§ 56. Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Home Secretary whether the habitual criminals detained in Camp Hill Prison receive more privileges and comforts than are allowed to poor debtors committed to prison for non-compliance with judgment summonses; and, if so, whether he can see his way to place debtors who have committed no criminal offence in a position of at least equality with these habitual criminals?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe two cases do not admit of comparison. The principles affecting the treatment of prisoners committed for a period of days or weeks for the purpose of enforceing the payment of debts have no bearing upon those which should regulate the treatment of convicts 1665 confined for a period of years for preventive purposes after they have served a term of penal servitude. If the two classes of prisoners were treated alike, debtors would have to begin serving their sentences under the conditions imposed by penal servitude.
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLIs it not the fact that the one is a notorious criminal and the other has committed no criminal offence at all?
§ Mr. McKENNAYes; but the notorious criminals have already been punished by a period of penal servitude, and it was only after they have served that punishment that they come under the provisions applicable to preventive detention.
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLWhy cannot a debtor have such things as shaving-water?
§ Mr. McKENNAIf a debtor goes through a period of penal servitude, he will subsequently have all the amenities which the hon. Gentleman thinks attach to preventive detention; but it would be unfair to put a debtor in the first instance under the conditions of penal servitude.