, and I am sure we shall be wise in extending it now. Further power, which I am sure will equally commend itself to the House, and which has been recommended in many quarters, and especially by the Scotch Committee upon habitual criminals, is the power to release a prisoner upon the payment of a portion of the sum for the non-payment of which he has been committed. That has been a reform which has been long wanted, but it cannot be done without legislation, because after a person is committed to prison for non-payment of a fine, there is no power to allow any payment other than the full payment which may be possible on the part of himself or his friends, which would have the result of releasing him from prison. That is an end which we might usefully aim at, and a further recommendation, apart from what appears to be the justice of it, is that, as will be found from the memorandum which I have laid upon the Table of the House, it promises the best possible results to the Exchequer. I have followed the recommendations of the Committee with regard to the abolition of punishment cells, with the exception that the Bill provides that there shall be in every prison a cell for the additional security of a refractory prisoner.

MR. DAVITT

Will that mean the abolition of dark cells in Ireland?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

I do not believe they exist. There are no dark cells now, but in order to remove a public misconception, this Bill provides that there shall be cells which are only intended to be different in character from ordinary cells to the extent that they are strong, and prevent prisoners who are refractory from damaging themselves. There is a further section for the prevention of the overcrowding of our prisons. There is also a further important provision with reference to the Visiting Committees. I have been desired to extend the powers of Visiting Committees in our local prisons. I need hardly go over the whole ground, or say how we hope to bring into alliance with the present authorities—namely, the Visiting Committees—the Prisoners' Aid Societies in this country. A full account is given in the Report of the present Commissioners of what has been done in this direction, and I believe that the system is working well, and that there is in many quarters of the country increased activity in the way of helping these societies, which the Government are very anxious to assist by every means in their power. But, Sir, I think it will be found that extended powers are given to the Visiting Committees under these rules, and there is the important provision further of making this appointment in the case of our convict prisons. It is proposed that the Secretary of State should have power to appoint a board of visitors to act in the same way, and to have the same powers, as those which exist in the case of our local prisons. I do not imagine that there will be much opposition to that proposition. An idea has existed that inspectors should criticise the action of the Commissioners and report to the Secretary of State, but it seems to me that the inspectors should act under the Prison Commissioners, and see that their rules are properly carried out, and that those who are sent to prison, if they wish to appeal to the Secretary of State or to the Visiting Committees of our local prisons, are able to do so, and I hope that by means of this power, under Clause 3, it will be possible to do a great deal in that way, to the satisfaction of the Prison Commissioners and the Secretary of State, and to our convict prisons.

MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

Would the right hon. Gentleman say by what reasons he has been led to propose to repeal Section 11 of the Prisons Act, 1865, relating to the prison chaplain? That is repealed by Clause 12 of this Bill.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

This provision in Clause 12 is to enable chaplaincies to be held where possible with the cure of souls in the district. I believe that was recommended by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Where it is possible for the local clergyman to spare the time and do the work in the prison we propose by this clause to enable him to do so. I think it is a very useful thing if you have got a clergyman who knows the population and is willing to take an active part in the administration of our local prisons to allow him to do so. Clause 13, about which I thought I might be asked a question, is really for the purpose of preserving a portion of the Schedule of the Act of 1865, the rest of which is repealed by the Act. It makes no change in the position of the clerical officers of the prison. It simply re-enacts a portion of the Schedule, which, in accordance with the general scheme of this Bill, has to be done away with. I hope that, at all events, I have explained what are the intentions of this Bill.

SIR C. CAMERON (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to debtors.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

I have referred to debtors as coming under the new classification, and, therefore, they would be able to be put to some kind of industrial labour if desirable. There are a few classes of prisoners as to whom I have had stronger representations made to me than these, with reference to the very insufficient means of dealing with debtors in our prisons, and it is believed and hoped that by means of this classification we may be able to put some of these idle and useless persons to some industrial labour whilst they are in confinement. They are certainly included in the classification of Clause 5, and are intended to be so included. I have given the House in the few remarks I have ventured to make, and in the Papers which have accompanied this Bill, a very full explanation of what the proposals are. I do not say I have solved—I have not attempted to solve—many of those prison problems which require to be solved, but what I do say is that we are making a step forward in the direction of solving some of those problems which, as I believe, can only be solved by careful and cautious experiment. The Bill taken by itself, and the Rules with it, embody a great deal of the present practice, which I believe has not up to the present time been thoroughly understood by the public, because they embody rules made by the Secretary of State and which Parliament has assented to. They embody some improvements which are the results of the developments of our present system, and what I believe has been a most valuable and careful administration of our Prison Commissioners and Directors, and they also embody a great many of the recommendations of the Committee of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, of whose labours I have already spoken; and they embody also other proposals, which are the result of a very careful consideration of these difficult problems by a Board of Commissioners under a chairman, who is a most capable, efficient, and sympathetic public officer, and during the short time he has been prison chairman he has shown, by his energy and capacity, the greatest desire to introduce safe reforms into our system. I believe that if the House will pass this Bill, which I propose to refer to the Standing Committee on Law, and if the House will give the Secretary of State these powers, they will be doing a great deal to sanction further means of steadily developing humane administration of our prisons without in any degree diminishing the discipline which is necessary to their efficiency. In that hope I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

MR. L. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)

