The treatment of political prisoners in Ireland

Part I.— THE QUESTION CONSTITUTIONALLY CONSIDERED. Pages 1-48

Two questions at issue. — Offences against public order. — Unjust to treat misguided patriots as criminals. — Association. — Lord Justice Bramwell on. — Political offenders of low social grade. — The Devon Royal Commission, 1870. — Report in favour of classification. — Kimberley Royal Commission, 1878 and 1879, confirm principle. — Evidence of Captain Ducane. — Lord Mayo on Association, 1868. — The International Protest. — Precedent at home. — Case of William Cobbett, 1809. — Cobbet describes his treatment. — Case of Leigh Hunt. — Tithe war of 1828, similar to Land war of to-day. — Boycotting in 1838. — Case of Marcus Costello, tithe agitator. — Treatment of tithe prisoners, a precedent. — Law never recognized political crimes. — 3’Connell a criminal. — Treatment of Repeal prisoners. — What we demand. — Treatment of Meagher, O’Brien, O’Doherty, and M‘Manus. — Mitchel and Treason Felony. — Attempts to degrade Mitchel illegal. — Treatment of Mitchel. — Boycotting a weapon universally known. — Transportation abolished by Penal Servitude Act. — The Irish intermediate system. — Mr. Charles Burke defines duty of the State. — First departure from constitutional custom. — Political prisoners in 1798. — The Fenians treated as criminals. — Effect of treatment. — Dillon’sstatement before the Devon Commission. — Gladstone appoints Devon Commission. — Small privileges granted Fenian prisoners. — Devon Commission 4condemns the system. — Chartist movement in England. — Extraordinary letter from Lord John Russell. — Case of Fergus O’Connor, alleged degradation of — Discussion in Parliament. — House of Lords. — Interference of Home Secretary. — Lord Normandy s opinion. — Bradford petition — Effect of Home Secretary’s interference.— Henry Vincent, unlawful assembly. — The Attorney-General interferes. — Second imprisonment of Mr. Vincent. — Treated as a felon. — Serjeant Talfourd protests. — Opinion of Attorney-General. — Discussion in Parliament. — Interference of Chief Secretary in Prison administration sanctioned by custom. — Precedents. — Johnston of Ballykilbeg in jail. — Intervention of Lord Mayo. — Lord Mayo’s action. — Press Prisoners of 1868. — Pigott and A. M. Sullivan. — Isaac Butt on Act of 1856. — Discussion in Parliament. — Remarkable statement of Lord Mayo. — Lord Aberdare on Political offences, 1869. — What precedent at home teaches us.— Foreign practice. — France. — Dr. Lyons’ Report. — Political prisoners in France. — Letters of Count de Mun, etc., etc. — Canada and United States. — International Prison Congress in 1872. — Remarkable proceedings. — The International delegates discuss association. — The Congress in favour of simple detention. — The Freeman' s Journal and the Congress. — Mr. Balfour’s policy is opposed to the practice of Russia. — International law. — Extradition refused for politic il offences — Lord Palmerston’s Government, defeat of. — A Political paradox. — What is a political offence. — M. Thier’s definition and

IV

CONTENTS.

arguments thereon. — Boycotting and trade unionism. — Crimes Act prisoners arepolitical prisoners. — Daily Telegraph and Mr. Balfour — Enforcing prison dress is illegal. — Dr. Barr’s letter to Times. — Dietary question. — Recent changes in prison rules. Why the felon is well treated. — The changes in the prison rules. — The rules no concession.— Nemo’s letter to the Freeman' s Journal. — The rule regarding prison dress and the clipping of the hair, as amended. — The Freeman defines the Nationalist attitude towards the Aberdare Committee. — The principle of classification. — The Committee a farce. — The personnel of the Committee. — Why political prisoners in England have never protested against prison discipline. — Mr. Shaw Lefevres letter to the Daily News, April 22nd, 1889. — The comment of the Freeman. — First-class misdemeanants.— What Mr. Balfour’s letter of instruction should have been. — The Aberdare Report. — The Committee and the recent changes in prison discipline. — Mr. O’Brien’s letter to the Aberdare Committee. — Classification the only solution of the present difficulty. — Forgers, anti-vaccinators, etc. — Mr. Balfour’s opportunity. — Conclusion. — Appendix.

