I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a serious case of phosphorus poisoning at Messrs. Moreland and Sons, at Gloucester, which, instead of being reported in accordance with the special rules, had been concealed by the foreman; is he aware that, in spite of the seriousness of the case, a fine of only 10s. was inflicted; and if there are any steps which he can take in the matter?

Yes, certainly my attention has been called to this case; as the right honourable Baronet must be aware, the offence was discovered and the prosecution instituted by the Factory Inspector. The amount of the fine was 10s., or with costs, £2 6s. 6d. There are no further steps which can be usefully taken in the case, but I have reason to believe that the conviction will have the desired effect of securing in future a better compliance on the part of this firm with the requirements of the Act.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he has received and considered a memorial from the Sheriffs Substitute of Scotland?

A memorial from the Sheriffs Substitute can only be received by the Treasury through the Scottish Office. No such memorial has yet been received from that office, but when received, it shall, of course, receive attention.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in spite of his having some weeks ago called upon the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway Company to keep the head of Goodwich quay open for boats generally, the Company have up till now done nothing in the matter; and whether he will take further steps without delay.

I will answer this Question in the absence of my right honourable Friend. Since the reply given by my right honourable Friend to a Question put to him by the honourable Member on the 25th April with respect to the railway works at Goodwich, the Fishguard Railway Company have made a proposal to construct a landing place with a concrete pier head at a point a little south of Goodwich quay. The Board of Trade were advised that by this arrangement better general facilities will be afforded for boats than would be obtainable by keeping open the head of Goodwich quay as originally proposed, and they have accordingly approved of the scheme, which the Company have undertaken to complete by the middle of October next.

Does that obviate the necessity of the Company keeping the pier open altogether?

I cannot answer supplemental questions for the Board of Trade.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would give directions that historical documents deposited at the Home Office should be so arranged that students could be allowed access to them, as they are to those deposited in other State Departments, and that all Home Office documents before 1815 should be open?

The honourable Member refers, I presume, to documents deposited at the Record Office. I have nothing to add at present to the answer which I gave on Friday last to the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean,, that I hope to be able to make arrangements in the direction of relaxing the present rules.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Gunners H. Watson and J. Downie, of the 1st Banff Volunteer Artillery, applied in writing for their discharge on the 29th of January last, and that this application was refused; whether ordinarily a discharge is granted on 14 days' notice; and whether he will state on what grounds the refusal in the present case was based, what steps these Volunteers should take in order to obtain their discharge, and what their position and liabilities are until their discharge is granted?

The gunners in question were refused their discharges at the time they asked for them because they had not made themselves efficient for the year, nor had they paid the sum lost to the corps by their non-efficiency. One of these courses was obligatory under the rules of the corps, with which section 7 of the Volunteer Act requires compliance.

On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Civil Service and the Army and Navy Stores are treated on the same terms regarding income tax as the Scottish Wholesale Co-operative Society; whether private traders pay on the average a higher rate of income tax than is obtained from co-operative societies and Army and Navy and Civil Service stores; and whether the members of those stores only pay income tax on the salaries of their officials who are in receipt of over £150 per annum?

The Scottish Wholesale Co-operative Society is registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, and under section 24 of that Act it is exempt from direct assessment to income tax. The Civil Service and the Army and Navy Stores are not registered under the Act, and their profits are directly assessed to income tax in the same way as those of ordinary trading companies. In both cases the income tax, whether directly or indirectly assessed, is assessed at the same rate in the £ as in the case of ordinary traders, and in both cases individual members whose incomes are below the income tax level obtain the exemption to which they are entitled under the ordinary law, the only difference being that in the one case the income tax is not levied upon such individuals, while in the other case it is levied and afterwards repaid. The position suggested in the last paragraph could not be true of any society trading for profit unless all its members' incomes were below £160 a year, in which case, of course, no member would be legally liable to the tax.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether there is any foundation for the statement that in view of the impossibility of distinguishing the men of the different infantry battalions under his command General Gatacre has been compelled to invent badges for the British battalions in Egypt, and to order that these shall be made on the spot and be sewn on to the uniforms; and whether, if such be the case, he will arrange in the future to have the necessary tailoring work performed at the War Office Tailoring Department, instead of in the presence of the enemy?

Nothing is known at the War Office of the incident referred to in the Question; battalions wearing khaki clothing are distinguished by their shoulder badges; and for greater distinctness additional badges in cloth are affixed to the puggarees of helmets. This is not done in the presence of the enemy.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in accordance with the provision contained in the Blackrock and Kingstown Drainage and Improvement Act of 1896, that within two months from the passing of that Act a certificate should be obtained from an engineer to be nominated by the Local Government Board for Ireland that the works intended to be legalised by that Act had been completed, Mr. Samuel Usher Roberts, C.B., who was nominated as such engineer in October, 1896, has been applied to by the Blackrock and Kingstown Drainage Board to give the certificate required by the Act of 1896; can he state how often and when did he receive the last application from the Board, and whether he has declined to give the certificate asked by the Board; and, if so, for what reasons; and whether the drainage works are now effectual; if not, are they capable of being made effectual without new works and fresh capital?

The facts are correctly stated in the first paragraph. Mr. Roberts inspected the works in October, 1896, and again in May, 1897. On the 5th January last he received a letter from the secretary to the Drainage Board requesting him to make an inspection, for the purpose of granting the necessary certificate. This inspection was also carried out by Mr. Roberts, who found that some additional works, recommended by the Drainage Board's consulting engineer, were not then completed. On the 15th April Mr. Roberts inquired whether the works had been completed, but so far he has received no notification from the Drainage Board that they had. The engineer states that when he inspected the district the works were not, in his opinion, in every respect, efficient, but he is unable to say how far the works since executed have rendered them effectual, or whether further expenditure will be necessary.

Are we to understand that the Board have not carried out the Act of Parliament which they got from this House in 1896, and which required that the certificate should be given within two months of the passing of the Act?

It is quite evident from the answer I have given that they have not carried it out.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a memorial from the first and second class clerks in the Sasines Office, Edinburgh, desiring the application of the seven hours day, and if he can explain why it is not applied, as in every other department of the Civil Service; whether the clerks in the Sasines Office are working two hours overtime daily for the greater part of the year, and whether the Secretary for Scotland will consider favourably their claim for increased remuneration for overtime; and when it is intended to hold an examination, in terms of Lord Lothian's Minute of 7th February, 1890, to fill the 18 vacancies in the permanent staff?

Yes, a memorial has been received. While the changes in the system of registration recommended by Lord Low's Committee, which are now under the consideration of the Law Societies, remain undetermined, and until additional accommodation has been provided in the new buildings, it has been found convenient to continue the present arrangements for carrying on the work of the Register of Sasines; but the question of an earlier application of the seven hours is now before the Secretary for Scotland, who is waiting for a report from the Keeper on this subject, and also on the filling up of the vacancies referred to.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has observed that, in the concluding paragraph of the annual Report of the deputy master of the Melbourne branch of the Royal Mint, it is stated that the large increase of work has severely strained the energies of the staff, and that it was found impossible to keep the book work up to date; and whether it is proposed to strengthen the staff, as the deputy master suggests?

I have seen the paragraph referred to. Since the date of the Report—9th February, 1898—the deputy master of the Melbourne Mint has submitted definite proposals for increase of staff, which have been agreed to. A vacancy in the clerical staff has been filled up, and extra clerical assistance has also been sanctioned. It is understood that the arrears of work will be met with this additional assistance.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has noted the fact that, in the Annual Report on the Virgin Islands, the financial condition of the group is described as one of literal insolvency; and whether he is prepared to act on the recommendation of the Government that the Federal Debt be wiped off by the Imperial Government?

I have read the Report referred to by the honourable Member. The financial condition of the Virgin Islands has for some time past engaged my careful attention, and on the 14th March last this House, on my recommendation, made provision for clearing off the deficiency in the treasury of these Islands amongst others of the West Indian Colonies. The presidency is now, I believe, free from debt.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Sir William McGregor, Lieutenant Governor of British New Guinea, declared, in April, 1895, that the policy of the Colony was to sell land to bonâ-fide cultivators, but not to encourage speculation by selling large areas to exploiting syndicates, or to grant concessions that would be immediately sold for what they might bring; whether there is in the Colonial Office any record of the reasons that have induced the Lieutenant Governor to completely reverse the policy thus enunciated; and whether it would be possible to so amend the agreement with the British New Guinea Syndicate, as to limit its operations to the development of a specified area or district, instead of allowing an option to purchase to the extent of 250,000 acres in the Colony at large?

(1) I am aware that Sir W. McGregor did, in April, 1895, make to the Scottish Geographical Society the statement cited by the honourable Member with the important variation that, instead of the Colony, he said the Colonies, and that the statement was a general one, giving the speaker's view of general principles of colonial administration. (2) In a despatch reporting his negotiations with the British New Guinea Syndicate Sir W. McGregor says that—

"In spite of the efforts of the local Government to encourage the development of the country, the results as regards the utilisation of the soil have been disappointing, and that unless some encouragement was given to a company like the syndicate there was no apparent prospect of any great progress being made for some time in opening up and developing the agricultural resources of the country."

Is it contemplated by the syndicate to import Asiatic labour into the islands?

I must ask for notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether there is at present employed at Simla a statistical officer who has held his appointment for 15 years, or close on that period; and, if so, whether, in the interest of the officers of the Indian Medical Service, and also with the view of the latest and most enlarged experience being obtained and utilised, he will consider the advisability of placing some limit on the duration of the appointment of statistical officer as is in force with other staff appointments at Army headquarters, the tenure of which is limited to five years, except under special circumstances?

The medical statistical officer to the Government of India has held this appointment for nearly 12 years. There is no limit to the tenure of the appointment, and in the absence of any proposals from the Government of India I see no reason to disturb the present arrangement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether in future the same rule which exists to the effect that when officers are 10 years in quasi civil appointments—e.g., cantonment magistrates, pay, ordnance, etc.—they will be directed to revert to military duty or be posted permanently to the civil branch, will be made applicable to the officers of the Indian Medical Service?

There is no present intention of applying to officers of the Indian Medical Service the rules under which military officers permanently appointed to civil employment are, after 10 years' absence from military duty, placed on the Supernumerary List.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the number of Customs watchers employed in the port of London, and the number of these who are in receipt of pensions from either the Army or Navy?

The number of Customs watchers at present employed in this port of London is 357, and of these, 149 are in receipt of pensions from either the Army or Navy (Army 99, Navy 50). Of this total number (357), however, only 103 represent the watchers who have been appointed directly to the class since it was instituted. The others came into the class from lists of permanent labourers and casual extra-men which were not, as is now the case with watchers, exclusively recruited from Army, Navy, or other pensioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state how many bonded stores there are in county Armagh, how many in county Louth, how many in county Tyrone, and how many in county Monaghan; and, if there is no bonded store in county Monaghan for the convenience of the merchants and traders of that county, will he cause one to be established?

I would ask the honourable Member to repeat the Question on Thursday, and then to address it to my right honourable Friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a Press committee has been established at Poona; and who is responsible for its creation, and what are the contemplated duties of the committee as described to the persons who were appointed or invited to become members of it?

The Bombay Government have had under consideration a proposal for the appointment of committees in certain towns for the purpose of keeping the responsible officials informed as to the character of the matter published in the local newspapers. These bodies were to be of a consultative character, and not to be invested with any executive responsibility. I am in communication with the Government of Bombay upon the subject. As I have before said, the law of India does not admit of the exercise of any censorship of the Press.