We are all indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the very full, though terse and lucid, manner in which he has described the provisions of this Bill. I feel somewhat diffident in dealing with this question of prison reform because my knowledge is limited, but I have a very strong conviction upon the matter and I venture to invite this House to express an opinion hostile to the Second Reading of this Bill upon grounds I shall endeavour very shortly to explain. My first and principal reason for objecting to this Bill is that we are asked to carry out a very considerable change in the discipline and management of our prisons; we are asked to review the whole system of both convict and local prison management without having any opportunity afforded to us of dealing with the details of the proposed new scheme. We have had placed before us a Bill which empowers the Home Secretary to draft the rules, and we are called upon to accept or reject that empowering enactment without having any opportunity afforded us of dealing with the rules which are the subject-matter of this Measure, or criticising them to the fullest extent as we might if we had the rules themselves embodied in the Bill. But we have no means of making any alteration whatever in any of the rules which commend themselves to the right hon. Gentleman as being desirable. The only method by which this body of rules, consisting of two considerable volumes, can be challenged is by an Address from both Houses rejecting the whole of them. We have no means of considering, changing, or modifying seriatim the rules by which the convict and local prisons of this country are to be governed. When as Home Secretary, Sir George Grey introduced a Prisons Bill he laid down as a matter of essential importance that notwithstanding it was an arduous and difficult task for the House to deal with the details of the prison rules, yet having regard to the vast importance which attached to the discipline and economy of prisons he would not take upon himself the responsibility of drafting the rules, except with the assistance of the House. This is a very grave departure from what, for my own part, I consider, and what I venture to submit to the House, was the very sound view taken by Sir George Grey. We have, I submit, a clear right to have laid before us, I do not say any little petty administrative rule, but the broad general principles upon which prison discipline is conducted. Nobody, looking at this Bill, harmless as it appears in itself, would be able to form the smallest or most remote conception of the way in which the prisons of this country will be conducted. I say that Parliament is derogating from its functions in allowing permanent officials to formulate rules, and leaving itself only the power of petitioning against the rules. I will not, and cannot, attempt—it would be an impertinence to do so—to examine the details, it would take too long, and be too tedious and otherwise objectionable, but I can draw attention to the fact that I have gone carefully through the rules of the Act of 1865, contained in the schedule of that Act, and, with one or two microscopic exceptions, I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to point out how these rules further lead to the more humane treatment of prisoners than those of the Act of 1865. In some directions, as I shall point out in a few minutes, they are less humane, and I say it is discreditable to this country that, after a lapse of more than 30 years, no more humane or civilised method of endeavouring to govern the prisoners of this country should have been found by our statesmen and the wisdom of this House. Now, in the first place, I do assert—and it is an assertion which has the general corroboration of every jurist and philanthropist of Europe who has written upon the subject of prison discipline—that prison discipline is more severe in this country than it is in any other civilised European nation. That is not an idle assertion, and there were articles in one of the leading French periodicals some time ago in which comparison was made between the systems of prison discipline in Europe. It was the opinion of the writers of those articles that the prison discipline of England was more severe than that of any other country in Europe. I speak not with regard to convict prisons merely, but also with regard to the short terms of imprisonment, and I venture to tell the right hon. Gentleman that a sentence of two years' hard labour is a sentence which no judge, in my judgment and in the judgment of more capable persons than myself, should inflict upon a fellow-creature. I recollect the late Baron Huddlestone telling me in the latter days of his life that from what he had learned and from what he had seen, he would in no case, under no possible circumstances, inflict a sentence of two years' hard labour. I, in common with others, have had an opportunity of observing the condition of unhappy victims who have been convicted and sentenced to two years' hard labour. Nobody, who has not had an opportunity of observing the condition of the victims, can have any conception of the effect of a lengthened term of imprisonment, even on the most robust. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the present system, with regard to children, and I shall have the sympathy of all sides of the House when I say I deplore that children should be sent to prison at all. There were, if you take the last prison statistics, in 1896 no less than 55 children under 12 years of age sent to prison as convicted prisoners, and 1,913 children between the ages of 12 and 15. A Prisons Bill might have provided, but for which this Bill does not adequately provide, that there should be isolation for the juvenile offenders. But a Prisons Bill to be effective should remove the children wholly from the influence of the prison, and there is no reason why they should not be. It would not have been beyond the scope of this Bill to have dealt with that subject. I will endeavour to deal with these points as rapidly as I can: this Bill proposes to make three classes of misdemeanants. The provision as to first-class misdemeanants leaves the thing just where it was before, because the judges for obvious reasons are averse to sentencing a person as a first-class misdemeanant; it was felt to be a privilege of the rich to be sent as a first-class misdemeanant, and the judges thought, and rightly so, that it was not right to make that distinction, so that there is practically no first-class misdemeanant. The second-class misdemeanants exist at the present time, but their lot is not to be made better. I do not see by comparison with the rules of the Act of 1865, and the rules formulated in this Bill, that the condition of the second-class misdemeanant is to be bettered, but I do see that a class of persons is to be brought into that class which were never brought in before; you are going to bring in persons who have disobeyed a judge's order, perhaps, through a scruple of conscience, or who have committed a technical offence; there are a great many honest, hard-working people who are in gaol now, the victims of misfortune, and those people, who have led honest and blameless lives, are, under these rules, to be dressed in prison dress because the rules which govern second-class misdemeanants says they are to wear distinctive prison dress. They are to be dressed as prisoners, they are liable to be photographed, and subjected to other indignities, and, worst of all, they are obliged to assort with criminals. The Acts of 1865 and 1877 contain an express provision that the debtor prisoners are to be kept distinct from criminals. But this Bill is reactionary and retrograde. [Sir R. WEBSTER: No, no!] The right hon. Gentleman contradicts me. If I have made a mistake I shall express my regret fully and withdraw my statement. I say under this Act the debtor class is made misdemeanant, and if you look at the rule you will find—I am speaking from memory—that they have to wear distinctive dress, and if you look at the general rules, which are to be read together with the special rules, except so far as they come in collision with the special rules, you will find they are to be kept, "as far as practicable," distinct from ordinary prisoners—that is, persons who are criminally convicted. Now, what I say is that it is an outrage that the persons who have not been convicted of any crime—who are the victims of misfortune, who are the victims of some disobedience of the law, such, for instance, as not complying with the Vaccination Act—should be classed and obliged to associate in a measure with criminals. Under Section 40 of the Prisons Act of 1877 there is an express provision that persons convicted of sedition or seditious libel shall be kept separate from the ordinary prisoners, and treated, I think it says, as first-class misdemeanants. Now, this Bill repeals Section 67 of the Act of 1865, and by implication it also repeals Section 40 of the Act of 1877, and the only cases in the whole realm of the prison law of this country where you find distinct treatment is meted out to certain classes of political offenders is swept away. The objections to this Bill do not end there. There are many more in my opinion equally serious. I recognise the advantage of allowing prisoners to have the benefit of a reduction of their sentence as a reward for good conduct. The real main point we ought to consider in dealing with the Prisons Bill—and probably it will be another 20 years before we deal with it, for it was in 1877 when we last dealt with it—is whether we cannot do anything to make our prison treatment more humane. I do not speak as a sentimentalist on this question. I agree that prison must be more or less associated with vindictive punishments. ["No, no!"] Well, I will not argue that question now. I am prepared, for my part, to accept the observation of the Home Secretary. Surely something might be done by this House to deal with this important question, and not to leave it with the permanent officials. I do not mean to say that we have not many good and faithful public servants who discharge their duties most efficiently, but they are not reformers. Reforms when they are made emanate from this House irrespective of Party. I am sure hon. Members on the other side of the House are just as ready to deal with prisoners from the humane point of view as we are, and I do most seriously urge upon the Home Secretary whether it is expedient that this House should delegate to permanent officials the task of laying down a code for the Government, or whether it is not far better that we should ourselves do it, even at the expense of time; or if the House would not do it let this Bill, as in the case of the Bill of 1865, be sent to a Select Committee, with representatives on that Committee of the most experienced men in the House of Commons. The only reason the Home Secretary gives against Parliamentary Rules is that such rules are not elastic. If you want power to change the rules, surely that is managed by a rule giving dispensing powers, that rule to be laid on the Table of the House for 40 days. But so soon as these rules are laid on the Table for 40 days, so soon will they become law. They are absolutely inelastic. There is no power for the Home Secretary to make another rule by a similar process. However that may be, there is no question about it that the great bulk of these rules are not of a character that require to be elastic. They are general rules for the treatment of prisoners, and our experience of the treatment of prisoners from the time we made our first attempt at reform up to the present time has enabled us to see the right method of how prisoners are to be treated, to see that some attempt should be made to reclaim them, and thus avoid the melancholy admission to be found in our criminal statistics that more than one half of the prisoners in our prisons have been previously convicted. I beg to move the Amendment that the Bill be read this day six months.

SIR C. CAMERON

In one sense this Bill is certainly reactionary. I listened to what my hon. Friend has said as to the treatment of debtors. I have looked into the matter, and there is no question that in regard to the treatment of debtors the proposal of the Home Secretary is the most reactionary that has been presented to Parliament during the last 40 years. Now, Sir, on the subject of imprisonment for debt there is a very considerable diversity of opinion. I am not going to argue the question of the abolition of imprisonment for debt, though. I believe it should be abolished, and might be safely abolished, as it has been abolished in certain parts of the Kingdom—in Scotland, for instance. It may be that in England a sufficient amount of diversity of opinion exists as to the expediency of maintaining imprisonment for debt to render it a most inopportune and most reprehensible thing to propose that the imprisonment should be more disgraceful and punitive than it is. In the Act of 1865 there is a clause which my hon. Friend, who moved the rejection of the Bill did not quote. Under Section 4 it is laid down that means should be provided for separating debtors altogether from the criminal prisoners. In 1875 provision was made for the amelioration of their rules. By the 38th Section of that Act it was provided that the Secretary of State might alter or add to them with respect to the classification and treatment of prisoners imprisoned for non-compliance with the order of a justice or justices. Such rules are in mitigation, and not an increase, of the effect of such imprisonment as regulated by the Prisons Act of 1865; so that the Prisons Act of 1865 laid down that prisoners for debt should be separated from all association with criminal prisoners, and the Act of 1875 allowed the Home Secretary to make rules in mitigation of, and not in aggravation of, the severity of their punishment. Now he proposed to treat them as criminals. [The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT: Not at all.] There is no doubt, if he will look at the official Memorandum at page 17, he will see by Clause 5 of the Prisons Bill it is proposed to repeal the law now regulating the treatment of debtors, and to classify them either as first or second-class misdemeanants, according to the discretion of the Court. If the proposal becomes law, the special privileges they now enjoy will be considerably curtailed, and the necessity of labour imposed on them. They are now treated, as I understand, as first-class misdemeanants, and have the privileges of such. They are not subjected to a number of indignities that criminal prisoners are subjected to, and they have indulgences in the matter of correspondence and in the matter of receiving visitors. All these things are to be taken from them. In the second place, the class to which they are to be relegated have compulsorily to take a bath on their reception, whether they require it or not. It is provided that they shall be as far as possible kept apart from the ordinary criminals. The provision is, "That they shall be kept entirely separate from criminal prisoners." They are not to mix with third-class or the worst class of prisoners, but they are to mix with second-class prisoners. They must work—well, I do not say that that would not be a good thing; but if you allow a second-class misdemeanant to work or not as he thinks fit, it seems to me that it is a remarkably retrograde step to compel the debtors to work. That is departing altogether from the lines that have up to now governed our treatment of debtors. There are several points in the Bill I approve of, especially with regard to the admission and the remission of fines, and also to the earning of a remission of sentences by good conduct, although I think that might be with very great benefit extended to shorter terms of imprisonment than nine months. I know that when I was visiting the Scotch prisons I was repeatedly told by the Governors of those prisons that it would be a very good thing to ensure good behaviour amongst the shorter sentence prisoners if they could promise them a remission of sentence to the extent of a few days from their term. I cannot see any reason for limiting it to the graver class of offences—namely, those punished with a minimum of nine months' imprisonment. I wish to emphasise what appears to me to be a very grave blot upon the Bill, and I endorse very much what my hon. Friend has said about the inexpediency of Parliament allowing all control in the matter of prison rules to be out of their hands.

