HC Deb 20 July 1910 vol 19 cc1326-57

"That a sum, not exceeding £2,445,604, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III. of the Estimates for Civil Services."

[For Services included in this Class, see 19th July, 1910, col. 1191–1192.]

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."


I presume that this Vote includes the expenditure on prisons. If that is so, I am sure the House will be glad to have either from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill), who is absent from the Front Bench, or from the Under-Secretary (Mr. Masterman) some information as to the effect of the immense changes which have been made, I might say, in the course of the existence of the present Administration in the mode and temper with which prisoners are dealt with. There has been a series of Acts of Parliament and administrative acts in very recent times which have transformed the attitude of the Government towards the offender. Formerly there were clumsy Acts to, distinguish between the treatment of the first offender or the very juvenile offender and the treatment of the habitual criminal; but by reason of the Act which has operated providing for the probation of offenders and by reason of the legislation which has brought what is called the Borstal system into effective operation for the humane and civilised treatment of persons who may become criminals, very great changes have been made in those two matters in particular. By the treatment of probation offenders and the remitting of persons who have fallen casually very often into a criminal practice, to the care of those who establish a special institution which is not a prison and which has not the vice of the old reformatory, a course of action has been opened up which those who have experience of dealing with criminal law entertain great and lively hopes may result in very greatly diminishing the criminal population in this country. I do not propose to make a speech on this subject. I dare say either the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary will be able to tell the House shortly what are the practical results, so far as they come under the observation of the Home Office, of the provision which has been made for putting offenders, especially juvenile offenders, under probation instead of sending them, to prison at all; and what are the practical results of the operation of the Borstal system since it came into operation under the recent Act of Parliament, whereby, instead of a sentence of imprisonment, it is, optional to a bench, or, at any rate, to a, court of record, if not to the justices, to provide for the detention of prisoners between sixteen and nineteen years of age for a term of three years—I think that is the maximum term—but upon such conditions that as soon as the remedial operations which the Borstal system is intended to bring into effect have a beneficial result in the case of the individual, he may be set at large, and he may go into society and take up any work practically without any stigma upon his character, and with the great advantage behind him of having had a practical training. If the Under-Secretary is able to give the House some information as to the practical effect upon the bulk of crime in this country of those two pieces of legislation, and is able to tell us whether the Home Office has in view any possibility of extending the system by providing for a class of sentence intermediate between the probation for the probationer and the Borstal system, which provides for detention in an institution, something which would permit of the supervision of the individual under discipline without even the degree of stigma which attaches to the Borstal system, I think there are many Members of the House who would be very glad indeed to have a statement on that subject.


It may be a convenience to Members if I say that my right hon. Friend is very anxious to make a full statement on these facts. He thinks the opportunity ought to be given for criticism so that he will be able to reply. He will be here in a moment and if the criticisms are made first then he will make a statement.


I raised the question really because I had gathered that the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary were in a position to deal with this matter. It is a matter of very great practical concern in the administration of justice. It deals with the most humane arrangement that has ever been made in this country, or I think in any other country, for the treatment of young offenders. For that reason we are all anxious to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.


I am very glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his wide knowledge and experience of offenders against the law, has drawn attention to this particular side of our prison administration. I wish we had more of the Borstal, more of the probation, and more of the humane treatment of prisoners in our system. I am afraid we have a long way to travel before we attain the result which the hon. and learned Member and myself would desire to see. I received a letter this morning which interested me so much that I think I shall venture to read it to the House. It conies from a gentleman in my Constituency who is a visiting justice. He says:— On visiting Strangeways Prison to-day in my capacity as visiting justice, I found a boy in a cell in prison clothing. His name is Albert Haseldine, and his age is fifteen years. He was found sleeping in a closet in Harrop Street, Openshaw, at I a.m. on Tuesday morning by a police-constable. He was taken into custody and brought before the Manchester City Court later the same morning and committed On remand to prison for a week! A short time before he had been placed under probation for a period of six months on a charge of 'picking rags,' as he put it. The boy, up to a short time ago, had earned 12s. per week in a coal pit belonging to the Bradford Colliery Company, but lost his situation because he could not find the money with which to pay for a broken lamp. He had assisted to support, his mother, and they had lived together in lodgings, but when their money was done, they had to leave, and they were for a week permitted by his aunt to enter her house after her husband had gone to work at night. He and his mother slept on the sofa, but were compelled to leave the house early each morning before the husband returned from his work. The man's work having changed to the day from night, the boy's aunt could shield them no longer. On Sunday night, July 10th, the mother found shelter with a relative at Eccles. and the boy slept in the closet in Harrop Street. He was doing the same on the following night when apprehended. I would like to ask the House is this boy a criminal in the sense in which the public understand the term? Is it very wicked, for example, to pick rags or to find shelter in an unoccupied spot when a boy has no other place in which to seek it? This boy had been keeping his mother, or helping to keep her, and now he is in prison, in prison clothes, in a separate cell. It does appear to me that he is in prison for his poverty, and I cannot get over the feeling, which, I am sure, must be shared by every Member of this House, that an injustice has been committed. We have now, and we have had for many years, a very enlightened Home Secretary. I speak not only of the present occupant of the office, but also of his predecessor, with whom I was associated often, in conversations, at any rate, on the subject of prison reform. Yet these things occur, and I am afraid they occur pretty often. The fact is our prison system is wrong. In my judgment it is often stupid and it is far too inelastic. I believe my right hon. Friend, since he came to the Home Office, is engaged in considering several reforms in prison administration and prison treatment, and I am very anxious to hear the speech he will shortly make to the House, and very anxious to support him in every effort which he makes to ameliorate the condition of our prisons.

I hope that the old feeling of a desire to be revenged upon those who have offended against society is fast disappearing. In my judgment the broad principle of our punishment should be reclamation. Not only in regard to boys, but in regard to men, and even old criminals, we should aim as far as possible, and wherever possible, at reclamation. I believe the present system is making men worse. My friend Prince Krapotkin, who has a good deal of experience of prisons, regards them as universities of crime. A man having served a long term in gaol comes out, and what can he do? He cannot find work, because of his history. What is more easy, and what is more natural, than that he should fall back amongst his old associates and become a confirmed criminal? If that be so, he has joined the ranks of criminals, and openly sets himself to be an enemy of society. This does show that we, by our system, confirm these men in their criminal courses. We make them confirmed criminals, and we establish a permanent criminal class. Our object should be always, as it is ostensibly, to eradicate crime. After all, there is not very much difference between a man who steps over into crime and the man who has not yet committed a crime, or, perhaps I should say, who has not yet been found out. We have been told by an eminent poet that there is good in the worst of us, and bad in the best of us, and I think probably all know that. We are told sometimes that the police divide society into convicted and unconvicted. There is not so very much difference, after all, between the men who are pursuing a virtuous life and the men who occasionally slip into crime. We should always realise that it is possible to bring them back again into the straight course. Beyond that there is an immense difference between men in prison—undergoing punishment, perhaps, for similar offences. Some of these men are quite reclaimable, some of them quite near to the path of virtue, and therefore the more amenable to kindliness and human sympathy. I am glad to know that this principle of reclamation in the prisons is being more and more tried by our prison authorities, not only under the Borstal system, but under the Probation system, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, and I believe also under the Act we passed two years ago for the prevention of crime. I believe it is still more pursued by authorities in other countries—in the United States, or in some of the States at all events, in Holland, and in Belgium. There they have a parole system by which they let out men in accordance with their behaviour in prison, and they try in that way to shorten. their sentence and get the men back to civil life.

