MR. HOPWOOD said, the question | was one of great interest, and that he, to a great extent, concurred in the observations which had been made by his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down as to the expediency of enabling Judges to pass sentences of penal servitude for a shorter period than five years. But leaving that point, he should like to know what prospect there was of some adequate system of inspection being brought to bear upon our great convict establishments? Were those great, solemn establishments, with their lofty walls and barred doors, to be altogether shut out from the view of the general public? What he wanted was that there should be somebody, on the part of the public, to look into them, and to see what was the mode of life and the position of their unfortunate inmates. He, for one, regretted that the power of the Visiting Justices had been almost destroyed, and he hoped to see their authority resuscitated and re-invigorated, so that, as far as possible, there might be a constant system of inspection of those institutions. There was another point connected with the subject which he was anxious to bring under the notice of the Secretary of State, although he had no doubt it was one which was frequently present to his mind. It was well, however, that it should be mentioned in that House, in order that it might be discussed, for the discussion might bear fruit in the future. We had, in those immense establishments of which he was speaking, a certain number of criminals who were doomed to undergo different periods of penal servitude. He was aware that the humane, and he believed the necessary, mode of administering the law required that those criminals should be afforded the hope that part of their term of punishment might be remitted. He did not wish, he might add, to raise too many doubts with regard to the administration of justice; but he must say that more than once or twice or three times in the course of his life he had felt convinced that a man had been made to undergo a term of penal servitude to which, though innocent, he was condemned. There was, of course, a great deal of difficulty in dealing with such case, and he knew very well how readily the Secretary of State, and his Predecessors in Office, had responded to any appeal made to them to entertain and consider cases of the kind; but then it should be borne in mind that, in some instances, the necessary money was wanting to bring forward evidence; or death, perhaps, had removed some of the witnesses, or the Judge who tried the case; the result being that the wretched convict was left to endure his long period of unmerited punishment. That being so, would it not be possible, he would ask, to have an inspection of those prisons, and a review of the cases of the prisoners, to see whether or not some of the inmates might not safely be restored to civil life? It would require, no doubt, a high authority, and the possession of a lofty mind and judgment, in order that such a commission might be properly discharged; but, in the great majority of cases, the Judge who tried a prisoner could be appealed to; he could be asked to refer to his notes, and asked to give his opinion on the case; and, in that way, all the necessary precautions might be taken, and a proper amount of care bestowed upon each case as it arose. And, though caution was necessary in restoring convicts to civil life, he believed there were eminent authorities in the management of convict prisons in whose opinion at least one-third of the prisoners who were confined in them need not be detained there. Was not that a matter worthy of consideration? Was it not a terrible burden on our consciences that all this mass of human degradation should be maintained at the public expense, without any attempt being made to find out whether among the many cases there were not some of those convicts who might, without injury to society, be restored to it, and whether there were not some who had been innocently condemned? Was not the House of Commons incurring a great moral responsibility by not endeavouring, in regard to such a question, to perform its duty in some degree? MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, there were two points mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman in the course of his remarks with respect to which he entirely agreed with him, while there was one on which he differed from him altogether. He was, and had always been, in favour of the independent inspection of convict prisons; and he hoped the Commission would recommend some scheme for the appointment of independent Visitors of all those establishments. He also concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the opinion that there should be, at all events in all serious cases, the most ample opportunity given to a man who was wrongly condemned to have a new trial. The most suitable time, however, to deal with that question would be when the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill came on for discussion. But he would beg to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that a man who had been convicted of a crime could always appeal to the Home Secretary without expense, and that no Home Secretary would be worthy to hold the Office if he did not most carefully investigate those cases which were brought before him. The point on which he differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman-and he did so most absolutely and entirely-was the expediency