MR. HERBERT J. GLADSTONE (Leeds, W.)

My hon. Friend who has just spoken speaks with great authority on this matter. I am quite prepared to admit that the question with regard to debtors that he has raised is one that can be properly considered by this House, but to me it seems more a matter for Committee than for the Second Reading stage. The position of debtors under the Bill does not seem to me at all prejudiced. At any rate, the Court has power to direct them to be treated as first-class misdemeanants. And in the second place they are to be given industrial labour. Those who have visited prisons and seen the debtors loafing about with nothing to do, will probably agree that they are the most miserable portion of the prison population, and I think it is a very great advantage to them that they should have industrial labour given to them whereby they can earn a certain gratuity. It is my intention to give a very clear and decided support to the Second Reading of this Bill. I cannot say that I agree with the main contentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham. He complained of Clause 2. To my mind that clause is the most valuable provision in the Bill. He complains that it gives power to the permanent officials, and that it is a dangerous principle to change the system from the lines of the Act of 1865 and give powers to the Home Secretary to draft rules to be laid on the Table of the House. I disagree with that. As the Home Secretary said, the present system is far too rigid. He and the Prison Commissioners are tied and bound absolutely by the rules laid down in the schedule of the Act of 1865. He cannot alter them unless he brings a Bill into this House. The Bill enables the Home Secretary to modify such rules as fuller experience shows ought to be altered; and my hon. Friend ought to remember that under this system the powers of the House of Commons and the powers of hon. Members who are interested in prison questions will be very largely increased. At any rate, they will know exactly what is going on; they will have the power of speaking on any new rules which may be laid on the Table; and I hold it is to the interest of hon. Members that Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. My hon. Friend went on to complain of the prison severity. That is a very great and important question. But this Bill, so far as it goes, diminishes instead of increases the severity, and deserves the support of my hon. Friend. He complained also that there was no provision by which children should not be sent to prison. The Committee over which I had the honour to preside went carefully into that matter. Children who are under remand or sentence must be confined somewhere. If any hon. Member will consult the evidence laid before that Committee, he will see that the disadvantages of confining children either in workhouses or in police cells are far greater than those entailed by putting them in certain portions of prisons where they are treated differently from the other prisoners. Therefore, I think the observations of my hon. Friend are not in the least arguments against this Bill. Other matters he raised will be subjects for the Committee. I hold there is no case against the Bill. I desire to acknowledge the very generous manner in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has taken the House into his confidence in regard to this Bill, and the subject of prison discipline; he has given us plenty of information in a fair and frank manner. At the present time attacks are still being made upon the present prison system. Attacks were made before on the prison system and the prison officials, and the Home Secretary of the day appointed a Committee of Inquiry. I should like to call attention to the finding of the Committee with regard to that point. After full and impartial consideration that Committee unanimously came to this conclusion— We do not consider that there is reason for general condemnation of a system which resulted originally from careful inquiry and much deliberation, and which was specially and successfully designed to put an end to many glaring and patent evils. Similarly we do not consider that it is right to lay the burden of all the shortcomings of the prison system on the central prison authorities, who have carried into effect under successive Secretaries of State the Acts approved by Parliament: who have loyally and substantially carried out the various recommendations made from time to time by Commissions and Committees; and who as administrators, have achieved in point of organisation, discipline, order, and economy a striking administrative success. I think it is only right, by reason of the attacks that are still being made upon prison officials, that I should draw attention to the finding of the Committee in 1894—the unanimous finding.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, S.)

No, no; it was not the unanimous finding.

