HC Deb 14 February 1913 vol 48 cc1417-8W

asked the Home Secretary if he can give any information as to the health of Marie Neill, who for the past two weeks has been undergoing imprisonment in Holloway Gaol; whether she has refused to take food and is now being forcibly fed; whether she has been allowed exercise; and whether her treatment has been different from that of other prisoners convicted at the same time and for the same offence?


Marie Neill has refused to take her food in the ordinary way since 3rd February, but she takes it from a feeding cup. The medical officer reports that there are no ill-effects. Prisoners who refuse, their food forfeit their privileges while their refusal continues, and in this respect Marie Neill's treatment differs from that of prisoners who are taking their food. She has been having, and will continue to have, the daily exercise which the medical officer considers necessary for her health.


asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that Mr. John A. T. Brindley, whose wife, Mrs. Maud Brindley, a militant suffragist, has been sentenced to five months' imprisonment in the second division at Clerkenwell Sessions, was refused permission to see her after she had surrendered to her bail, although informed that he would have an opportunity of doing so; that he was told that permission must be obtained from the governor of Brixton Gaol; that this gentleman was telephoned to, but refused permission; and that Mr. Brindley then applied to the Home Office for a permit to see his wife at Holloway and was once more refused; and will he say why this attitude has been adopted, and whether and when Mr. Brindley will be given an opportunity of seeing his wife?


Prisoners can only be allowed to have visits in accordance with rules applicable to them. Mr. Brindley is under an entire misapprehension in supposing he has a right to an interview with his wife at a time when, as a convicted prisoner, she is not entitled to a visit. The rules only allow this once a month for convicted prisoners in the Second Division; but if there is any matter of urgent importance to the prisoner it can be communicated to her through the Governor.


asked the Home Secretary whether Miss Margaret James, recently convicted of an offence connected with the suffrage agitation, was, on the 3rd inst., two days prior to her conviction, compelled by the application of force to submit to have her finger prints taken; and, if so, will he state under what authority, statutory or other, this treatment of an unconvicted person was followed?


Application was made by the Commissioner of Police for the City of London to the Governor of Holloway that the finger prints of the prisoner referred to might be taken under the regulations made under the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, and the Penal Servitude Act, 1891. As the prisoner objected, the finger prints were not taken.

Forward to