May I ask whether as a matter of fact any such committee has been appointed for Poona?

I am not certain whether any committee has been appointed. I have stated to the honourable Gentleman what was the idea of the Bombay Government, and the nature of the duties it is proposed to entrust to such committees.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the recent fighting which took place on the Albanian and Montenegrin frontiers; whether he can state the number estimated to have been killed or wounded, and to what extent was the property of Christians destroyed during the disturbances; and what steps are proposed to be taken by the Porte in order to restore order in those regions, and to prevent similar outbreaks in future?

Since the information which I gave to the House in answer to a Question on the 20th inst. we have heard that in the two fights which took place on the Montenegrin frontier the total losses of the Albanians were from 80 to 100 killed, while 15 Christians were killed and 19 wounded. We have heard nothing of the destruction of Christian property. The disturbances are now reported to be at an end, and 10 battalions of Turkish troops have arrived at Berane, and will be kept there for the present to prevent the recurrence of disturbance.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, at the recent beef-dressing competition for £200 a side at Wood Green Track, four oxen were slaughtered in a place of public amusement, and their bodies cut up and dressed before a great concourse of people, who paid for the gratification of seeing this performance; and was the place where the oxen were slaughtered a licensed slaughter-house; and, if not, will he consider the propriety of directing proceedings to be taken against the promoters of this public entertainment?

Yes, I received a report as to what took place at this entertainment. The question of legality involved in the slaughtering of the animals appears to be one for the district council, with whom I am in communication, but I may add that an assurance has been given on behalf of the managers of the ground that such exhibitions will not be allowed in future.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when will the Report of the Irish Loan Fund Board for 1897 be presented and published, in accordance with statutory requirements; and what is the reason of the delay in its presentation and publication?

The Report of the Irish Loan Fund Board will be laid on the Table of the House in a day or two. The delay in presentation is due to the failure on the part of certain loan fund societies to forward abstracts of their accounts to the Board within the statutory period.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in addition to the vessels told off for the protection of British interests in the vicinity of the United States' and Spanish seats of war, he has arranged that naval officers in command of British squadrons on adjoining stations shall, by an undertaking with the United States and Spanish Governments, commission vessels to follow and report in detail the naval operations of the contending squadrons; and whether marines and blue-jackets have been landed at Manila, with the sanction of Admiral Dewey, by Great Britain and other European Powers for the protection of the residents of their several nationalities?

The answer to the first Question of the honourable Gentleman is in the negative. In answer to the second Question, no report of such landing as having taken place has been received.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the fact that the trial of the Tourmaline prisoners at Algiers before the Chief Justice of Gibraltar was adjourned on the 16th of June, after the case for the prosecution had been opened and witnesses called, until the 30th of June, for the purpose of enabling the prosecution to produce additional evidence; whether it is in consonance with the administration of justice in criminal cases under English law to adjourn a trial when it has once been begun, and witnesses have been heard; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

It is not in my power to take any action in the matter; the conduct of the case depends upon the local law and practice, and the judicial discretion of the court. Under proper circumstances trials for misdemeanour may be, and are, at times adjourned.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he could arrange to give another day to the Home Office Vote at an early date, to allow an opportunity for the discussion of the question of lead poisoning in the Potteries district?

My honourable Friend is aware that the next three Fridays are already allocated. I shall bear in mind his desire that the Home Office Vote should be discussed, but he will remember that there has been a discussion already upon the Vote on Account.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, as it is desirable to have information before the Scottish Estimates are taken regarding the intentions of the Government, he can inform the House if they intend to take any action to put an end to the denuding of the protected waters of the Moray Firth by foreigners at the expense of British interests, on which subject a deputation waited on the Prime Minister on the 8th instant, when it was informed that the question would receive consideration; and whether, especially as the Session is shortly ending, when it will be impossible to draw the attention of Parliament if any breach, of the law were to take place, an event which might unfortunately be anticipated under the present state of affairs in those waters, the Government will effect some change so as to prevent the continuance of such practices for another winter?

I am afraid I can give no other answer to the honourable Gentleman upon this subject than the promise already given by the Prime Minister that the difficult questions alluded to in the inquiry will be carefully considered, as they are being by the Government at the present time.

Will the right honourable Gentleman, as this matter is of vital importance, hold out any hope that before the end of the Session he will make any statement as to what action will be taken during the coming winter?

I do not wish to give an absolute pledge on the subject, but I have very little doubt that the Government will be in a position to say something before the end of the Session.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government are in possession of information confirming the report that arrangements have been made by the Spanish Government to coal the Spanish squadron through the agents of an English firm at Port Said; and whether, in accordance with the neutrality proclamation, precautions are being taken that only sufficient coal to enable the fleet to stream to the nearest Spanish port will be supplied?

As regards the first paragraph of the honourable Gentleman's Question, no information to the effect he refers to has been received by the Government. As regards the second paragraph of the Question, every precaution to preserve neutrality will be observed by the Egyptian Government in Egyptian ports as would be observed by the British Government in British ports.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the Second Reading of the Charitable Loans (Ireland) Bill, a Government Measure, was taken unexpectedly on Thursday evening in the absence of Irish Members, facilities will be given for the discussion of the principle of this Measure, and due notice of the time when it will be taken in the Committee stage?

An effort was made to consult the wishes of Irish Members on Friday on the subject, and I was very desirous of meeting the views of honourable Gentlemen. Notice shall be given of this Bill before it is brought on, but I hope the discussion will not be a prolonged one, although I think some discussion probably ought to take place.

Will the right honourable Gentleman kindly see that this Bill is not brought on until the Report for 1897 of the Loan Funds Board is circulated to Members? It ought to be out in a few days, and I think we should have it before the discussion on the Bill.

I shall be glad if the honourable Gentleman will put that Question on the Paper, addressed either to myself or the Attorney General for Ireland. I have not at present the technical knowledge that would enable me to answer.

Will the right honourable Gentleman, having regard to the importance of the subject, allow us an opportunity of discussing the principle of the Measure?

As the honourable Gentleman is aware, the Second Reading has been already passed; but I think there will be an obvious and legitimate opportunity on the Third Reading, and I believe that, in addition to that, on clause 1 there will be a perfectly fair opportunity of dealing with the general principle of the Measure.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Customs lighthouse keepers at Leao-tio-shan have been dismissed by the Russian authorities, and whether the lighting of the entrance to the Gulf of Pechili is now in Russian hands; whether the lighthouse service of China is a branch of the Imperial Maritime Customs Service, and its expenses defrayed out of the revenues of that service; and whether Sir Robert Hart, as head of that service, has been consulted as to their action, or advised of it by the Russian authorities?

We have heard from Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin that the lighthouse keepers at Leao-tio-shan were paid off a fortnight ago and replaced by Russians. The lighthouse in question is on the territory leased to Russia. The Chinese lighthouse service is a branch of the Customs Service, but I believe that Sir Robert Hart was not consulted in the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Waima incident of December, 1893, when three British officers and seven men of the West Indian Regiment were killed by French troops on British soil, has been included in the general negotiations; and whether he can now inform the House if any settlement of the Waima incident hag been arrived at; if so, will he state the terms; if not, will he inform the House whether the Government propose to grant adequate compensation to the wives and families of said officers and men?

The question of compensation for the Waima incident was not included in the recently terminated Niger negotiations, but has been included in more general negotiations which will now be resumed. Pending a settlement of these, the question of a Government grant to the families of the deceased is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that some Odessa merchants have been informed by the Russian Minister of Finance that Port Arthur is considered Russian; whether that statement implies that all Russian merchandise from Russian ports in Europe will enter Port Arthur free from duty to which British merchandise will be subject; and whether Her Majesty's Government have addressed any communication to the Russian Government on the subject?

We have not heard of any such communication as that referred to in the first Question, and I am unable, therefore, to give an opinion as to what it may imply. I may, however, remind my honourable Friend that Port Arthur is not, and never has been, a Treaty mercantile port.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to give particulars of the policy which Her Majesty's Government intend to pursue with respect to the territories at present under the control of the Royal Niger Company whereby, as already announced, those regions are to be thrown open to all traders; and whether he can indicate the form which the future government of these territories is to take under the new arrangement?

The matter is at present engaging the attention of the Government, but has not reached a stage at which it would be possible for me to make any statement on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the regulations of inland steam navigation recently issued by the Chinese Government restrict the privilege to Treaty port provinces, and also prohibit steamers from towing native craft; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will insist on the opening of internal navigation on all rivers in China, so that it will be possible to take British merchandise in British ships not merely to the ports recognised by Treaty, but to every riverside town and station in the whole of the interior of China, in order to carry out in its entirety the original agreement as explained to the House?

The regulations as drawn up by the Chinese Government did contain the first, but did not contain the second restriction mentioned in the Question. Her Majesty's Government will insist upon the regulations being revised in a satisfactory sense.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether consideration has been given to the petitions from the inspectors and chargemen of shipwrights, which have been presented annually for the past few years, and to which so far no reply has been accorded?

This complicated question is still under consideration, and it is hoped a decision will be arrived at shortly.

Will the First Lord of the Treasury state what business will be taken on Thursday?

The Criminal Evidence Bill.

That will be taken first on Wednesday.

Yes, I was assuming that it had not passed on Wednesday.