Part II.— THE INCIDENTS OF THE PAST THREE YEARS Pages 49-71

The Crimes Act prisoners. — Who they are. — The nature of their crimes. — Mr. Balfour’s policy and its object. — Mr. Blunt’s letter to the 2'imes, March 24th, 1888. — Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Balfour. — Commencement of the struggle. — Mr. O’Brien in Tullamore. — Mr. Mandeville in jail. — First appearance of Dr. Barr. — The inquest on John Mandeville. — The widow’s evidence. — Mr. O’Brien’s evidence at the inquest. — The governor’s evidence. — Dr. Barr’s evidence. — The effect of Dr. Barr’s visits to Tullamore.— Dr. Barr’s views on Mr. Mandeville’s treatment. — The verdict of the jury. — Dr. Ridley’s suicide. — The Ridley inquest. — Mr. O’Brien’s statement. — The Castle and the clothes question. — Mr. Lane’s letter to the Freeman , August, 1888. — Aiderman Hooper’s letter to the Freeman.- — How the jury at the Ridley inquest was packed. The verdict of the jury. — The Daily Telegraph on Mr. Balfour’s policy. — Mr. Balfour's sense of humour. — Speeches at Glasgow and Manchester. — The fatal effects of Mr. Balfour’s policy. — Mr. Sheehy in jail. — A leaf from his prison papers. — Mr. John Roche in jail. — The last struggle in Clonmel. — Mr. O’Brien describes the struggle. — Discourtesy of the doctor. — Mr. O’Brien left naked. — The plank bed, etc. — Mr. O’Brien asserts the principle of classification. — Mr. O’Brien’s victory. — The sworn inquiry into Mr. O’Brien’s treatment. — The orgie in the Antient Concert Rooms. — A final effort. — Mr. Carew in jail. — Mr. Carew’s triumph. — Mr. Balfour's personal responsibility.— His inconsistency. — The present state of the question. — The Belfast Insurance Fraud prisoners. — Father Stephens and Father Kelly. — The recent modification in prison discipline. — The Aberdare Committee. — The report. — Mr. O’Brien’s letter to the Committee, etc., etc.

Part III.— MR. BALFOUR’S DEFENCE IN PARLIAMENT

Balfour’s Defence in Parliament. — He promises Appeal. — Balfour on Law of Conspiracy. — Balfour, 17th May, 1887. — Prison Vote. — Speech on Appropriation

CONTENTS

V

Bill, 1887. — His position in 1888. — Speech, 18th Dec., 1 888. — Relaxation to Priests. — The National Protest. — Speech, 25th February, 1889. — Some important concessions.— Speech, Mr. O’Connor’s Bill, 13th March, 1889. — Promises Inquiry. — Attitude of Mr. Chamberlain on Bill. — Conclusion.

Part IV.— THE INTERNATIONAL PROTEST

Weighty communications from the United States. — “ Analysis of the Communications.”— The Verdict from Canada.— Analysis. — Opinions from France. — List of Letters. — Letters from Paul de Cassagnac, Count de Mun, &c. — Sir Charles Gavan Duffy on the question. — Letter from Dr. Bagshawe, the Earl of Cavan, Jacob Bright, Professor Bryce, and Samuel Storey. — Irish feeling. — Declaration by the Corporations of Ireland in favour of classification.

THE FEELING IN IRELAND.

Action of Corporations of Dublin, Cork, Kilkenny, Sligo, Drogheda, Limerick Waterford, and Clonmel. — Conclusion.

Preface

The letters which, lately appeared in the Freeman's Journal from various countries, upon the subject of the Treatment of Political Prisoners in Ireland, attracted considerable attention. It seemed to me a pity that a protest, so representative in its character, should remain buried in the files of a newspaper. I, therefore, resolved to reprint the whole correspondence in pamphlet form. But it ’was suggested to me — and the suggestion seemed to me to be a wise one — that the full importance of the extraordinary communications, with which I was honoured, would not be appreciated unless there was placed side by side with those communications, a plain statement of the facts, connected with the system, that had met with such universal condemnation. Mr. Balfour’s defence of that system in Parliament and elsewhere has been extremely weak. But the absolute futility of his defence of the position he has assumed in regard to political prisoners in Ireland since the Coercion Bill became law, becomes fully apparent only when that position is considered in the light afforded to us by English law and precedent, no less than by the custom of foreign nations. The pamphlet, therefore, is divided into four parts. I have myself dealt with the historical and constitutional aspect of the matter. The chapter headed “ The Question Constitutionally Considered” is practically nothing more than a mere compilation of materials first published in a remarkable series of articles from the facile pen of Dr. Sigerson, which ran through the columns of the Freeman's Journal during the earlier months of this year. Nearly all my quotations and references, and certainly a very large proportion of the arguments used in Part I., are borrowed, if I may so speak, from Dr. Sigerson, who, as is well known, was a member of the late Boval Commission on Prisons. Dr. Sigerson, I believe, proposes to issue his articles in globo. They will be published by Messrs.