MR. GLADSTONE

Of course I will not challenge the statement of the hon. Gentleman, but I do not recollect myself any division of opinion on this subject; and the Report was signed by all the Members of the Committee. Now, Sir, this Bill has been described as a small Measure. I quite agree that it is a small Measure in many ways. But it ought not to be revolutionary I do not believe in any revolutionary upheaval of the present prison system, either in the interests of the prison authorities or of the prisoners themselves. It does not pretend to give any complete scheme of reform. There are three omissions which prevent it from being a complete scheme of prison reform, classification is a subject which is all important in prison matters. The Home Secretary has done a great deal in that direction, but at present there is no provision for dealing separately with persons confined for drunkenness. We are promised a Bill. I hope we shall soon see it. The presence of prisoners who are sentenced for drunkenness is a constant source of difficulty. They are not criminals in the ordinary sense of the word, and only complicate the already difficult question of prison management. Secondly, a proposal for the establishment of a penal reformatory for prisoners between the ages of 16 and 23 is still under consideration. It is a very important matter—I for one attach the greatest importance to it—and I hope in course of time it will be carried into effect. Thirdly, habitual offenders are not dealt with under the Bill, or under the rules, except that in the prison, as far as possible, they are to be kept as a class apart. Sir, the habitual prisoner is most difficult to deal with. He is, unfortunately, too often brutalised by the prison system, and unfortunately, also, he is not sufficiently deterred by the treatment which he knows by experience he has to expect. The Committee recommend that this class of prisoner should be dealt with under a different penal system altogether, and the Prison Commissioners practically concur in our view. The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, undertaken to do his best to get a Royal Commission appointed to consider the whole question of the sentences and treatment of habitual prisoners, and I do most earnestly hope that he will get that Commission appointed, because it goes to the root of the whole prison system. The sooner you can deal drastically with this class of habitual offenders, and on different lines from those of the present prison system, the better it will be for the general treatment of prisoners in the country. No scheme of prison reform can be thorough which does not include these three subjects. I admit they cannot be included in this Bill. Now, Sir, questions regarding the functions of Prison Commission inspectors, Prisoners' Aid Societies, etc., are very important, but they are not so important as that which cannot be supplied be any Bill or Act of Parliament—a humane prison administration, supported by a properly trained and sufficiently numerous prison staff. I look far more to an enlightened spirit of administration than I do to this Bill, good as it is so far as it goes. This Bill, Sir, is the outcome of a Report of the Committee. What is the basis of that Report? The basis of that Report was a fuller application of reformatory methods to the prison system of the country. We had the remarkable evidence of Sir Godfrey Lushington, who, speaking with his great experience and long connection with the Home Office, summed up the effect of the present prison system in these words— I regard as unfavourable to reformation the status of a prisoner throughout his whole career; the crushing of self-respect, the starving of all moral instinct he may possess, the absence of all opportunity to do or receive a kindness, the continual association with none but criminals, and that only as a separate item amongst other items also separate; the forced labour, and the denial of all liberty. I believe the true mode of reforming a man or restoring him to society is exactly in the opposite direction of all these; but, of course, this is a mere idea. It is quite impracticable in a prison. In fact, the unfavourable features I have mentioned are inseparable from prison life. Now, Sir, the Committee, taking the statement generally, thought that Sir Godfrey Lushington had rightly described the effect of prison life upon the average prisoner, but that he was wrong in his conclusion that nothing could be done; and we reported in these words— We think that the system should be more elastic, more capable of being adapted to the special case of individual prisoners; that certain discipline and treatment should be more effectually designed to maintain, stimulate, or awaken the higher susceptibilities of prisoners, to develop their moral instincts, to train them in orderly and industrial habits, and, whenever possible, to turn them out of prison better men and women, both physically and morally, than when they came in. That was our finding, and to give effect to it there was much to be done. I have mentioned three subjects inseparable from a proper classification which are yet absent—and necessarily absent, I admit—from this Bill. But a great deal remains to be done by administrative action. The Home Secretary and the Commissioners have already done much. This Bill is designed in enable the Home Secretary to give fuller effect to the recommendations of the Committee. I do not know whether I shall be permitted to show in a few words how much has been done already by the right hon. Gentleman and the Commissioners as the result of the Report of that Committee. I have made a rough analysis of the statement presented by the Commissioners, showing to what extent they had given effect to the recommendations. I find that there are eleven proposals of primary importance. Of these five have been wholly adopted, five partly adopted, and only one rejected; of 27 secondary proposals 21 have been adopted, two have been partly adopted, and four rejected. With regard to 12 other suggestions the Prison Commissioners urge that they are simply in conformity in existing practices prevailing in the prisons, or that they are neutral on the subject. On the three main points which I have already dealt with, which are not in this Bill, the Commissioners in the main agree with the Report. This is a result which the members of the Prison Committee have every reason to be satisfied with. I do not know of any inquiry, whether it is that of a Royal Commission or a Committee of this House, which has been followed, and so quickly followed, by changes so numerous and so excellent. Now, it should also be remembered in connection with this Bill that the new rules embody a great deal of the existing practices; but when you have practices in prisons you have always full power to depart from them. These practices are embodied in these rules, which must guide the conduct of prison officials in all prisons in the country. The whole result shows, to my mind, that during the last three years there has been a noticeable change in prison policy. There are many points that I should like to discuss now, but they would hardly be relevant, and we shall have an opportunity of raising them when we come to the Prison Vote. But there is one very important matter that this House should bear in mind. The Prison Commissioners have adopted, I think, a great many excellent proposals. They have worked very hard, they have done a great deal; but everything will depend upon the manner in which they give effect to the proposals which they have adopted, on the permanent, steady administration by which they can be carried out. Taking the Bill as it stands, I welcome it as a necessary supplement to administrative action. It is a Measure certainly very valuable as far as it goes. I have great confidence in Mr. Brise, the present Chairman of the Prison Commissioners. He has had great difficulties. He succeeded a distinguished official, very difficult to follow. He has to deal with a somewhat stereotyped system. I recognise his difficulties. But given to him the necessary time, I believe he will earn for himself an honourable reputation as a prison reformer. I have two criticisms to make on the clauses of this Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton with regard to Clause 7. The Prison Commissioners have stated that the system of reducing sentences has worked so excellently in convict prisons that they are disposed to adopt the principle for local prisons. But what is good for a prisoner sentenced to a term not exceeding nine months would, to my mind, be good for a prisoner sentenced to a term not exceeding six months. I agree that this is a matter for argument and experience. The Committee in this matter made no positive recommendation with regard to the term of imprisonment, but, personally, I hope that the lower term will be inserted in the Bill after discussion in Committee. The number of prisoners affected by this proposal is comparatively small. In 1897 the number of prisoners committed to the local prisons for nine months was only 2,019, and the number committed for a period between nine and six months was 3,528, so that if Clause 7 were amended, and six months inserted instead of nine months, the prisoners affected would amount to 5,547, taking the statistics of 1897, while the total committals for all periods in the year were 148,081. It is not a very formidable proposal to reduce the nine months to six, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will consider the point and, if possible, make the reduction. My next criticism is upon Clause 3, which relates to the appointment of visitors to convict prisons. It is to the effect that— The Secretary of State may appoint for any convict prison a board of visitors, of whom not less than two shall be Justices of the Peace, with such powers and duties as may be prescribed by prison rules. There is a certain absence of decentralisation in this Bill, and that is a weakness. I have always thought that the prison system of the country was somewhat too much under the Prison Commissioners, and that the Commissioners had a rather exaggerated idea of giving up any of their powers for fear of impairing their dignity and authority in the administration of the prison system. I agree it would be unwise to impair the authority of the Prison Commissioners, but if it would be possible to interest capable men and capable public bodies like the Visiting Committees in different parts of the country in this work, then the Prison Commissioners may with safety delegate certain portions of their work to them. This third clause proposes that the Home Secretary— may appoint for any convict prison a board of visitors, of whom not less than two shall be Justices of the Peace, with such powers and duties as may be prescribed by prison rules. But, as I understand the rules, these boards will practically be under the authority of the Prison Commissioners, or, rather, the directors of convict prisons—who are practically the same. The directors of convict prisons may assign to the Boards of Visitors such powers as they think fit, they may delegate to them the task of trying prisoners for breaches of discipline, and of awarding punishments. But it does not seem to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, or the Prison Commissioners, have grasped the keen interest which a great many people in the country feel in the fate of convict prisoners under the present system. The whole system of punishments is in the hands of the prison directors, who go to the prisons, hear charges against prisoners, and administer punishments. It must be remembered, too, that these punishments are equivalent to imprisonment, and the matter is all the graver because these men in convict prisons are removed from the public view for terms of fifteen and twenty years; nobody can get at them, nobody knows about them, and they are buried for the term of their imprisonment. But the public has a right to demand full security for the proper treatment of these prisoners. I do not for a moment urge that there has been any misuse of their powers by the prison directors; indeed, I am sure they have done their very best, and have administered their duties very well; but in their own interest it seems to me that they should be ready to adopt a more free system, a system which would take the public more into their confidence. What happens now, and what is the remedy for the prisoner? Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that a prisoner gets a harsh sentence from a prison director. What is his remedy? He can appeal to the Home Secretary every six months, and, naturally enough, prisoners take full advantage of the right; but what can the Home Secretary do in the matter? These petitions come in hundreds and thousands to the Home Office. The Home Secretary has many important functions and duties to discharge, and it is impossible for him to see a tenth, twentieth, or a hundredth part of these petitions. But if one petition be brought to his notice by anyone inside the office, or outside, what naturally happens? It is sent down for the remarks of the prison directors, and, under the present system, I do not see what else can be done. But the directors intervene in their own case, and have the first say. I do not allege that there has been any misuse of power, but the system is not one in which the public at large have confidence; there is no guarantee against injustice. I admit that the duty of awarding punishments in prisons, and particularly the convict prisons, requires a thorough knowledge of the prison system. The recommendation of the Prisons Committee of 1896 was that these tasks should be entrusted to a judicial functionary. We had in our minds a functionary somewhat of the nature of a stipendiary magistrate, who would gain the necessary experience, and who, being a public functionary, would have a real sense of responsibility to the public, and would, therefore, afford the public greater security. I welcome this Bill as an instalment. It does not by any means give effect to the most valuable proposals which have been made for prison reform, but it contains seven or eight valuable clauses, and is part of a general policy, with which it is necessarily closely identified, a policy which must not be lost sight of by any hon. Member in considering the Bill on the Second Reading. No law, no form of rules, will make the prison system a success; the administration must be carried on in an enlightened and humane spirit, so that the public may have full confidence in the system. At present public opinion on this question has been roused, and the administration of the Prison Commissioners will now and henceforth be closely and keenly watched. I believe the Prison Commissioners will welcome that public interest; they will feel that they are not only doing formal, routine work in the depths of the Home Office, or elsewhere, but that they are administering new methods under the gaze and criticism of the public at large. I believe they will be encouraged to new efforts, and I hope that the Home Secretary, who has done so much, will continue to watch these matters, and follow up the working of this Bill, and of these methods and principles, which have now been adopted by the Home Office, and if he does that, having already done so much, he will be entitled yet further to our gratitude.

