Howard Association report, October, 1884.

  • Howard Association (London, England)
Date:
1884
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Howard Association report, October, 1884. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    16/24 (page 16)
    to the character of the prison administration. Amongst other very objection- able features of the Irish Prison regime, the Commissioners state— 1. —That the chiefs of the Prison Department have been on such bad terms with one another that “ It is in evidence that there has been for some time an entire suspension of communication, except in writing, between the Chairman of the Board and the Inspector of the District! ” (parag. 29). The Commissioners however comment on this strange state of things, and similar matters, in a tone of extremely mild expostulation. They further remark (parag. 56), “We have observed, with regret, that there is considerable friction in the relation of some Medical Officers with the Board.” 2. —That after seven years’ entire control of the Irish Prisons by their present administrators, “ many ” of them “ fail to fulfil the requirements of the present day,” and “ only five ” are up to the modern standard of arrange- ment (parag. 4). 3. —That the cost, both of officers and prisoners, is excessive. For example, each convict at Lusk now costs the taxpayer “ about £86 a-head ” per annum! (parag. 119). [Under Sir Walter Crofton it was less than £30 per head.] 4. —The Commissioners remark, “ One of the most serious points which has been brought under our notice is the large number of prisoners certified to be insane in the Irish Convict Prisons ! ” (parag. 124). 5. —And yet, whilst such is the case, it is also stated that “ an excessive number of punishments appear to have been inflicted, but these wTere cases of refractory prisoners whose mental condition may be described as the border- land between sanity and insanity” (parags. 12 and 127). [Is it just to punish such wretched creatures in an “ excessive ” proportion ?] 6. —That the presumed “ inspection ” or “ visitation ” of Irish convicts has for years past been mainly imaginary. For the Commissioners report, “ The Lord-Lieutenant, in 1880, appointed certain gentlemen as Visitors of the several convict prisons ; but we find that Mountjoy male prison [the chief establishment] was only visited by them once in 1880, that it was not visited at all in 1881, and only once in 1882 ; and that Mountjoy female prison was not visited at all in 1880 or 1881, and only once in 1882 !! ” (parag. 122). 7. That the Prison of Spike Island was not closed for several years after its strong condemnation by a previous Boyal Commission (parag. 134). §_ That actually “ in some cases circulars issued by the Board seem to vary the character, or meaning, of Buies made under Act of Parliament! ” Here Sir B. Cross and his colleagues venture to add, “ This should, of course, be carefully avoided in future ! ” (parag. 36). [Of course ; but is such a past action to involve entire impunity ?] Various other serious revelations are also made. But the above are sufficient to prove the great deterioration in the administration of Irish Prisons since Sir Walter Crofton’s rule, which elicited praise from all parts of the civilised world. It is to be hoped that the Home Secretary, after such damaging revelations by a Boyal Commission, not irresponsible persons, will in future manifest more accuracy and less apathy and incredulity as to public remonstrances about prisons, and as to the too often fictitious visitation and inspection of those establishments by nominees of the authorities, whether Visiting- Justices or others. , . . . .... , , The Boyal Commissioners should certainly have more boldly suggested the needful reforms, and not have devolved the responsibility of both sugges- tion and action so exclusively upon the hitherto existing administration of the Prisons. They have been exceedingly gentle in their criticisms and in