PREFACE.

Vll

Keegan Paul, Trench, & Co., London. I would earnestly recommend his book, no less on account of its literary merit than becauseit will contain much valuable information which space neccessarily prevents me from transfering to these pages.

I am indebted to Mr. M. McDonnell Bodkin, B.L., of United Ireland, for the lucid and able contribution on “ The Incidents of the Last Three Years/’ which forms Part II. of this pamphlet. Mr. Bodkin’s clear narrative of the events, which have given rise to the agitation against the present prison system, will be read with interest by all those who are acquainted with the manner, in which he discharges his important literary labours in connection with the Press.

Mr. T. M. Healy, M.P., whose kindness in these matters is proverbial, kindly consented, at the cost of much time and trouble, to collect and arrange together Mr. Balfour’s various speeches during the course of the different debates in Parliament on the subject of the treatment of political prisoners in Ireland.

Part IV., perhaps the most important portion of the pamphlet, consists principally of a reprint of all the letters published in the Freeman's Journal under the title of “ The International Protest.”

Some of these letters were addressed to me personally ; others to friends, who kindlv aided me in their collection ; others, again,, were directed to the Editor of the Freemans Journal. A large portion of the latter, which were principally from the United States, were addressed simultaneously to the Freeman's Journal and to the Boston Pilot. I leave the letters, as a whole, to speak for themselves.

One word more. There is no man in all history, who better exemplifies the success, which innate ability will always command, than the eminent Irish- Australian statesman, who has favoured me with a short introduction to this pamphlet. He passed from a convict’s cell to the premiership of, what some would call, the greatest of Great Britain’s colonies. Sir Charles Gavan Duffy is one of Ireland’s noblest and most illustrious sons. The hero of heroic times, he has traditions entwined around his name, which no patriot of modern times can claim. In far Australia, as in Ireland, his name is honoured as that of a man pre-eminent in ability, energy, and patriotism. It is encouraging to have in the present crisis, the

Till

PREFACF* warm support of the last survivor of O’Conneirs companions in Richmond Bridewell.

While Sir Charles Gravan Duffy may be said to link the old days in Ireland with the new, we must not forget that he typifies also the sympathy of Australia for “ a people rightly struggling to be free/’ Ireland is a grateful country. She will not forget the incalculable services done in her cause by the criminal of ’44 and ’48.

E. D. Gr.

Pembroke House, Upper Mount Street, Dublin.

Augud 3rd, 1889.

Introduction

The correspondence collected in this volume, under the title of an International Protest, forms, it seems to me, one of the most curious and significant State papers of recent times. Eminent men in a responsible position, are slow to pronounce judgment on the policy of a foreign State, or the conduct of a foreign statesman. It is only an exceptional and exasperating case, indeed, which elicits or justifies such interference. But the treatment of political opponents in Ireland, by the Government of Lord Salisbury, has moved the frank indignation of such an array of conspicuous men, as probably never before pronounced on a contemporary transaction in another country. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is in a better position than anyone to estimate what has befallen him, when ministers and ex-ministers, leaders of Government and Opposition, senators and members of the Civil Service, in foreign and independent legislatures, and executives, break through all restraint of etiquette and diplomacy, and tell him that he has acted shamefully, and has neither the example of civilized nations, nor the supreme necessity which overrides all law, to justify what he has done. He has outraged the feelings of Europe and America, and called forth the protest, not only of foreigners, but of men of his own race and blood, who tell him that he has made them, for the first time, blush for their country.

“ If Englishmen,” says a Senator of the United States, “ do not feel degraded by such outrages, the people of America will be ashamed of their ancestors.”