of sending a roving Commission all over the country to see how many offenders who had been properly convicted and sentenced to penal servitude might be again turned loose upon society. With such safeguards as he had mentioned against allowing an innocent man to suffer, it would be most unwise, in his opinion, that there should be any uncertainty as to a sentence being carried out after it had been passed. MR. SERJEANT SIMON was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not deferred his remarks for a few moments, because he was desirous of having a discussion on a matter which he had very much at heart-he meant the question of industrial labour in prisons. No doubt, the present system was a great improvement on that which formerly existed, when the course adopted with regard to prisoners assumed more of the character of retribution. But the great difficulty was how far it was possible to try to reform a criminal inside the walls of a prison without injuring the honest man outside. Now, he was afraid that in the endeavour to reform the offender they had, to an undue extent, interfered with the well-being of the honest man. ["No, No!"] The hon. Member who cried "No, no was not, perhaps, as well acquainted as he was with the details of the subject. He knew that in the prison at Wakefield, and those in other towns in the North of England, trades had been carried on to such a degree as to be exceedingly injurious to the interests of the honest working man. He would mention, especially, the mat and brushmaking trades. Honest respectable men had come to him, and had also gone on deputations to the Home Secretary, who had represented that they had been literally starved out of occupation through the monopoly of what was called prison labour. For that he did not hold the right hon. Gentleman in any way responsible; for he knew he was most anxious to redress, as far as lay in his power, the grievance of which those poor men complained. The right hon. Gentleman had been good enough, when the Prisons Bill was passing through the House, two years ago, to adopt an Amendment which he had moved, in order to form the recital to a clause in that Act, with the view of preventing the unfavourable operation of prison labour in the way which he had just mentioned. He had not very long ago, he might add, put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman, as to what was being done in the matter, and as to the total absence of any allusion to industrial labour in prisons in the Report for last year which had been laid upon the Table of the House. The answer was, that the Report did not at all apply to the present year, and that a Commission was now sitting with the view of redressing any grievance which might be shown to exist. Now, the inquiry would, he hoped, be carried out in a thorough manner. He, for one, was opposed to punishments being inflicted on offenders by way of retribution, or in any spirit of vindictiveness. The proper course was to endeavour to make a convict a better member of society, if possible, by reforming him. He would not, therefore, prohibit industries in gaols. If a prisoner knew a trade, let him follow it, and, if not, let him be taught one; but let not that system, at the same time, be carried out to the prejudice of the honest and respectable citizen who never committed a crime, and who had only his honest labour to depend upon. His attention had lately been called to the fact that there were absolutely tenders made from certain prisons for the manufacture of goods, not for the use of those prisons, or for the benefit of the prisoners, but in order that their work might go into the market and compete with that of the honest labourer outside. They were seeking to reform the crimi- | alluded to by him when the Votes nal at the expense of the honest work- were before the Committee last year. ing-man, and he protested against that The whole Vote was one which could system as one utterly unnecessary and not be looked upon without a feeling of unjust. He wished to ask the right pain, inasmuch as it dealt with no less hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State than 10,838 unhappy persons under confor the Home Department, whether his finement. He proposed to reduce this attention had been called to certain ten- Vote by the sum of £4,950, being the ders issued from prisons in Lancashire amount of the cost of maintenance of to manufacturers, stating the price at invalids, lunatics, paupers, pauper chilwhich work could be done for them in dren, &c., in Tasmania. He could not the prisons, and whether that rate was see why money should be voted for this one that would undersell the honest purpose to the people of Tasmania. working man out of prison? It was a With regard to the Vote in aid of the great evil, if such a system was in prac- Colonial magistracy, police gaols, &c., tice. If the right hon. Gentleman had for Tasmania and Western Australia, not seen those tenders, would he make which latter place had the control and inquiries respecting them, or issue such management of the sum of £12,000, orders as would prevent those proceed- although he was perfectly aware that ings in the prisons generally? these grants were to expire in 1883, he considered that it was much better that they should be compounded for by the payment of a larger sum at once. The right hon. Gentleman would probably give an answer as to whether this would be done. Another question which he desired to ask was, whether the allowance to