The Sun.
London, England, 1831-03-18 00:00:00

ST kGF, COACHES.

The Nor. MEMBER also presented a petition from the
stage coach proprietors of Glasgow, praying that the
duty on stage coaches might be reps ded.
CHRIST-CHURCH (SURREY.)
Mr. HUNT, after stating that the inhabitants of this
parish, although it actually is in Southwark, did not enjoy
the right of voting for that borough, remarked, that it
was left out in Lord John Russell's Bill, in the enumera-
tion of parishes to which the franchise was to he extended.
This he considered an unconstitutional omission upon the
part ti the framers of the Bill, and now begged to ask the
Noble Lord if it were not so ?

Lord ALTHORP replied, that he knew nothing of the
case brought forward by the Hon. Member; but be had
no doubt, that as the Bill had the power of adding parishes
to the adjacent boroughs, the interest of Christ-Church
would he attended to, if it were really necessary to inter-
fere in its b••half.

Colonel BERESFORD presented a petition from the
town of Berwick-upon-Tweed against the Ministerial plan
of Reform. It was signed by several persons who had
served a part of their apprenticeship, and they claimed to
be entitled to their freedom as it would arise to them under
the present state of the law.
Colonel SIBTHORPE, as it was then seven o'clock,
wished to have the time for presenting petitions further
prolonged. He had two which were of considerable
importance, which he was most anxious to present, and
which he had used every endeavour to obtain an oppor-
tunity of laying before the House. There were many
others; but those two especially caused him much solici-
tude. The time was now fast approaching when the
question of the second reading of the Reform Bill was to
coolie before the House ; and he really saw no other way
of getting the petitions presented, except by prolonging
the time every evening. .

Colonel.DA. VIES protested against any pvolongation of
the time. Any Hon. Members having petitions to present
might wait until the orders and motions we:e disposed of
and then bring forward their petitions.
_

Lord ALTHORP said a few words which were not
audible in the gallery.

SECONDARY PUNISHMENTS.

