§ 57. Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked whether a man named Ruthin, undergoing sentence at Norwich Prison, has been flogged with such severity as to tear pieces out of the man's back; whether such flogging was carried out pursuant to prison regulations; whether the man was subsequently transferred to Chelmsford Prison; and whether such transference had any connection with the flogging?
§ Mr. McKENNAGeorge Ruthin, while undergoing a sentence of eighteen months' with hard labour at Norwich Prison, was sentenced by the visiting committee to corporal punishment of twelve strokes with the cat for gross personal violence to an officer of the prison. He had previously destroyed his cell furniture and used threatening language. The sentence was carried out in accordance with the Regulations. It would be quite impossible 1488 to tear pieces out of the back with the instrument used; the skin was not broken. The prisoner's removal to Chelmsford Prison was made in compliance with a petition addressed by him to the Secretary of State.
§ Sir W. BYLESIs this the sentence of the judge or magistrate, or is it prison punishment?
§ Mr. McKENNAAs stated in my answer, it was the sentence of the visiting committee.
§ Sir W. BYLESIs the Home Office really establishing some sort of policy by these frequent floggings? They are becoming a perfect scandal.
§ Mr. McKENNANo; the hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. Flogging inside the prison for breaches of order has been customary under present rules. There has been no additional use of the cat.
§ Sir W. BYLESBut is it approved by a twentieth century Home Office?
§ Mr. McKENNAI understood my hon. Friend to ask whether the Home Office were establishing this policy, and I assumed he meant for the first time. There has been no new policy.
§ Sir W. BYLESThere ought to be.