§ Sir JOHN ROLLESTONI beg to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely Whether, in response to a numerously signed Memorial by Members of this House, he proposes to transfer to the First Division those women who in various prisons are undergoing sentences for offences committed in the agitation for woman suffrage; whether he is aware of and sanctions the treatment they are now receiving; and whether such treatment is not a danger to health and a great additional punishment to the sentences given?
§ Mr. McKENNAThere must have been some error in regard to the notice, as it has not reached me. I can, however, answer the substance of the question. I do not propose to advise that the suffrage prisoners who are now in the Second Division should be placed in the First Division.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILHas the right hon. Gentleman considered the apparent injustice of giving to the leaders in these regrettable occurrences much more lenient treatment than is meted out to the followers; and does he not think that from the point of view of respect for the administration of justice it is very desirable indeed to remove all impression that there is any favouritism in the treatment of one set of prisoners as compared with another?
§ Mr. McKENNAAs I explained to the House at the time the change was made, I acted upon the advice of the judge who tried the case. I have always conceived it my duty not to exercise any arbitrary discretion of my own, but to consult the judge. The judge in the case of the other suffrage prisoners did not recommend that they should be placed in the First Division, whereas the judge in the case of the three prisoners referred to did so recommend, and I acted upon the advice.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILAs the right hon. Gentleman can understand, this is a matter which excites very deep feeling. May I ask whether, since the mitigation of the sentence on the leaders, he has approached the judge who tried the other prisoners with a view to seeing whether that circumstance does not make a very considerable difference?
§ Mr. McKENNANo, I do not think that would be proper. The judge, I assume, would not act upon any arbitrary discretion, but upon the circumstances which became known to him in the course of the trial. The judge who advised me to place the three prisoners in the First Division did so in consequence of what had taken place at their trial. I do not think that any subject circumstance should determine the opinion of the judge.
§ Mr. DILLONHas the attention of the Home Secretary been directed to the fact that his predecessors have on many occasions overruled the advice of the judges on this very point, and that they have recognised it to be the function of the Home Office in such matters to correct the idiosyncrasies of some judges?
§ Mr. McKENNAI agree fully; but it must be remembered that whether prisoners are placed in the First Division or not is a matter, in the first instance, entirely in the discretion of the judge.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILHe did not sentence them in the First Division.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis shows the inconvenience of raising these questions without notice.
§ Mr. McKENNAIn this case the judge did not place the prisoners in the First Division in the first instance, but in the Second, because they declined to give any undertaking that they would not use the opportunities that would be afforded to them as prisoners in the First Division to incite other persons to commit illegal acts; but upon their giving to me such an undertaking—not in those precise words, but having that meaning—the judge advised that they should be placed in the First Division, and that he would, upon the recommendation of the jury, have so placed them himself when the matter was entirely in his own discretion if that undertaking had been given. These are the grounds upon which I have acted. There are no similar circumstances in the case of the other prisoners, although I have been ready for some time, and I am perfectly ready now, to advise the remission of the whole of the sentences of any of those prisoners who undertake not to commit the same offence again.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEIs the Home Secretary in a position to say whether, on account of his refusal, a hunger strike has been inaugurated by these prisoners, including those placed in the first division, and whether in the case of the other prisoners he will approach the magistrates to ask if they are prepared to assent to the alteration?
§ Mr. McKENNANo. I have already stated that there are no circumstances which would justify my asking the opinion of the judges who tried the other prisoners. I am not sure whether in all the cases, but certainly in a large number of cases, the prisoners have not taken food since yesterday afternoon, but I hope that wiser counsels will prevail amongst them.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEIs forcible feeding with all its horrors and brutalities to be resorted to? Further, with regard to one of the prisoners, has Mrs. Pankhurst—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must really give notice of these questions.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Sir J. ROLLESTONAfter the answer of the Home Secretary to my question, and to other questions, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the treatment of pri- 1857 soners and other matters referred to in the question addressed to the Home Secretary.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is altogether too vague. The Standing Order particularly says that it must be on a definite matter that a request for adjournment is made. "The treatment of prisoners and other matters" does not appear to me to be very definite.
§ Mr. KINGOn a point of Order, is it in order for strangers in the Gallery to look at you, Mr. Speaker, through binocular glasses?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI can only say what I have heard said in another place: this is not a theatre.
§ Sir J. ROLLESTONWould I be in order if I made my Motion more definite? I should like to say, the treatment of prisoners, which it appears involves danger to health and even life, and affects the liberty of the subject.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat treatment is a treatment which they have courted themselves.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEMay I ask whether it is not competent for an hon. Member to ask leave to move the same Motion, but in a more correct form, namely, to call attention to the refusal of the Home Office to accord the same treatment to all prisoners guilty of the same offence?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI should like to have a little more information as to what has been the actual policy of the Home Office in this matter. This question was asked without notice, although a statement was made that notice had been given. Had notice been given in the ordinary way as to the propriety of the conduct of the Home Secretary, and the right hon. Gentleman had given an unsatisfactory reply, the matter could have been brought forward at a suitable time. The hon. Member is asking me to give a decision without giving me an opportunity of making myself fully acquainted with the circumstances, and without giving the Home Office an opportunity to make a full statement.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILMay I, on a point of Order, just put this before you? This is a matter which is urgent in this sense, that the prisoners will now, whether it is their fault or not, be submitted to the process of forcible feeding which, without any criticism at all upon the Home Secre- 1858 tary for the moment in carrying out that process, undoubtedly does involve great physical suffering. Under these circumstances, it will not be possible to bring the matter under the consideration of this House until next Thursday unless we are allowed to discuss it this evening. I venture to submit very respectfully, and deeply regretting if any mistake has been made in not giving notice of the question—for which I am not in any way responsible—that this is really a matter of urgent public importance, and I ask whether, under these very exceptional and peculiar circumstances you do not think it is a matter which may be fairly considered this evening by the House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf the action of the Home Office has been anything extraordinary, then I think that a case would have been made, even though no notice had been given of the question. As far as I understand, the action of the Home Office has been perfectly ordinary, normal, and usual, therefore the hon. Gentleman can make no grievance out of the fact that the Home Office has acted in a normal, usual, and ordinary way. If the Home Office had tried any extraordinary treatment, or had done anything unusual, then I think hon. Members would have been fully entitled to bring it at once before the House.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYOn a point of Order, I think the matter arises in this way: As I understand, these prisoners have taken this course as a protest against the differentiation of putting some of them in the first division, and others being given other treatment in another division. Would it not be in order to call attention to the matter as arising out of the differentiation between different prisoners, who have been really tried for what is practically the same offence?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat criticism is that the Home Office has treated certain prisoners better than others.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYWorse, I should say, Sir.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think better, in putting them in a higher division; but I think there may be probably half an hour at the conclusion of business this evening, and if hon. Members really wish to raise the matter, of course they can then do so.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYMay I ask, on a point of Order, if the leave asked for were granted, would it not be taken 1859 as a precedent that whenever in future a prisoner refused to eat on account of a desire to make a protest against his being convicted of a crime and being sent to prison that it would be then in order for any Member, on any occasion, to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House? Would that not be a very great inconvenience to public business?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Baronet has dotted the "i's" and crossed the "t's." I did not go into particulars quite so much. I am always anxious, of course, to see in regard to a Motion for Adjournment that I shall not make a precedent that might be improperly used.