Mr. Speaker, although I have put down this Amendment, I wish to disclaim any desire to embarrass the Government or the Secretary of State for the Home Department by any controversy about the matter. In the Standing Committee on Law perhaps one of the most prominent topics for consideration was the question of the abolition of corporal punishment in gaols. No one can deny that the Home Secretary, in his conduct of this Bill through the Committee, readily adopted suggestions in the direction of humanity towards the prisoners which were brought forward on either side. I believe that when this Bill has been passed into law it will be considered one of the greatest achievements of the Government during the present year. Sir, the question of corporal punishment in prisons was, as I have said, an abstract question considered by the Committee, and some Members objected to it altogether, and desired to entirely deprive the gaol authorities of all power in the matter. It was pointed out that in Ireland and Scotland no such power is possessed by the authorities in charge of the local prisons; and it was also pointed out that in the English local prisons, although the power is possessed, yet it has been exercised with considerable diminution of frequency during the last few years. I believe I am correct in saying that the weight of authority upon the Committee was in favour of retaining the right to administer corporal punishment in very exceptional cases only. It was deemed right that it should be kept in reserve as a last resource, and then should only be permitted if surrounded with great precautions. I maintained an open mind upon this subject for some time until two right honourable Gentlemen opposite convinced me, and led me to take the course I did in proposing some such Amendment as that which is now before the House. The right honourable Gentleman who represents Fife, and who was Secretary of State for the Home Department in the last Government, most forcibly presented the case against flogging to the Committee. He held that it should never be administered by any officer unless as the result of some decision arrived at by a judicial tribunal. His argument in favour of that view seemed to me to be overwhelming. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, who also has held high office in the Home Office, and who has been able to watch the working of the Prison Statutes, supplemented the argument of the right honourable Gentleman in a forcible speech. His argument, based probably upon his own experience in office, was that it should be the result of the decision of a judicial tribunal, arrived at in open court. These are the two principles which I hope this House will affirm as the condition upon which corporal punishment may be continued in gaols for prison offences. Sir, when I suggested that these two conditions might be met by permitting the court of petty sessions for the district in which the gaol is situate to be the judicial tribunal to dispose of these matters as though they were ordinary offences against the general law of the land, the Home Secretary met my proposal with two arguments. He said, firstly, that you must not put a slight upon visiting justices who at present are the tribunal, and his second objection was that there was a difficulty in holding an open court in prison. To deal with the first of these objections, visiting justices are the tribunal only in local prisons. In the case of convict prisons the Home Secretary is to appoint a board of visitors—there is no specific number. He may appoint as many as he likes or as few as he likes. They are not necessarily possessed of any judicial qualification or experience, and they may or may not act upon any occasion that suits them. Therefore the tribunal for convict prisons is one which will be very uncertain in its action, and I venture to think very incomplete in its qualifications. The Home Secretary found a difficulty about having an open court; but there is an open court now in the case of the death of a prisoner—the coroner's court—and I have never yet heard that any scandal arises from coroner's inquests being held in the gaol. On the other hand, the public gets a great advantage—namely, the publicity which arises through the revelations in the Press. There is frequently complete exculpation in regard to any charge of misconduct on the part of the prison officials when the evidence is disclosed in the course of the revelations in the Press. Now, the offences for which corporal punishment may be inflicted under this Bill are set forth in clause 4, and it will be found that it is only in the cases of mutiny, or incitement to mutiny, or gross personal violence to an officer or servant of the prison that corporal punishment may be awarded. If the Bill remains as it is, it will only be, so to speak, for an offence against prison discipline. Adopt my Amendment, and it will be for an offence against the general law of the land. If there are offences against the law of the land it seems but reasonable that they should be triable by the court in the locality, which is entirely independent of gaol influence. The provision I suggest will enable the tribunal to award any punishment which the governor may deem fit for an ordinary offence, if the tribunal is of opinion that flogging is too severe a punishment for it; it will enable the tribunal to award some dietary punishment, or some loss of marks, or something of that kind, instead of corporal punishment. On the other hand, provision is made for flogging, if it is thought that what has been done, such as violence, to an officer, amounts to an offence which deserves it, and in serious cases the tribunal can commit for trial. I have suggested that the Home Secretary should have an open court. He could either put in force the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, and have an occasional court- house in the gaol, or, if he thought fit, he could have the prisoner sent to the ordinary petty sessions house, where the justices are summoned in the ordinary course, and can dispose of the case in the ordinary way. I make this proposal with the object of carrying out the two principles which I have just mentioned were laid down by the right honourable gentleman, who has had great experience in this matter, and who advocated that they should be embodied in any Amendment which the Home Secretary might make to the Bill. The Amendment of the Home Secretary suggests that, except by order of the visiting committee, and after inquiry on oath, no corporal punishment shall be administered. But the board of visitors, or visiting committee, may consist of persons without the very slightest judicial experience of any kind whatever. They would not be assisted by a law clerk, they would not be governed by the rules of evidence according to the strict procedure which is required under the Summary Jurisdiction Act. They would in no sense be a court. The prisoner would not have the right of being heard before them and of making his defence in any way he chooses. The final decision would rest with the three members of the visiting committee. We are not told whether the inquiry is to be surrounded by the ordinary forms of judicial proceedings. An inquiry on oath is by no means necessarily a judicial inquiry, and I therefore venture to think that would be unsatisfactory. But the Home Secretary reserves an alternative. He may, if he thinks fit, appoint a metropolitan police magistrate, or a stipendiary magistrate, to take the place of the board or the committee. But the fallacy of that is that, though he should appoint a judicial person, he would not be a judicial tribunal. It would certainly deprive a prisoner in gaol of that protection which I believe it is widely felt he should possess by merely seeding down such a gentleman to hold an inquiry, which may be irregular in form and unsatisfactory in its procedure. The Home Secretary's Amendment also is inconsistent with the principle laid down as one of the two essential conditions upon which this power is to be maintained, and that is, it does not provide for a public inquiry. A metropolitan police magistrate may go down, and he, may hold an inquiry, but it is not required to be a public inquiry. I feel so strongly that these two points are essential that, although I have suggested that a petty sessional tribunal may be the most convenient, I will depart from my proposal if the Home Secretary will undertake to introduce some words which will make a judicial inquiry and give an open tribunal. I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment if one more satisfactory can be put in its place. I venture to think that it is most important that a public tribunal should be given. Remember that a prisoner is not in the same position as any other accused person when he is on trial. He is surrounded with warders and officers whom he has to conciliate every day. He is not at his best physically. He is, perhaps, somewhat emaciated and weakened by the treatment to which he has been subjected. That man stands alone, without any friends to watch over him. He has to face the governor and the director of the public prison. He is not being tried as any human creature should be tried. I do not doubt that the directors of public prisons are actuated by the highest sense of honesty and fairness. But the man who is charged may well feel oppressed by his surroundings and not believe he is getting a fair trial. It is most important, if we are to punish these men, that we should do our best to instil into them the belief that justice is being done to them. Under these circumstances, I sincerely hope that some such proposal as I have made, embodying these two propositions, will be accepted by the House.

I do not think it necessary to travel into all the issues raised on this question; but, I would point out that there was an overwhelmingly strong opinion expressed by the Standing Committee on Law in favour of light and publicity being let into these prison proceedings. The idea of a prisoner being taken and subjected to such a brief form of trial or inquiry as my right honourable and learned Friend describes was by the overwhelming majority of the Standing Committee on Law said to be absolutely impossible to continue; and therefore it was that when the Bill passed through our hands it was on the understanding that the Home Secretary would insert at some stage of the proceedings a provision which would embody the quality of a public tribunal. It cannot be contended that the Amendment proposed by the right honourable Gentleman does provide anything in the shape of a judicial tribunal. You do not make a judicial tribunal by merely sending down a judicial functionary. What do we mean by a judicial tribunal? It should have in it not merely the presence of a judicial functionary, but in addition the judicial quality of publicity and fairness towards the prisoner. I think when a man is exposed to so serious a punishment as corporal punishment it is not unfair or unreasonable to provide him with some means of formulating his defence the same as is possessed by any man out of gaol. Here he is tried on the evidence of warders, who, naturally, are able to get together all the materials to complete their story against him; but if the prisoner has no means of procuring assistance, no advice to which he can have access to assist him in preparing his defence, he is dragged before the tribunal seriously handicapped. Therefore I say, if corporal punishment is to continue at all in our prisons, it surely should only be after the fullest, fairest, and most public inquiry that it is possible to hold. There is one part of the Home Secretary's Amendment which I would have liked my honourable Friend to have provided for in his Amendment, and that is the part which provides for a report being made to the Secretary of State after the infliction of corporal punishment, because I do not know that it will afford much satisfaction to the prisoner who has received his lashes, but it would be some public guarantee that there will be in future greater care taken, in view of the infliction of corporal punishment, if this House will have from time to time fuller facility of ascertaining the nature of the offence for which the punishment is inflicted, and the grounds on which it is meted out. Again, I say that I hope the Home Secretary and the House will not sanction the continuance of corporal punishment in our prisons, except after a full, fair, and judicial inquiry—not before a mere judicial functionary, but before a tribunal possessing all the elements of justice habitual to courts in this country.

It is quite right to say that this question has been discussed before the Grand Committee, Sir, and there was an understanding that I would do what I could to meet the views expressed in favour of the institution of a judicial tribunal consistently with our prison discipline. I have in the light of that promise done my very best to see if I could accept the new clause of my honourable and learned Friend, and I confess that I have come to this conclusion, that, if corporal punishment is to be retained in our prisons, it is a matter of internal discipline which cannot be satisfactorily disposed of in the way suggested by making it a subject of trial by one of our ordinary tribunals, and in the ordinary courts of law. Nor can you try a prisoner in open court (in prison), as is the case under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, without breaking down our prison discipline. The general opinion is that this punishment should be maintained, and not altogether abolished; that it is desirable to maintain it as a final resort—as the honourable Gentleman put it—for the safeguarding and protection of our warders, not with a view that it should be frequently used, but that the knowledge should prevail among offenders that such powers of punishment lay in the hands of our prison authorities. That being the case, I have limited it in this Bill. But then comes the question—who is to administer the provisions as to corporal punishment? My honourable Friend says the tribunal ought to be public—that it should have all the elements of publicity, and the fairness of a judicial tribunal. But I think everyone acquainted with prison administration will agree with me that that is an almost impossible condition of things. My honourable Friend, speaking to his Amendment, says that these matters of prison discipline ought to be tried in the light of our courts of law. But these offences which we are dealing with here are not ordinary offences against the law of the land. They are offences against prison discipline; and in order to maintain our prison discipline I have it on the best authorities that I have been able to consult, that the prison authorities should have the power of punishing an offender by corporal punishment. I would also point out that the number of corporal punishments has diminished, so that in the last year there were only seven cases in the whole of our convict prisons. I do not disagree with all that has been said by my honourable Friend, but what I do say is that in our convict prisons, as well as in the other prisons in England, the best authorities that I have been able to consult concur in this, that it is necessary to have this power to resort to for the protection of our warders and the maintenance of discipline; and the right honourable Gentleman opposite, who was my predecessor in office, will agree with me in this. I would say that in this Bill it is proposed to take away from the directors of convict prisons the power of administering this punishment. In their place it is proposed that there should be a board of visitors summoned for the purpose; that to provide for cases when a prison was difficult of access by reason of its geographical position there should be power to send down a fully qualified metropolitan police magistrate to conduct the inquiry, and that everything that transpires should be reported to the Secretary of State. Well, Sir, the number of these punishments is diminishing every year, and I am confident that with the system now proposed the number would still further diminish. That there should be this power of punishment those who have had any experience of its results will not deny. In the case of a person who is going to be punished for a prison offence, it is impossible to have a public court with all the light of publicity. Corporal punishment must be safeguarded, but it was vitally essential to the preservation of prison discipline, and to hamper it by the restrictions proposed would be to put an end to corporal punishment altogether. Now, Sir, if corporal punishment is to be directly abolished, let it be done by the Vote of this House. Let us proceed gradually in that direction, confining it to the special crimes of violence which we know may occur in our prisons; it is far more easy to remedy them by holding out the possibility of this form of punishment than to adopt the form of punishment adopted in other countries. I do say that, for the control of the violent criminals, of whom no one will deny there are a certain number in our own prisons, it is desirable, in the last resort, to have this power of inflicting a punishment which alone has a satisfactory effect on some of them. I press the House to support the Government in rejecting this clause, and in supporting the attempts which I have made in my Amendment to secure that the Visiting Committee or the Board of Visitors of the prison may realise the gravity of the charge which they are trying. Adequate power has been taken by the clause to secure that the corporal punishment is properly inflicted, and I am confident that there will be no abuse under the system, and that the result will be that corporal punishment will be more satisfactorily dealt with than at the present time.

I think every member of the Grand Committee on Law which considered this Bill, whatever difference of opinion there may have been amongst us on certain points, will join with me in recognising the fair manner in which the Home Secretary gave the Bill his consideration. He did not adopt the attitude which he might have been contented to adopt—namely, that he had a great majority behind him, and that he would have the Bill passed by the weight of his majority. He made a great many concessions to the proposals that were made by the Members of the Opposition, and by Members on his own side of the House, and the Bill—I think he will agree with me in the opinion—has been very materially improved in its passage through the Grand Committee, and is now a far better Bill than it was when it was introduced. Now, Sir, let me call the attention of the House to the proposal of the Home Secretary, because, in dealing with this clause now before us, I cannot avoid dealing with the alternative clause proposed in its place; in fact, we have two schemes before us for regulating corporal punishment. I should like to call the attention of the House to clause 5, in which they will see there has been an enormous improvement in the law with reference to corporal punishment, which was introduced in the Bill in Committee. Under the present law the visiting magistrates, the governor, and the directors of convict prisons have practically an almost uncontrolled discretion, both as to the nature and extent of the offences which they can punish with corporal punishment.

