The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 11.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woo!-
sack at Five o'Clock.
A Message from the Commons brought up several
Bills.

The repeal and drawback in part duties on Bricks
Bill ; the repeal and drawback in part duties on Papers
13.!I, and the Glass Duties Bill, passed through a Com-
tnitteej.of the whole House without any amendments.
HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER.

The LORD CHANCELLOR read her Majesty's
gracious answer to the Address that hail o:is day been
presented to her.—[See another part of The San.l
Upon the motion of the Marquis of LANSDO WNE,
the answer was ordered to be printed.
FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.
Lord ASHBURTON moved (as we understood)
for certain returns respecting the financial state of the
country for the yeaxs 1836, 1837, 1838, and 1839 ;
also a return of the deficiencies for the same years.
The Earl of RIPON was exceedingly happy that
this subject had been taken up by his Noble Friend,
who was so competent to deal with it. Had his Noble
Friend not done so, he himself should have brought
forward a motion on the subject.
CANADA.
ELLENBOROUGH said that he had ob-
sery ed that certain papers relating to Canada had been
!aid on the table of the House of Commons last night, and
he wished to know if a copy of the samepapers were not
to be laid on their Lordships' table ?
The Marquis of NORMAN BY said copies of the
scale papers should be laid on their Lordships' table to-

morrow.
The Tithe Commutation Amendment Act passed
through a Committee of the whole Huse, and was or-
dered to be recommitted on Tuesday next.
POOR-LAW.

Earl STANHOPE said before he presented the
petition he had in his hand, he wished to ask a question
of the Noble Duke (Portland), and also of the Noble
Lord (Wharneliffe) near him. It would be recollected
that he had, about three months ago, presented a
petition from an old man, of the name of John
Berry, who had been refused assistance by the
Worksop Union, and complaining of grievances
which it was said should be inquired into. He wished
to know if the Noble Duke and the Noble Lord had
inquired into the matter, and if they had any statement
to make to the House.
The Duke of P-1 ORTLAND said he bad ascer-
tained that the Un'oa had found upon inquiry that the
cid man had relatious who were both able and willing to
support him ; and that on that ground the Union did
not consider they were bound to support him.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said, that the result of his
inquiries was different to that stated by the Noble
Duke. This was a man 91 years of age, with a wife
of about 70. He was very infirm, and had some-
time since got one of his arms broken. Until the Union
came into operation at Worksop he had been allowed 2s
a week and had his rent paid. The Board of
Guardians immediately stopped his rent, but continued
to allow him the two shilling's a week. He soon got
into great difficulties from inability to pay his rent, and
had the few articles he possessed seized and sold. The
only relative he had on earth was a man who had mar-
ried his niece, who declared, when applied to, that he
had nothing whatever beyond what he required for the
support of himself and his own family, and the
utmost he had ever given to the old man was sixpence ;
a memorial was presented to the Poor-law Commis-
sioners, who had in the end ordered him to receive ss.

a-week.
Earl STANHOPE considered this as a strong ex-
;:mole of the injurious workings of the Poor-law.
The NOBLE EARL then presented a petition from
Ann \Vilden, complaining of the treatment that bad
been received by her sister, Mary Wilden, who had been
in a workhouse, and who, after she had been turned out
very soon died from exhaustion. A coroner's inquest
had been held on the body, and the jury had returned
a verdict that she had died from natural causes, but
the Noble Lord complained of the mode in which
the inquest had been conducted, and the witnesses
who had been examined—the witnesses having been in-
terested witnesses.
The Duke of PORTL A ND defended the conduct of

the guardians in this case. The poor woman had re
ceived m arc care and attention while she was in the house
than she could have received elsewhere.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE did not think a case could
ilav, been brought forward calling less for the attention of
the House.
The Duke of PORTLAND said if the Noble Lord
would get a Committee of their Lordships appointed, a
fair discussion of the subject might take place, and he
should then be perfectly prepared to state his general views
upon it.
Earl STANHOPE did not ground his objections to
this most execrable law on any number of cases of particu-
lar hardship that might be brought forward, but if he were
to do so, and he bad an opportunity of bringing them before
a Committee, he could assure the Noble Duke that he
should he able to furnish him with such a number of cases
as would sufficiently occupy him in reflection for the re-
mainder of hia life—(Laughter)—however long he trusted
that life would yet be.
The Duke of RICHMOND considered that the Noble
Earl had unfairly thrown out insinuations against his
Noble Friend. The Noble Duke was Chairman of a
Board of Guardians. It was rather singular that the
Noble Earl should, at the end of every Session, profess
himself to be ready to bring forward substantial cases of
complaint, when he had never yet brought forward a single
e,ise that could hold water for a moment.—( Hear, hear.)
Earl STANHOPE was surprised to hear the statement
of the NoVe Duke who had just sat down, when that
Noble Duke well knew that, notwithstanding all the inge-
nuity of that Noble Duke, and the pettifogging and quib-
bling mode by which he examined the witnesses before the
Poor-law Committee, sad thereby endeavoured to
confuse them, he (the Noble Earl) had supported every
case be had brought forward.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM said that the Noble Earl
opposite always appeared himself as a witness in
support of every case be brought forward. He
had declared he would have nothing to do with
the Poor-law, but if he would only condescend to act
as Chairman to a Beare of Guardians—( Hear, hear)—he
might then qualify himself to give such useful information
to the House as would ensure that respect and attention
which all useful information was sure to command.

