DISCIPLINE IN MILITARY PRISONS. (Hansard, 8 May 1899)

LORD MONKSWELL
My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken, or are being taken, to carry into effect the recommendations of a Departmental Committee on Discipline in Military Prisons which reported in June, 1895, with special reference to the condemnation of shot drill and the crank as ordinary forms of prison labour; and to move for papers. I propose to postpone any comment I may have to make until the noble Marquess has replied.

§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
The noble Lord need not be at all afraid that the recommendations made by the Departmental Committee over which he presided will be lost sight of. The policy of those recommendations entirely commends itself to us. We are acting upon them, and we shall continue to act upon them as time goes on. Some of those recommendations have already been carried out; others, again, are embodied in new revised rules which are ready for issue, but the issue of which has been delayed under circumstances which have been explained in the other House of Parliament. We intend to deal with the whole of this question of the treatment of military prisoners. It has become an accepted doctrine that habitual criminals ought not to be retained in the Army, and when a soldier commits a serious offence against the civil law it is usual to hand him over to the civil authorities for imprisonment in a civil prison. It comes, then, to this, that these military prisons are used for the imprisonment of soldiers who have committed offences, not against the civil, but against the military laws—offences which are usually described as offences against discipline. We hold very strongly that, although it is desirable to punish such offences in a manner which will deter those who commit them from committing them again, the punishment should be as little as possible of an ignominious or degrading character. That point has been very strongly taken up by the distinguished general officer who commands at Aldershot—Sir Redvers Buller—who has specially called our attention to it, and a Committee, presided over by him, is at this moment sitting, and will report to us on the whole matter. I think I may say that the standpoint from which we now approach the question is a rather broader standpoint than that taken by the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, because he will remember that his Committee stated that they understood the main point to which their investigations were to be directed was the capability of the men on rejoining the regiments after terms of imprisonment to 19 carry on their military duties without loss of either physical condition or professional knowledge. We, as I said just now, want to push the matter a little further, and to consider whether the imprisonment to which soldiers are subjected should not be made of a somewhat different character, and one equally deterrent, but not so degrading as the kind of punishment to which they have in the past been subjected. I will state to the noble Lord exactly what has been done towards carrying out the recommendations of his Committee, premising, for your Lordships' information, that we have to deal with three kinds of prisons—the large military prisons, which are under the control of the Inspector-General of Military Prisons; the provost prisons under the control of the Commanding Officer of the District; and, finally, the regimental provost prisons, which are under the control of the Officer in command of the Regiment. The first recommendation made by the Committee was that we should limit the licensing of barrack cells to sentences of 14 days and under, and of provost prisons to sentences of 42 days and under. That recommendation has been carried out. The next recommendation was that barrack cells and provost prisons should be lit in the same way as military prisons were lit. That has also been carried out. Then there was a recommendation that in these prisons the hour of putting out the lights should be extended from half-past eight till nine o'clock. That has been carried out in military prisons, and is provided for in the case of the other prisons in the revised rules to which I referred a moment ago. In the next place the Committee recommended that governors should be appointed to the more important military prisons. That has been done in the case, I think, of five or six of the most important of those prisons. Then there is a recommendation that Sunday exercise should be allowed. That has been introduced already in the case of the military prisons. In the case of the provost prisons it is provided for in the new rules. The Committee further recommended that gymnastics, drill, and other forms of military instruction should be allowed. Drill and physical exercise were introduced in the military prisons in 1896. The matter is still under consideration in the case of the provost prisons. Then we come to the recommendation to which the noble Lord attaches most importance— 20 the question of shot drill and the crank. In the military prisons shot drill has, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, been abolished, except as a punishment for prison offences. The use of the crank has not been entirely abolished, but other forms of punishment have, so far as possible, been substituted for it. In the provost prisons shot drill has not yet been abolished, but its abolition is provided for in the revised rules. The same remark applies to the case of barrack cells. The Committee advised that a free choice of library books should be allowed to soldiers during their term of imprisonment. We have accepted that recommendation in part only. Wo allow a free choice of library books after the first fourteen days. That has been done in the case of military prisons and will be done in the case of the provost prisons under the revised rules. The limit, fourteen days, excludes the barrack cells, in which a prisoner cannot be kept for more than fourteen days, from the scope of this recommendation. Then we come to the only recommendation on which I do not think that anything has yet been done, and that is the recommendation that all prisoners in military prisons should be given compulsory education who, in the opinion of the governor, would derive benefit from it. That matter has been considered, but the question raises a good many difficulties. The change would be troublesome and expensive to make, and it is, as the noble Lord knows, held by some very high authorities—it was held by one member, at least, of the Departmental Committee—that the introduction of this practice would lead to a differentiation between one class of prisoner and another which it was not desirable to introduce, and that it would only have the effect of taking away from these punishments a great part of their deterrent effect. There is one other recommendation, which is that the hair of prisoners in provost and barrack cells should be cut only so far as necessary for cleanliness. That recommendation has been adopted and carried out. I think I have said enough to satisfy the noble Lord that we have by no means lost sight of the recommendations which his Committee has made. It is, of course, necessary, in considering these matters, to remember that there is the risk of making these punishments insufficiently deterrent. We have endeavoured to steer our way judiciously between that danger and the 21 undoubted defects which existed in the old system of punishment in military prisons.