The margin is a very narrow one.

There is a very narrow margin in the law, but there is a very wide margin in administration, and floggings have been inflicted for offences which, under no possible construction, can be brought within sub-section (b) of this clause. Why I am troubling the House with this is because the Home Secretary recently stated that this was entirely a question of internal discipline. It is not a question of internal discipline. It does not affect the ordinary every-day discipline of the prison at all. I have no doubt, before we close this Debate, my honourable Friend the Member for Mayo will tell the House of the sort of offences for which this punishment is given. The offences for which, under this Bill, you can administer corporal punishment now are mutiny, incitement to mutiny, or gross personal violence—not violence threatened, but violence inflicted. There has been a great deal of corporal punishment administered on account of apprehension, and not on account of bodily suffering. Now, Sir, before I pass from this I will ask the Home Secretary what difficulty is there in trying a question of mutiny, or incitement to mutiny, or gross personal violence, by a competent judicial tribunal outside the prison authorities altogether? Then, Sir, the Home Secretary tells us that the number of cases in which flogging was administered last year in convict prisons was seven. He did not tell us how many floggings were inflicted in the local prisons in England.

Fifty.

Yes, 50. I want the House to bear this in mind. Convict prisons: in the United Kingdom, floggings inflicted, seven; local prisons—there can be no flogging in either Ireland or Scotland—flogging confined to England, and you have have upwards of 50 administered. Those are the floggings with which the House may, in the first place, appropriately deal. The Home Secretary says you cannot keep up discipline without it. But how does he keep it up in Ireland and Scotland? Gentlemen below the the Gangway who come from Ireland have heard it suggested that there was something superlatively genial in the Irish race—and my honourable Friend the Member for Mayo naturally cheers that suggestion—that they are distinguished in being always so orderly, always so obedient, always so amenable to the law—which they never wish to violate—that there was no necessity to administer flogging in Ireland. I quite agree that there has evidently been no necessity to administer flogging in Ireland, and there has been no necessity to administer flogging in Scotland; but no Home Secretary has come down to this House and stated that the discipline is so defective, the terror of the warders so great, that the whole prison arrangements are upset by the want of this power in Ireland and Scotland, and that it is necessary to extend it to Ireland and Scotland. I say, if it is necessary to flog in England, it is necessary to flog in Scotland and Ireland, and if Ireland and Scotland can maintain the discipline of their local prisons without flogging I cannot see why it is necessary to apply it to England. But, Sir, the Home Secretary is right in saying that the general opinion of the Committee was not in favour of the total abolition of corporal punishment, and very much upon the ground that he has put to-day—namely, that by the reduction of the offences for which corporal punishment could be inflicted, by the guarding of the tribunal by which it can be authorised, the time would arrive when corporal punishment could be done away with altogether, and that the system which prevailed in the local prisons of Ireland and Scotland could be extended to England, and would possibly apply to convict prisons. The Amendment before us recognises that the corporal punishment to be inflicted is to be inflicted for very serious offences only, and the question is, what is the mode in which this punishment is to be determined? What I dread most of all in the administration of these punishments in prison is the secrecy, the absence of public opinion—it is the absence of public knowledge of what passes in the cells of these prisons. When an excited, angry governor, with visiting justices, or a director of prisons, orders this sentence, the man who is summoned before them is helpless. He has no chance; he is an ignorant man; he is possibly very much reduced, both mentally and physically, by the treatment he has undergone. He is in dread, as all people of that class are, of further punishment being inflicted hereafter, on some future occasion, if he obtains anything like a victory; and the man cannot and does not have a fair hearing. Human nature is the same in most parts of the world, and under most conditions, and I know of no greater temptation—which history confirms—to cruelty, than the secrecy with which the cruelty can be inflicted. A man loses his temper, and, knowing that, his temper being lost, he can inflict a certain amount of suffering on another human being who has offended him—who has, perhaps, done him grievous wrong—he is tempted, under the knowledge that no one will know hereafter what he has done, to do far more than he would otherwise have done. I look far more upon this question of secrecy than upon the punishment itself, because all the checks we have on the administration of justice in this country are in the direction of publicity. Secrecy is the first thing we want to get rid of, and the next is that we want to secure is proper judicial control. Now, my honourable Friend opposite suggests that these offences should be tried by a court of summary jurisdiction; the Home Secretary suggests that it should be practically the same tribunal—the board of visitors, or the visiting committee, with power to call in, if he (the Home Secretary) thinks fit, a police magistrate or a stipendiary; and he told us that by "if he thinks fit" he meant that if no visiting justice is available then he would appoint the magistrate or stipendiary. Now, Sir, I do not like either of these tribunals; I do not like the tribunal of my honourable Friend, or of the visiting justices. Then there is the Report to the Home Secretary. Well, that is a very desirable thing; but what good is it after the punishment is inflicted, after the man has been flogged? He does not say that they shall be reported to the Home Secretary before the punishment takes place. If the Home Secretary had made the proposal in that form I should have been inclined to look upon it with a great deal more favour than I do now. I said it in the Committee, and I say it now in the House, that so dissatisfied am I with these tribunals for inflicting this punishment, that I would rather accept that the decision should rest with the Home Secretary himself. I think the sworn evidence should be submitted to the Home Secretary, and he should have the responsibility of deciding upon the infliction of the punishment before it is inflicted. I would sooner have that than either of the tribunals put forward in this Bill. But I do not think there is any necessity for us to be confined to them. There are very few counties in England where there are not stipendiary police magistrates, there are very few counties where there are not recorders, there are very few counties where there are not certain elements of the judicial faculty which might be associated with the visiting justices. Those are the criticisms which I make upon the constitution of this tribunal; but, Sir, the most forcible check we can have will be publicity. I think also the Home Secretary should consent to the prisoner having legal advice allowed him, because this is a trial for very serious offences, mutiny or gross personal violence. If a man had committed these offences outside the prison he would have had the benefit of such advice, and of a jury also; he would not have had the punishment inflicted on him without a jury and a judge. If a man is sent to prison for embezzlement, and if he commits another offence outside that for which he is already submitting to punishment, why should he not have the same protection, the same guarantees, that he shall have the same trial—for incitement to mutiny, say—that he would have if he was outside the prison? No man outside the prison could have flogging administered for this offence. For gross personal violence he can- not have corporal punishment inflicted upon him. There may be an extra punishment for discipline—that is the punishment of flogging. All that we on this side of the House ask for is that the punishment should not be inflicted except after a judicial investigation in public, a right which the English law gives to any man charged with an offence committed outside the prison, no matter how trivial.

I desire to associate myself with everything that has fallen from my right honourable Friend who has just spoken, but I wish to join in the appeal to the Home Secretary on an additional ground. We had this matter discussed in the Grand Committee on Law at considerable length, and as a result certain Amendments were accepted and a number of them altered. When we came to the question of flogging there was a division in the Committee as to whether or not flogging should be abolished altogether, and the general opinion was that flogging should be reserved in certain exceptional cases of necessity. Well, then, the question arose as to whether or not the Committee should accept the clause of the honourable and learned Member for Shrewsbury. On that it was plain that the sentiment of the Committee was that there should be an open judicial inquiry. There was a Debate on the subject, and the result of that Debate was that the right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary told the Committee that he was prepared to do what he could in order to give effect to what he saw was the obvious desire of the majority of the members of the Grand Committee. My recollection of what he said was that he accepted in principle the idea of a judicial inquiry, and I think also of an open inquiry, and that he would give effect to it in a clause of his own.

interjected a remark which was inaudible.

The right honourable Gentleman is always fair and just, and I am sure he intends to carry our everything he said. But the House has just heard what the right honourable Gentleman said to the Grand Committee, that he accepted the desire for publicity and a judicial inquiry. The Committee parted without dividing, but if we had divided we should have carried our point. The right honourable Gentleman opposite says that reflection has brought out difficulties in giving effect to what was the general view of the Grand Committee. I ask what these difficulties are. We have heard very little of them; we have hear a great lot about keeping flogging in reserve, but I do not know what the particular difficulties are. The Grand Committee certainly parted with the idea that the Home Secretary would give effect to the opinions held by the majority of that Committee, and I say that is a reason for voting for the Amendment of the honourable and learned Member for Shrewsbury. The clause, while it would improve matters, is certainly not up to the standard we agreed upon in the Grand Committee.

The honourable Gentleman has told us that the general view of the Grand Committee was in favour of the general principle of corporal punishment. The Home Secretary has brought forward an Amendment in which he does not give publicity at all. The right honourable Gentleman tells us that he has given his best attention to the matter, and he finds, after consideration, that it is absolutely impossible to provide two safeguards upon which the Committee insisted. If that is so, I say the right honourable Gentleman is driven to the other alternative—namely, the total abolition of corporal punishment. I am not much impressed by the objection which the right honourable Gentleman has advanced, that the acceptance of the Amendment would have the effect of interfering with the discipline of prisons. I cannot think there is very much weight in that objection, for this very reason, that the right honourable Gentleman himself contemplates that the number of occasions upon which the tribunal would be called into requisition would be extremely small. He has told us that last year there were only seven cases of corporal punishment in convict prisons. That is a very satisfactory number for the year. But, in the year before, instead of seven, the number was 19. Why is there this extraordinary reduction? I submit that the reason is very plain; that not only by the discussion in this House, but by the way the subject has been taken up outside the House, the governors of prisons have been less harsh. If this number of seven be maintained, then it is obvious that the occasions when this proposed machinery will be called into play will be extremely small. It is true there are local prisons, but the right honourable Gentleman did not tell us how many cases—

Fifty.

Well, 50. I was just referring to the published returns. The number as regards local prisons for the previous year was 112; that is a most remarkable reduction. Why should there be corporal punishment in local prisons in England? In Scotland and Ireland it is absolutely forbidden by law; why, therefore, should it be continued in England? At all events, I think we may draw the conclusion from these figures that with proper care the occasions upon which this machinery would be brought into play would be extremely few indeed, and therefore I am in favour of the Amendment.