MR. PICKERSGILL

I desire to associate myself with by far the greater part of the observations made by my hon. and learned Friend who moved the rejection of this Bill, and especially with reference to the change which it is proposed to make in the treatment of debtors. The legal position of debtors in this country presents a curious history, and I think there is some inconsistency in the fact that the country, which compliments itself upon having absolutely abolished imprisonment for debt, now, for the first time in its history, proposes that debtors shall be treated as criminal prisoners. [The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT: No.] Most certainly as criminal prisoners. It is proposed that they shall be treated as persons convicted of misdemeanour, and the test, the picturesque test—if I may use the expression in this connection—of the truth of my statement is that they are to be compelled to wear prison clothes. Sir, I desire to call the attention of this House to one particular class with whom the House, during the time I have been a Member, has often expressed sympathy—I mean persons committed by county court judges for non-payment of debt. Attention has again and again been called in this House to the strange inequality in the manner in which county court judges exercise their powers of committal. I shall not pursue that point, but it seems to me that there are strong reasons why the House should not now take the startling step of treating debtors as criminal prisoners. I also desire to say a word or two with regard to the effect of this Bill upon certain classes of misdemeanants, because I cannot at all follow the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, in the statement he has made as to the effect of this particular clause. May I just read a line or two from the Memorandum? It says:— It is proposed to include in this class debtors and a multitude of offenders whose acts, though legally criminal, involve nothing dishonourable or disgraceful. Undoubtedly this provision will have this effect, it will include a number of offenders whose acts are neither dishonourable nor disgraceful. But it will act unequally, because, whereas it will include persons who are committed for the non-payment of rates and of reformatory fees, and non-payment towards the support of a parent in the workhouse, it will not include in the benefit of its operation other classes equally entitled with the former, such as the parent who is fined for not sending a child to school, a member of the Salvation Army fined for obstructing a thoroughfare by preaching, or a parent fined for the non-vaccination of his child. Those people will not enjoy the benefits of that provision. It will still be possible to treat the Salvationist, convicted of a charge of obstruction, or an anti-vaccinationist convicted for non-vaccination, as certain persons were treated a little while ago who did not have their children vaccinated, and who, according to the evidence given before a Departmental Committee, were imprisoned for seven days, stripped, bathed, weighed naked, examined for marks on their person, their hair cropped, and who were compelled to sleep on a plank bed. This Bill will not ameliorate the condition of that class of offenders. Their position will be relatively worse, because this Bill proposes to place in front of them two classes of misdemeanants, and therefore there will be a tendency to treat them more harshly than they are treated now. Now, I want to say a word as to the meaning of the word misdemeanour. What is a misdemeanant? As I understand, misdemeanour is an indictable offence below felony. It is true that if an indictable offence is treated under the Statute by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, as some indictable offences may be, the Court has the discretion of ordering the offender to be treated in this lighter manner, but the offence must be an indictable one, and therefore you leave out from the benefit of the provision a large category of offences, police and municipal offences, because they do not fall under the legal meaning of the word misdemeanour. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman means that this should be the case, but certainly, so far as I can see, that will be the effect of it; but the right hon. Gentleman may in Committee enlarge the meaning of the word misdemeanour so as to embrace these cases. We know that under certain Statutes many indictable offences can be treated summarily, but unless they are indictable they do not come under the term misdemeanour. To my mind it is perfectly clear that that is the legal effect of the words. Whether it was the intention of the draughtsman I do not know, but, whether he had any instruction to do so or not, he has certainly limited this provision to indictable offences, whether they are treated summarily or not, but they must be indictable offences, and police and municipal offences are not included. The right hon. Gentleman said this Bill had presented him with a great opportunity. I quite agree—a great opportunity for ameliorating the condition of the prisoners, and improving the administration of our prisons. But I must add, to my regret, that he has not taken advantage of the opportunity which this Bill has given. In the face of the recommendations made by the Committee which considered this matter, and the points pressed upon him by hon. Members sitting on this side of the House, the Home Secretary has replied that his hands are tied by the statutory rules of the Act of 1865. This Bill makes a clean sweep of those rules, and gives the right hon. Gentleman a free hand; and I notice with some surprise, and not a little disappointment, that the Home Secretary intends practically to re-insert the statutory rules of the Act of 1865, with very little alteration. I should like to point to a few illustrations to make good that proposition, but let me say first that these rules as they stand are very misleading, and they are incomplete without the Standing Orders. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman to give us the Standing Orders, because without them we cannot form a true estimate of the effect of the statutory rules. Let me illustrate what I mean. This is one rule with regard to local prisons— Provision shall be made in every prison for the instruction of prisoners in reading, writing, and arithmetic, during such hours as may be approved. It will be the duty of the chaplain to give daily his personal superintendence to that instruction. Well, that is an announcement with regard to instruction which is certainly emphasised in sufficiently important, not to say pompous, terms. What do I find when I turn to the Standing Order which gives effect to that rule? It simply says that each prisoner is to have at most 30 minutes of instruction twice a week—a daily paper put it at 20 minutes—but I think that is a grossly inadequate carrying out of both the letter and spirit of the rule. Another illustration is this, chief warders have been made governors in accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. So far good, but there are certain other changes which I do not think will recommend themselves to the hon. Gentlemen of this House, namely, that the man who is governor is storekeeper also. The storekeeper has been got rid of; his duties are carried on by the governor, who is assisted by the schoolmaster when he is not engaged in his scholastic duties. I very much doubt whether that provision carries out the spirit of the statutory rule. The statutory rule provides that the governor shall duly visit the kitchen daily and inspect the provisions. It was obviously intended that he should be a check upon the storekeeper, but you have abolished the storekeeper, and the governor has himself the provisioning, and there you have not carried out the spirit of the Standing Order by providing for the proper inspection of the food for the prisoners. Now, I requested that the Standing Orders with regard to prisoners be laid upon the Table, but the Home Secretary declined, and the ground that he alleged was that the Standing Orders were very voluminous, most of them were of a Departmental, character, and that those of general interest are made public. Let me test that statement by an example. The teaching of industries was strongly recommended by the Departmental Committee, and there is nothing with which the interest of the public is more closely concerned. The Prison Commissioners say in their recent observations that a scheme for the skilled teaching of trades anions prisoners has been sanctioned by the Home Secretary. We ought to see the terms of that scheme; I am not satisfied with a brief description of it, but the Home Secretary declines to give further information on the subject. He says it deals with questions and details which it is not desirable to publish. I ask whether he intends to refuse to the hon. Members of this House any further information as to this important scheme? If he does, I shall say the Commissioners do not produce the Standing Orders because they dare not; they will not bear the light of day. For many years secrecy has been the bane of our prison administration. It is a policy which is altogether out of date and out of place in any department, but it is peculiarly odious and specially dangerous in prisons. It might give rise to grave abuses, and one would have thought the right hon. Gentleman and the Prison Commissioners would have welcomed any sign of interest in prison matters among Members of Parliament, and other persons occupying positions of some influence or importance. But, instead of that, we are regarded as intruders; every difficulty is put in our way, and information is refused. The inference is obvious, and the only mode of purifying the moral atmosphere of our prisons is to let into it the light of day. Publicity is a sine quâ non of any wholesome system of prison administration in this country. What is the use of laying statutory rules on the Table for the approval of the House if Members are not allowed to see the Standing Orders and regulations? These rules, as Members can see for themselves, are in many cases vague and undeterminate, and their effect depends upon the use made of them. Again, Sir, the Departmental Committee suggested the satisfaction of the public mind in regard to prisons by making the Inspectors independent of the Commissioners. But these Commissioners are gentlemen occupying high positions and receiving large salaries, and it seems to me a little absurd to appoint a Home Office clerk with a salary one-third of what these Commissioners are receiving in order to overlook the work of the Commissioners. No, Sir; I think the Visiting Committee ought to be the eyes and ears of the public in this matter. At present there can be no doubt that the visiting justices do not discharge their proper functions. There are at the present time, two classes of visiting justices. There is one class that visit prisons as little as possible, and perform their duties in a very perfunctory way, and there is another class of visiting justices, appointed year after year, who really seem to become more official than the officials themselves. What we want is to introduce a more popular element on the Visiting Committee. Why should you not have upon the Visiting Committee of our local prisons representatives of the local authority of the district? [Laughter.] That is not a revolutionary proposal. Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh, and show that they have given no attention to this question, because what I am at present proposing is practically the law at present in Scotland. Why, then, should we not follow the excellent example of Scotland? Why should we not introduce a popular element on these Visiting Committees by allowing, under proper provisions, some representatives of the local authority to be on those bodies? With regard to the Visiting Committee of convict prisons it is proposed by the Bill as it stands to give absolutely carte blanche to the Home Secretary with regard to the constitution and appointment of these Visiting Boards. We know nothing, except from one of the rules, that their term of office is to be three years. We neither know their number nor the qualifications they are to possess. In this respect, at any rate, the Bill must be altered. We must lay down with some degree of preciseness the character of the new Visiting Board of convict prisons. I think we ought to go further than that. We ought to lay down in the Bill generally a description of the duties these Visiting Boards are to discharge. The right hon. Gentleman says we want elasticity. Then let us lay down in the Bill what I may call the statutory minimum of the duties the Visiting Board is to discharge; and let us give power to the right hon. Gentleman to impose upon the Visiting Board any further duties he may think proper. I should like to mention one point before I sit down, and that is the question of the prison chaplain. There is one clause in this Bill which proposes to repeal Clause 2 of the Prison Act of 1865. Clause 2 of the Prison Act of 1865 provides that the chaplain of more than one prison, and the chaplain of any prison containing 100 prisoners and upwards, shall not hold any benefice or curacy; and the Bill proposes to repeal that enactment. Now, Sir, I question very much whether we shall act wisely in repealing that enactment. I do think that we ought to provide, if the number of prisoners amounts to a certain number, that in that case, at all events, the chaplain should not hold any outside benefice. We ought more and more to recognise the importance of the duties of the chaplain, and we ought, therefore, not to accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, which would enable a clergyman who had outside work to be the chaplain of a prison containing a very large number of prisoners. I shall certainly not vote against the Second Reading of this Bill; there are good points in the Bill, and I hope that in Committee it may be amended. I am sorry to hear, by the way, that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to refer it to the Committee on Law. I think a Bill of this kind is of sufficient importance for the House to keep it in its own purview, and certainly the Government of the country is not so overburdened with business this Session that there is any excuse for referring this Bill to the Committee on Law. I hope that on that point the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his intention.

