HL Deb 27 June 1865 vol 180 cc853-5

House in Committee (according to Order).

Clause 68 (Prohibition of Sentence of Solitary Confinement).

THE EARL OF CARNARVON moved the omission of the clause. The Select Committee of their Lordships' House, which had inquired very fully into this subject, had expressed an opinion in favour of this punishment, as being very valuable, especially in cases of short sentences. The clause formed no part of the Bill as it emanated from the Home Office, but was inserted in the Bill in the other House. The abolition of this punishment had no connection with the subject-matter of the Bill, which was for the regulation of the administration of prisons. The abolition of the punishment of solitary confinement was a matter of judicial procedure, which ought not to be imported into a Bill of this sort. The Bill did not apply to military prisons, and military tribunals, as their Lordships were aware, were frequently in the habit of imposing sentences of three and six months' imprisonment, with solitary confinement for one week in every month. How was it possible that such a sentence could be carried out if this clause were passed? There were often offences committed in prison which required to be dealt with by means of solitary confinement, and if the justices were deprived of this power they would be unable to deal with them. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord (Earl Granville) would agree to the omission of this clause.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, the noble Earl was quite right in saying that the clause formed no part of the Bill as it left the Home Office, but he could not agree that it was an anomaly in a Bill of this character. The clause, he believed, had been unanimously agreed to by the Select Committee of the other House, and he hoped their Lordships would agree to retain it in the Bill.

LORD HOUGHTON

thought the clause went beyond the scope of the Bill. No doubt very exaggerated ideas were entertained at one time of the effects of solitary confinement; but still, for certain purposes, it was a useful punishment, and Her Majesty's Government would do well to omit the clause.

The Marquess of SALISBURY and The Earl of ROMNEY urged the omission of the clause.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, that in deference to the opinion of the noble Lords he would consent to strike out the clause.

Clause struck out.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON moved an Amendment to Schedule I., Rule 34, which he said was rendered necessary by the omission of Clause 68. It was admitted that where hard labour in any form was imposed low diet could not be inflicted. The object was to make the punishment in cases of short sentences sharp and severe, and therefore that object would be defeated if hard labour were imposed, thus rendering it impossible to give the prisoner a low diet. He therefore moved to omit certain words from the clause which would prevent the addition of hard labour in short sentences.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule II. (List of Gaols to be closed.)

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

desired to be informed why the gaol at Poole was not included within its operation. The Committee ascertained that the average number of prisoners in that gaol was only two, and the maximum number in the course of the year only eleven. The food of the prisoners was not cooked in the gaol in the usual manner, but there was a contract with a neighbouring hotel, and the dinners of the inmates were brought in upon trays by the servants of that establishment. Several prisoners were allowed to sleep in one cell, and he was not sure that two had not been permitted to occupy the same bed. The tread-mill was so constructed that one prisoner could turn the wheel; and when the governor went out he was compelled to lock up the one or two prisoners who might be in the gaol, and trust to their own industry for the performance of the tasks imposed upon them.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, that he did not know why this gaol had been left out of the schedule, but he was sure that there must be some good reason for its omission. He would inquire into the subject, and would answer the noble Earl's question upon a future day.

Schedule agreed to.

The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 228.)