Then we have a large class of prisoners of whom we are often reminded, and shall be again to-night, I have no doubt, by students of criminology—those who are degenerate, abnormally weak-minded, and who cannot get away from crime. I ask, first of all, if that be so, and if they are irreclaimable, if they are abnormally weak-minded, what is the use of prolonging their punishment? It cannot make them any better keeping them a long time in Dartmoor or some other prison. It cannot do us or them any good at all. Secondly, what is the use of letting them loose after they have served their full term, and put them back on society only to begin again their criminal course? Neither of these is a sensible method of treatment. We should rather, I think, treat the disease, and segregate these men. A friend of mine who has studied this question, Dr. Albert Wilson, in his book on "Education, Personality, and Crime," says:— I venture to say that the mental cripple has no more power to go straight than the paralized child, who cannot raise a foot or an arm. Nor can the moral invalid be upbraided for his degraded position any more than the patient with locomotor ataxia for tumbling down in a crowded street. In another passage he says:— A crime is like an abnormal growth, a species of moral cancer. While using the most vigorous measures to destroy it, the criminal should not be discharged uncured At present, nearly all cures are effected by religious bodies. I agree with that view of the manner in which an enlightened nation ought to treat the criminal population. I hope that the Home Secretary will say something in his speech about the practice still continued of flogging in prison. I recognise the degradation. I think we ought always to recognise the manhood of men, and not to destroy, as we must destroy by flogging, but to inculcate upon them self-respect. I cannot but believe that these floggings, which are said to be necessary because of the insubordination of the criminal, are the result often of unjust and harsh treatment. There are many warders with kind hearts and humanitarian instincts. These qualities ought always to be considered in making appointments. No doubt warders find their task often most difficult and are very often provoked. For that very reason all men are not suitable for these duties. I have often wondered when I have read of an escape from Dartmoor or elsewhere what had brought that about, what had induced the man to run the terrible risk which he must incur of escaping from a convict prison; what had been going on before; to what harshness and oppression had he been subject? I do not know, but I suspect ill-treatment has been the cause of his insubordination. I ask generally for more discrimination and more sympathy in our methods of dealing with criminals. I firmly believe, and am confident, as the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded with such energy and capacity to the high office which he now holds, that I do not ask in vain.


I desire to thank the Government for giving us this opportunity to discuss the Prison Votes, and also to thank the right hon. Gentleman for making an important statement to-night. Before that is done, I desire to make a few observations and criticisms. The first topic to which I wish to refer is the treatment of women prisoners. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman himself quite recently that the fact that women are not represented does not in any way place them at a disadvantage in this House. I think that the case of the prisons is a very strong and very signal example to the contrary. The executive government of prisons is vested in a board which is composed entirely of men—four men—yet it cannot be said unfortunately that women are a negligible factor in our prison population. About 50,000 women and girls pass through our prisons every year. Supposing things were turned about, and that instead of having a Prisons Board composed entirely of men that that Board were composed entirely of women then the absurdity and injustice of it would be at once apparent. It is only custom and prejudice of the past which makes the system tolerable of excluding women altogether from the executive government of prisons. It would be very easy to show that this is not a sentimental grievance, and that the fact that the controlling administration of our prisons is composed exclusively of one sex does in practice result in the unequal treatment of the other. I should like to give one or two illustrations of that. In respect now of prison industries, prison industries for women and girls are not organised at all. Women and girls in this respect are at a very great disadvantage as compared with men. There is not one of the occupations in which women are employed in prisons which is of the slightest use to them for educational purposes, or by the exercise of which they can make a livelihood when they emerge from prison.

My hon. Friend (Mr. Byles) made mention of another fact which I attribute very largely to the absence of women from the directorate of prisons, and that is that prison treatment is even less reformative in the case of women than in the case of men. I believe that is, to some extent at all events, due to the fact that we have no women on the directorate. That is not so in the United States, for instance. Women are on the directorate of prisons in various States of the United States. There is a woman on the Board of Prison Commissioners in the State of New York and two women on the Board of the Prison Commissioners in the State of Massachusetts. I should like also to call attention to the treatment of untried prisoners. Prisoners in this country under our assize system are kept in gaol for long periods. I find that in 1908 there were 126 persons who were kept in prison awaiting trial upwards of sixteen weeks. That is bad enough, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might very well make with advantage another communication to justices, reminding them of their large powers to grant bail, and urging them that there are many cases in which they might grant bail where they do not grant bail now. However, all that concerns my purpose now is the treatment of those untried prisoners, and, after some knowledge both of our own prisons and of the prisons of other countries, I do not hesitate to say that the treatment of untried prisoners in this country is harsher than the treatment of untried prisoners in any other civilised country that I know. That is a very discreditable fact.

I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not reasonable that a man who was kept for trial perhaps for sixteen weeks, and who may be acquitted when the trial comes on, that that man should be confined to his cell for twenty-two hours out of every twenty-four. I say that that is not treating untried men fairly. I would suggest to him also that there are other respects in which the treatment of untried prisoners should be ameliorated, as, for instance, with regard to the size and appointments of their cells, their opportunities for exercise, and their opportunities for intercourse. The reference to cells leads me to make the further observation that many of the cells—and I am speaking now not specially with regard to untried prisoners' cells—many of them are small and dark, and incapable of being properly ventilated. I do not think that that is denied in the Home Office It was not denied by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, but he said that financial considerations stood in the way of improving the cells, or of constructing new ones. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that financial consideration ought not to be the main consideration in this matter, and if it is admitted that those cells are not in many respects su[...]table, then immediate steps ought to be taken to improve them. Another matter to which I wish to direct attention is the varying degree in which probation orders are made by different courts of similar jurisdiction. If the right hon. Gentleman will look through the Returns, he will see that there is the greatest disparity in the number of probation orders which are made. That disparity is particularly striking in neighbouring jurisdictions, with presumably or certainly populations in all material respects similar, and yet you find that on one side of the border the magistrates use the probation system freely, whilst on the other side of the border they scarcely give committed persons the benefit of the probationary system at all.

