HC Deb 11 December 1934 vol 296 cc348-56

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Penny.]

11.1 p.m.

Mr. BERNAYS

In accordance with the notice which I have given I desire to raise the question of the advisability of an inquiry into the punishment of flogging. The case of the Dartmoor convict will be in the recollection of the House and a very horrible case it was. On 29th November a convict named Collins who had been condemned to 12 strokes with the "cat" and three years penal servitude, for an act of violence done while trying to escape from Dartmoor, committed suicide in gaol. I do not wish to attempt to harrow the feelings of the House with the revolting details of the case but I feel that in support of my argument, I must quote from a letter which this man left in his cell and which reveals the state of mind of one condemned to this terrible punishment. This is what he wrote: I am being slowly murdered—tortured to death. Every night I am lashed with the cat. The policeman in my head keeps lashing at me all night. My head is awful with all this worry and I think it might go back on me any minute. I tried to hide what is really the matter with me from the doctor. I did not tell him all. My one best pal will understand. I cannot rest or sleep but keep staring up feeling the lash across my body. My mind is in agony. God help me. I suggest that that is a letter which no decent man can read unmoved. It shows that this man at any rate was not as is so often alleged in these cases, a hardened brute who could only understand brutal punishment. It reveals, I think, a responsive mind tortured beyond endurance. The whole episode, I suggest, is highly disturbing to those people who do not confuse punishment with vengeance. I do not seek to cast any reflection on the officials at Dartmoor. I am sure that they are humane men and that nothing they did caused this terrible result. Nor do I wish to make too much of this incident horrible though it is, but there is one question which I must put to the Home Secretary. There was another convict named Hollins who was sentenced to 12 lashes. Has that sentence been carried out? I think we have a right to know and we have also a right to know what considerations operated in the minds of those responsible, whatever decision was made.

I desire to lift the argument on to a wider plane and to ask whether the time has not come for an inquiry into the whole question of flogging. There is no doubt that this is a very brutal punishment. It is not just a schoolboy's birching. A man is tied to a triangle, thrashed with a whip of nine thongs, and his back left a mass of weals and blood. It is a revolting punishment, and it is not pleasant to think of its effect not merely on the victim but on the man who has to carry out the punishment, on the officials who have to witness it and on the society in whose name it is done. We have to ask ourselves, as representatives of the people, whether this punishment is really necessary. It is said that flogging stopped garrotting, but that hoary story is without any foundation in fact, and I would quote no less an authority than an ex-Prime Minister and an ex-Home Secretary himself, Mr. Asquith, who said: As to garrotting, that crime had been brought to an end as a serious danger before the House, in a fit of panic, due to one of its own Members having been garrotted, resorted to legislation. Garrotting was put down without resort to the lash. In any ease there is an equal decrease in garrotting in Scotland, where there is no punishment of flogging, and there is no evidence to show, as is often said, that a man who is condemned to be flogged does not commit the same offence again. Other countries can do without flogging. Flogging has disappeared from the penal codes in nearly every civilised country in the world, and there is no evidence that its disappearance has produced any of the results which those who support flogging think it would. Is it not unfortunate that this country, which has led the way in penal reform, should be so far behind in this instance? I recognise, of course, the formidable argu- ments that can be produced in favour of flogging. It is said that prison discipline would become very difficult, if not impossible, without resort to flogging. Exactly the same arguments were used when the Prisons Act of 1898, severely limiting the number of cases where the cat could be used, was passed through this House. It was said that the warder's life would not be worth an hour's purchase, but all those prophecies were found to be wrong, and there has been a steady decrease during the last 30 years in the number of offences against prison discipline. Of course, crimes for which flogging is employed as a punishment are revolting, but that does not excuse a revolting punishment. Flogging can really be attacked as a method of torture, and exactly the same arguments, can be used in favour of flogging as could be used in favour of the rack, the thumbscrew, boiling oil, and all the other medieval barbarities.