The Duke of RICHMOND said the Noble Earl had
most incorrectly, and contrary to the standing orders of
the House, charred him with being guilty of conduct un-
becoming a gentleman and a Peer of that House.—( Hear,
hear.) On every occasion on which the Noble Earl opened
his lips on the subject of the Poor-law he grew wild, and
wilder and wilder he seemed to grow.—( Hear, hear.),, He
had most incorrectly charged him with pettifogging con-
duct and an endeavour to make witnesses swear that which
sea,: contrary to the truth—for that was the insinuation
of the Noble Earl.—( Hear, hear.) He (the Noble Duke)
denied that he had ever been guilty of such conduct ; and
he would appeal to Noble Lords who bad sat with him on
Committees whether they had ever observed him do any_
thing except to elicit the truth.—(Much cheering.) He
hoped his Noble Friend would remember for the future
that when he was charging a Peer of that House, he was
charging one who was present. He bad been too often
allowed the liberty to charge the Guardians when they
were not present, and who therefore could not answer him;
but he (the Noble Duke) would defend them when he
thought they were right ; and he would not permit the
Noble Earl, nor any other man in the country, to impute
motives,to him which, if the Noble Earl had had attributed
to himself, he would no doubt consider would be a disgrace
to him as a gentleman and as a Peer.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he had very often,
indeed served on Committees with his Noble Friend
the Noble Duke on the cross benches; and if ever
there was a man in his conduct in Committees
ltss entitled to be called pettifogging, or guilty of brow-
beating witnesses, he nas that man.—( Much cheers.) He
was exemplary in pursuing a course quite the reverse;
nor had he ever resorted to the subterfuges which the
Noble Earl in a rash moment had attributed to him.—
( Hear, bear.) He was quite sure that the Noble Earl
would not be too proud to give an immediate assurance to
the Noble Duke that he meant nothing personally offensive
to him.

Earl STANHOPE had no hesitation in at once assuring
the Noble Duke that he meant nothing whatever per-
sonally offensive to him. At the same (as we understood
the Noble Earl) he must say that the course of conduct
which he had described had been pursued both in
the Committee, and upon the Poor-law Commission. Still
he never thought of imputing to the Noble Duke he had
ever wished to exact from a witness that which was not
true.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE rose amidst cries of "Order
of the Day—Order of the Day." He would, from his
personal knowledge, positively deny that such conduct had
ever been adopted by the Noble Duke as that which had
been attributed to him.

BEER BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM, in answer to a question from the
Marquis of Westminster, said, that he intended to move
to-morrow a general resolution, that it was highly expe-
dient that beer shops be henceforth put upon the same
footing with the houses of licensed victuallers, in respect to
beer, &e., both those which had hitherto been, and
those ale,that might henceforth be, licensed, as he should con-
sider that the most safe and prudent course.
The Earl of FINGALL presented a petition in favour
of the Prisons Bill.
The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from
the inhabitants of the city of Exeter against the Prisons

The Earl of GLE NG AL L presented a petition pray-
ing their Lordships not to allow Roman Catholic Clergy
to he appointed the Chaplains to English gaols.
CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
The Church Discipline Bill passed through a Committee
for the purpose of adopting certain amendments.
The Earl of
SHAFTESBURY understood that the
discussion was taken upon the third reading of this Bill.
of
The Bishop EXETER said his objections to this
Bill were as strong as ever. But at this late period
of the Session ho was willing to let the Bill pass this stage,
provided it were clearly understood that the third reading
should be appointed for a day when it should have prece-
dence of all other matters. If that should not be so, he-
should feel it to be his duty to take the present opportunity
of expressing his objections to almost every clause in the
Bill.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY proposed that the
Report should be brought up to-morrow.
The Bishop of LONDON thought that the discussion
upon the Bill could not take more than one day.