With regard to the staff, the taking over of the prisons by the State in the 'seventies had one unfortunate result, namely, the militarisation of the staff. Far too many military and naval officers were made governors of prisons. It is said that it is desirable to have these men because they are accustomed to control. But I think very different considerations ought to govern the appointment of a governor of a prison from those which one would naturally take into account in appointing the commander of a regiment. Surely a military man, so far as he is a military man, is not the best fitted to he the governor of a prison. With regard to warders, it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that everything in the good and humane management of a prison depends upon them. The power of the warders in a prison is almost appalling. It is extremely desirable that a good class of man should be brought into the service, but I submit that at present the wages are not sufficient to secure that object, nor are the conditions of the service altogether such as are calculated to achieve that purpose. In very many cases the warders work far too long hours. Another matter to which I wish to call attention is the treatment of persons committed to prison who, though they do not come within the legal definition of "lunatic," are certainly mentally affected. They are, one might say, on the borderland of insanity. There is a very large number of these persons—much larger perhaps than the general public, unless they look into the matter, might think—not certifiable for any mental disease, but certainly not altogether of sound mind. It is stated that 3 per cent. of the total receptions into prisons belong to this class, or 6,000 in all. I know the prison at Parkhurst is appropriated to these persons, but it seems to me that prison is not the place for them; or, at all events, if they are nominally in prison, they ought to be treated not as criminals so much as persons whose minds are diseased, and they ought to have medical far more than correctional treatment.

I should like to recognise that within, say, the last ten years there has been a great improvement in the humane management of prisons. It must be, I suppose, twenty years ago that I drew the attention of this House to the fact, which had come to my knowledge by accident, that a prisoner in an English gaol was not allowed to retain a photograph of wife or child or any other memento of home. I cannot imagine anything more impolitic. Anything which appeals to the best feelings of our nature ought to be encouraged in prisons. Love of mother, wife, or child, and those gracious affections which surround the home, are good influences which will effect more than all your disciplinary punishments or an army of gaolers and Commissioners. I am glad to know that since I made that appeal a change has been made, and that some classes of prisoners, at all events, are allowed to retain those mementoes to which I have referred.


I am glad to be informed that the Home Secretary intends to give some attention to prison reform. I am sure that when he brings his great ability to bear upon the question we shall have some change for the better. He will discover that our prison system, whilst it punishes, quite fails to reclaim, and any system which does that stands self-condemned. I think the prison authorities ought to welcome every agency which is likely to redeem prisoners and help them to get back to a better life. On this point I should like to call attention to the question of Nonconformist chaplains in prison. Nonconformists who get to prison are left almost entirely without any spiritual advice, except such as they are pleased to take from the chaplains of the Church of England. I live in a borough where there are two prisons. Last year, before I was elected to this House, I had the honour of being president of the Islington Free Church Council, and it was laid upon my heart to do something for the Nonconformist prisoners who might be in one of our gaols. I was appointed by the Free Church Council to be Nonconformist chaplain to the prison for women in the Borough of Islington. I had some little difficulty in getting the Home Office or the Prison Commissioners to give me the right of entry to the prison whenever it suited my convenience to talk with such Nonconformist prisoners as might be there. At length permission was fully given, and for six months I acted as voluntary chaplain. No pay was attached to the post, and personally I would not have accepted any. I spent a great part of those six months in periodically visiting the women in Holloway Gaol. I found, as all men will find if they follow the prison records, that there were very few Nonconformists in the prison; but any man who has experience must know that in 700 or 800 women there must be more than ten or twelve Nonconformists. In the nature of things it will be so. But the classification religiously is far from satisfactory. I believe it is the fact that the Church of England is credited with all those prisoners who do not declare themselves to be of any particular denomination. If a proper system of classification were practised it would be discovered, I think, that many of them were Nonconformists.

I would suggest the desirability of appointing a Nonconformist chaplain to each of our prisons. I do not mean a voluntary chaplain. I know I shall be told that the Wesleyans have a minister visiting probably every prison in England, but there are other Nonconformists than Wesleyans. My suggestion would be that a Nonconformist chaplain should be attached to every prison, that he should have the right to visit prisoners at his convenience, and that his services should be recognised by the State and paid for as those of Church of England clergymen are paid for. In many cases it has been found that a Nonconformist working among Nonconformists in prison would be of very considerable service in helping many of these people to get back to a better life. Let me give one illustration from my experience of Holloway Gaol. I found there a woman of probably twenty-five years of age, sentenced to two months' imprisonment. She was a first offender. When I applied to see her papers I found described there that she had stolen goods valued at one farthing. Yet for this she was sentenced to two months' imprisonment. On the face of it it struck me as being cruel beyond description. I at once wrote to the Home Office, and they allowed one month off the sentence. I think it all ought to have been taken off. She, being a Nonconformist, probably had not made known to the chaplain what she was in trouble about. Acting as a Nonconformist chaplain, I, in conversation with her, got these facts from her, and was able to get a remission of one month off her sentence.

I very respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the wisdom of considering the question of the appointment of Nonconformist chaplains. They would help some of these people back to sobriety; perhaps in many cases back to honesty. But their appointment should not be a voluntary one. They should be paid for their services, as the clergymen of the Church of England are; not perhaps so high a stipend, because for a while, at any rate, the work which they would have to do would not be so heavy as that of the Church of England chaplains. I wish again to express my sincere gratitude that the right hon. Gentleman is going to give some special attention to our prison system. It needs very careful attention and great alteration, for, as I said at the beginning, a system which punishes and does not reclaim stands self-condemned.

Sir J. D. REES

If the House will be so kindly indulgent as to give me only five minutes again, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. I confess, however, having heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Byles) I cannot go on without making the strongest protest that is permitted to me against his assumption that because prisoners escape from gaol that therefore they are ill-treated in gaol. The hon. Gentleman said he could not understand why they should escape unless they are ill-treated. Has he never heard of the sporting instinct or of boredom? I should like to give him an experience of my own when on one occasion I visited the Andaman Islands. A couple of prisoners were employed as gardeners on the gardens around the houses. I was sitting on the verandah watching the scene before me, when one man dropped his bucket. He asked his neighbour to pick it up, and when the man stooped down to pick up the bucket the first dealt him a fatal blow on the head. "You will be hanged for that" the man was told. His reply was, "I want a change." Yet the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford cannot bring himself to imagine that any convict could want to escape except he is ill-treated by a warder. I protest against any such way of looking at the matter, which is most unjust to a most honourable, sympathetic, and kindly class of public servants. Then the hon. Gentleman spoke about flogging as being derogatory to the manhood of the man flogged. Where is the manhood of the man who persecutes and terrorises women and children? However, I do not want to be led off by the hon. Member for Salford's speech. Again, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green deprecated the employment of military and naval men as warders in gaols. He seems to think there is something necessarily severe in their method of treatment. I protest, Sir, as one brought frequently of old into contact with the naval and military officers of this country that they are probably more humane than any other class, because they have had greater experience in the control of men. My hon. Friend seems to think that severity distinguishes subalterns, that cruelty is characteristic of captains, and that ferocity culminates in field-marshals. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whom I first knew as a gallant subaltern in a Cavalry regiment, will correct this grievous misapprehension.