But I do not desire to prejudge the issue in this matter. All that I want is an inquiry. There has never been an inquiry. We have a right to know whether flogging is really a deterrent, whether it is not too brutally administered, and whether, if it is really necessary in the last resort, its use ought not to be more seriously restricted than it is now. I do hope the Home Secretary will not just dismiss my plea as Liberal crankiness. The abolition of flogging is, I think, supported by hard-headed men in all parties in this House, and it is supported by some officials. I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a letter that appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" on the 7th December, written by a medical officer in a convict prison. He gave his name, and this is what he said: Apropos of the question asked in the House yesterday respecting the suicide in Dartmoor of a convict sentenced to be flogged, may I, as one whose painful—terribly painful—duty it has been to witness this ghastly form of punishment, protest against its continuance? Dreadful as it is, it has but one effect—and that is on the mind and body of the prisoner. It does not act as a deterrent to others. But the worst part of it is that it is a brutal application of the law, as well as the terrible knouts that cut into the flesh of the receiver. I shall not forget in a hurry the look on the face of two people when I last saw this punishment inflicted—i.e., the flogger and the flogged. Both were utterly demoralised, temporarily, and the savage brute came out in both of them. Let us see an end of this ancient relic of brutal days. I say with all the sincerity in me that the time has come for an inquiry, and I hope the Home Office, which has such a fine record for liberality and humanitarianism, will not refuse my request.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT

I should like to say a word, not because a word is needed, but because I put a question down about the same time as the hon. Member, as soon as I saw what had happened in my own native county and in the district in which I live. I saw a full account of the occurrence in our Western paper, and I am bound to say that I read it with a sense of horror, and I think most of the people in the district did so too. I have nothing to add to the eloquent plea that has been made by the hon. Member, but I found that as a result of putting the question down certain misapprehensions arose. I found that it was thought by some, and I have no doubt the hon. Member had the same experience judging from what he has said, that there was some criticism being made of the prison authorities. I would like it to be known that there was no criticism in my mind of the prison authorities. I know that the Governor of that prison is a very high-minded man who carries out his duties with every consideration, and he holds a very high place in the estimation of all with whom he has to do. Certainly there was no criticism of the Medical Officer. All the evidence showed that the officials of the prison did all that was in their power, and I am sure that no criticism has been levelled, either by the hon. Member or by myself, against those who have the difficult task to perform of caring for those members of society who have been put under control.

The suggestion has been made that those of us who put down questions of this kind are showing some sympathy with this wretched man. I am not in a position to judge that man. Most of us, had we gone through the same experience and been subjected to the same temptations and the same upbringing, might have been no better. We have to speak no ill of the dead; no one of us is in a position to judge. It is true that this man did a violent thing, but he was trying to escape, and a desperate man does desperate things in times of emergency. None of us would care to say what we would do in similar circumstances, but a wicked thing was done by him. The fact that violence was done by him is not the gravemen of my hon. Friend's case. It is not a case of this particular man, miserable as his lot was. The question is whether such treatment, such a sentence ought to be imposed in the interests of society. It may be that as the result of the inquiry it may be shown that this is a check upon evil deeds, or that in the end it is no check and that society in imposing this punishment secures for itself no advantage.

I only want to make it clear that this does not involve on either my right hon. Friend's part or on mine the slightest criticism on those who thought they were being criticised in this House. No word has been said in the House that would bear in any sense that interpretation. It is our desire that judges and prison officials may, as a result of a wise reform, be relieved of a task which must be a dreadful burden to them to carry out, when it is imposed by the sentence of the law. Surely the Home Secretary, whom I know to be a man of generous heart as well as a wise administrator, will take into consideration a plea that is made to him, not merely by two private Members but a plea which has the support of many in this country who are deeply concerned that society should take this method for its protection. If he can take that into consideration, or, if he cannot say anything now, if he will give us an assurance that he will do so, after consultation with those best qualified to advise him, I think he will meet the views of many people who read the recent proceedings with great apprehension and anxiety.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY

I only rise to join in the appeal made to the Home Secretary. I was not aware before the hon. Member rose that this subject was to be raised to-night, but I felt I must stay to hear him, and to join in whatever appeal is made for an inquiry, I will not attempt to go into the case except to say, with the last speaker, that in appeal- ing for an inquiry I have not the slightest intention of insinuating any sort of reflection on those who had to carry out these terrible duties, but I feel that the case has revealed a condition of things which does merit inquiry. Whether people are bad enough for any of us to treat them in that way I will not argue to-night. Sometimes I think of myself as very fortunate to have lived as long as I have lived under circumstances which have, to a large extent, kept me out of that kind of arena, but I often feel also that there are lots of other things of which I am guilty that people do not know anything about, and I hope that perhaps the Power in the world that really does judge these things may judge some of these men as leniently as I hope I may be judged.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. O'CONNOR

