§ 68 and 70. Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary (1) whether Miss Hall, having been found guilty but not sentenced on one charge, and being then in prison, was refused access to her solicitor by the governor of the gaol, although she had still to be tried on a second charge; and (2) whether, and if so, on what grounds, Miss Hall's solicitor was refused access to her at the gaol on the morning of her trial for harbouring explosives?
§ Mr. McKENNAMiss Hall's solicitor saw her at the prison on the 19th, 22nd, 24th, and 25th of June. He did not apply to see her at the prison on the morning of the 26th, the day of her first trial. A few minutes before she was placed in the dock on that day he applied to see her in the cells, and was told he must obtain permission from the judge. After her conviction, on the 26th of June, the prisoner made no further request to see her solicitor.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODDid the solicitor make any further request to see Miss Hall in order to prepare for her second trial?
§ Mr. McKENNANot so far as I am aware, but if the hon. Member puts a further question down I will inquire.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODHave inquiries been made of the governor as to whether permission was asked?
§ Mr. McKENNAI am informed from Holloway that there was no application made by Miss Nellie Hall between 26th June and 8th July.
§ Mr. W. THORNEHas the right hon. Gentleman seen newspaper reports that these two ladies are being forcibly fed, and is there any truth in that?
§ Mr. McKENNAYes, they were forcibly fed.
§ Mr. W. THORNEAre they now?
§ Mr. McKENNAI think so. If my hon. Friend puts down a question on the point I will answer it.
§ 69. Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether Miss Nellie Hall and Miss Grace Roe were or were not refused bail by Mr. Paul Taylor, the magistrate?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe magistrate informs me that he expressly stated that he would refuse bail for these prisoners while on remand. He has no recollection of their applying for bail on the day on which they were committed for trial, but he says that had such application been made he would not have acceded to it.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODIs my right hon. Friend aware that he stated in this House that they had not been refused bail, and, in view of this difficulty, would he give the House an undertaking that in future suffragette prisoners who have not broken their bail hitherto shall be allowed bail?
§ Mr. McKENNAMy hon. Friend's recollection is quite correct. I stated in this House that, so far as I was aware, no application had been made for bail. The matter was put to me by way of supplementary question, and I distinctly stated I could not rely on my memory on that point. With regard to the second question, I have no power on matters of bail.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYMay I ask if the right hon. Gentleman considers it according to the principles of justice to refuse a prisoner bail and then forcibly feed the prisoner while she is on remand?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe two points do not relate to each other. On the subject of bail, as I stated in this House, had the application been made to me and had I the power, I should have granted the bail. My duty when a prisoner is in prison is to keep her there as long as I can.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODMay I ask whether, in view of the fact that these prisoners, who have not been convicted, are being refused bail, will he instruct the prison authorities not to have them forcibly fed until they are found guilty?
§ Mr. McKENNANo, Sir, I can give no instructions of that kind. My hon. Friend must not put the question in that form in 1718 view of the fact that these prisoners are not receiving bail, since, as a rule, I think the prisoners are on bail.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYIs it in accordance with Home Office instructions that bail prisoners are forcibly fed?
§ Mr. McKENNAHome Office instructions do not concern themselves with bail at all. The Home Office instructions are to keep those prisoners in prison about whom there is reason to believe that their liberty would be misused for the purpose of committing further dangerous crimes.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILMay I ask whether the Home Secretary some years ago did not send a circular recommending that bail should be granted where possible to prisoners under remand, and whether the Home Secretary will allow bail for the prisoners?
§ Mr. McKENNAI have no power to bail prisoners, but the Noble Lord is quite right in his recollection that a circular of the kind was sent out some years ago, and I have more than once stated in this House that in my judgment it would be wise in these cases to grant bail in every case.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILCan the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether Mr. Paul Taylor gave any reason for having refused bail?
§ Mr. McKENNAHe does not give any reason. It is not necessary that he should.
§ Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTWhat would be the alternative—
§ Mr. SPEAKERNotice of any further questions should be given.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODMay I give notice that at the end of questions I intend to move the Adjournment of the House on this question?
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the forcible feeding in prison of certain British subjects who have not been convicted of any crime, and who should not therefore have violence done upon them?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance—
§ Mr. McKENNAOn a point of Order. May I explain that there can be no definiteness or urgency in this matter inasmuch as the persons to whom the hon. Member refers have since been convicted; and as regards urgency, the practice of forcibly feeding unconvicted prisoners has existed for some years.
§ Mr. SPEAKERAre these persons still in prison?
§ Mr. McKENNAThey are still in prison, but convicted.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThen this Motion refers to something which took place in the past?
§ Mr. McKENNAYes.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think that destroys its urgency.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODMay I amend my notice so that it shall refer to forcible feeding in prison to which certain British subjects are liable, even though they are not convicted of any crime?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat destroys its definiteness.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILMay I point out that we have it now on record that these women have been fed under these circumstances, and we have the statement of the Home Secretary that it is the ordinary practice. Consequently it may happen again. Therefore I submit that it is a definite matter and an urgent matter.
§ Mr. McKENNAOn a point of Order. May I remind you, Sir, that there is nothing urgent in this matter, as the practice has been adopted to the knowledge of this House for a very considerable time. I have stated it in the House.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere is no urgency in a case which is not going on at the present time and may not occur again. If it does occur it will be open for the hon. Member to raise the point again, and I will consider it with an open mind then.