We must discuss this matter upon the assumption that corporal punishment is to be retained in the special cases which are enumerated in the Bill. That being so, I must confess, for myself, my very great disappointment that the right honourable Gentleman has not been able to give fuller effect to the assurances which he gave in Grand Committee on the subject. Under this Bill corporal punishment will be confined to three specific classes of offences; but it will still be disciplinary punishment, because, as my right honourable Friend pointed out, no one of these offences, if committed outside a prison, would have awarded to it this degrading punishment. It is admitted that the oases would be very few; they have been diminishing for some years, and, under this Bill they would become rarer and rarer. That being so, what is the difficulty in dealing with these offences as if they had been committed by a free man? Delay in visiting an offence with punishment is, no doubt, undesirable, but there would be no more delay, and perhaps less delay, in bringing the matter before a court of summary jurisdiction than in bringing it before the court composed of visiting justices, who could not easily be brought together. Delay in visiting an offence with punishment is undesirable no doubt, but there is no more delay in bringing the matter before a court of summary jurisdiction than in bringing it before the court composed of visiting justices, who could easily be brought together for the purpose; so much so that the right honourable Gentleman has promised to take into consideration the calling in of a stipendiary. As regards questions of delay there is no distinction whatsoever between one case and the other. There is a very great distinction between the court of visiting justices, constituted as my right honourable Friend opposite constituted them, and a court of summary jurisdiction, where the prisoner has all the powers and rights which the Summary Jurisdiction Act gives to the accused person of being represented by counsel or solicitor, and of summoning witnesses on his own behalf. Those powers are essential under English law in the administration of justice, and are even more necessary in the administration of justice by a court of summary jurisdic-

This Amendment is substantially the same as that which I had on the Paper when the Bill was before the Grand Committee on Law, and although my Amendment was rejected by a large majority, I trust that I am justified in bringing the same question before a larger tribunal like that of this House, in the hope that it will reverse the judgment arrived at by that Committee. I trust that the very moderation of the Amendment which I ask the House now to consider will be one of its strongest recommendations to the acceptance of the House. Now, what is it that is asked for in this Amendment? Why, absolutely nothing that is contrary to the spirit of this Bill or to the rules at present obtaining in the prisons of this country. Take, for instance, the small boon of association between prisoners undergoing penal servitude for treason felony. This association of prisoners is already given to star criminals in all convict prisons; for instance, murderers, forgers, thieves, and all kinds of characters who are convicted for the first time are privileged to be associated together. Therefore I am only asking for men convicted of political crimes a privilege similar to that which is already extended to the class of criminals to whom I have already referred. What, then, is the object of the Home Secretary in denying this small concession to prisoners found guilty of political offences? There can only be one answer to this question, and that answer is this: that the present law of this country is wishful to treat political foes who are Irishmen with a spirit of vindictiveness and retaliation unparalleled in any country with which I am acquainted. You are capable, as is evidenced in this Bill, of humane feelings towards the burglar, who may do violence in the profession of robbery, and this very Measure, as I have said, is evidence that you are in your general prison system not wishful to be too harsh to the common enemies of society; but when you are asked to allow a few imprisoned Irish enemies of this country, and of this country's rule in Ireland, not to undergo the refined punishment of penal servitude, it is too much for your humanity, and you demand your pound of flesh, in the form of a penal chastisement, which is without parallel in the records of any other civilised nation. Now, Sir, the next proposal of my Amendment is that political offenders may have the option of wearing their own dress while working out their sentences. Well, now, Sir, I venture to humbly suggest to the House that this is not a very extravagant demand; in fact, it is permissible in the case of imprisoned debtors, for instance, and persons convicted for seditious libel, who are not compelled, under your law, to wear your prison dress. Therefore I am not making, even in this respect, any extreme demand, or one which is out of sympathy with the law as it stands at the present time. I am only asking that prisoners who are sentenced for these offences may be exempt from wearing the badge of infamy and shame. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am very reluctant to import into a discussion of this kind anything relating to my own personal experience, but I will respectfully ask the House, what good does it do to the State, or what service does it render to your law, to inflict this needless piece of mental torture upon political prisoners? Does it reform a prisoner, and is it calculated to instil loyal sentiments into his mind? I can speak from some experience upon that point, and I need not ask the House whether that experience has made me more loyal towards your rule in Ireland. I venture to say that it has not. Well, Sir, the last proposal of my Amendment is that letters and visits shall be permissible once a month, under the observance of prison rules, while a treason-felony prisoner is undergoing his sentence. Here, again, I claim nothing for this class of offence which is contrary to the powers conferred upon governors at all prisons under the present prison law. Any governor of a prison may grant a special letter or a visit to a well-conducted prisoner. No one will find fault with the giving of this discretionary power to the governors of your prisons. I think it will be admitted that the more you allow these reformative influences to operate on a prisoner by his relationship with his friends outside, the more you allow these influences to work upon a prisoner inside the walls of your gaols, the better chance you have of seeing that prisoner come out a reformed member of society. Well, I only ask that what is now left to the discretion of prison officials m dealing with ordinary criminals shall be a matter of right in the case of a political offender while he observes the general prison rules. Prejudice is more likely to influence a prison governor in the case of an Irish prisoner undergoing sentence for treason-felony than in that of a prisoner not tainted with a political crime. I may be met from the opposite side by an objection to this statement of mine that there is no such prejudice, or is likely to be, in the minds of your prison officials. But upon this point I must be allowed to give my own experience, and I will do so in this connection. I was deprived for seven years and seven months, while undergoing all the rigours of penal servitude, under the present rules, of the privilege of receiving a visit from a single friend. Now, it would not have taken place had I been sent to prison for one of the ordinary crimes with which we are familiar in society. A burglar, a murderer, a thief of the commonest kind, a garrotter, a man who outrages a child, a man who commits an unnameable crime—these are not deprived of this privilege so long as they conform to the prison laws. I say, as a political prisoner, that I was denied that privilege, and that is why I ask the House to agree to this Amendment of mine, which proposes that this small privilege of receiving visits monthly from friends shall be conceded to these prisoners. In conclusion, I again say that the very moderation of these proposals in this Amendment ought to make you accept it. I am aware that, under the law of treason-felony, a prisoner convicted on trial has to undergo the terrible ordeal of penal servitude, and on that account I am limited in the scope of my Amendment. I only ask for what can be conceded in these cases on the lines of what is now actually granted to governors, who have discretionary power in the case of ordinary criminals. I trust, therefore, that my Amendment will be accepted by the House. I need not dwell, Mr. Speaker, upon the example of other countries in their treatment of political offenders. It is well known, and it has been stated in this House again and again when we were discussing this question, that this country stands absolutely alone amidst civilised nations in the vindictive character of its treatment of political prisoners. Russia is often referred to in contrast with the boasted constitutional liberties of Great Britain. Well, no matter how much you may differ with Russian government and Russian diplomacy, you will find that in the treatment of political offenders Russia is far more humane, far more forbearing, and far more considerate than you are in England. I will just give one quotation dealing with this before I sit down, and I trust that the picture which it will present to the House of how an autocracy deals with political offenders will induce this House to favourably consider this very small proposal of mine. Mr. de Windt, in his impressions of a visit to Siberian prisons, tells how he found some Nihilist prisoners were treated. He says, in one instance he found—

"One of the ringleaders of the Yakoutzk prison mutiny in 1889. I found this man in a large, well-lighted cell, amply supplied with writing materials and with parcels of recently published books in French, German, English, and Russian. This man, who is one of the most desperate in Akatui, said to me, 'The governor is a very just and good man,' and added that 'he had nothing to complain of.' His wife lives in the village, and is permitted to see him alone once a week for an hour, or if the man is in the hospital twice a week. Khatchwrikin, a life prisoner for attempting to assassinate the Governor General of Hasan.—This man, who was in chains, being refractory, was in a large cell with three others engaged in chemical experiments and bookbinding. Slavinsky, a life prisoner, arrested in Berlin, handed over to the Russian Government for political propaganda.—This man was one of the Nihilist international 'centres,' and was implicated in nearly all the recent explosions. Slavinsky was living in a good cell, well supplied with books, a parcel of which containing some works published in 1894 arrived for him on the day I visited him, and had his own medicine chests."

The proposal which the honourable Member has moved is similar to the one which he moved before the Grand Committee, and I explained to him then why it was impossible for the Government to accept it. The proposal of the honourable Gentleman is that, when a man has been sentenced to penal servitude according to the law of this country for high treason, or for treason felony, there should be a discrimination made between him and persons who are sent to penal servitude for other crimes.

You make a discrimination now in the case of State prisoners.

Such a discrimination does not exist in the present law.

But State prisoners do not associate with the ordinary criminal.

The honourable Gentleman asks that, in the case of penal-servitude prisoners, there should be a discrimination in favour of a particular class of prisoner. Now, I do not know that there is anybody in this House who is prepared to define what a political prisoner is. But, however that may be, I say that if at the present time any political prisoner is sentenced to imprisonment, and not to penal servitude, he can be adjudged to be an offender of the first, or the second, or the third class, and he can be specially treated. This Bill is not intended to alter the criminal law, and never was intended, and whatever sympathy we may have for political prisoners who have not been committed for crimes which we might call disgraceful, still, it is quite impossible in this Bill to accept a clause which would have the effect which I have described.