To come to my point, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is there any such—I do not use the word in a bad sense—creature, person, acknowledged by the law of England as a "political prisoner"? I have asked that question several times. I believe in the mouths of those who use this expression, "political prisoner," it means an offender with whom the person using that expression is in sympathy; a man or woman who has committed an offence which the person who uses the word would like to commit himself. I would submit, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this is not a satisfactory legal definition, however accurate it may be—and I believe it to be accurate. For instance, where the right hon. Gentleman has to deal with an offender who has not brokenthe law like thievesfrom hunger, or like those who commit manslaughter from jealousy, but where out of mere wantonness and in order to express his or her views upon political matters an offender of this class wantonly breaks the law, I want to know if there is any justification in the law of this country for describing such a person as a "political prisoner," so entitling him or her to a more lenient application of the law? So far as I understand, speaking as an amateur, I believe that the punishment that can be awarded to any class of offenders is entirely in the discretion of the judge, or the magistrates concerned. My right hon. Friend has nothing to say to that. Therefore he has no power to classify offences as political or otherwise. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, referred to legislation in India. I agree with him that the legislation of India might be an admirable exemplar to the legislation of this country in many respects. Where there we have political offenders it is because prisoners are dealt with under what is admittedly a political statute, and not in accordance with the ordinary procedure of the law. In this country, where we have no law to justify deportation, nothing so far as I know, can justify any person being described as a political offender. I should be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he will explain if these is any justification for the attitude so frequently taken in this matter by hon. Members in this House, and without, so far as I know, the slightest shadow of justification.


I would ask the Home Secretary to consider the case of a class of men who are of great value and very deserving. I refer to the warders in criminal lunatic asylums. All the duties of warders are of a monotonous kind. But I think that those of the warders in criminal lunatic asylums are the most monotonous. There is also a certain amount of danger attached. There are many temptations to violence on the part of the patients, and a good deal of good temper is required from the warders, and not only good temper, but the very best of temper. They have long hours, too, and these are not conducive to continuous good temper. They perform their duties well, as we all desire that they should. Complaints, however, have reached me to the effect that the hours are too long and in respect to other matters. Although I feel quite sure that this matter has not escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, I venture to put in a word for these men and hope that an opportunity may be afforded for considering their case. In any case where the hours appear too long the right hon. Gentleman might exercise that authority that he has to make their duties as bearable as possible.


I should like to direct the particular attention of the Home Secretary to a matter which might be of advantage to all concerned. It is as to whether it would not he possible to use the period of confinement of chronic drunkards with a view to effecting their cure. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there are various expedients and so-called cures, some of which have been proved to have no foundation, others which have been applied with some success. I was speaking a short time ago to the chief constable of one of the northern towns. and he told me he started with a very great bias against all and sundry of the so-called cures, but that in recent years he had reason to change his mind. He told me that he had in his own house a certain visitor who had become a victim of the drink habit, and a particular cure by the victim's own consent had been tried with success. At first this young man was so bad that when he could not have the whisky bottle he got up in the middle of the night, broke open cupboard doors mid searched for it, and ultimately, when unable to get spirits in the house, he went out and bought them and hid them behind pictures and so on, so that they might be at hand. He consented, however, to submit to the cure, and the chief constable told me that in that particular case it was attended with remarkable results. He knew that the young man for two or three years could never go within smell or sight of spirits without experiencing a feeling of sickness. I suggested to the chief constable it would be a very good thing if the prison authorities could have the authority granted to them of trying experiments of that kind upon chronic drunkards in their confinement, and I ask the Hone Secretary to give his careful attention to it with the view of doing something to reform these men, whom so many of us would like to help, seeing that they are their own worst enemies.


I listened with much regret to what I understand to be the attitude of opposition towards political prisoners being treated with less severity than ordinary prisoners, taken up by the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs.

Sir J. D. REES

I asked if there was such a thing as a political prisoner.

9.0 P.M.


I think the hon. Member will not dispute that what I have said is a fair inference to draw from his remarks, but I trust we shall not go back upon the position taken up by the present Home Secretary in regard to political prisoners. We do not seek for a close definition as to what constitutes a political prisoner. We should rather be actuated by motives of humanity and common sense. If the hon. Gentleman needs a definition of a political prisoner, I cannot myself at the moment think of any better definition than the one given by the Home Secretary on the floor of this House in reply to a question a few weeks ago, and which seemed to meet with the entire approbation of Members of this House.

I am sure when we learned that the Home Secretary was to make an important statement upon prison reform many of us remembered the impassioned and eloquent speech which was made by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in connection with the Debate that arose on the Parnell Commission. Addressing the Home Secretary the hon. Member said he could do nothing greater to mark his accession to the Home Office than to look into the conditions which still prevail in our prisons. I do not suggest that there is any intentional inhumanity in our prisons, I am sure there is not, and that the whole spirit of prison administration has been altered for the better in recent years, but there is unintentional inhumanity. I am sure many of us have in our recollection that very striking play "Justice," which we saw in London, and which so well expressed the point I desire to bring forward. There is first the unintentional cruelty of such matters as considerable periods of solitary confinement. These things do not restore self-respect to the prisoner, they either break his spirit altogether and cause him to go under, or they cause him, upon his release, to embark upon a fresh career of crime. We shall listen with interest to any proposals that may be made with a view to examining further into this question of solitary confinement with the intention either of abolishing it altogether, or else greatly decreasing it.

Another matter is that relating to the indeterminate sentences. I think many of us saw that legislation passed with some misgiving. I should like to know whether the experiments are being watched and whether it is proposed to extend or to curtail the system. With regard to youthful offenders, still, unhappily, to be found in our prisons, I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Exeter, who urged that we require some intermediate method of dealing with youthful prisoners between the probation system and the system under which they were committed for a number of years to what we know as the Borstal system. I feel that very much. I feel that we are still experimenting with the methods of treating our juvenile offenders, and I think we want a very much greater classification. The Borstal system is a most admirable method of dealing with a certain type of youthful offender, and for youthful criminals who have been several times convicted, and who obviously require the treatment it is possible to give them under the Borstal system. I should, however, be very sorry for the feeling to grow up that it is a desirable thing to send a youthful offender—and almost any type of youthful offender—to undergo a lengthy course under the Borstal system. I cannot belieye that for many youthful offenders such a system is suitable. I have seen myself, with considerable misgivings, a growing tendency on the part of some magistrates to lightly send to the Borstal system youthful offenders who require, in my view, different treatment. In this matter of the treatment of juvenile offenders I should like to call attention to the very great difference that exists in the methods of the various police courts. If, for instance, we take any Metropolitan area we find a considerable difference in the way in which youthful criminals are treated. Sometimes they are placed under probation, but in many instances, for similar offences, they are committed to prison because they are unable to pay a fine. It is an urgent matter that some -unanimity should be secured on this question, and some attempt should be made to give magistrates guidance as to the proper treatment of youthful offenders. If some reform on these lines can proceed, I am sure that not only shall we be more humane and more just to the individual offender, but we shall also be finding means by which potentially good men may be created for the service of the State.


