§ Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that during the discussion of the Home Office Vote on the 18th instant he referred to an opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown on the question of forcible feeding, he will, in accordance with the practice of the House, forthwith lay upon the Table this opinion?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe answer is in the negative. I am not aware of any such practice as the hon. Baronet suggests. Probably he has in mind the rule stated in "May's Parliamentary Practice," 11th Edition, page 338, which is inapplicable to the present case.
1663W
§ Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say whether, in the records of the Department, there is a single case of any coroner's jury having found a verdict that any sane person has died from starvation when an ample supply of good food was, during any period of starvation, provided and available for the purpose of such person?
§ Mr. McKENNAI have no record of the verdicts of coroners' juries. They are not sent to the Home Office.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total number of persons connected with the suffrage movement convicted of offences against the law during 1912; the number of persons released from prison under his instructions or advice before their sentences had expired; and the number of persons who were forcibly fed during the same period?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe total number received into prison during 1912 under sentence for offences in connection with the agitation was 240; the number released before expiration of sentence was 84; the number forcibly fed, so far as can now be ascertained, was 57. Of the 84 who were released before expiration of sentence, 26 starved themselves and were released because the medical officer reported that they had heart disease or other serious illness, or were senile, and that forcible feeding was inadvisable; 23 starved themselves, and, after being forcibly fed for some time, were released on medical grounds; 12 were released in mitigation of severe sentences of which they had served the greater part; and 8 were released on an undertaking not to offend again. The remaining 15 were released on grounds common to other classes of prisoners—for instance, 6 were released on medical grounds not arising out of any misconduct, and 2 or 3 because the prisoner's father or mother was in a dying condition.