“ I feel the disgrace,” says another Senator, “ as though I were an Englishman, and resent it as though I were an Irishman.” “It belongs,” says an ex- Attorney- General, speaking of this policy, “ to another and much darker age than this, and no fair means

X

INTRODUCTION .

should be spared to frown it out of existence.” “ It is inhuman, it is uncivilized, it is unchristian,” says the Governor of Nebraska; “ It is as much arelic of barbarism, as the lash and the stake,” says the Governor of Washington. A dozen leaders of opinion in the States echo these sentiments. They are well entitled to be heard on the subject, these leading men of a nation, who did not doom •one political prisDner to death for an insurrection of unexampled vigour and endurance. Lord Salisbury, indeed, has caused the death of more political opponents, by justifying the order of one of his subordinates, “ not to hesitate to shoot,” than fell in the United States since the Republic was created, except in actual war.

The Dominion of Canada, under the British flag, is not less ready to lift up its voice, than the confederated Commonwealths of the great Republic.

An ex-Minister tells him that his method of treating men who serve with him in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, “ pains and affronts the sensibilities of civilized men throughout the world;” and nearly a score of witnesses of Consular rank, or high individual position in the same great State, bear like testimony. He has roused not only the orator and administrator, accustomed to the public arena, but the novelist and the poet in their silent retirement. The gentle Quaker poet, whose writings are familiar to the whole English-speaking race throughout the world, tells him that his policy has been “inexcusably harsh and brutal.” Howells, the least sensational of all eminent writers of fiction, joins the cloud of witnesses. “ To abhor such atrocities,” he declares, “seems to me as simple, as natural, and as normal as to breathe.” Their confrere, Dana, thanks God that nothing in our day can be compared with such policy ; and thanks God again, that in the operation of His providence, it cannot long be continued. Ecclesiastics of various nations, and all ranks and all Churches, among whom Wesleyan ministers and the pastors of Highland congregations are notable, are heard on the same side. The Wesleyan minister of Ontario, Canada, tells us that a widely- extended acquaintance with the opinions and feelings of the people, convinces him that this inhuman system “ is doing every day more to multiply the friends of Home Rule than any other one thing since the agitation began.”

INTRODUCTION.

XI

Mr. Balfour, a Scoto- Canadian member, warns bis namesake in Westminster tbat —

“ No Government could exist in Canada for a day tbat would attempt to treat political prisoners — especially representatives of tbe people — as common felons. Were a titbe of tbe oppression attempted bere tbat is carried out in Ireland, nothing could prevent our people rising en masse , and by open rebellion resenting tbe indignities, and meting out proper punishment to their oppressors, in whatever office or situation in life they were found.”

When men of character and position, who have no personal interest at stake, speak with such emphasis, it is not rash to assume, that there is a grave scandal to be repressed.

We do not speak of Irishmen, though in every place in the world where they have won success, they arise to denounce this system ; but we are Hottentots, and do not count. It is not without a certain satisfaction that we find the author of that gracious epithet, slapped in the face by the rude hand of Paul de Cassagnac, who finds the treatment applied to Irish political prisoners absolument ignoble. This consensus of European and American opinion will, perhaps, teach the Prime Minister that he cannot make a Siberia in Ireland with impunity. The foreign policy of Lord Salisbury has been represented as a substantial strengthening of the Empire, but a domestic policy which provokes this out-spoken contempt from foreign statesmen and publicists, will scarcely contribute to that end. Whatever it strengthens, it will not be the administrators who are responsible for it. A Conservative government was trodden down, because of its secret or avowed approval of the Bulgarian atrocities, and when the English people come to understand the Irish atrocities, they will, it may be hoped, punish the aggressors in the same decisive fashion.

These foreign witnesses are not deluded by the impudent pretence, that the prisoners in Ireland are not political prisoners. They recognize them as reformers labouring to abate public grievances; as patriots aiming to lift up their country from depression and ruin ; as opponents of great wrongs needing to be faced by determined men ; and this is the type of the political prisoner from Sir John Eliot down to Beranger and O’Connell.

The practice of modern nations has been so exhaustively treated

IV

INTRODUCTION.

by Dr. Sigerson, that I refrain from alluding to it. He has demonstrated that there is nothing to be found among civilized mankind, resembling the system which Lord Salisbury authorizes and vindicates in Ireland.

