§ Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of recent events, he could now give an assurance that immediate steps would be taken to secure that political prisoners in this country shall be subjected to a prison discipline different from and more liberal than that accorded to ordinary criminals?
§ Mr. GLADSTONENo legal definition of "political prisoner" has ever been attempted, and the hon. Member in his question gives no indication of what he means by the term "political prisoners." If he means that persons in quest of a political object who break windows, throw missiles into political meetings or crowded streets, and are guilty of disorderly and violent conduct are to be free from the ordinary consequences of the law, my answer is a distinct negative. The public has to be considered. Further, public officials have the same right to protection as private persons, though they may be policemen, prison officials, or even Cabinet Ministers.
§ Mr. DILLONI did not mean, when I said political prisoners, people who break windows or throw stones or resort to physical violence. What I wanted to know was whether, in the case of political prisoners who had acted on a clearly political motive, and who had not used violence, the right hon. Gentleman would secure that they were subjected to a more humane system of treatment than that accorded to the suffragettes who have not used violence?
§ Mr. GLADSTONEThe hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well it is a matter of extreme difficulty to make a distinction. It is a matter which has puzzled generations, and it is still puzzling me. Perhaps my hon. Friend can offer a solution.
§ Mr. DILLONI am glad to hear from my right hon. Friend that it is still puzzling him, because it affords some hope.
§ Mr. GLADSTONEThat is the very last thing I am prepared to do.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will accept the definition of the late Mr. William Ewart Gladstone?
§ Mr. GLADSTONEWhat was it?
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEI shall be most happy to send it to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he could state the number of, cases, distinguishing between males and females, for each year during the nine years 1900–9, in which forcible feeding has had to be resorted to in prisons under his charge on prisoners who were not certified to be insane?
§ Mr. GLADSTONEI ant collecting such particulars as can be got, and when I have obtained them I will communicate them to the hon. Member. They will take some days to collect, and cannot in any case be complete. I may mention the following three cases which have come under my notice: One was a Russian convict at Dartmoor, who refused food, saying that he had learnt the hunger strike In Russia. Another was a surety prisoner detained for a fortnight in Preston Prison, who threatened to starve himself, but gave way on being told that he would be artificially fed. A third was a convict in Parkhurst, who refused food, and was artificially fed for about a year. No harm whatever was done him by the process, and at the end of that time he resumed feeding in the ordinary way.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there was a separate tube for each of the prisoners in Winson Green Gaol who are being fed by force, or whether one tube sufficed for all; and what means were taken to ensure its being properly sterilised after it had been in use?
§ Mr. GLADSTONEThe medical officer follows the same course as is usual in hospitals and private practice. A new tube is not used in each case, but after use the tube is thoroughly cleansed by passing through it a continuous stream of water, and it is then kept in a solution of boracic acid and again thoroughly washed out before use.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEMay I ask whether, as these prisoners are fed in almost immediate succession, there is adequate time for the purifying process to be carried out, and whether in the interests of sanitation there should not be a separate tube for each person?
§ Mr. GLADSTONEI am advised there is really no distinction between a tube used on more than one person and a new tube. A new tube would have to be cleansed in exactly the same way.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he had now received any official report showing that Miss Laura Ainsworth, during her imprisonment in Winson Green Gaol, had her jaws prised open by an instrument and a gag inserted between her teeth whilst food was being administered by means of a tube passed down her throat; that during part of the time she was kept in irons by night and by day; and, if so, whether he is prepared to make any statement on the subject?
§ Mr. GLADSTONEYes, Sir. The medical officer reports that an instrument which is constantly used by dentists and anæsthetists, and which is made of steel, protected from the teeth by indiarubber, was used to open the mouth. Very little force was required. An ordinary wooden mouth-prop was used to keep the mouth open. As regards the last part of the question, immediately after her reception on the 22nd ultimo, Miss Laura Ainsworth broke her cell windows, and was placed in handcuffs to prevent her from doing further damage. The handcuffs were removed the following day, when her conduct became more orderly. Compulsory feeding did not begin in her case until two days after the handcuffs had been removed, and, as I have already stated, no handcuffs or irons were used at any time during the process of administering food.