I am very glad that the House has found an opportunity of discussing for the first time for several years the Prisons Vote. The Debate and discussion which has arisen upon it has not touched upon any point which is not of substance and of value. I can only say that I have not listened to any speech since the Vote came on which did not contain some suggestion, some point, or some argument of real use and value. Whether it be the question raised by my hon. Friend behind me of the proper access of Nonconformist ministers to local and convict prisons; whether it be the point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield as to the special treatment of chronic drunkards while in prison for other offences; or whether it be the question of flogging raised by the hon. Member for Salford, concerning which I will only say that it has been reduced to the most rigid minimum, and is only inflicted for acts of brutal violence to the persons who have to live among convicts, or for mutiny, which has not arisen at all of late years; or whether it be with regard to the question of the hours of warders, or of warders in criminal lunatic asylums which has been raised by the hon. Member opposite—on all these points the public have a right to know the view and opinion of hon. Members of this House, and on all these points I find myself, if not in complete concurrence, at any rate I have a sympathetic interest with those who have spoken on these points. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green referred to one special point which I will deal with before I venture to offer any general statement to the House.

The hon. Member dealt with the treatment of women in prisons. It is quite true that we have not got any women on the Prison Commission, but that is not a matter on which I shall close my mind at all. We have, however, a lady inspector, and I think it might be possible to arrange that the lady inspector should be specially consulted at times when questions regarding female convict prisons are being discussed. I do not think it is true to say that women have suffered in prison because there is not a woman on the Prison Commission. May I point out that whereas the male convict only obtains a remission of one-fourth of his sentence by good conduct, a female convict in this manly world can obtain one-third remission of her sentence It is quite true that we have not yet organised women labour in prisons to anything like the same point of utility, having regard to the prisoners' return to industrial life as in the case of men, but that is due very largely to the fact that a very great proportion of the women are committed for such very short periods, so short, in fact, that it is practically impossible to organise any constructive course of labour for them. I agree that that is a matter to which attention should be drawn, and if it be possible to improve the classes of employment and technical instruction open to women in prisons I shall certainly be very glad to be able to annnounce it to the House of Common the first real principle which should guide anyone trying to establish a good system of prisons should be to prevent as many people as possible getting there at all. There is an injury to the individual, there is a loss to the State whenever a person is committed to prison for the first time, and every care, consistent with the maintenance of law and order, must be taken constantly to minimise the number of persons who are committed to gaol. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green has referred to the Probation of Offenders Act. It is an admirable Act, and an Act which has already made its effect manifest upon our criminal statistics. That Act has now been in operation for rather more than a year, and it has already produced very satisfactory results, but it is quite true, as my hon. Friend has said, that it is only in operation in the fullest sense of the word in certain parts of the country. Some are very good, others not so good, and others again do not seem to understand the provisions of the Act at all. A Committee was formed at the Home Office shortly before I became responsible, over which my right hon. Friend, now the Postmaster-General (Mi. Herbert Samuel), presided, to inquire into the working of the Act and to try and secure its more uniform adoption. That Committee made various recommendations, some of which we have already carried out, but its principal recommenda- tion, or rather one of its most important recommendations, was that the magistrates should be individually circularised upon the subject of the Act to make them fully acquainted with its use and with its provision. No circular has ever been sent out before to individual magistrates, but I thought the circumstances connected with this Act were so important and valuable that departure from precedent might be justified, and we have sent the circular to every magistrate throughout the country explaining to them clearly the provisions of the Act, and urging them to take advantage of it on every occasion. But, even with the difficulties of the partial adoption of the Act under which we suffer at the present time, there has been a most sensible improvement.