I hope that neither my right hon. Friend nor the House will in this case work from the particular to the general. It is difficult either to generalise about a particular case, or a particular form of punishment, and I personally should deprecate any inquiry into the mere question of flogging as a punishment. If there is to be an inquiry it should be into the much more general question of the whole of our penal system and the method of dealing with criminals. As this particular case has been raised I think it may be of service to my right hon. Friend if I mention that I knew this man. I took part in the Dartmoor prosecution when he was one of the criminals and I had him under constant review for some three weeks, and, de mortuis nil nisi bonum, it is impossible to give one's full personal impressions of a man of that kind. But if I say this I hope that I shall not be misunderstood. He was one of a type, of whom there are a great many examples, on whom physical punishment would have little or no deterrent effect at all. He took a very violent part in the Dartmoor mutiny. He acted with very great violence against warders; laid about him with an axe against warders against whom he had nothing at all. He had a long prison record, and prison was no deterrent to him; he was one of a class of case that I have known in my professional career, in which I have had the duty of prosecuting, and in which the lash has been awarded, as the only punishment which would have any effect whatever.

These people are in and out of gaol all their lives, and the one thing they really do mind is the cat-o'-nine-tails. I also know, from personal conversation with prison governors, of cases in which there have been remarkable transformations of character of prisoners as a result of treatment with the cat-o'-nine-tails. I know, on the authority of a governor, of a prisoner who, after the lash, subsequently became one of the best of men. You cannot dismiss the thing merely on sentiment. As my hon. Friend says, one automatically revolts against the kind of sentence and it is easy to work up sentiment. It is also easy to work up hysteria. When I read, as I did, the letter from the prison doctor which was quoted by my hon. Friend a few moments ago, I thought that the prison doctor was making an unfair reflection upon the men who have to perform the duty of flogging a prisoner. I am sure that the people who perform those sentences are scrupulously impersonal. They are not sadists. They do not do this in satisfaction to any feelings of their own, and it is an unfair criticism to make the suggestion that this duty has a degenerating effect upon them. This is not a subject which can be disposed of on a Motion for the Adjournment, or by a mere ad hoc inquiry into this particular method of punishment. You have to go over the whole range of punishment and many other punishments, and to consider the pros and cons of this kind of punishment.

11.23 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir J. Gilmour)

I am sure that the House will believe me when I say that I appreciate the temper and the tone of this discussion. I admit at once that the hon. Member who raised this matter spoke with great conviction. It has been my lot, as it has been of everyone who has held the position which I do, to study these problems and to accept a measure of responsibility in carrying out what the existing law says should be carried out. Let the House remember that in recent years these problems of punishment have been dealt with under two heads; one inflicted by order of the court after the most careful consideration and public trial of the circumstances. That is applicable to this case, in which two men were concerned. All I say on that is that I think what the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) has said really explains the position with regard to this particular case.

I was asked whether this punishment had been inflicted upon the second convict who was concerned with the one who committed suicide. The circumstances here are perfectly simple. This other man has swallowed certain things deliberately, and for the moment he is under medical observation. About that I cannot say more. But I want to emphasise the fact that, taking the average of the last five years, it is under 12 that have been punished in this kind of way for offences against prison discipline. While I realise the seriousness of this method of dealing with this problem, yet I must ask the House to remember that it is only because individuals have used the power of force and brutality in excess of everything of which this House could approve and it is only because they have used methods that are indefensible, which I am certain Members in this House would not defend for a moment, that this method has been adopted. Apart from the question of the decision of the courts, there is the question of discipline in the prison. The House must remember that it is the duty of prison warders to act with the least degree of force that is necessary to carry out the discipline of the prison and it is impossible that those who have the responsibility of maintaining law and order in prisons should neglect to give reasonable support to a warder who is brutally attacked in some of these cases without any real provocation and serious bodily injury inflicted upon him.

This House is right in reviewing from time to time problems such as we have been discussing but it must be remembered that there are safeguards imposed upon this punishment. On the one hand, it is ordered by the court, after very careful consideration, while on the other hand, it can only take place after an inquiry by magistrates on the spot in the prison, it is subsequently brought to the Home Secretary, and it is also supervised—and on every occasion most carefully and meticulously supervised—by the medical officer. If there is any doubt in the mind of the medical officer, his view is paramount in this matter, and, even when this punishment is being carried out, if there is the slightest sign that would lead the medical officer to suppose that any serious and permanent injury was likely to be inflicted upon the individual, on his word that punishment ceases and is not continued. Whatever our feelings may be, it must be remembered that there is still a stratum of society in this country which, if it were allowed to get beyond control, would cause very serious evils. I would ask the House to accept my word that this is done with the greatest care and circumspection, and I trust that the House will not ask for an inquiry of this kind.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.