§ Mr. PICKERSGILLasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the Chairman of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, in his recent Report on the proceedings of the International Penitentiary Congress held at Washington last year, that it is held by the authorities of the best American prisons that the diet must be ample if there is to be mental quickening and reformation; whether he is aware that short-time prisoners in English prisons are always hungry; that prisoners are often discharged in low condition and thus peculiarly obnoxious to the temptation of drink; and whether he will again cause the question of diet in English prisons to be reconsidered?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe English prison dietary was the subject of the most minute inquiry in 1898, and the main principle kept in view was that the prison diet was not to be regarded as an instrument of punishment. The new dietary was introduced in 1901 at a cost of nearly £40,000 a year, and its general effect is detailed in the report of the medical inspector, pages 41–43, Annual Report, 1901–2. The statement that short-time prisoners in English prisons are always hungry is unfounded. The improvements in the diets of 1901 were made specifically to prevent this and were in reversal of the old principle that for short sentences the diet should be used as an instrument of punishment. I have no reason to believe that prisoners are discharged in such a low condition as to induce a craving for drink. In the opinion of the Commissioners, in which I concur, there is no case for an increase of the English prison diet.
§ Mr. PICKERSGILLArising out of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the effect that the statement that short-time prisoners are always hungry is unfounded, may I ask the Home Secretary if he will be good enough to confer with his right hon. colleague the President of the Local Government Board?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe experiences of my right lion. Friend, I think, were antecedent to the reform which, I think, was undertaken in 1901.
§ Mr. PICKERSGILLasked the Home Secretary whether he has seen the Report of the Chairman of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland on the proceedings of the International Penitentary Congress held at Washington last year, in which attention is drawn to the fact that in the best American prisons meals are usually served in a common dining hall, and that American authorities attach great importance to this practice, and the opinion is expressed by the author of the Report that the subject deserves careful attention; and whether he will consider the question with a, view to the tentative introduction of the practice in English prisons?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI have seen the Report in question, and also that of the chairman of the Prison Commission for England, who visited a large number of American prisons; and I find no reasons for thinking that American authorities attach great moral importance to the practice of common meals in ordinary prisons. In the case of younger prisoners subject to specifically reformatory treatment, the taking of meals in common is a good and wholesome practice to be used as a privilege, and carried out under close and rigorous supervision; and it is so used in Borstal institutions in this country. But for prisoners generally meals in common, so far from having any moral value, would be a fruitful source of corruption and demoralisation; and I may add that they would not be acceptable to prisoners, who usually dislike being forced into close association with other prisoners of various classes and character. This was specially notable at State Inebriate Reformatories, where the practice of common meals was tried and had to be abandoned because it was so much disliked by the inmates.
§ Mr. PICKERSGILLasked the Home Secretary whether he has seen the Report by the Chairman of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland on the Proceedings of the International Penitentiary Congress, held at Washington last year, in which it is stated that, according to the best American prison practice, much more frequent letters to prisoners from relations are allowed than with us, and that an American governor expressed the opinion that our system is absolutely cruel in this re- 44 spect; and if he will consider whether the time has come for the amelioration of the practice in English prisons in this regard?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe periods to be allowed for letters and visits to prisoners have been the subject of repeated and careful consideration. The question of letters was considered by the Committee of 1894, and their only recommendation was that a larger discretion should be allowed to Visiting Committees in applying the regulations. Since the Committee reported, the facilities for letters have been considerably extended by the Prison Rules of 1898, which are now in force. The experience of the Prison Commissioners goes to show that the present system is fair, reasonable, and humane, and I do not think that any further relaxation is desirable.