There is one point, however, in which the Probation of Offenders Act has not operated, and that is in preventing persons from being unnecessarily committed to prison for the non-payment of fines. I have lately been giving my attention to the question of trying to see how we can ensure a period of grace always being allowed before the payment of a fine is enforced by imprisonment. There were 90,000 persons committed to prison last year in default of the payment of fines, and of those 13,000 or 14,000 paid the fine in whole or in part after they had been committed to prison. I think a much larger proportion would have paid the fine if they had had a reasonable period of time to get the money either by earning it or obtaining it from their friends and relations. The Governor of Wandsworth Gaol, one of those military gentlemen, I believe, of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery Boroughs (Sir J. D. Rees) has such a high opinion, tells me that of 138 prisoners committed in one of the early weeks in June he thinks some forty or fifty would have paid the fine if time had been given, and about twenty-five were, in his opinion, fit subjects for the Probation of Offenders Act. Nearly the whole of the persons committed to prison in default of the payment of fines are given no time to pay. Here are a few typical cases from Wandsworth Prison:— Tower Bridge Police Court: Obscene language. In the opinion of Governor, prisoner could have paid if time were given. Belongs to Special Reserve, anti would have gone for training. Commitment to prison forthwith.—Thames Police Court: Could have paid. In good work. Proper case for probation. Forthwith.—Lambeth Police Court: Offence under School Acts. Well-known resident. Could have paid if given time. Forthwith.—Greenwich Police Court: Pedlars' Act. Well-known resident. First offence. Forthwith.—Brentford Police Court: Obscene language. Could have paid. Seventeen years resident. Forthwith.—Lambeth Police Court: Betting. Has lived with parents in same district for over twenty years. Could have paid if given time. Forthwith. There is almost an unlimited string of cases of men of fixed abode whose character is well known who commit offences for which they are properly punished by a fine, and who could pay the fine if they had the time, but in default of the money being in their pocket are practically given no time at all, and are committed to gaol. Let the House see what an injurious operation it is. The State loses its fine, and the man goes to prison, perhaps for the first time—a shocking event. He goes through practically all the formalities for a four or five days' sentence that would apply if he were sentenced to a long term of imprisonment for a serious offence, and the State has to pay for it all. Further, more than half the people committed to prison in default of paying fines are committed for offences of drunkenness. The enforcement of a fine is a far better punishment in a case of drunkenness than committal to prison. When the sentence of seven or fourteen days is over release is very often celebrated by the prisoner, but a fine effectively enforced means a period of temperance and of saving, and it achieves the very purpose which the court and the country had in view in the infliction of that punishment. This question of time to pay fines has been the subject of repeated circulars from the Home Office. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Akers-Douglas) sent out a most admirable circular in 1905, in which he showed how many people were taken to prison before they could save the money necessary for the payment of a fine, although it subsequently appeared that if a little time and some facilities for communication with their friends had been allowed they would have been able to pay the full amount of the penalty. It shows how this very often falls upon the working man for an offence against the sanitary laws and other minor offences of our civilisation. I think it is time that these circulars should be disregarded or imperfectly attended to no longer, and I hope it may be possible in the Autumn Session to pass a short Act the main provision of which will be to secure a certain period of time to every person of fixed abode for the payment of any fine that may be inflicted upon him. I now come to another branch of the problem of preventing persons being committed unnecessarily to prison—I mean the treatment of offenders under twenty-one. Up till sixteen there is the Children Act, an admirable Act, which has practically destroyed the statistics of juvenile commitments. I would ask the House to consider specially the case of youths between sixteen and twenty-one. There is a disaster in sending a lad of that age to gaol, and an old prison visitor told me the other day that often they cry the first time, but not on subsequent occasions. It may be due to the accommodation provided, but at any rate it is a great misfortune when a young lad is sent to prison for the first time. It does not matter much whether he is sent to prison direct or whether he goes in default of paying a fine which he could not pay any more than he could pay the National Debt. I am sure the House will support me in any steps that may be taken to prevent this unnecessary imprisonment. It is an evil which falls only on the sons of the working classes. The sons of other classes may commit many of the same kind of offences and in boisterous and exuberant moments, whether at Oxford or anywhere else, may do things for which the working classes are committed to prison, although injury may not be inflicted on anyone. In my opinion no boy should go to prison unless he is incorrigible or has committed some serious offence I think we ought to discover some from of disciplinary correction outside prison. I hope the House will not be startled at the proposal I am going to make. I see no reason why we should not introduce some kind of system of defaulters' drill—I do not mean military drill, because that would be dishonouring the profession of arms, but I think there are systems which might be extremely salutary which at the same time would be extremely disagreeable. I cannot see why it should not be possible to introduce some system that will create some branch of probation—a disciplinary branch for dealing with minor offences and mere rowdyism, which can be punished without putting the offenders into prison. Let the House remember there are at least 5,000 lads committed to prison for this class of offence every year, and they would be saved if some method of correction of the kind I have indicated could be devised, with a proper regard to the best time for inflicting this punishment. I hope to be able to make proposals next year on this subject. I am proposing to lay down certain general principles for the treatment of youthful offenders. No youth should go to prison unless he is shown to be incorrigible or to have committed some serious offence. We have at the Home Office, in Sir E. Ruggles-Brise, one of the foremost reformers of this country, whose efforts in dealing with youthful offenders have admittedly proved very valuable. No youth between sixteen and twenty-one ought to be committed to prison for any time which is not educative or disciplinary. I think no youth should be committed to prison for any term under a month. It is an abuse to send a boy to prison for a week or ten days for an offence which might perfectly well be settled outside. It is an evil to send him to prison for a long period. I think for young people under twenty-one the three years' Borstal course ought to be the maximum, except in the case of gross crime, and I hope, if I am in office next year, to make more detailed proposals on that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire has spoken about political prisoners. He has said there is no such thing as a political prisoner known to law. I have never attempted to trespass on that difficult ground, but I will point out that there are prisoners who are committed to prison for offences which do not involve any moral turpitude. I think that will be the general opinion of the House. I am very glad the House has assented to the new prison rule which I placed on the Table some time ago. That rule enables the Home Secretary, in virtue of the various Acts which he has to administer, to relieve certain prisoners not guilty of any acts involving moral turpitude. I propose to relieve them of the necessity of wearing prison clothing, of being specially searched, and of being compelled to take the regulation prison bath. I also propose to enable the offenders in the first division to be permitted, under certain circumstances, to obtain food from outside, to exercise freely both in the morning and in the afternoon, to converse with other prisoners when taking exercise, and to have at their own expense such books, not dealing with current events, and such literature as are in accordance with the public interests.

Sir J. D. REES

May I venture to ask my right hon. Friend if there is no moral turpitude involved in deliberately breaking the law?


By moral turpitude I mean offences involving dishonesty, indecency, gross violations of morality, or cruelty. I am not now talking of those other offences which are undoubtedly reprehensible, but do not go so far as that. I have given instructions that all persons committed to prison for passive resistance and all persons committed to prison as suffragettes are, as a matter of course, in the absence of special circumstances, to be accorded the full benefit of the new rules, and there may be other cases to which it will be possible to apply those rules. I come to the question of separate confinement. My noble Friend Lord Gladstone made all his preparations ready for effecting a substantial reduction in the period of solitary confinement. That subject has been brought before our notice by various able writers in the Press, and exponents of the drama, who have with force and feeling brought home to the general public the pangs which the prisoner may suffer in long months of solitude. I have decided that my Noble Friend's proposal to reduce solitary confinement to three months in all cases shall be carried one step further, and that it shall be reduced to one month in all cases, except in the case of convicts who return again and again to penal servitude, and, who are called recidivists. In those cases it will be maintained as at the present time, because those are the men who are anxious when they get into prison to join their old associates, and it is necessary that some deterrent should be put upon those who come again and again back to penal servitude, but for all the rest of the prisoners committed to penal servitude the period of solitary confinement will be one month, with this exception: that if the prisoner wishes for separate confinement——[Laughter.] A great portion of them do. I hope the House will not laugh at that. A certain portion of them shrink from association with the prison gang, and prefer to remain in their cells, and therefore if a prisoner wishes to be permitted to be in solitary confinement for three months, that licence will be granted to him. Then I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been very kind to me in this matter. We have to consider now that it is forty years since the Education Act of 1870 was passed, and that we have got a class of men in our prisons who need brain food of the most ordinary character. There have from time to time been occasional lectures given in the prisons, and a few months ago the Somerset Light Infantry, quartered near, had their band in Dartmoor Prison and it played to the convicts. It was an amazing thing the effect which was produced on all these poor people, and their letters for a month after had been eloquent in recognition of the fact. I have been able to arrange with the Treasury for a small sum of money—only a few hundred pounds a year—which will enable four lectures to be given a year in every convict prison throughout the country. Once in every three months is quite often enough, but it is not too much, and there is every reason to believe that these will be looked forward to, will be the means of securing good conduct, and also the means of supplying persons in prison with certain food for thought, and in regard to music with a certain solace which cannot be injurious to the purpose the State has at heart.


The music will be an added punishment to some.