MR. A. O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I do not know that I am prepared to oppose any of the proposals embodied in this Bill, but I cannot help feeling that the Bill has presented an opportunity of doing much good, which the Government has sadly missed. I must say that my experience as a member of the Departmental Committee, over which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds presided, furnished me with many revelations which surprised me. I had assumed that the administration of prisons was well ordered, was humane, was kindly, and was beneficial; but when the Committee had finished its labours, when I had personally visited I do not know how many local prisons, or how many convict prisons, I came to the conclusion—and the conclusion was forced upon me in spite of myself—that the administration of the prisons of this country was inconceivably cruel and inhuman. I do not believe there is a single country within what is called civilisation which furnishes anything so abominable, so repulsive, and so inhuman as the English prison system. Why. Sir, to talk about the treatment of prisoners in Russia and Siberia, when we consider our own treatment of them in English prisons, is a mockery. In Russia, at any rate, they do not deprive prisoners of the human faculty of speech. In our prisons men have to go on living what is called a human life, and yet are deprived of the human faculty of speech. What is their condition when they come out? Their self-possession is gone; they are unable to take their place in the human community; and you have disabled them from recovering the position they occupied in the world. I am not speaking of what I myself think. One of the Prison Commissioners told me, with regard to Chatham Prison, as to which there were investigations some years ago, that the unfortunate men in that prison were made to live a life of hell upon earth. That was the opinion of a man who was thoroughly conversant with the truth. On that Committee of Inquiry we had a Prison Commissioner. I invited him to explain to the Committee whether he thought corporal punishment was absolutely necessary in the administration of prisons, and he said that in his opinion it was absolutely necessary, that they could not administer without corporal punishment. I put before him the figures relating to corporal punishment in your English local and convict prisons, and asked him to compare them with the figures of the Irish prisons for the same year. I forget the exact number; but whatever they were it does not matter, because in the Irish local prisons there was not one single case of corporal punishment; and there was not one single case of corporal punishment in the Irish convict prisons. That was a strange contrast, and I invited him to explain how it was that the proportion of insanity in English prisons, local and convict, was so high as compared with the percentage of insanity in Irish prisons. He could not say how it was. When he looked at the Returns of complaints the same story was told. I invited him to say whether the percentages of insanity, of punishments, of admitted suicides, and of complaints were all much higher in English than in Irish prisons. He was not prepared to admit that either. He was utterly unable to even suggest any explanation. But, Sir, if you go into the English prisons and watch the lives, year by year, month by month and day by day, of the men imprisoned there, the explanation becomes clear. Men in English prisons are not treated as men; you treat them as numbered and ticketed things. You forget that they are men. Take hon. Members in this House, whether they call themselves Liberals or Conservatives, is there so very much difference between me and them? The same things please me as please them; the same things irritate me as would irritate them; the same things would move me to violence as would move them to violence. I have stood in prisons and interviewed prisoners of every class and every age. I cannot see that there is any great difference between myself and those prisoners, any more than there is between me and hon. Gentlemen now sitting around me. The majority of these men are to be pitied rather than despised. I appeal to anybody to say whether, if he had been placed in the circumstances in which most of these men were placed in their childhood, he would have been one bit better. I do not believe it. It is all very well for people who are in good circumstances, people who have had the advantage of a good early training, to moralise in this matter; but what chance had these people, brought up in the slums and alleys of our large cities, whose parents had no playground to offer them except the streets—these poor children whose first slight faults there were no kindly friends to correct, whose first notion of morality and law is connected with the police courts. If for their first offence they are sent to prison, they are ruined for life. Any prison administration which is conducted on lines of common sense and humanity would endeavour to keep juvenile offenders outside the walls of our gaols as much as possible. I remember that before the Departmental Committee, of which I was a member, we had as one of our witnesses a very intelligent convict prisoner, and he explained to us that the reason why men were recommitted to prison again and again was because of the existing state of things. The prisoner who is discharged from prison is absolutely without hope; it is the want of hope that ruins these poor prisoners. If you imprison these men for long periods you ought to give them some hope, at any rate, of regaining, when they come out, the position they have lost. It may be difficult and costly, but the expenditure will be worth your while. Again, another important consideration in prison administration is classification. Classification has been attempted, but it is not carried to anything like the extent to which it reasonably may be carried. If you get a confirmed scoundrel, and you know him to be such, instead of letting him loose upon society you should, after several committals, detain him, not necessarily under conditions of great severity, but, at all events, keep him where he can do no further harm. But people who are not habitual criminals, people who are likely to make a fresh start, should be so treated that they will have every opportunity of recovering the positions they have lost. With regard to punishment, I desire to point out how differently prisoners are treated, simply because they are prisoners, to the way in which other citizens are treated. An ordinary citizen in this country cannot be sentenced by a judge or court to corporal punishment without the intervention of a jury. But in the case of a charge of misconduct made against a prisoner there comes in a man who may have been once on a time private secretary to the Home Secretary, a man who is not a lawyer, who has no idea of the laws of evidence, who is not practised in jurisprudence at all; this man acts as the supreme judge; the prisoner is brought before him without an advocate; there is no jury; evidence is given by some warder, backed up, perhaps, by the governor, and on the strength of that evidence this man can sentence the unfortunate prisoner to flogging. The Prison Commissioners, at all events, admitted that it could be done. That is what is actually done in convict prisons. I say it is a most improper thing. These men ought not to be entrusted with a power which you do not trust unchecked to the judges of the Supreme Court. Having examined the cases of these men, and interviewed, I dare say, hundreds of them, I feel strongly that the system of administration in prisons is based on a wrong principle; that it loses sight of the human nature of the criminals; that it does not give them a chance. It is not a small Bill such as this that you want dealing with a number of petty details; you want a broad-minded, large-hearted Measure—a Measure which has regard to the humanity of the prisoner and to the hope which ought to be held out to him of amendment and rehabilitation.

MR. C. B. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Member who has just sat down spoke with that sympathetic impulsiveness which makes his utterances always command our attention. At the same time there are elements in his speeches which make him not the best qualified to form a judgment upon this matter. Let us see what it is that the hon. Member asks us to accept from him. It is that the English nation, which, in most things concerning philanthropy and humanity, has not shown itself at all backward, and in which public opinion probably has its way more swiftly than in any other nation, and is less deflected by sinister interests than in any civilised State in the world—the hon. Member tells us that in this country these elements of philanthropy have had such a feeble effect that our prison system is more inhuman than the prison system of any other civilised State.

MR. A. O'CONNOR

Excuse me; I believe, and I said, that the public in this country knows absolutely nothing about what goes on in prisons.

MR STUART-WORTLEY

In this country alone, among civilised States, so far as I know, provision is made for unofficial lay inspection of prisons. ["No, no!"] Is not that so? Are not our Visiting Committees not only unofficial lay inspectors, but also persons having the special experience necessary for that purpose? I admit that what I have said at present only amounts to à priori argument. I have simply ventured to put in the balance my experience which has driven me to exactly the opposite conclusion to that arrived at by the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that our prison system has the dire results described by the hon. Gentleman. I believe that if any such abuses exist as he has described public opinion would find them out and would be sufficiently powerful to stop them. One admission I will make. I cannot conceive any prison system at all in which you would not have some risk of abuse and of private ill-usage. That must be so in the nature of things, because the prisoner is, by the condition of things, necessarily segregated from the rest of his race. But I think the hon. Gentleman has assumed too much. Those who know much about the prison system—and, fortunately, we have many hon. Members in this House who know a great deal about it—know that the most careful provision is taken, and with considerable success, for letting in the light of skilled unofficial opinion upon prison administration. Not only is that the case, but this skilled unofficial opinion is just that kind of opinion which is least likely to take a prejudiced view in favour of the present system, because those who express that opinion are the representatives of the old local system who, it might be thought, might show some feeling of pique at being displaced. I think, Sir, it was necessary for me to say this because it is not just to the officers who have devoted their energies to the improvement of our present system that the hon. Gentleman's strictures should pass uncommented upon. Now let me pass to some observations made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bethnal Green. He says that this Bill fails because it proposes to subject debtors and other kinds of non-criminal prisoners to certain discipline. After all, what is the debtor, what is the anti-vaccinationist, what is the Salvationist, but a man who defies society? He is a man who wishes to be a martyr, and means must be devised to reduce him to submission. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, as long as the law is what it is, the law has to be carried out. If the law is unjust let it be repealed, but so long as it remains we have to bring the law-breaker to submission. You must not allow a man the advertisement of martyrdom; you must not allow a man to crown himself with the martyr's crown without enduring the martyr's pain. This Bill gives the Home Secretary the power constantly, from year to year, to bring up the prison system to the latest, the most improved, and most humane standard, and hon. Members are able, year by year, to criticise it and to bring pressure to bear upon the Executive without being met by the difficulty that legislation is necessary before reform can be introduced. I do not for one moment believe that the Prison Commissioners would wish to oppose the reforms proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite. It is said that the Visiting Committees are not representative—that they are only magistrates. We all know what the true value of that kind of contention is. It is meant for outside consumption, and will be estimated at its true value in this House. For my part, I do not believe that the Prison Commissioners would object to the visits of representatives of city councils and town councils, and so on. I do not believe the smallest public disadvantage would result from their so doing, and I do not think the Prison Commissioners would object. Sir, I believe this is a thoroughly good Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may have their reasons for opposing it, but if they are really sincere in the representations that they submit to this House they will support the Bill instead of opposing it.

