§ £375,897, to complete the sum for Prisons, England and the Colonies.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)asked for some explanation of the increase of over £55,000 in this Vote. Seeing that the addition was so substantial he thought the Committee was entitled to hear from the Minister in charge why it was necessary to ask for that increased sum.
Mr. CHARLES HOBEHOUSE (Bristol, E.)wished to know whether, in consequence of the lamented death of Colonel Garsia, any, and if so what, alterations had taken place in the manner of the appointment and control of the Director of Military Prisons. This official was essentially an army man, and he had control of men sent temporarily from the Army generally for some purely military offence. He would like to hear whether that office was to be entirely dissociated from the Home Office and handed over to the War Office, or whether the unfortunate system of dual control was to be continued.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)wished to raise a question as to the arrangements recently made by the Prison Commissioners for carrying out executions—and especially of women, in a great prison in the North of London which was originally intended to be used only as a house of detention. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would be a ble to make an announcement that no executions would be carried out in the prison at Holloway in the future. That prison was situated in a very respectable locality, and the value 1447 of property had been greatly reduced by reason of executions taking place within its walls, and if the right hon. Gentleman could give the pledge he had suggested it would be gratefully received in the North of London, and would afford much satisfaction to many supporters of the Government as well as to himself.
§ MR. JOHN HUTTON (Yorkshire, Richmond)asked the Home Secretary whether his attention had been called to the very large increase, in Yorkshire at all events, in the number of committals to prison for vagrancy and in the punishments far idleness in the prison itself. In the year ended the 31st March, 1901 the committals in the North Riding numbered 1006; in 1902 they were 1223, and in 1903 they had risen to 1521. The figures regarding committals for vagrancy in these three years were respectively 190, 306, and 547—a marked and rapid increase. In the same years the punishments for idleness were respectively 52, 57 and 617. This great increase occurred exactly at the time that the nature of the punishments in prisons had been mitigated, and he was afraid the reason for it was to be found in the fact that vagrants now regarded the prison as so much more comfortable than the casual ward. He would like to know whether this increase of committals was common all over the country or was confined to the North of England. Prisons were now so much more comfortable than casual wards that vagrants endeavoured to get convicted in order that they might be sent to prison. As a matter of fact, the dietary in the casual wards in the North Riding was considerably less than in the prisons; and whereas four pounds of oakum had to be picked in the casual wards only two pounds had to be picked in the prisons. The tread-mill and the plank bed had been abolished and the dietary had been increased. The removal of those restrictions and punishments had undoubtedly had an effect on vagrants, who deliberately committed offences in order that they might be sent to prison. Surely, that ought not to be. Surely, the prison ought not to be made so much more comfortable than the workhouse. He did not think that they could expect .guardians to raise the comfort of the 1448 casual wards in order to compete with the prisons. Vagrants should not be dealt with by the poor-law at all, but by the State. They were a class of people who went about threatening poor people in country villages and wayside houses. They were dealt with very severely in every other country, and he thought the time had come when the House should take some steps to compel them to work, or, at all events, to prevent them going about the country causing annoyance and injury to its peaceable inhabitants.
He wished to direct the attention of the Home Secretary to the punishments for idleness in prisons; and he maintained that, in doing away with the plank bed and flogging, a very great injury had been done to prison discipline. The abolition of flogging took away from the justices the great power they possessed of maintaining discipline in prisons. He had been Chairman of a Visiting Committee for many years, and the very fact that they were empowered to inflict the cat enabled them to maintain discipline among a class of men who were frightened by nothing but the prospect of being flogged. For the class of vagrants to which he referred, and who might be committed to prison for seven or fourteen days, there was now nothing in the way of punishment. They knew they could not be flogged, and that their diet could not be well diminished; and when brought before the magistrates again they only got another seven days. He thought the time had come for the Home Secretary to seriously consider whether, in the interests of prison discipline, it would not be better to restore such disagreeable attributes of prison life as the plank bed and the cat.
Then as to short sentences, he had been opposed to them almost all his life. They were neither restrictive nor reformatory. If a professional criminal were committed for seven days he cared nothing about it. He enjoyed the rest and the warmth. If a first offender were committed he came out with the tar brush of the prison upon him. He ventured to suggest that it would be in the interest of the State if short sentences under twenty-eight days were entirely done away with. If a man did not deserve imprisonment for twenty- 1449 eight days, it would only do harm to himself and cause expense to send him to prison at all. It would be much better to let him off altogether. He hoped the Home Secretary would be good enough to consider that very important matter.