LORD MONKSWELL
My Lords, I am glad to hear the statements of the noble Marquess. With regard to the motion at the end of my question, I would suggest that, as there is nothing of a private nature in the Report of the Departmental Committee, it should be circulated as a Parliamentary Paper. We not only took evidence, which the noble Marquess may or may not think of some value, but in the Appendix is the experience of foreign countries, particularly of Germany, in the matter of prisons, on which we based a good deal of our Report. I am glad to hear that in military prisons at all events, shot drill and the crank have been abolished.

§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
I said that the crank was not altogether abolished in military prisons.

LORD MONKSWELL
I am sorry to hear that, but I am glad to find that shot drill has been abolished. I am all the more glad because a few weeks ago, in the case of the lamentable death of Trooper Lorrimer, which was discussed in the House of Commons, every member who took part in the Debate was under the misapprehension, shared also by the Under-Secretary for War, that shot drill was still a common form of prison labour in military prisons. I am sorry the noble Marquess has not seen his way to re-introduce compulsory education, which up to 1872 was the rule. Compulsory education is to some extent carried on in civil prisons, and it is even more important that it should be carried on in military prisons. While this Departmental Committee of the War Office was sitting, another Departmental Committee was considering the same questions with regard to civil prisons. That Committee reported about the same time, and their recommendations bore a very striking resemblance to the recommendations put forward by the Departmental Committee of the War Office. If it is considered necessary to increase the teaching in civil prisons, surely it is much more important, if the noble Marquess thinks it is desirable that the difference between military and civil prisons should be accentuated, that you should emphasise that difference by 22 giving the soldier every opportunity of keeping up his education. In Germany they lay great stress upon keeping up, at all cost, the military education of the prisoner. In Germany the regulations prescribe that the fact is not to be lost sight of, that military prisoners are still soldiers, and will return to military duty. On all occasions, therefore, steps should be taken to foster their soldierly instinct, and to maintain their military bearing. Again, in the matter of gymnastics, I hope the noble Marquess will do everything he possibly can to see that gymnastic exercises are taught in all military prisons. I am glad to hear that most of the recommendations have had some attention paid to them. I would remind the noble Marquess that it is now four years since the Committee reported, and I should have thought that possibly some complete provisions might have been put in force at an earlier date than the noble Marquess seems to have thought necessary.

§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
My Lords, the question of education, and, indeed, the other points upon which the noble Lord has touched, will undoubtedly be considered by the Committee which is now sitting, and I will take care that they are considered. I forgot, in replying to the noble Lord, to take notice of his request that I should lay the Report of the Committee on the Table. I hope he will not press me to do so, not because there is anything in the least mysterious or secret in the Report, but because I think it is undesirable that the reports of these Departmental Committees should be presented to Parliament. It is not like the case of the Report of a Parliamentary Committee or of a Royal Commission Reports of a Departmental Committee of this character are really like official minutes, and what I am afraid of is that if we get into the way of presenting them to Parliament, such Committees will not report to us with the freedom and frankness which they now adopt.

LORD MONKSWELL
I should be the last person to suggest that it should be made a condition in all cases that the Reports of Departmental Committees should be issued as Parliamentary Papers, but when it turns out that there is absolutely nothing in the whole of this Report which is of a secret nature, and when it gives information that some people desire 23 to have, I should have thought there would have been no objection to lay it on the Table, the more particularly as the Report of a Departmental Committee of the Home Office which has considered exactly the same questions in relation to civil prisons has been published as a Parliamentary Paper. However, I will not press my Motion.