Foreigners have caught sufficiently, it would seem, the general scope of political prison discipline in Ireland ; but it would contribute to a more exact and complete knowledge of the case, if a table were prepared specifying the precise offences charged against prisoners, and the corresponding punishments inflicted. They scarcely know, I fancy, that supplying food to a starving family engaged in resisting ejectment from land held by their predecessors, before Cecil, the first Lord Salisbury, lied and fawned for the favour of Queen Elizabeth, is a crime punishable like larceny ; or that hurrahing for a popular man or a popular policy, at times not approved of by the police, carries as grave a penalty as rioting or pickpocketing.

I have spoken only of one chapter in this book, because I happen to have had no opportunity of examining the others ; but the energy and capacity, which collected a multitude of skilled witnesses with such commendable picmptitude, give assurance that no part of the case will be inadequately handled.

0. GfAYAN DUFFY.

Shelbotjbne Hotel,

Dublin, August 2nd , 1 889.

iart *.

THE QUESTION CONSTITUTIONALLY CONSIDERED.

The whole controversy regarding the treatment to which Irish politi- Two questions cal prisoners have been subjected by the Government during the last three atlssueyears, may be said to consist of a difference of opinion as to what answer should be given to two very simple questions : Are the Irish Crimes Act prisoners political prisoners, or are they not? If so, should they be subjected to a distinct method of treatment, or should they not? An adequate consideration of either question cannot be made without some trouble. We must scan shortly the pages of history. I shall endeavour to demonstrate that English law and precedent, and the practice of foreign nations, and the indications afforded us by international custom, recognize political offences, by directly sanctioning a distinction between them and criminal violations of the ordinary law. The matter to be first discussed is whether political offenders should be treated as common criminals or not ? The answer to this question is, most emphatically, no !

The constitution of the country is based upon the good will, and framed opinions of mifor the benefit of the community as a whole. All reforms have been the Jomt^opinions result of the expression of opinion of what, must, at one time, have been a of majority minority of the community. This is a self-evident fact. When this minority, or portion of the community, declares that a grievance exists, which it cannot otherwise than by forcible effort get rid of, “ it must, ostensibly, at least, be aiming for the benefit of the community.” (Geo.

Sigerson, M.D., Freeman's Journal , 25th Eeb., 1889). It thus often happens that the efforts of the minority are successful, and the reform suggested, in being adopted by the majority, becomes a corner-stone of the constitution. To treat, then, as criminal, efforts, directed against the established constitution, or organized with the intention of bringing about a reform in any question affecting the community at large, is to stamp as criminal, views, which in a short time may come to be entertained by the whole community, and consequently becomes merged in the law of the land.

offences against How admirably these arguments adapt themselves to the case of Irish public order. Members of Parliament and Crimes Act prisoners, can be seen at a glance.

“ Offences against public order (except certain offences) being liable to the fluctuations of the public judgment — which is the final court of appeal — stand in a different category from those ordinary crimes against persons and property which all the civilized world regards with the same eyes, because their predominance would mean the disintegration of the community and the destruction of all social life. It is on this ground, and not on the personal motive, that the distinction must be made, for the motive of a thief or a burglar might be merely to procure food for his hungry friend or family, whereas a politician might even profit by his conduct without altering the ethical aspect of the main question.” — Dr. Sigerson, Freeman's Journal , 25th Feb., 1889.

Unjust to treat It is perhaps unnecessary to point out how morally unjust it is to triots a^cruni- condemn to a common degradation the misguided patriot, if you will, and nais. the common criminal. In the case of members of Parliament, and men

accustomed to literary or intellectual pursuits, the injustice done can hardly be measured. In this connection I can scarcely do better than again quote Dr. Sigerson :

“ At exercise and at chapel he (the common criminal) is in the midst of his equals — sometimes even of his superiors in crime — for whom he may have a perverse respect ; in association he is in his element, and enjoys their companionship, so far as he may, and profits by their sympathy. Plunge into the same category an educated, high-principled man, guilty of a political offence, and everything changes for the worse. It is no longer a question of simple detention, but of imprisonment, with moral, intellectual, and physical suffering superadded. He is compelled to recognise inferiors as task -masters, to perform hard labour, to which he is neither accustomed nor adapted, instead of the work familiar to him, on fare which seems coarse and disagreeable. Worst of all, whilst he suffers from the loss of intellectual communion and mental exercise, by the insufficiency of books, the absence of friends, the impossibility of writing, he is forced into association with men whose presence is an offence, and whose language is too often an out- Lorcl Justice rage. Nor is this view exceptional. Lord Justice Bramwell, in his evidence