I am very much disappointed at the answer given by the Home Secretary in answer to the Amendment of my honourable Friend. Now, I think he practically admitted the main objects of this Amendment by the answer he has just given to my honourable and learned Friend opposite with regard to State criminal class, which shows that it is possible to make a discrimination between one class of prisoners and the other; and if that be possible, it will be equally possible to make a distinction between the political offender and the other offenders. The second objection of the right honourable Gentleman is, "how can you define a political offence?" Well, the definition is this: if a prisoner be tried and convicted of treason-felony he is a political prisoner. What simpler answer can there be given to an objection like that? If you try him for treason you try him for a political offence, and you convict Mm of a political offence, and he is a political offender; why, the very nature of the charge which you bring against him gives the right honourable Gentleman that definitionwhich—I was almost going to say he professes is so difficult to arrive at. Look at these men who are in gaol still. They were charged with a political offence, whereas they ought to have been, tried under the Explosives Act. They were not tried under the Explosives Act, but they were tried under the Treason Felony Act, and as political offenders and not as ordinary offenders. I can scarcely restrain myself from speaking as strongly as I should wish to upon this treatment of political offenders. I believe, if it could be brought home to the knowledge and to the conscience of the people of this country how these political offenders have been treated, that there is not one of them with any humanity in his breast that would not vote in favour of the Amendment of my honourable Friend. Why, Sir, what is the history of the treatment of the Irish political offenders? I could give case after case in which the Irish political offender has not been released until his body, and until his mind were broken down, and I could give case after case in which the Irish political offender has died or has committed suicide, even a few months, or within a year or two after his release from prison. How many Members of this House have read the reports of Dr. Macdonald with regard to the Irish political offenders of 1867. Dr. Macdonald was then a medical man in one of the convict prisons in Dublin, and he examined the cases of several of the Irish political offenders who were serving penal servitude. He found over and over again traces of coming insanity in these men, and he reported these cases to the governor of the day, but his reports were disregarded, and the result was that man after man went into the lunatic asylum or committed suicide. Now, I call that a very shameful record with regard to this question. Take the case within, the knowledge of every Member of this House— the case of the Whiteheads, the poor, unfortunate wretches, who were not released from prison until their minds were entirely destroyed, and they are at this moment inmates of a lunatic asylum in America. I say it is almost cruel to release men after they have got into that state. It should be set out plainly what moral and physical wrecks these men have become. Some derision was thrown upon me because of an observation I made in some remarks on this Bill. My observation was—and a similar observation was made by my honourable Friend to-night—that the treatment of political prisoners in Russia was better by far than their treatment in England. I could not help marking that some honourable Gentlemen smiled and scorned when that observation was made, but it happens to be true. I do not know how many Gentlemen on the opposite side have read the recent literature upon Russian political prisoner treatment. I have, read nearly every word of it. I read in the remarkable work, "Side-lights of Siberia," written by a getleman whom I should take to be certainly an unpicturesque Scotchman. This Scotchman was particularly a matter of fact writer. He goes into the prisons there, and he sees the political prisoners. He finds that men convicted, not merely of political crimes, but of political crimes with violence in its most extreme form, are liberally treated. One case he gave was a political crime accompanied by dynamite. In another case political crime accompanied by assassination with the dagger or pistol. He gives case after case of these men who, instead of being kept in gaol until they are physical and mental wrecks as Irish political prisoners have been, were allowed, after a certain length of time, to take small situations under Government. The writer got to one of the towns in Siberia, which, by the way, is not the terrible place which it has been described as being. One of these towns in Siberia was possessed of a museum, kept by an extremely intelligent man. This man was one of a group of Russian students, who had gone out one evening with one of their number who was suspected of being a spy. They were five when they took that walk; they were four afterwards, because the spy had been assassinated. This curator was one of those who had assisted in that assassination. What happened? The present Czar of Russia, during his tour through Siberia, found himself in this very town and in this very museum, around which he had been conducted by the curator; and, after having seen everything, he warmly shook him by the hand, although he knew (he was Czarewitch at the time) that this man had been convicted of a political crime—the crime of assassination. I do not, of course, suggest that the Home Secretary should go round shaking hands with assassination. I only give this as an example of the truth of what I say, that the treatment of political prisoners by Russia is much more humane, and more benign than the treatment of our political prisoners is. I could give example after example as to that being perfectly true, and it is a curious fact that after I had made the above statement some time ago, which was so scorned and derided by some honourable Gentlemen, as a wild effort of the imagination, a Russian who happened to be a refugee over here wrote an article to the same effect in a paper published in the interests of what I may call the Russian political people living in England. But what is the difference between a Russian who has been guilty of a political offence and an Irishman? The former becomes the honoured guest in the drawing rooms of the "Leo Hunters" of the London season. They become the subject of encomiums and leading articles, even in the virtuous Times. They were the honoured speakers on some political platforms in this country. In fact, that distinction between political and ordinary crime which the ingenious Home Secretary is unable to make with regard to Irishmen is made with regard to every other political offender of every other nationality. The distinction is made, I suppose, because these political refuges who come over here conspire to fight against other dynasties, and the Irish political offender fights against English interests. I have taken up Russia as a shocking example. I will not offend and insult the people of France and the rulers of France by comparing their treatment of political offenders with the English treatment. In the days of the Third Empire what took place? I am old enough to remember the diatribes which used to be written in English newspapers with regard to what took place in France then. We were represented as possessing a free Parliament to preserve the rights and liberties of the subject under the ægis of representative institutions. France had no Parliament and no independent Minister; demoralisation and corruption were rampant in the State. Even the gaiety of the boulevards was put down by these papers as proof of the rottenness that existed and must result from political corruption; and yet all the time that these diatribes were being written—all the time that the enemies of the Empire were attacking with every weapon of political warfare, and the Sovereign with every form of opprobrium; and personal calumny—the English Government were sending Irish political prisoners to gaol and to penal servitude to herd with the burglar, the murderer, and the garrotter. But how different is the treatment that France gives to political offenders. Why I sometimes almost envied the position of M. Rochefort after one of his terms of imprisonment. He had the advantage of living in Paris; he was allowed to write all his articles, though perhaps other people may not think that so great an advantage; he was able to receive his friends, and to order his meals from a restaurant; and, like most gentlemen of strong views, he had a very delicate appetite, and ordered them from the best restaurant in the neighbourhood. And all these things were taking place under that vile, tyrannical, and demoralised despotism, while at the same time we were driving Irish political offenders to the lunatic asylums. The most shameful chapter in the relations between England and Ireland is the treatment of political offenders. I have only one objection to make to the Amendment of my honourable Friend; it does not go half far enough. What does it ask? That these political prisoners should be freed from association with the burglar, the murderer, and the garrotter; that they should be allowed to communicate with their friends a certain limited number of times. This present prevention and interruption of communication between even an ordinary prisoner and his friends and his relatives is a great blot on our prison system, but what is to be said of it when it is applied to the political offender? I should like every Member to read these letters which have recently been published relating those terrible facts concerning prison life which so startled us—letters which should be read altogether apart from any consideration of the character of the person who wrote them. But I commend this one statement to the attention of every reasonable and humane man, that the very best protection against that demoralisation, that brutalising, that hardening which takes place in so many prisoners is that healthy communication between the prisoner in the solitude of his cell and his wife and children and relatives, who still cling to him in his hour of degradation and punishment. I say that every one of these prisoners should be allowed to communicate with his relatives freely and frequently. But if that is so in the case of the ordinary offender, still more should it be the case with regard to the political offender, who, in frequent cases, has got into prison not by the smallness but by the greatness of his life.

I hope that the House will not, in considering this question, be influenced by the fact that at the present time all these prisoners who are undergoing sentences for treason-felony come from Ireland. This is not a political question. To my mind, it is a question of far higher importance than that. It is a question which goes to the root of the whole prison system. The honourable Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool has stated with absolute accuracy the fact that in no country in Europe are political prisoners treated with the same severity as they are in this country. That, of course, is not only so as regards political prisoners, because anyone who has taken the trouble to ascertain the real facts knows perfectly well that, as regards ordinary prisoners, our system is the most severe in the world. That severity to ordinary prisoners must be defended, if it can be defended at all, upon one of two grounds. That it is reformatory or that it is deterrent. But you cannot apply either of those two reasons in defence of the severities inflicted upon treason-felony prisoners. You do not convert a man from his political ways by bringing to bear upon him the severities of prison discipline; nor do you prevent others from following that man's lead in political thought by dangling before them the martyr's crown. It is not in that way that converts are made. It is upon these grounds that I sincerely hope that now, or in the near future, a more humane, a more enlightened system will prevail in this country with regard to the treatment of political offenders, and that those who, from a mistaken love of an idea, through love of their country, have been driven into the commission of crime will not be forced to endure the humiliations, disgraces, and degradations which are, of course, with perfect propriety the fate of those who wantonly and deliberately, for their own personal ends, for the gratification of their lust, or for the enjoyment of some game of chance, make a breach of the laws. The honourable Member for the Scotland Division referred to the advantage that would accrue to prisoners if the Amendment were carried, and they were allowed restricted communication by means of letters with their friends and relatives. That argument, of course, would apply to all prisoners, but surely it applies with special force, and with added argument, to the case of those prisoners who have all their lives been accustomed to intellectual intercourse, and who naturally feel the severities of its total deprivation. This Amendment will not be carried, but if it is forced to a Division, I, holding the strong views I do on the subject, believing, as I do, that, instead of being behind other nations in these matters, Great Britain ought to lead the way, will support it.

The speech which the honourable Gentleman has just delivered will, I am sure, be received with great appreciation and gratitude by Irish Members on this side of the House. It is extremely encouraging and gratifying to find a Gentleman on the other side of the House who not only holds those views, but has the courage to express them in the way that the honourable Gentleman has done. I desire to say, in supporting this Amendment, that, in the interests of the Government, and those who desire to turn people from committing crimes or practices which may bring them to prison, this Amendment ought to be adopted. After all, what is the great punishment of imprisonment? It is the deprivation of liberty which every prisoner must feel as his greatest punishment; and as long as you deprive them of liberty, and cut them off from the outside world, you have inflicted the most deterrent punishment that it is possible, in my opinion, to inflict. But when, in addition to depriving them of their liberty, you insist upon having small marks of degradation placed upon them, you do not deter, you simply irritate. By way of illustration, I may just briefly tell the House what took place in my own case, although not a treason-felony prisoner, as the phrase goes. I was sentenced to be imprisoned for three months. My punishment was, of course, the deprivation of my liberty for three months. It was not alleged that I had committed any ordinary crime. It was not a political crime in the sense in which treason-felony prisoners are convicted of crime. It was an offence, so called, arising out of public agitation in the country. What I felt most was, of course, the three months' deprivation of my liberty; but, in addition to that, which was really a considerable punishment in its way to me at the time, all sorts of small attempts to degrade me were made—such attempts as could not be made if the Amendment of the honourable Member for Mayo was carried. I will give one instance—I was not allowed to exercise by myself. Why should not a treason-felony prisoner be allowed to take exercise by himself? I think that is a perfectly reasonable request. When I was in prison there were others there who had been convicted in the same way as myself, and of the same offence, but it was insisted that I should exercise and associate with all the ordinary prisoners in gaol—men convicted of robbery, and of every kind of disgraceful proceeding. That was not a matter which I felt by way of severe punish- ment, but I do think it was an extremely degrading position to put a person of my standing—a representative of the people—in, and I refused to do so, with the result that I had three days' bread and water and solitary confinement; and I think, if the honourable Gentlemen opposite had the same punishment for the same offence they might be of the same opinion as myself. But is it contended that the attempt to impose these degrading things upon me had the slightest influence of a deterrent character? Certainly not. In the same way with regard to their prison dress; does any person imagine that treason-felony prisoners, or persons convicted of the ordinary offences under the Coercion Act, are rendered more likely to avoid the occurrences which led to the imprisonment by being forced to give up their own clothes and arraying themselves in a more or less uncleanly character some time in the past. To treat a man convicted of treason-felony, or imprisoned for public agitation, in the same way as those who have been convicted of an ordinary crime, is to defeat the very object which we must suppose the Government has in view, and instead of being an additional punishment, it is really a source of additional irritation by degrading a man—it simply increases whatever feeling he may have against the Government of the day. The Home Secretary, in the speech which he made in reply to the honourable Member for Mayo, did not speak as if he felt that he himself was quite convinced upon this point, and I think, if the truth were known, there are other Members of this House who are prepared to say that for treason-felony prisoners the punishment of imprisonment is quite sufficient in itself, without the addition of all these irritating small attempts to degrade people so convicted. The right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary said that he did not know practically what a political prisoner is. The honourable Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool answered that by pointing, as the Amendment itself does, to those prisoners who have been convicted under an Act specially passed by this House to deal with political offences, and with men engaged in insurrectionary or revolu- tionary movements in Ireland. I think the Amendment is a most reasonable one, and I am quite convinced that if they only had the courage to say so there are many Members on the opposite side of the House who hold the same views as the honourable Member for Bradford, and who would like to see this Amendment carried by a large majority. To deprive prisoners of the right to receive, at the very long interval of one month, visits from their friends, and of the right of receiving letters, is merely adding cruelty to the punishment of imprisonment, and I for one heartily support this Amendment because I have suffered these degradations in prison in a small way, and I hope that the honourable Member for Mayo will go to a division to show that at least there are a certain proportion of Members of this House who, while they feel that prisoners, political or otherwise, ought to be punished, are not, as Englishmen, anxious to add to the ordinary severe punishment of imprisonment these attempts to degrade men and make them lose their self-respect, which will have no good effect either upon the men themselves or upon those who imprison them.