The Bishop of EXETER thought nobody could take
the trcuble of looktng at the Bill and understanding every
clause in it. and think that it could take less than a week
to discuss. It was then understood that the Report should
he brought up to-morrow, and that then a day should be
fixed for the third; reading.
PRISONS BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that, in rising
to move their Lordships to give a second reading
to the Prisons Bill, he felt entitled to ask their Lordships'
serious attention, as it was one of paramount importance.
The object of it was, as far as possible, to prevent crime.
Their Lordships had within the last three years removed
from the commission cf many offences the punishment of
death, He greatly rejoiced at that, because he believed
that in many cases in which the capital punishment was
carried into execution, it was not necessary or useful to
have punished with death. But as their Lordships bad
done that, it became them to take such steps as might,
under such circumstances, be necessary. There were two
ways in which by punishment crime might be prevented and
persons made to observe good conduct. The one was by
having an effective police, in which respect many parts of
the country were at this moment most defective.—(Hear,
hear.) The other was by having a a holesome prison dis-
cipline. The Bill was as far as might be for the purpose
of correcting the abuses in prison discipline, and for en-
abling counties at their option to adopt measures calculated
to improve the effect of confinement. Indeed the great
object of the measure was to enable magistrates of counties,
if they should think it expedient, to adept a system of se-
parate confinement, and so to deal with persons under sen-
tences for crimes, as that, when they left the prisons, they
might be better subjects than when they entered those
places, and as far as might be to prevent the
repetition of offences.—( Hear, hear, hear.) This
had been the subject of anxious inquiry for many years,
not only here, but throughout almost ail the civilized
countries of the world. The experiment had been mode with
more success in America, than in any other place. The
attention of those who had the government of affsirs in
different parts of Europe, had been attracted by the ex-
periment going on there ; and from many parts of Europe
persons had been sent to make observations upon the ope-
ration of the separate system in America. The Reports
they had made upon that system had been most favour-
able ; and he could hardly state a fact more 'calculated to
convince their Lordships of the best possible results of
that system, than to inform them that two distinguished
individuals in France, who had entertained opinions
adverse to the eeparate system, and who had written
upon that, went to America to make their observations
upon it, and came back strongly recommending their
Government to adopt it. We were not, however, under
the necessity of going to foreign countries for the purpose
of ascertaining- the beeeficial effects of it, inasmuch as we
had among ourselves prisons in which it bad been adopted.
Among those the most striking was the Bridewell of
Glasgow, where it had been in operation many years ; and
their Lordships would find, by leoking into the Report of
the Inspectors of Prisons in Scotland, the most happy
results. In matters of this kind, so long as the experiment
remained in theory, men would form different opinions;
hut they had something else now to resort to than mere
speculation. It was a fact beyond all dispute, from the
Reports from prisons, that the most disgusting effects
had been produced from the association of persons
in prisons. The object of the separate system was
to prevent that deplorable system, and to prevent
persons from contamination by imprisonment.--( Hear.)
The separate system which the present Bill proposed to
establish was intended to combine reformation with instruc-
tion. The prisoners under that systeas would be open to
the visits of all persons. Wherever the separate system
had been tried it had been found to work well, and the
tables of their Lordships' House were full of instances of
the good effects of that system, and the great object of
the present Bill .vas to make that system more effective.
As an instance of the good to be derived from conduct-
ing prisons on a proper plan, he might advert
to the Bridewell at Glasgow, which was considered one of
the best conducted prisons in the kingdom. •The expenses
of that establishment, as compared with some of the
smaller and badly conducted prisons, was small indeed.
The cost of a prisoner there was only 31. per annum, and
if they were committed for more than a twelvemonth they
earned all that they cost ; while in other prisons not so fa-
vourably circumstanced, some of them cost 301. a head,
and the average was 171. a head. The expenses of officers
in the former prison was about 21., while in the others the
average was 101. He had heard two objections rased to
this Bill ; one was that it had a tendency to prevert that
uniformity of system which was desirable to be attained
in the classification of prisoners. He did not think the
classifications cf crime desirable, because under such a
system a person might be sent to prisms for a
small ofknce, placed among small offenders, and yet
he might he the greatest rogue in the place. Another
objection was, that it superseded the authority of the Ma-
gisarates to a great extent. Now, as to classification,
surely those persons who had had the management of
prisons were far better qualified to classify prisoners than
any enactment ; and so far from the present Bill super-
seding the authority of the Magistrates, it left it entirely
to the Magistrates of Counties to frame their own rules
and regulations. The present Bill would not deprive the
Magistrates of the power they exercised under the existing
Goal Act. In order to meet the objections which had
been urged it was his intention, in the Committee, to pro-
pose some important alterations. The eleventh clause
declared that no prisons should hereafter be erected unless
a plan had been previously drawn and submitted to the Se-
cretary of State for his approval—but it might be said that
if the Secretary of 'State was determined to support the
separate system, he might refuse his approval to any plan
which did not adopt the separate system. In order to
guard against this, it was his intention to propose as an
addition to the clause, a proviso stating that the Secretary
of State should in every instance state his reasons in
writing for disapproving the plan, and that it should not be
lawful for him to disapprove of any plan, solely because it
did not admit of the separate ootifinement of prisoners. If
these objections were obviated, he trusted their Lordships
would permit the Bill to be read a second time, and he
would ask their Lordships if they were prepared to take
upon themselves to say that they would object to any al. teration being made in the present system of prison disci-
pline? Fle would beseech them to look at the mass of evi-
dence proving the manner in which this plan had worked
in other countries, and then to look at the state of the pri-
sons in this country. If their Lordships should throw out
this Bill they would be taking upon themselves a very great
responsibility. In some counties prisons had already been
erected preparatory to the introduction of this system.
Were these counties to be told that they had expended
their money uselessly in endeavouring to introduce a sys-
tem which did not meet with their Lordships' approval ?
Seeing the mass of evidence in favour of this system, which
was absolutely untouched by the evidence on the other
side, he thought their Lordships ought to pause before
taking such a step. He would refer their Lordships to
the report of the Inspectors of Prisons as to the Bridewell
of Giasgow. They would there find it stated that ninny
persons who had long indu'ged in crime had, by separate
confinement, been reformed, and by acquiring a know
ledge of some honest trade, been enabled to main-
tain themselves as honest Men after their period of
confinement had terminated. What good was it to
keep men in prison for a certain period, and then to
turn them out to commit evil again, profiting by the
education in evil which they must have acquired from their
communications with other prisoners during their resi-
dence in prison ? But let the prisoners be kept as they
were in Glasgow, separate from each other—instructed
by the chaplain—instructed in some trade—and they would
leave the prison honest men and good subjects. Punish-
ment in this manner deterred others and reclaimed the
criminal. He hoped their Lordships would not come to a
vote on this question without reading the report. It was
no trifling matter they were now called on to decide, it was
a matter on which the security of life and property de-
pended. If it was their Lordships' pleasure to give the
Magistrates the power of adopting the separate system, it
was proposed to give them every facility by the establish-
ment of a model system in London. The counties would
thus have an opportunity of seeing how the system worked.
if they passed the Bill, a model prison would be established
in London, and unless the result was different from what
it had been everywhere else, there would be no necessity
of any power to compel them to adopt it. He trusted
their Lordships would adopt this Bill.
The Marquis of SALISBURY thought that instead of
this Bill introducing a uniformity of system, it would have a
diametrically opposite effect, as it tended to established two
distinct systems of prison discipline. He thought the
amendments to the eleventh clause would remove
any objections to reposing the power in the hands
of the Secretary of State; but he did not
think Magistrates should be entrusted with the
power of regulating prisons ; those rules ought to be
laid down by Act of Parliament, and no persors should
have the power of altering them. He did not think the
separate system had been so successful as lal be.n ima-
gined in America ; opinions were divided on that subject.
He trusted the statement of the Noble and Learned Lord
might be taken as a pledge that it was the intenti in of the
Government to erect a prison as a model for adoption.
He felt the responsibility of throwing out the Bill, and
would not press the House to a division.