Then as to the position of prison officers, they were probably the most worthy class of officials employed by the State. Those men felt that the terms of their engagement were not entirely satisfactory. They had very difficult and responsible employment, but they could not get full pensions until after forty years' service, whereas policemen and other officials obtained a pension after twenty-five years' service. The late Home Secretary said that he hoped to improve the position of the warders, and that he would consider whether or not an improvement could be effected in their rates of pay which would enable them to receive increased pensions. He should like to ask his right hon. friend whether he was prepared to consider the proposal of his predecessor. He knew his right hon. friend had only been a short time at the Home Office, and that it was impossible for him to be acquainted with all the details; but he hoped his right hon. friend would give his most careful consideration to the points he had mentioned.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,) Ayrshire, N.said that the increased estimate was partly due to the fact that the prison population had increased during the year, but it was mainly due to the improved dietary which the House had sanctioned. The local authorities had been unable to assign any reason why there had been an increase in the prison population, but, sad to state, there had been, during the last three years, a steady growth in prison population.
§ MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)asked if that applied to Ireland.
§ MR. COCHRANEsaid he was not alluding to Ireland, and he was glad to know that the prison population was declining in that country. They had taken every possible means to find out what the 1450 reason for the increase was, but they had been unable to fix on any particular cause. It was put down to the extension of borough limits, the activity of the police, and to the by-laws, which imposed penalties being carried out with greater activity, and to the greater competition which drove men out of employment. They must always expect fluctuations in their prison population, but while there had been an increase in that population, there had been no increase in serious crime, which was, on the contrary, steadily decreasing. In 1880, the number of persons committed at assizes and quarter sessions was thirty-seven per 100,000 of the population. In 1902, the proportion was only twenty-three per 100,000.
Further, a good many more persons had been committed in default of paying fines. He had heard of instances where the person fined arrived at the prison with sufficient in his pocket to pay, but preferred not to pay. It was curious, and he did not profess to be able to explain it. His hon. friend alluded to the number of cases of misbehaviour in prisons, and also the number of paupers sent from workhouses to prisons. That might be due to some ex, tent to the fact that the conditions of prisons had been rendered, by the consent and full cognisance of the House less harsh than they had been in the past. As to the difference between prison dietary and the dietary in casual wards, it was a mere matter of a few ounces of bread. He agreed with his hon. friend that prisons were not the most appropriate places for vagrants, and it was quite conceivable that some better method might be found of dealing with such short-sentence prisoners. Being imprisoned for a short time did not act as a deterrent. He was glad to be able to inform his hon. friend that the offences committed in prisons in his hon. friend's district were in excess of the average number for the country. Offences in prisons had not increased in the ratio mentioned by his hon. friend. During the period from 1895 to 1898, the average number of offences committed in prisons was 147 per 1,000 of prison population, whereas the prison offences committed in 1889 1451 averaged only 132 per 1,000. He thought, therefore, that there must be exceptional circumstances connected with the prisons in his hon. friend's district to account for the great increase which had taken place there.
His hon. friend pointed out that more oakum had to be picked in a casual ward than in a prison. He thought his hon. friend was under a slight misapprehension. No doubt a certain number of pounds had to be picked in a workhouse, but it depended whether the task was enforced or not. He believed it was not always enforced. In addition, mechanical means were allowed in workhouses but were not allowed in prisons. As to the pensions of warders, one was always inclined to think one's own children the most deserving, and he thought that the warders had a great call on their sympathy; but over them all was the Treasury, who stood in loco parentis to the children of all the Departments. If they succeeded in obtaining increased pay for the warders undoubtedly a claim would he put in on behalf of men engaged by some other Department, who might be equally deserving. Therefore, much as he admired the loyal and earnest manner in which the warders carried out their duties, he could not, with the eyes of the Treasury upon him, give any undertaking.
With reference to executions at Holloway, the execution of females was now a very rare occurrence, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would believe that his right hon. friend the Home Secretary was paying attention to the matter. As regarded military prisons he was sure they all deplored the loss of Colonel Garsia, who did so much for military prisons. Under his guiding hand military prisons, which had been so injurious to the prestige and morale of the Army, had been so reorganised that soldiers were now able to return to the ranks untarnished in reputation by not having to associate with ordinary criminals.
§ MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid as to executions at Holloway he was sorry he could not give a definite answer yet. He fully understood the strong feeling which existed in Holloway on the point, but he could not undertake to say that executions should not take place at that prison. He would say, however, that unless they found means by which the 1452 death sentence could be carried out in such a manner as to be absolutely unobservable from anywhere around, executions would not be carried out there. The only other alternative would be to transfer the executions to Pentonville, which would necessitate the creation of a female staff in that prison, which would be very undesirable. He was sorry he could not say at that moment that no further executions would be carried out at Holloway, as he was still considering the matter. He would certainly give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that they would not be carried out, there, except under proper conditions.
And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Resolution to be reported upon Tuesday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.