Bramwell. before the Commission appointed to inquire into the working of the PeDal Servi-

tude Acts, 1879, stated certain misgivings as to the unequal working of these Acts. ‘ There would be a terrible punishment,’ he said, ‘ to any gentleman or person of what I may call the better orders, in the very association with the people he would associate with, when his nine months of separate confinement were over and he went to the works ; but that does not affect the criminal class ; they associate with their own equals, and men whose good opinion they are desirous of gaining by a repetition of the offences which have sent them there ; they are fed, perhaps, not quite so well as they were out of prison ; they are comfortably lodged ; they are taken care of ; they have some work to do, I believe not very hard ; if they got their living honestly out of the prison they would have to work harder probably. What is the objection to it ? ’ ”

Political offenders of low social grade.

In tbe case of political offenders of a lower social grade, the objections to equality of treatment have not, of course, the same force. Nevertheless, it would be manifestly unjust to set up a class distinction in this matter. An offence against an enactment such as the Coercion Act is only an offence against a special public regulation. It implies no moral degradation, and involves no loss of self-respect on the part of the offender. His offence is of quite a different character to those committed by the criminal classes. It may be safely said that any honest man, no matter how poor, convicted of an offence which is not morally lowering, must resent association with prisoners whom he regards as morally corrupted. It is a dangerous thing for the State to subject such a man to Newgate influence.

The ordinary criminal, on the other hand, will feel highly honoured by contact with a man who, even if mistaken in his principles, is clear in his own conscience. By enforcing common association, therefore, an injustice is done on the one hand, and an unmerited privilege granted upon the other. In other words, the man who has committed a crime against the moral as well as the municipal law is benefited by the transaction, whereas the political offender, who has only sinned against the municipal law, is directly injured by the practice.

The Commission presided over by the Earl of Devon, which sat in The Devon 1870, to consider the treatment of the Treason Eelons of 1865, concluded Royal Commisits report in a remarkable manner. It actually went outside the term tion with crimiof its letter of instruction, to protest against the association of political nals* prisoners with ordinary criminals, which had, contrary to the intention of Parliament, been enforced upon some of the aforementioned prisoners :

“ A further question was forced on our attention in the course of our inquiries,” says the Commissioners, “ though it does not fall strictly within the letter of our instructions. It is the question, whether prisoners, convicted of a crime so exceptional in its nature, that it has been thought right to modify prison discipline in their case, to a certain extent, might not, with advantage, be more completely separated from the general body of convicts We are led to the conclusion that the difficulties atten-

dant upon the location and treatment of political offenders may, perhaps, be most readily and effectually overcome by setting apart, from time to time, a detached portion of some convict prison for prisoners of this class, and we recommend this subject to the consideration of her Majesty’s Government.”

The Report of the Devon Commission was confirmed by the Report of Kimberley the Kimberley Royal Commission of 1878-79, which was appointed to in- Evidence quire into the working of the Penal Servitude Act. Sir Richard Asheton of Captain Du- Cross (now Lord Cross) was, at the time, Home Secretary. Evidence was cane taken, amongst other matters, as to the advisability of separating entirely political offenders from common criminals. A few extracts from the evidence given before the Commission by Captain Ducane, Chairman of the then Board of Directors of Convict Prisons, bears so closely upon the present controversy as to be worth reproduction : —

Chairman — “287 — Would not the feeling of sympathy, which would naturally Captain exist on the part of certain persons and classes, with prisoners convicted of treason- Ducane’s felony, seriously interfere with the carrying into effect of their punishment in the evidencesame manner as in the case of ordinary penal servitude prisoners ? I think so.”

And again : —

“ 292. — Does not the difference of the feeling, which exists generally towards men convicted of conspiracy against the Government, from the feeling which exists with regard to men who have committed an ordinary crime, almost necessarily »*ecuire some difference to be made between them ? 1 should think so.”

Report recommends separation.

Lord Mayo o* association.

The International Protest.

Precedents at home, and foreign practice, useful in investigation.

Again : —

“ 293. — What would be clearly conducive to the end of all punishment, namely — the prevention of crime, aud, collaterally with it, the reformation of the offender in the case of an ordinary criminal, might not have at all the same effect with regard to the particular class of offenders to which we are alluding ? It might not. Putting men like those whose crime is not considered so very disgraceful under the same punishment as men whose crimes are considered disgraceful, is liable rather to raise the character of the other crimes, and to render less disgraceful the punishment. ”