I shall certainly support the Amendment moved by my honourable Friend the Member for Mayo, not because it is more modest or less extreme than the one he moved in the Grand Committee on Law, but because this Amendment only asks for what I think should be given, and is an Amendment upon which we have many witnesses in this Blue Book, testifying in favour of when they gave their evidence before the Prisons Commission. On page 622 of this Report, I find, with regard to classification and association, that there are a number of witnesses who speak in favour of that for ordinary criminals. Now, it seems to me that any attempt to differentiate between treason-felony prisoners and ordinary prisoners in the matter of association or of letters, or of any other means of communicating with their friends, is an invidious distinction to the detriment of treason-felony prisoners which this House ought not to sanction. What does my honourable Friend ask for in his Amend- ment? That prisoners convicted of treason-felony, people who are political prisoners, should be permitted certain small privileges, and in paragraph 53 of this Prison Com mission Report they recognise association being extended and given where it is not already conceded to every phase of crime excepting that of treason-felony. If the Home Secretary can accept that Report and not this Amendment then he has got a harder heart than I credit him with possessing. He will possibly say that he cannot apply to treason-felony what the law does not give prisoners convicted of that offence. But he has already told the House that there has been a considerable latitude of discretion exercised by governors of prisons towards treason-felony prisoners in some directions. If he could extend the law in this respect, he certainly ought not to miss the opportunity now being afforded him by this Amendment of enabling that exercise of discretion being extended to governors who have treason-felony prisoners under their control, so that the thing may be put on a legal basis. I cannot see why, if association is necessary for the burglar the garrotter, and the murderer, the brute, the wife-beater, and others, why treason-felony prisoners, if there are sufficient of them, should not be able to associate with each other, or prisoners of a non-criminal grade. The type of treason-felony prisoner is, as a rule, much less criminal than the average prisoner in a convict establishment. Now, as to the treason-felony prisoner being allowed to wear his own dress, I do not attach the same importance to that as some Members do; but if the debtor who deliberately gets into debt, and who deliberately evades payment of that debt, is allowed to wear his own dress, I do not see why that privilege should not be enjoyed by the men who for conscientious reasons and for political reasons have got into prison. Then, with reference to the receipt of letters. I cannot see why a treason-felony prisoner should be cut off from the rest of the world. The description given by my honourable Friend of his brutal detention, where for seven years and seven months he was unable to have any intercourse with the outside world, is a type of treatment that I do not think exists in any other country in the world. It certainly is not the practice in Denver, America, because when I was there going through the prison, I found that association was carried to this extent—that all prisoners mixed up indiscriminately with each other, and the effect of that association was that it deterred men from committing crime. The thing must be judged by its results. The fact is that in Denver prison, where the men elect their own judge to impose small sentences for breach of prison privilges, there are much less recidivists than under our brutal administration of prisons in England. Just as I was going out of this prison, one of the prisoners asked me whether, as a special favour, I would like to read the last copy of the Times which he had in his possession, and which I had not seen. I asked the governor of the gaol what the effect of the free receipt of letters and the frequent visits of friends and relations had upon the prisoners. He said, the effect was that the more a prisoner was allowed to see good friends the more anxious he was to be outside to again be with that friend; the more letters—supervised, of course, by the governor—that he was able to send and receive the better the effects it had upon him from a disciplinary point of view, whilst the association with the other prisoners had a beneficial effect. That is the experience in America; it is the experience in Australia; it is the experience in France and Germany; and, within certain limits, it is the experience of nearly every Continental system. If that is so, I do not see why treason-felony prisoners—who, as a rule, are men of a delicate and sensitive frame of mind, more susceptible than the ordinary prisoner to degradations—should be denied the treatment that the Home Secretary is prepared to give the burglar or the murderer. To a treason-felony prisoner, deprivation of liberty is perhaps the greatest punishment, and as the Prison Commission recommend segregation, classification, and association for ordinary criminals, I cannot see any reason why my honourable Friend's Amendment should not be carried, and I do persuade him to take this to a Division so that governors of prisons shall be able to see what view a section of the House of Commons takes on this subject, and so that in the changes of the law with regard to the treatment of treason-felony prisoners that may take place the judges who affect those changes and administer the law will see that the House of Commons is not altogether of a stereotype brutalised view that is too often expressed by prison officials that the best way to treat the treason-felony prisoner is to still further brutalise him, to degrade him below the level of the worst criminals, and to treat him worse than any other men within prison jurisdiction.

said: I desire to say a very few words in reference to the Amendment which is under discussion. If I have any complaint to find with the Amendment at all it is this, that it does not go far enough. The Amendment not only asks for nothing but what is well within the spirit and intention of the Bill, but also for nothing but what is well within the spirit of the obligation of discipline in prison. In reference to the question of treason-felony or high treason, as a rule men who are imprisoned for these particular crimes—if crimes they can be called—I think it will be admitted, are men who are not incited in the smallest degree by any selfish motive. I will even go so far as to say that in many cases they are actuated by noble motives, inasmuch as they desire to alter in some shape or another the government under which they live, in the firm belief that that government is not the best form of government for their country, or is not a government which brings to the inhabitants of that country the greatest measure of happiness. That men of that belief should be forced to live side by side with men who are guilty in the majority of cases of not only selfish crimes, but crimes very often of the lowest and most repugnant type, is not calculated to raise these men in the social scale, nor is it calculated to make them better disposed towards the government of their country, or better citizens of that country when they emerge from prison. As a rule these men are what I would call men of a high class. They may be misguided men with vivid imaginations, but no one will impute to them motives of a low character. I may claim to have had experience of the treatment of prisoners in almost every country in the world, with the exception of Portugal—an experience which more especially applies to Russia—and I will venture to say that political prisoners in those countries, with the exception of Spain, are treated more humanely and, if I may say so, with more common sense than they are in England. I hope it will not be thought that I am saying what I am about to say because I am a native of Ireland myself. But I am afraid that there is a prejudice against political prisoners in this country simply because the prisoners are in nine cases out of ten Irishmen. That ought not to be so. I think it must be admitted that almost all our political prisoners are Irishmen. That they have been actuated by misguided motives we admit, but because they are Irishmen they should not be treated with less consideration than Englishmen.

They are not.

I think we have had conclusive evidence that the majority of our political prisoners are treated worse than those of any other country. I do not say that because I am an Irishman, but it gives rise to a suspicion in the minds of men that that treatment is because they are Irishmen, and in such a country as this that should not be so. In regard to the option of wearing their own dress, personally I attach comparatively little importance to that, but as to the question of receiving letters, and more especially as to the question of receiving visits from relatives and friends, to these considerations I do attach the very greatest importance. After all, what is the object of imprisonment? I take it that the object of imprisonment, in the first instance, is to remove the offending individual from the remainder of the community—to isolate him in order that he may not do any further material damage, and that he may not contaminate society around him. I assume that it will be admitted, at any rate as regards our prisons, that another object we have in view is the reformation of the prisoners—at least, it should be so—so that when these prisoners return to society they may have become improved by their sojourn in prison. But if you do everything you possibly can to degrade a man, who, as a political offender, is a man of a far higher type than the average prisoner—if you bring him down to the level of the murderer, the burglar, and the garrotter—you immediately defeat your own object, and fail to perform one of the duties for which your prisons were instituted. I have a very vivid recollection in 1860 of being taken to a French prison for the purpose of assisting a countryman of mine, of excellent position, who had unfortunately been interned in one of the French prisons. It was the custom then to allow all the prisoners who were well conducted to see their friends, their family, and their relatives once a week. The scenes there were heartrending, and the result of these visits, and of bringing the prisoners into contact with their own families and children, I venture to assert, must necessarily have had the very best effect upon the prisoners. I recollect reading a very well-known French work, where a prisoner is represented as having, in a weak moment, committed a murder. He was a man of very good character, and after spending a certain time in penal servitude, he happened to escape. After living for several years in a comparatively remote and out-of-the-way part of the country, his feelings were so strong that he actually risked his liberty, as it afterwards proved, in order that he might once more set eyes upon his children. If you wish to bring in the question of reformation, you defeat your own object in preventing a man from coming into contact with his family and friends. The oftener you bring a man into contact with this healthful influence—for it must be that—the more certain you will be to reform that man to some extent in the future. I shall certainly support this Amendment. I consider it, as I stated when I began my remarks, as containing nothing that the Home Secretary cannot readily grant. I consider that there is nothing in it which runs contrary to the principle of the Bill or of prison discipline, and I hope that the Home Secretary will, at any rate, give us some concession in the direction indicated by this Amendment.

I wish to support the Amendment of the honourable Member for Mayo. It has been denied by gentlemen on the other side of the House that the treason-felony laws were made for Irishmen especially. I think, if those gentlemen had inquired more closely into the causes for all the brutalising methods of imprisonment which are practised on prisoners convicted of treason-felony, they would see that these laws were made for Irishmen and Irishmen only. The Treason-Felony Act, under which men can be sent to prison for treason-felony, was passed to meet a special case. It was rushed through this House in a few hours to meet the case of Mr. John Mitchell, a distinguished journalist in Ireland. By that Act that distinguished man was reduced to the level of an ordinary criminal. I think the mere fact that you treat men who are convicted of treason-felony in Ireland in the same brutal way as you treat the ordinary criminal, convicted, perhaps, for the vilest offences, is a condition of things that proves that you can only rule Ireland by force. These treason-felony provisions dealing with persons convicted of treason-felony apply to no one excepting Irishmen. You have had no one convicted for treason-felony—at all events, for the last century—excepting Irishmen, and these brutalising provisions are made solely for Ireland, and solely for Irishmen. The honourable and gallant Gentleman has referred to the distinction that exists between the ordinary class of criminal and the treason-felony prisoner. An ordinary criminal commits crime for some selfish motive of his own—to satisfy his greed, to satisfy some vile animal passion; but the treason-felony prisoner does not act in order to satisfy any personal or selfish wish, he is generally incited by the idea that he wishes to change his form of government. He rises in revolt against the Government, and embarks in a movement, and you place this man, who fights for an idea, on exactly the same level as the criminal who acts for some selfish motive. I do not think that, from the English point of view, your method of dealing with these people has been very successful. The man who participates in an insurrectionary movement will not do so because he thinks that if he gets to prison he will get the benefit of the privileges we are asking you to confer upon him by this Amendment. He goes into that insurrectionary movement knowing that he is risking more than his liberty, he is risking his life. Now, Sir, I think it is a blot on your system of government in this country that you should insist on putting into your Bills and Acts of Parliament these provisions for the brutalising and degrading treatment of political prisoners, because, while these provisions will not deter men from entering into revolutionary movements, they disgrace your administration of prison life in this country. We know very well that, although you insert these provisions today, political prisoners will be treated differently from other persons; we know that, if there were an insurrection in Ireland to-morrow, so far from the persons captured during that insurrection getting the benefit of any concessions, you would treat those prisoners as you treated Mr. Mitchell—you would treat them as felons convicted of the lowest crimes. On these grounds I intend to support the Amendment of the honourable Member for Mayo, and I think the Government would be well advised if they would accept that Amendment. The English people may be no better than other nations, but they make a point of pretending to be much better, and, if they were to act up to that character they would accept this Amendment, and would at least put on the Statute Book the fact that it is their intention to treat their political prisoners in the future as well as they are treated by other nations. I do trust that the Government will see their way to accept either this Amendment or some one similar to it.