MR. R. B. HALDANE (Haddington)

I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Donegal. He and I sat together on the Departmental Committee, over which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds presided, and I am not aware that the hon. Member dissented from our Report. I think he signed it. But certainly, although we insisted on great and sweeping reforms we did not go so far as the hon. Member has gone in his speech to-day. But if I must dissociate myself from what has been said by the hon. Member for East Donegal, I must equally dissociate myself from what has been said by the hon. Member who has just sat down. The right hon. Gentleman, referring to his Home Office experience, has spoken in a tone of optimism of our present system. He has referred to his long experience at the Home Office, in the course of which he must have had many opportunities of making himself acquainted with the system that we are discussing. But I would remind the hon. Gentleman that his experience terminated in the year 1892, and that since then there has been an elaborate inquiry by a Departmental Committee, and that Departmental Committee have, rightly or wrongly, published a series of recommendations. It puts its finger upon some very great defects in the present prison system. That Committee was not a Party Committee. It had associated with it men like the right hon. Gentleman opposite, of great experience as chairmen of quarter sessions and as magistrates, men of all shades of political opinion, and its Report was unanimously made. That Committee recommended some very sweeping changes.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

The mere fact that the Committee was appointed proves my case.

MR. HALDANE

The Committee was appointed in 1894, after the period of the right hon. Gentleman's experience, upon which he came to the conclusion that the prison system of that day was so good a system. The Committee made all these recommendations, and they were endorsed by the late Secretary of State, and further, they were taken up by the present Home Secretary, and have been taken up, I believe, with real zeal and real thoroughness of purpose by the present Chairman of the Prisons Committee. In that condition of things, I, for one, am wholly unable to associate myself with any view which regards our prison system, until recently at any rate, as a satisfactory system. And I go further and say that while I look upon this Bill as a satisfactory Bill, and shall certainly vote for its Second Reading, I am able to regard it only as the mere beginning of wisdom rather than the end. It is not a question of the powers you give to the Secretary of State, it is not a question of rules you lay down; it is a question of the thoroughness with which the reform is administered; and whether that can be carried out or not we can only judge after we have had some experience of the new rules and the machinery of the new Act. It is not so much legislation as the spirit in which the legislation is to be administered, that is the important thing. If you get the right men at the head you may make a bad system work well; if you get the wrong men, you may make the best system of little or no good. I have confidence in the men at the head of affairs at the present time. I am satisfied that they desire to do what is right, and if I approach this Bill in a spirit of some criticism it is not because I distrust their general purpose, but because I believe that there remains still a great deal to be done. The prison system in this country has gone through three stages. First of all, there was the period which may be said to have come to an end with the work of people like Miss Fry, and the great prison reformer Howard. At that time there were all sorts of abuses taking place in connection with our prisons; they were insanitary and improperly governed, and there were many things which were a great blot upon our system. A change was brought about, but I am not sure that in all respects the change was for good. One thing, at least, may be said: that there was in those days more individuality left to the prisoner than under the second stage. In the second stage, many abuses were reformed, but the system became so organised that the prisoner was reduced to the position of a mere number, and deprived of all individuality, and no inducement or incentive was offered for reform. Probably it may be argued, in defence of that second stage, that the abuses to be combatted were such that the establishment of a cast-iron uniformity of system was the only means of reforming the abuses. That system was stereotyped by the Act of 1857, and by the Act of 1865. Then there has come a third stage, the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman proposes in this Bill, and I think with absolute justice, to do away with the hard and fast machinery of the Prisons Act of 1865. It abolishes the schedule of rules under which all prisoners are treated alike, and gives us a set of rules under which, for the first time, a Secretary of State will have considerable lati tude and considerable freedom. Now, I regard that as a great improvement, and if the change is thoroughly carried out—and I say again that the important question is in what spirit the change will be carried out—all will be well. But, at the same time, I cannot help calling attention to the fact that, while the right hon. Gentleman has proposed certain great reforms, there are some things which he has left untouched by this Bill. I do not think that Clause 5 dealing with the limits of misdemeanour is at all satisfactory. Also, I think that the time has come when it is absolutely necessary that we should have some knowledge of what really goes on inside our prisons. I do not suppose that there is, after all, any absolute ill-treatment of prisoners, but with a great machinery of this description there is the inevitable tendency to get into a groove, and it is desirable that the public should be made acquainted with the exact facts. There are other defects in this Bill. In the first place, I notice—what has already been referred to—that the system of corporal punishment is preserved with the penalty, which is a very serious one, placed at the discretion of a single person who may be defective in training or knowledge of the criminal law; in other words, without any trial, without any opportunity of defence, a prisoner may be sentenced to a punishment which you mete out only under the most exceptional circumstances to the most hardened criminal tried before a judge and jury. That is a system which, under the present conditions, seems to me to be absolutely indefensible. Then, Sir, although I would not desire to pass any slight at all upon the Prison Commissioners, I do think it is desirable that we should have some outside inspection of our prison system—that there should be some way of bringing public attention to bear on what is the true condition of things, otherwise than through those who are necessarily, to some extent, both judges and advocates, the administrators of the system. Remember that your prison system is necessarily a secret system. You cannot, of course, have the public constantly visiting the prisons, and unless you have some means by which there can be inspection by some outside independent authority you are always liable to have abuses growing up. There is one other subject that struck me, as a member of the Departmental Committee, as being at the very root of the whole question of the future of our prisons, and that is, how we are to occupy the time of our prisoners. In my view a prison ought to be somewhat of a reformatory; it ought not to be a mere place of punishment. The reformatory element consists in this, more than in anything else: that you take such steps as are within your power to make the man who goes into a prison leave it a better man than when he went in. You can only do that by giving him a useful training and education; you can only do that, in the case of a grown-up man, by fitting him for a calling at which he may earn his livelihood and become a useful citizen after the period of his imprisonment has expired. For that purpose it is absolutely essential that you should extend very much the system of prison labour which you have at the present time. Our prisoners, particularly those committed for nine months, are deprived, in their earlier months at any rate, of any opportunity of pursuing their trades. I remember, on the occasion of a visit to one of our prisons, that one of the prisoners said to me: It is the imprisonment of the soul, not that of the body, which we feel. What chance has a man who is debarred from books, as a prisoner is in the earlier period of his imprisonment, who has but little facility for learning a trade—what chance is there of that man turning out a reformed and useful member of society when he is discharged from prison? I think the right hon. Gentleman will not have completed his work unless he goes much farther than this Bill proposes. I was once visiting Portland Prison, and I was talking to a man who was a lockmaker. I asked him, what were his feelings at Portland as contrasted with his feelings during his first nine months in the local prison. He said: It is a difference not less than a difference between Heaven and Hell; when I was in the local prison I had no occupation for my mind, I had nothing to do; but here I am learning to make locks, and when I go out I believe I shall be able to earn a livelihood. I do urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of a considerable extension of the system of prison labour. I repeat that I think this Bill is a most useful Bill, and I congratulate the Government on having brought it in. I trust that the defects I have pointed out will be remedied in Committee, and that in that process the Bill will be made even more useful. But in the main it is a good Bill, because it sets free the hands of the right hon. Gentleman to go further upon the course in which he and the Prison Commissioners have started, and which I hope they will pursue in the spirit which appears to animate the Bill. It is impossible for us to judge of these reforms until we have seen them in operation. I myself should be glad to see, two or three years hence, the appointment of a Committee to report upon the working of this system. I believe that, if the right hon. Gentleman carries out the powers which will be in his hands thoroughly and firmly this Bill will be a success. But if the only thing done is that certain rules are to be made, and things are to be allowed to go on in the old way, then I for one have no hope that any lasting benefit will be derived from this Bill.