I do nat know about that. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Byles) has spoken of the serious figures of recidivists, and they are indeed very serious. In 1900, 1901, 1902 and 1903—in those four years about 4,000 convicts were released from gaol, that is about 1,000 a year. Three out of four have already returned under long sentences—that is appalling. We must make every allowance for weak-minded persons. There is a great element of weak-minded criminals in our system, who are being increasingly segregated and classified, but who must not be regarded as on the same footing as the ordinary rational offender, but when all allowance has been made for them, the House, I am sure, will feel that it is a very grave and serious situation. There are two reasons which are given for the recidivists, one is that the criminal is born and not made, and the propensity to crime is only an affliction and weakness; the other is that the pressure of the prison system is such on the mind and character of a man and his reputation when he comes out that he is never able to establish himself in ordinary life again. I do not know which view is true, but, at any rate, we must regard the figure of recidivists with deep and increasing anxiety. The Prevention of Crime Act, to which the House assented in the last Parliament, is one way of dealing with recidivists. That Act has been at work now for more than a year, and I think its working ought to be very closely and carefully scrutinised and watched. The House, with great justice and wisdom, excluded from that Act the indeterminate sentence. But there is no doubt that the Act has had the effect, as was intended, of procuring much longer sentences in certain cases than would have been enforced under the older law. It is not only the length of the sentences which makes it necessary that the Act should be carefully scrutinised; it is the fact that the disparity between one sentence and another has, I believe, been aggravated by the Act. The method of working the Act is as follows: First of all an application has to be made by the police authority to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who says whether the application shall go forward or not and a particular prisoner shall be prosecuted as a habitual offender. There have been 439 applications by the police authorities, of which 305 have been allowed. There are now in prison 174 persons who have been convicted as habituals and sentenced to a term of penal servitude and of preventive detention of not less than eight years.

I have made it my duty to search the calendars in which not merely those cases which would ordinarily come under the view of the Home Secretary are contained but where one can view the whole stream of our criminal punishments, and I see in these calendars scores of cases which could just as properly be characterised as habitual as those which have been made the subject of special prosecutions and of this extremely severe treatment. I should like the House to realise that if that be true, as I believe it is, the really important decision as regards convicts depends upon whether the application is made or not for him to be prosecuted as a habitual criminal. If that decision is once made it is irreparable, and it is only three to one that he does not shoot over Niagara in the sense of a very long sentence of eight, ten, or twelve years for an offence for which in many other cases three or four months would be deemed sufficient by the court. That decision, the most important of all as regards the prisoner, is not taken by the judge or the jury or the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Home Office. It is taken by 188 different police authorities from one end of the country to the other, doing their duty to the best of their ability no doubt, but doing it from entirely different points of view in each case and with all the variety of the personal equation as between man and man. I have been very carefully considering this fact, and I have come to the conclusion that altogether too wide a discretionary power is given in the first instance to these numerous authorities, and I am considering by what means limits can be assigned to the exercise of that power so as to secure a much more general and a much more even application of these very special powers and sentences of such great severity which the House has thought fit in its wisdom to authorise in the past. There is a great danger of using smooth words for ugly things. Preventive detention is penal servitude in all its aspects. There may be modifications, but in the main it is a form of confinement and of surveillance which must necessarily be of a severe and rigorous character. I only hope those who are charged with the administration of this Act in its very early days will very carefully bear in mind the very severe character which all forms of penal detention must necessarily take in the present state of our prison system.

The House will agree that such a system of preventive detention must be closely watched and that it cannot stand alone. We cannot impose these serious penalties upon individuals unless we make a great effort and a new effort to rehabilitate men who have been in prison and secure their having a chance to resume their places in the ranks of honourable industry. The present system is not satisfactory. Convicts obtain a 25 per cent. eduction for good conduct and leave prison on a licence. There are several excellent prisoners' aid societies, to one of which convicts are persuaded to go by the fact that a gratuity is paid them by the society. These societies do extremely good work and I honour them for it, but, of course, there is a lack of co-ordination and a certain amount of rivalry between them, and behind all these societies stands the strong apparatus of police provision and the regular machinery of ticket-of-leave. I have a great admiration for the way in which the police conduct the business of police supervision of prisoners who have been released on licence. It is not a bit true to say they harry a man and hunt him down. At the same time, it is a great impediment to a man to have to go and report himself repeatedly to the police, and to have the police coming repeatedly inquiring after him, in obtaining his position in honest industry again. The proposal I make is that we should establish a new central agency of a semi-official character, half official members representing the authorities and half the representatives of all these prisoners' aid societies. That would combine official power with what I think essential, that there shall be an individual study of every case, that all convicts shall be distributed by the central agency between different prisoners' aid societies of all the different denominations, and all the different charitable societies, that the whole business of police supervision shall be absolutely suspended, and the whole system of ticket-of-leave come to an end completely, and that, except in the case of refractory persons, a convict, when he leaves prison, will have nothing more to do with the police. They need not see them nor hear of them again, but will be dealt with entirely through the agency of these societies, working under the central body, whose only object will be to do the best for the convict. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been good enough to assign me £7,500 a year for the development and strengthening of the methods by which we are to enable prisoners, on release from penal servitude, to have a fair chance of taking their place in the ordinary life of the country.

When His Majesty came to the Throne one of the very first wishes which he was pleased to express was the desire that at a time when all hearts were stirred, and when everyone felt anxious to lay aside old quarrels, the wretched prison population of the country should not stand outside that movement in the national mind.

On similar previous occasions the proposal has always been to release a certain number of prisoners definitely. I think we have found a much better way, and that is not to release individuals, but to make a general pro raid reduction of sentences over the whole area of the prison population. The remissions which were granted on this occasion affected 11,000 prisoners, and at a stroke struck 500 years of imprisonment and penal servitude from the prison population. I

am glad to be able to tell the House that no evil results of any kind have followed from this. It is not at all true to say that a number of the men released have already returned to gaol. We must not allow optimism, or hope, or benevolence in these matters to carry us too far. We must not forget that when every material improvement has been effected in prisons, when the temperature has been rightly adjusted, when the proper food to maintain health and strength has been given, when the doctors, chaplains, and prison visitors have come and gone, the convict stands deprived of everything that a free man calls life. We must not forget that all these improvements, which are sometimes salves to our consciences, do not change that position. The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country. A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused against the State, and even of convicted criminals against the State, a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes, and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man—these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it.

And it being after Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 15, proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Report of the Resolution then under consideration.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Questions, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of each Class of the Civil Service Estimates and the Revenue Departments."

The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 171.