The D.uke of RICHMOND thought the present
Bill far from being perfect, but their inability to
get a perfect measure was no reason for rejecting
one as perfect as they could get it. He knew of two pri-
sons in the county of Sussex in which the separate system
had been adopted with great success; and many persons
who had been confined there had maintained honest cha-

ratters since they had left there. The committals had
greatly decreased, and now farmers did not refuse these
men employment, which was formerly the case with those
who had left prisons, because they knew that they left
worse men than they went in; but the contrary was now
the case. He should propose certain amendments in
Committee, but would not now go into detail. He trusted
that this was the commencement of an improvement of the
law on this subject; that they would have an opportunity
of ascertaining which system was the best, and repeal the
old law on the subject, for the purpose of introducing a
new one, founded on the experience they had gained.
The Duke of WELLINGTON (who spoke very in.
audibly) said, that instead of this Bill going too far, it did
not go far enough. He thought ever; thing should be done
to accelerate the operation of this measure, which was
likely to produce a beneficial effect.
Lord DUNCANNON said that the Government had
already provided the ground, and in the event of this Bill
passing it was their intention to proceed with the erection
of a model prison, with as little delay es possible.
The Earl of CHICHESTER said all the improve-
ments that had been proposed of late years in prison dis-
cipline had recognised the principle of a separation of the
prisoners. For his part he was inclined to advocate
that system which comprehended both the silent system
and the separation of the prisoners. He hoped,
with some slight amendments, the Bill would be
carried, as he was convinced it would be productive of
great benefit. He would suggest the propriety of requiring
that the plans of all prisons which were about to be erected
should be submitted to the Secretary of State for his ap-
proval, so that it might be ascertained whether their ar-
rangements were such as would enable the improved sys-
tem to be carried into effect.