SIR J. DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

I have been greatly surprised at the speech to which we have listened from the hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Donegal, a colleague of mine on the Departmental Committee. I was quite aware that he took a strong view of the conditions under which the prisoners lived, but I was not aware that, after all our inquiries, and after signing our Report, to which I do not remember his proposing any Amendment, he still held that our prison system is inhumane and cruel. I must say that the impression which I gathered from the inquiry of the Departmental Committee, and from personal visits to the prisons, was that the present system is a very satisfactory system on the whole. That it is capable of improvement, like all other human institutions, is without doubt. The amendment of our prison system commenced at the beginning of the century, when things were about as bad as they could be in our prisons, and I think they were worse in the Government prisons than they were in the local prisons. Then Howard came on the scene, and induced some of the local prisons to alter their system, and the position was enormously improved, Later on the Government took greater interest in the matter, and they set to work and forced the local authorities to bring their prisons up to the best possible type. That was about the year 1848, and the prisons that were built at that time have never been improved upon since that time. The very best prisons we have now are those built about that time, and those built more recently are upon the same lines. Not very long ago I had, by the favour of the Home Secretary, an introduction to the Belgian Minister, and I was able to investigate the Belgian prisons. I believe the Belgian system is supposed to be the best on the Continent. France is far behind; Italy, I think, has done a great deal; but the Belgian prisons are the best, and they are nearly identical with our own. Our model is their model. Their system and ours, as regards the form of structure, are identical. The hon. Member for East Donegal said that no system so severe as ours existed elsewhere. I think the Belgian system is far more severe. It is the system we first took up in this country, in the days subsequent to Howard and Miss Fry, known as the silent system. That system was found far too severe for our prisoners to stand, and it has been long since done away with in its most severe form in this country. In Belgium it is still retained, and solitary confinement is enforced up to ten years' of imprisonment. [Mr. A. O'CONNOR: Not absolutely, I think.] Yes, absolutely; and at the end of ten years the prisoners are allowed the option of changing their prison for one where association is allowed or remaining in solitary confinement. I am informed that many of these unfortunate prisoners actually prefer to continue in the solitary confinement to which they have been so long accustomed. Now, I want to say a few words with regard to the industrial aspect of imprisonment. Under the system of local imprisonment before 1877 great attention was paid to prison work, and many trades, in the best of the local prisons, were carried on. When the Government system came in the Government still retained the labour system in the larger prisons, but the smaller ones were not so well provided for. I think this is a subject which should encage the attention of the right hon. Gentlemen. Lately there has been a great improvement in this respect. Then, one of the main points upon which the Departmental Committee insisted was that association among prisoners should be allowed so far as was consistent with not introducing the evils arising from contamination. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke mentioned the want of individuality which arises from the present system, and expressed the view that the old practice was better. I would remind him that intolerable mischief arose under the old system; so great was the contamination arising from the intercourse of prisoners that it even tended to create a gaol population. We got rid of that by a new system of confinement—the separate system—and we now again desire to allow prisoners to associate more freely, trusting to discipline to prevent the evils of contamination. The point to reach, which can only be determined in practice, is the extent to which association can be permitted without bringing in its train the evils I have already alluded to. That was approved most strongly in our Report, and I think the Prison Commissioners are doing their best to carry that out. On the whole I think our prisons have derived considerable advantage from the Act of 1877, but our system is still much too mechanical, and this Bill is intended to remedy that defect. That is one reason why I support it, and thank the Government for introducing it. I cannot help thinking that when the Chief Commissioner of Prisons has his hands set free, as he will by this Bill, he will be able to make our prisons a much better model for all Europe than they are even at the present time.

MR. DILLON

The Departmental Committee investigated this matter from the outside; it will perhaps be of some advantage to this House to hear some criticisms from one who can speak with inside experience. I entirety agree with the hon. Member for East Donegal when he states his conviction, arrived at from his investigation as a member of the Departmental Committee, that the prison system of this country is the cruellest and most inhuman existing in any country in the world. That is my conviction also. Some years ago I believed, as many of the people in this country do believe, that the Russians treated their prisoners with great severity, and cruelly, compared with the British system; but I have arrived at the conviction long ago that the Russians are, in the treatment of their prisoners, a humane race in comparison with the people of this country. In the first place, capital punishment is almost unknown, and as to their prisoners sent to Siberia I say that, whatever may be the suffering on the journey, once the prisoners reach Siberia, they are infinitely better off than prisoners at Chatham, or Portland, or Dartmoor. One point to which I particularly desire to call attention is the question of the treatment of political prisoners. I notice with regret that in this Bill no attempt is made to deal with that question. I consider it one of the worst blots on the prison system of this country. If it be true, and I believe it is, that in a general sense you have a convict system which is the most inhuman in the whole of Europe, your treatment of political prisoners is unspeakably worse than that of any other civilised nation. What do you do in this country? Under that infamous Act which was passed for the purpose of getting certain well-known Irishmen into your power, in 1848, you treat political prisoners as on the same footing with the lowest criminals in the land. Within the last 40 or 50 years men who have been brought up accustomed to comparative comfort, men of high education, have been thrust into your convict prisons, and treated as on the same level with the commonest criminals, for what were unquestionably, and without; dispute, purely political offences. What is the nature of this treatment? It has been described as treatment which reduces the prisoners to the condition of mere brutes, and there can be no doubt that that is true. The criminal system of this country is not a system aiming at the reformation or improvement of the prisoner; it is a system which invariably degrades and de-humanises the prisoner. But if that be an infamous and indefensible system when applied to an ordinary criminal, a man without much education, one who has been so brought up that he would not suffer very keenly by the deprivation of any mental occupation, what is it when applied to a man of education, accustomed to reading and intellectual occupation? I say that human ingenuity never devised any more intolerable torture than that of locking up a man for 10 or 15 years, or even for one year, in a solitary cell, denying him the right to use his intellect and denying him the right of speech with his fellow creatures. If I speak with some warmth on this matter it is because I consider that those who have had actual experience of the system from the inside are better qualified than others to speak as to the suffering it involves. I am bound to say that during the greater part of my imprisonment I was, through the humanity of Irish doctors, allowed to read books and newspapers. But I had during that period spent a sufficient time under the conditions of an ordinary criminal, without the permission to read books or newspapers, or to enjoy any other occupation whatever during the whole livelong day, to enable me to understand the maddening character of such punishment. I say it is a system by which you brutalise men, if you do not drive them mad. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman opposite has appealed to his six years' experience at the Home Office as qualifying him to speak upon this question. I venture to say that if he had had six days' experience of solitary confinement he would be in a better position to speak of the sufferings of prisoners. He spoke as though prisoners were not human beings at all, but were like pigs, or animals with no minds. [No, no!] Yes. There, is not a single note in his speech which indicated that he regarded prisoners as within the pale of humanity. He rather seemed to regard them as a lot of stalled animals, towards whom our only duty was to see that body and soul were kept together.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

If the hon. Member is referring to me, I must ask him to quote my exact words, and not paraphrase them in a wholly unjustifiable way.

MR. DILLON

I was not quoting the right hon. Gentleman's words.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

No, you are very seriously misrepresenting them.

MR. DILLON

What I was complaining of was not so much what the right hon. Gentleman did say as of what he did not say. I was complaining that there is nothing in his speech to indicate that he had any sympathy with the prisoners.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

The hon. Member said that I spoke of the prisoners as if they were stalled beasts. I never said any such thing.

MR. DILLON

What I said was that the right hon. Gentleman spoke of them as if they were to be treated just as we treat stalled beasts. [Cries of "With-draw."] I decline to withdraw. I reiterate that the preliminary necessity in the case of any man who approaches this question in a truly sympathetic spirit is that he should take into account that you can torture a man more through his mind than through his body. My indictment of the prison system is this, that it is a system of daily and hourly torture; and it is only in the case of those unhappy creatures who from years of this torture are reduced to such a condition that they have practically no minds at all, that that torture is ever brought to an end.

It being Twelve of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.