Division No 115] AYES. [9.59 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Agar-Robertes, Hon T. C. R. Anderson, Andrew Macbeth
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Agnew, Gearge William Ashton, Thomas Gair
Addision, Dr. Christopher Ainsworth, John Stlrilng Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Allen, Charles Peter Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Radford, George Heynes
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Haworth, Arthur A. Rainy, Adam Rolland
Barclay, Sir Thomas Hayward, Evan Raphael, Herbert H.
Barlow, Sir John Emmott Hazleton, Richard Rea, Walter Russell
Barnes, George N. Helme, Norval Watson Reddy, Michael
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick) Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Rees, Sir J. D.
Barton, William Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Remnant, James Farquharson
Bonn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Henry, Charles S Randall, Athelstan
Bentham, George Jackson Higham, John Sharp Richards, Thomas
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Hindle, Frederick George Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Black, Arthur W. Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Bowerman, Charles W. Hodge, John Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Brace, William Hogan, Michael Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Hooper, Arthur George Robinson, Sidney
Brocklehurst, William B. Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Bryce, John Annan Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) Roe, Sir Thomas
Burke, E. Haviland- Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Rowntree, Arnold
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Hughes, Spencer Leigh Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Hunter, Wm. (Lanark, Govan) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid) Illingworth, Percy H. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Byles, William Pollard Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel Schwann, Sir Charles E.
Cameron, Robert Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Johnson, William Seddon, James A.
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Shackleton, David James
Chancellor, Henry George Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Sherwell, Arthur James
Channing, S Francis Aliston Jewett, Frederick William Shortt, Edward
Chapple, Dr William Allen Joyce, Michael Simon, John Allsebrook
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Keating, Matthew Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)
Clough, William King, Joseph (Somerset, North) Snowden, Philip
Clynes, John R. Lambert, George Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Soares, Ernest Joseph
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Spicer, Sir Albert
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) Leach, Charles Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Compton-Rickett, Sir J Lehmann, Rudolf C. Strachey, Sir Edward
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Levy, Sir Maurice Summers, James Woolley
Cowan, William Henry Lewis, John Herbert Sutherland, John E.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) Sutton, John E.
Crosfield, Arthur H. Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Crossley, Sir William J. Lyell, Charles Henry Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Cullinan, John Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Tennant, Harold John
Davies, Ellis William (Elfion) Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) M'Callum, John M. Thomas, James Henry (Derby)
Dawes, James Arthur M'Curdy, Charles Albert Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Toulmin, George
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) Mallet, Charles Edward Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Markham, Arthur Basil Twist, Henry
Doris, William Masterman, C. F. G. Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness) Meagher, Michael Verney, Frederick William
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Menzies, Sir Walter Wadsworth, John
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Middlesbrook, William Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Edwards, Enoch Millar, James Duncan Walsh, Stephen
Ellbank, Master of Molteno, Percy Alport Walters, John Tudor
Elverston, Harold Montagu, Hon. E. S. Walton, Sir Joseph
Falconer, James Mooney, J. J. Wardle, G. J.
Fenwick, Charles Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Waring, Walter
Ferens, Thomas Robinson Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
France, Gerald Ashburner Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Furness, Stephen Muspratt, Max Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)
Gelder, Sir William Alfred Neilson, Francis Waterlow, David Sydney
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) Watt, Henry A.
Gibson, Sir James Puckering Nolan, Joseph Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Gill, Alfred Henry Norton, Capt. Cecil W. White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Glanville, Harold James Nussey, Sir T. Willans White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Glover, Thomas Nuttall, Harry White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Whitehouse, John Howard
Greenwood, Granville George O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Greig, Colonel James William O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Wiles, Thomas
Grey. Rt. Hon. Sir Edward O'Grady, James Wilkie, Alexander
Guest, Major Palmer, Godfrey Mark Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Parker, James (Halifax) Williamson, Sir Archibald
Hackett, John Pearce, William Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Hancock, John George Pickersgill, Edward Hare Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Pirle, Duncan V. Winfrey, Richard
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Pointer, Joseph Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Pollard, Sir George H. Young, William (Perth, East)
Harmsworth, R. Leicester Pensonby, Arthur A. W. H. Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Harwood, George Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Primrose, Hon. Nell James
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Pringle, William M. R.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. Gibbs, George Abraham Morrison, Captain James A
Adam, Major William A. Gilmour, Captain John Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Arbuthnot, Gerald A. Goldsmith, Frank Mount, William Arthur
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Gooch, Henry Cubitt Newman, John R. P.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Goulding, Edward Alfred Newton, Harry Kottingham
Ashley, Wilfred W. Grant, J. A. Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Attenborough, Walter Annis Greene, Walter Raymond Nield, Herbert
Balcarres, Lord Gretton, John O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Baldwin, Stanley Guinness, Hon. Waiter Edward Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Ormsby-Gore, William
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor Haddock, George Bahr Parkes, Ebenezer
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Bathurst, Hon. Alien B. (Glouc., E.) Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth) Perkins, Walter Frank
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Hambro, Angus Valdemar Pollock, Ernest Murray
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Homersley, Alfred St. George Quliter, William Eley C.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington) Bandies, Sir John Scurrah
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Boyton, James Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Brackenbury, Henry Langton Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.) Ridley, Samuel Forde
Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, N.) Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Butcher, S. H. (Cambridge University) Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire) Rolleston, Sir John
Campion, W. R. Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Ronaldshay, Earl of
Carlile, Edward Hildred Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. Rothschild, Lionel de
Cater, John Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter Royds, Edmund
Cautley, Henry Strother Holler, Gerald Fitzroy Salter, Arthur Clavell
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hope, Harry (Bute) Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Clay, Captain, H. H. Spender Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Sanders, Robert Arthur
Coates, Major Edward F. Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Sanderson, Lancelot
Colefax, Henry Arthur Houston, Robert Paterson Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brentford) Hume-Williams, William Ellis Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.) Hunt, Rowland Stanier, Beville
Courthope, George Loyd Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) Stanley, Hon. G. F (Preston)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Jackson, Sir John (Devonport) Starkey, John Ralph
Craik, Sir Henry Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred Jessel, Captain Herbert M. Stewart, Gorshom (Ches., Wirral)
Croft, Henry Page Kerry, Earl of Strauss, Arthur
Dairymple, Viscount Keswick, William Sykes, Alan John
Dalziel, Davidson (Brixton) Kimber, Sir Henry Talbot, Lord Edmund
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.) King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers. Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)
Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow) Law, Andrew Boner (Dulwich) Thynne, Lord Alexander
Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings) Lawson, John Harry Valentia, Viscount
Duke, Henry Edward Lee, Arthur Hamilton Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.) Lewisham, Viscount Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Llewelyn, Venabies Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Faber, George D. (Clapham) Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay) Wheler, Granville C. H.
Falle, Bertram Godfray Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. White, Maj. G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Fell, Arthur Lansdale, John Brownlee Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Fleming, Valentine MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Fletcher, John Samuel Mackinder, Mallard J. Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Forster, Henry William Macmaster, Donald Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft) Magnus, Sir Philip Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)
Foster, John K. (Coventry) Mason, James F. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.) Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Gardner, Ernest Mildmay, Francis Bingham TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—Captain Clive and Mr. Barnston.
Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Morpeth, Viscount
Forward to