The Home Secretary, in reply to my honourable Friend for South Mayo, said that what this Amendment asked the Government to do was to alter the criminal law of the country, instead of merely introducing a change into the treatment of treason-felony prisoners. I do not think I ever listened to a lamer excuse for not accepting an Amendment than that put forward by the Home Secretary in those words. If we turn to clause 6 of the present Bill, what do we find? This sixth clause, I may say, was one which was rather fully discussed in the Grand Committee upstairs. There is in that clause a proposal to change very much for the worse the treatment of debtors. I may as well say that, when we come to that clause, I shall oppose that provision of it to the fullest extent in my power. Now, what are we to say to a Government which finds it impossible to accept this extremely modest Amendment, which, if it errs at all in any direction, errs in the direction of being too moderate—an Amendment, having for its object the bettering of the treatment of political offenders in this country, and in the same Bill proposes to change very much for the worse the treatment of debtors? I think that is a complete answer to the statement of the Home Secretary. The right honourable Gentleman also professed to find a difficulty in obtaining a definition of the words "political offender," and he challenged us—and it is a challenge which has been repeatedly made in this House during the discussion of Irish affairs—to give a definition of the words "political offender." But there is nothing in the world easier. There can be no doubt or ambiguity about the words. A man convicted of treason-felony is a political offender; and there is no possibility of argument or doubt upon the question. A man convicted of treason or sedition is a political offender. No matter what his act may be, if the Crown, with whom rests the decision as to what shape his formal indictment shall take, decides to prosecute under the Treason-Felony Act, or to prosecute for high treason or sedition, then the Government themselves, by so doing, declare that the accused is a political offender, and there is no possibility of doubt or ambiguity in this respect. What we are asking is that certain extremely slight privileges shall be given to the class of political offenders in this country, and that they shall be recognised as a different class from the ordinary criminal. It has been pointed out that this country stands alone amongst the civilised nations in its treatment of political offenders, and no man speaking from the Government side of the House has attempted to contradict that statement, and for this reason, because it cannot be contradicted. This is the only country in the civilised world to-day which places the political offender in the same category as the ordinary felon. All that we seek by this Amendment is that the principle shall be recognised in the prison treatment of this country, that men who are convicted—by the admission of the Crown—of political offences shall be treated as a separate class, and placed in a different category of persons to those convicted of ordinary crimes. In the course of the discussions in this House, some of us on these benches were astounded to hear the Secretary of State for the Colonies [Mr. Chamberlain] declare that there was a common bond of union between the Anglo-Saxon race. He was alluding there to the Anglo-Saxon race in this country and the United States of America, and that common bond was that the Anglo-Saxon race looked at questions of humanity from a totally different standpoint to those of other civilised nations in Europe. A more extraordinary or extravagant statement was never made in my hearings; that is, in the sense in which the Secretary for the Colonies made it. If he meant by that statement that the Anglo-Saxon race here in Great Britain did in this matter of the treatment of political prisoners differ for the worse from all civilised people, then I heartily endorse his sentiments. But it is no bond of unity between the Anglo-Saxon people and the people of the United States of America, because the people of the United States of America are distinguished above all other nations by their treatment of their political prisoners. There has never been a nation which has set so extraordinary an example of humanity and forbearance as America has in its treatment of political prisoners, and though—after a hundred years—it has during the last few months become the fashion to sound the praises of the great republic of the west, I wish that those who do that would endeavour to imitate this great republic in its treatment of political prisoners. Russia and France have been spoken of as treating their political prisoners in a very different way from the way in which they are treated in this country, but even France and Russia treat their political prisoners much more severely than the people of the United States. There is nothing in the whole history of civilised mankind which can parallel or approach the action of the United States of America when, after that tremendous civil war or rebellion, which nearly tore the United States asunder and destroyed the solidarity of their union, no man was executed, and, after a period of three years, I do not think a single individual was left in a gaol. When we compare that with the history of European nations, and, above all, with the history of this nation, where, after merely small and insignificant insurrectionary movements have taken place, long years have rolled by, and after men have been driven to their graves, or to the lunatic asylum, or to suicide, still this country refuses to grasp the fact that political offenders—people engaged in these insurrectionary movements—are, and should be, placed on a totally different basis to that of ordinary felons. When we remember that these people are treated with the utmost brutality and cruelty, we cannot help contrasting that treatment with what we know has happened to political prisoners in America. There is no bond of sympathy in this matter between the Anglo-Saxon people of this country and the people of the United States, because the people of this country are centuries behind the people of the United States in their treatment of prisoners, both ordinary and political. What we want in this Amendment is something extremely practical. We are asking for an alteration in the Treason-Felony Act. We would simply be getting what has often been granted—the removal from the Statute Book of what has been a blot and a disgrace to the Government of this country. I refer to that Act because the avowed object of it, as stated in the Debate in this House by the Ministers who introduced it, was to teach the Irish rebels that they would be degraded in prison like ordinary criminals. That was the avowed object of the Act, and it was an object unworthy of any civilised Government. The fact that it was introduced with the avowed object of degrading the prisoners is one of the strongest reasons for demanding that that policy should be departed from. It is idle to tell me that it is outside the scope of the powers of this House to introduce an alteration in the treatment of political prisoners because they have been sentenced to penal servitude. The whole object of the introduction of this Measure is to ameliorate and change the condition of prisoners of all classes in the gaols. We have in the sixth clause of the Act a totally new classification of the prisoners, and there is no force whatever in the statement that it is not within the scope of the Act, or inconsistent with the general framework of the Act, to introduce an alteration in the classification of the treatment of prisoners. Let me turn, in justification for this demand, from the English point of view. Why do we claim that the treatment of all prisoners sentenced for political offences should be different from that of ordinary criminals? We claim it because as a rule—I might almost say universally—the motive which has actuated those prisoners is totally different from the motive which actuates ordinary prisoners. While it is reasonable and necessary for the safety of the State to deprive the latter of their liberty, I say it is an outrage on all the principles of modern civilisation to contend that you do feel bound in the interests of the State to treat political prisoners in the same manner as you treat the ordinary degraded criminal. In the treatment of criminals you are bound to have some consideration for the motives by which they are inspired. The real point which has been alluded to in the course of this Debate, and which has struck me over and over again, is this: in regard to Irish political offences we have listened to diatribes and eloquent speeches on both sides of the House as to the impossibility of giving any consideration to men who are suspected of being associated with dynamite. I have always been an opponent of dynamite used as a weapon against society. But what has struck us Irish sometimes with extraordinary force is the fact that the British Anglo-Saxon—if you like so to describe him—does not condemn dynamite when used against Russia or other foreign Powers. I have known men who were suspected to be in sympathy with the use of dynamite as a method of political warfare received in London society, in London drawing-rooms, as distinguished members of society. The only difference was that they did use these weapons—weapons I would not use—against a Czar of Russia or an Emperor of France, or any other potentate of Europe, and not against the Anglo-Saxon people. That is a peculiar characteristic of the people of this country. In that respect I think the people of this country are far behind the Russian, French, and other nations. We have the unanswerable testimony from travellers in Russia that the Russian authorities—who, of course, are constantly obliged to deal with political criminals—look at the motives of the men who have been taken red-handed in wholesale association with the use of dynamite. They have been treated over and over again with consideration because of the motive for the crime which animated them. We have evidence that there is more humanity and more generosity meted out to the enemies of the State in these countries by these autocratic Towers than there is in England. No doubt in England the prisoner may have a greater advantage at his trial; but I am not now talking about the trial, I am talking about the treatment of the prisoner who has been condemned. In that respect, the treatment of certain prisoners in this country compares unfavourably with the treatment of prisoners in other countries which I have heard or read about. In all matters concerning the treatment of prisoners, their fair trial, and the leniency or the severity of the punishment, the history of the nineteenth century has been a history of progress. Yet I say that in this one particular case of the treatment of political prisoners the history of England in the nineteenth century shows that there has been retrogression. You treat them worse than you did in the days of the Georges. Let any man read of the lives of men who lived in the early part of this century—of men like Leigh Hunt and others who committed political offences—and he will find that in the days before the Reform Bill political prisoners were better treated than they are to-day. The system against which we protest is the treatment of political prisoners as common felons. I do not believe anything of the kind was ever heard of or dreamt of until after the passing of the Treason-Felony Act of 1848, for the special purpose of taking vengeance on the Irish political prisoners. Up to that date I do not believe that the system of treating political prisoners as common felons was ever heard of or dreamt of. So there is this further argument, that in this one particular alone you have gone back in this country; you are treating your political prisoners worse than you treated them in the first half of the nineteenth century, or in the eighteenth century, or in any period before, until we get into the days of Queen Elizabeth, when you put them into pots and boiled them. I confess I attach great importance to the Amendment, not because the privileges which are asked for are really of much value, but because if it were passed it would be a recognition of the fact that political prisoners would belong to a different class, that they would not herd with common criminals. Once you recognise that fact, the public opinion of this country would revolt against the system. I press upon the House the great importance of this Amendment. The privileges asked are trifling in the extreme. They are privileges so slight that they are almost within the discretion of the prison governors under the law as it stands. If with this law of prison treatment the principle is introduced that political prisoners are a class apart, then I say the beginning will be made for other reforms. Before I sit down I will say one word about a matter that has been alluded to before. We have had on a recent occasion, owing to very extraordinary circumstances, an opportunity of testing the fact of the treatment of English political prisoners. No one can deny that the offences in Johannesburg, from the political point of view, were far worse than the offences of men who have been sentenced for treason-felony here. They were put into gaol in Johannesburg, and the House of Commons will remember the excitement into which this country was thrown. Questions were asked in the House of Commons, and the greatest possible anxiety was expressed as to the treatment of those men. Now we know perfectly well that the treatment of the Johannesburg prisoners was indescribably more lenient than the treatment even of untried prisoners in the gaols of Ireland. Every night, while they were in gaol in Johannesburg, questions were asked in this House. I remember one night a question was asked as to whether the men were shut up in a close and unwholesome gaol, and the Colonial Secretary replied that they were allowed out two hours every day for exercise, accompanied by police officers. I remember hundreds of prisoners in Ireland who were untried, who were shut up—as I have been myself—and who were locked up for 22 hours a day in a close and miserable cell, without any provision for getting outside to get any decent exercise; and I cannot help contrasting the two cases. Take the case of the Johannesburg men who were brought over here and sent to prison. These were the first prisoners here in a political sense since the days of George the Fourth.

The Chartists.

Very well, these were the first Englishmen for the last 50 years imprisoned in an English gaol for a political crime. They were not lying in gaol for 12 hours before a petition was brought before this House praying that they should be treated as first-class misdemeanants. They were not sent to the ordinary prisons as upwards of 2,000 Irish prisoners were sent during the last 10 years. A petition was sent round this House, and I was one of the first to sign it, so that these men should be treated as they ought to be treated—with some consideration, because their crime was political. I and the honourable Member for South Mayo were among the first to sign that petition; and in 24 hours the decision of the judge was reversed, and by the action of the Home Office those gentlemen were treated as first-class misdemeanants. They were allowed to wear their own clothes, to get first-class food, and to see their friends—which was perfectly proper. Now, Sir, can you wonder that we Irishmen, feel bitter over this matter? Those gentlemen offended against the law in the most grave and flagrant manner, and they were convicted by an English jury and sentenced by an English judge; and instantly the whole influence of the House of Commons is brought to bear so that they might get proper treatment and be distinguished from ordinary prisoners. Upwards of 5,000 Irishmen have passed through the gaols in Ireland for whom there was 10,000 times more excuse than there was for Jameson or Rhodes. You never petitioned for their improved treatment; you treated our appeals with contempt and scorn, you gloated over their sufferings; and I challenge any Englishman to contradict me when I say that these men in Ireland had a better right to be treated as first-class, misdemeanants than the others I have alluded to. They had a better right to favourable treatment from the moral point of view than Jameson or Rhodes and his friends, and yet no voice was heard on their behalf in this House. I say that that shows a great lack of generosity on the part of the British Government. If Jameson had been an Irishman—oh! I believe he is an Irishman—

Oh, no; he is a Scotchman.

If he had been an Irishman, and his offence had been committed against this Government, do you imagine for a moment that any petition would have been got up? No, it would not. His offence was against another Government, and because that offence was supposed to be to your interest, your compassion was aroused on his behalf when he was in gaol. I admit that he and the others were perfectly entitled to a mitigation of the prison treatment. We refrained from making any comments on the action of Jameson and Rhodes, but we remember the answer we got when we asked for better treatment for Irish political prisoners. As I said, there is an extraordinary difference between the way in which an Englishman looks at a political offence when it is committed against another country and the way in which he looks at it when it is committed against himself. This is a great Empire, and this is a strong Government, and Englishmen have very many good qualities individually; but I must say that I do think, without wishing to offer any unnecessary offence, that this is the most ungenerous Government to its political opponents that the world has ever seen. When other Governments put down an insurrection—such as in Russia and France—there the rule is an amnesty when the period of peace and prosperity ensues. But that is not the ease in this country; it is the last thought that comes into the mind of the English Government. When the danger has passed away, and when they are, as it were, wallowing in prosperity, peace and security, they never think of an amnesty; a cruel spirit takes possession