the prison officers included. superannuation allowance, or whether that would have to be credited to them when the grant ceased? MR. HIBBERT did not at all agree with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Serjeant Simon) with respect to prison labour. He held the opinion that the more industrial labour was extended in prisons the better it would be for the prisoners, provided that the trades carried on did not undersell the trades carried on outside. He rose, however, to ask his right hon. Friend for some little explanation about the amount voted for prisoners in convict establishments in the Colonies. There appeared to be one prisoner at Malta, 36 in new South Wales, 195 in Tasmania, described as paupers, lunatics, prisoners, or prisoners' children, costing £60 a-year each, and 225 in Western Australia, costing £100 a-year each, while our own convicts cost £48. He thought that some promise should be given as to when these grants in aid of Colonial convict establishments should cease. MR. SULLIVAN wished to call attention to a subject referred to by him last year. He reminded the Secretary of State for the Home Department that he had admitted it to be most objectionable that a stipendiary Coroner should be retained for a Government prison; but in page 208 of the Estimates the salary of that officer again appeared. He begged, again, to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this fact, which had probably escaped his attention. MR. WHITWELL said, the subject just referred to by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) had also been Mr. Serjeant Simon MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, that, so far as the convict prisons were concerned, the work of mat-making, supposed to be improperly competing with honest labour, had been reduced, and, in many establishments, entirely discontinued. This industry was mainly directed to the supply of Government offices and establishments-which was, of course, perfectly allowable. If the necessity for industrial labour existed, the articles manufactured under the system ought not to be placed on a shelf and allowed to remain; they must be disposed of. His theory had always been, as far as possible, to make use of the labour of prisoners for the benefit of the State; and he was, at that moment, under considerable contracts with the Admiralty, and was endeavouring to get the Army to make contracts with the prisons for clothing, blankets, and matters of that kind. He thought nobody could possibly object to their making what they could for the public service, provided the canon laid down by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) was always followed-namely, that the proper market prices outside were not undersold; and the hon. Member might | Home Secretary when that Report might rely that the principle was not in any be expected? With regard to the subway lost sight of. The expenditureject of compensation for punishment on the convict establishments in the undergone by prisoners wrongly conColonies was one which could not be demned, and the discharge of prisoners put a stop to in a moment, for the simple before the expiration of their sentences, reason that the men were there, and so he was of opinion that the more certain long as they were there the Vote would punishment was made the more efficanecessarily continue. The reason why cious it would be, and that the only way the expenditure was large in compari- in which a prisoner should be able to son with the number of prisoners was earn a remission of his sentence should that though the latter was rapidly di- be by good conduct. A sentence once minishing the same staff must be kept pronounced ought, in his view, to be up. Even if the number of prisoners was carried out. He would take the oppor50, they would require the same number tunity of reminding his hon. and learned of men to look after them as if it was Friend of a saying of the late Chief 100. Hon. Members would see, by the Baron O'Grady. A man, whose trial had Report of last year, that the number of been by various means postponed for a prisoners in Western Australia was 350 period of 18 months, was brought before up to the 31st of December, 1876, and him and convicted of a discreditable that in December, 1877, they only num- offence. The prisoner pleaded guilty, bered 275. The latter number comprised but brought a strong recommendation prisoners, lunatics, and paupers out of from the prison authorities, stating that employment. As to Malta and Gibral- his conduct had been of much use in the tar, he found, when he came into Office, moral education of the other prisoners. that not a farthing was voted, as far as he The Chief Baron received that testiunderstood, for Gibraltar; but the Vote mony with extreme pleasure; it was of £20,000 for prisons in Malta he could delightful to find that the prisoner had not understand. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: been so well conducted during confineHear!] His hon. and learned Friend ment, and that circumstance ought to be knew all about it. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: taken into consideration; but he added— No, I want to know.] With regard to "I think, therefore, that as you are a the Coroner referred to by the hon. and gentleman who behaves so exceedingly learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sulli- well in prison, and so exceedingly badly van), he believed this must have been out of it, the best thing I can do is to the Coroner who went to Dartmoor last keep you there as long as I can." year, and who was then paid by the State. But the hon. and learned Member would see that there was no Vote for this officer in the present Estimate. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury and he were entirely agreed that it was a wrong thing that the Coroner should be paid by the State. MR. WHITWELL asked for information as to the pauper children in the Colonies charged for under the Vote? MR. ASSHETON CROSS explained that these were thrown upon the hands of the Government by persons who, having been sent out as convicts, had become insane. Of course, these could not be turned adrift. MR. MITCHELL HENRY could not understand how this Vote could be postponed until the Report of the Royal Commission was in the hands of hon. Members as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). He rose for the purpose of asking the 66 SIR HENRY HOLLAND, as one of the Royal Commissioners, stated that the evidence had been closed, and that the consideration of the Report would begin on Friday. He hoped the Report would be presented to Parliament shortly after Whitsuntide. MR. MUNDELLA drew attention to the estimated charge for 600 military prisoners, which, according to the footnote on page 205, amounted to £20,000. He could not conceive why this amount appeared under this head; it should have been debited to the War Office. MR. PARNELL said, this was the third Session that the Committee had refrained from discussing this Vote, on the ground either that a Royal Commission was about to be appointed, or was taking evidence. He suggested that, as the Report was so very near its presentation, the Committee ought to postpone the Vote until that Report was before the House. The Report would be necessarily a voluminous document, and time was needed to direct the attention of the Home Secretary to those points which were considered of importance, while it would be quite impossible for him to carry out the recommendations of the Committee without undertaking fresh legislation. It therefore followed that the House should have the opportunity of fully considering the Report before it voted the money asked for on the present occasion. With that object, he begged to move that the Chairman report Progress. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.". (Mr. Parnell.) MR. ASSHETON CROSS hoped that the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion to report Progress. The Committee having been through an enormous amount of evidence, their Report would require some time for its consideration; and he absolutely declined to discuss that Report until he had an opportunity of reading the evidence. He trusted the Committee would not provoke discussion upon the Report in a serious manner until the evidence was before the House. MR. PARNELL wished to point out to the Committee that unless the Home Secretary did something with a view to carry out the recommendations of the Report next Session, he would have no opportunity of doing so at all, because the next Session would be the last of this Parliament. Unless the Committee had an opportunity of discussing this Report partially, at all events, and publicly, during the present Session, legislation thereon could not be rendered a matter of any certainty. It would be very wrong that a serious question, upon which hon. Members had been workiug hard for a number of years, should be thrust off to another Parliament; because it was a matter of great doubt how many of those hon. Members might be returned at the next Election. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. SIR ANDREW LUSK hoped the Home Secretary would offer some facilities to magistrates to grant orders to the friends of prisoners to visit them in prison. It was very distressing to have to refer poor men and women, who Mr. Parnell wanted to be allowed to see their relations who were undergoing imprisonment, to the Home Department. The stringent regulations of the Secretary of State for the Home Department were a very great hardship upon poor and ignorant people, who still had feelings of affection for their relations, even though in prison; and he trusted that some way would be found to relax them. It was almost impossible for these poor people to reach the Home Secretary at all; and that, in his opinion, was a strong reason for granting some other means for communication between the unhappy prisoners and their friends. MR. ASSHETON CROSS pointed out that the hon. Member was discussing a subject which was not before the Committee. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON stated, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), that the military prisoners were formerly charged for under the Army Votes; but that since the prisons had been taken over by the State, the cost was paid out of the Prison Votes. MR. MUNDELLA maintained that if the accounts were to be kept correctly, the charge for the military prisoners must be debited to the several Departments of the Army and Navy; otherwise the comparative cost of the different Services was erroneously estimated. MR. HIBBERT said, it was not the fact that this portion of the Vote was dealt with in the sense presented to the House. Original Question put, and agreed to. Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock; Committee to sit again upon Wednesday. CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.-[BILL 150.] (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.) |