§ Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mr. Alfred Abbey, who was sentenced on 1st March in connection with the Woman Suffrage agitation, was receiving the benefit of the special treatment designed for offenders whose offence does not involve moral turpitude, whether he was allowed to have his meals supplied from outside, and whether he had refused to accept prison fare, and with what result?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe prisoner is in the second division, and is not receiving the special treatment referred to. He has refused to take the food provided for him, and it has been necessary to adopt the measures usual in such cases. He is reported to be in good health.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask why, for a much more serious offence, a relative of one of the occupants of the Front Bench received special treatment when in prison?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLParliament has given the Secretary of State a discretionary power in these matters, and in the exercise of that discretionary power I do not think that this is a case in which special exemption from the ordinary treatment in the second division should be given. To attempt to break in upon the Cabinet while it is in Session cannot be regarded as an offence which is not serious. The one man attached to the 1035 suffragist agitation who is receiving special treatment under these rules was convicted for an assault upon a Minister. In that case it was decided to view the matter as a contemptible incident.
§ Lord HUGH CECILDoes the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a case involving moral turpitude? If so, will he lay on the Table a definition of what he considers moral turpitude?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe rule to which the House assented gives the Secretary of State a discretionary power in cases not involving dishonesty, cruelty, indecency, or serious violence. I regard this case as falling within the last-named category.