Colonel DAVIES rose, pursuant to notice, to move for
a Select Committee to consider of the best mode of giving
effect to secondary punishments. The increase of clime
in this country was most alarming ; it seemed that the
more we advanced in civilization and social improvements
generally, the grievous exceptions of increased offences
against the criminal law should go on augmenting. From
the year 1811 to the year 1827 the number of convictions
increased from 3,163 to 12,561, while in France, in the
year 1826, the total number of the accused amounted only
to 6,988 ; those acquitted to 2,640 ; those found guilty
to 4,348 ; while in this country, in the same year, the
number of committals was 16,147 ; those acquitted to
5,052 ; and the convictions to 11,095. Those were facts
against which no reasoning or theory could prevail—
neither could any Government be entitled to the appellation
of a good Government wisich did not repress the commis-
sion of crime. They had heard much, on many occa-
sions, of the glorious uncertainty of the law, but in no
ease was it more uncertain than in its criminal depart-
ment ; the chances of escape were much greater than
those of conviction, and the obvious tendency of that was
to increase the amount of crime. Then convicts were
infinitely better off than agricultural labourers—better
clothed, better lodged ; and to commit a crime, and be
sentenced to what was called hard labour, amounted, in
fact, to providing a very comfortable provision. The lion.
and Gallant Member then referred to evidence given before
Committees of that house upon the subject of the crimi-
nal law, for the purpose of showing that the convicts in
the gaols were in a more comfortable situation than those
who were possessed of freedom, but at the same time en-
during the existence of wretchedness. He next called the
attention of the House to the inequalities which prevailed
in the several systems of prison discipline, observing, that
he should rather propose solitary confinement and bread
and water, than a perseverance in the old system of what
was termed hard labour, and what happened to be its ac-
companinasnt, comfortable living. Ile entertained not
the slightest doubt that two months' solitary confinement
on bread and water would prove greatly better calcu-
lated to prevent crime than twelve months' hard labour;
thus would a saving be effected by relieving the pa-
rish from the expense of maintaining the families
of prisoners, and the county rates relieved from
the expense of maintaining prisoners. The hulks had
been mentioned as a means of punishment, and he
certainly thought, that if the labour was rendered more se-
vere,and the provisions and accommodation less attractive,
the hulks might prove a good punishment. Transportation
also might be a very efficacious method of punishment if
properly followed up; but our system of transportation
was as often a reward as a punishment. He had known
a soldier, who was transported for several thefts, made a
ship's steward on his way out, and liberated as soon as he
got there, and taken into the Commissariat Department;
so that he got rewarded for his guilt, while his comrades,
who were innocent, had all the hard duties of soldiers to
fulfil. To prove to the House what was the state of the
convicts at New South Wales, he would read a description
from an able and excellent work, in which the peculia-
rities of the society of New South Wa'es were accurately
described. The work he meant was Mr. Cunningham's
book on New South Wales. The Hon Member accord-
ingly read several copious extracts describing the demand
for labourers, the condition of the convicts on their arrival,
and the rapidity with which some of them made money
and became men of distinction. It should be remem-
bered, that this colony, which, as a penal colony, was so
inefficacious, had cost this country 400,000/. ; and if it
was to be retained for the purpose, it ought to be made
more suitable. His object in moving for a Committee was,
to have the gaols, and hulks, and prisons, and penal colo-
nies, all places of punishment ; and if they could not be
made places of punishment, to substitute some other pu-
nishment for them ; and lie would conclude by moving '
for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into
the efficacy of secondary punishments.
Sir. LAMB did not mean to follow the Hon. and Gal-
lant Member through all his statement, or to refer to all
the facts he had collected with great industry, and of
which he (Mr. Lamb) had no doubt the country would
reap time benefit. He only wished to suggest to his Hon.
and Gallant Friend, that there were probably more
difTl-
culties connected with the subject than he seemed to sup-
pose. At the same time he was ready to admit that,
from the great and continued increase of crime, he con-
ceived it was the duty of every good citizen to pay atten-
tion to the subject, and devise means for checking the
growing evil. The objections made by his Hon. and
Gallant Friend were, that our prisons, and hulks, and
gaols, were all too good as places of confinement. He ad-
mitted that they were conducted on too humane a grin-
' ciple, but that, he believed, was the natural consequence
of the very horrible state in which our prisons had pre-
viously existed. They were then not only the nurseries
of idleness and vice, but destructive of the health of the
1 prisoners, ruining them both morally and physically. He
admitted that the Legislature hail not intended that impri-
sonment should be death, and therefore it was their duty
to provide healthy prisons for those who were confined.
It was, perhaps, true that the living in prisons, also, was
at present as good as the living of the labourers, or even
better ; but that was time case only of late years.
The prisoners must have the means of subsistence, and
they get no more. His Honourable and Gallant Friend
proposed to substitute for these punishments solitary con-
finement. He did not object to that being made a subject
of consideration, but it ought to be remembered, that it
was an unequal punishment, and, to most people, a very
horrible punishment. He knew that solitary confinement
was looked upon by many people with great dread.
Punishment, to be equal, ought to be proportioned accord-
ing to the powers of individuals, and to do that was a
most difficult task. It appeared by the police reports,
that solitary confinement had no effect on some persons,
while on others it had a most dreadful and terrible effect.
He was deeply impressed with the necessity of adopting
some of the useful suggestions thrown out, and should
not oppose considering them in a Committee. With re-
spect to transportation, that was a punishment of which

in general he highly approved. It removed suds men
from the country, and allowed honest men room to thrive.
It allowed to such men as had once been guilty of an of-
fence, and afterwards wished to return to the paths of
honesty, an opportunity to do so. As to its not being a
punishment, he knew from seine experience as a barrister
at sessions, that many people felt great horror at transpor-
tation. He knew, too, from his own connection with the
Home Office, that the applications to be allowed to
return were very numerous ; and that numberless
applications were also made to be permitted to stay
at home. The Honourable and Gallant Member de-
scribed New South Wales as a healthy and fer-
tile place, which it undoubtedly was; but would he there-
fore wish to fix our penal colonies on some barren rock—
some place like Fernandez Po, which he hoped would
soon he abandoned ? He wished to acquire the fullest in-
formation on the subject of his Honourable and Gallant
Friend's motion. He meant to throw no obstacle what-
ever in his way, but only rose to suggest that there were
considerable difficulties belonging to the subject, and
more, he believed, than his Hon. Friend was aware of.
Mr. AUNT meant always to speak whenever the sub-
ject of prisons and confinement came under the consi-
deration of the House. There were then present in the
Hesse Barristers, and Judges, and country gentlemen, all
ready to legislate on the subject, hut they, he believed,
knew nothing about our gaols. lie knew what a gaol
was, for he had been confined in one. He had there seen
something of solitary confinement, and he agreed that is
was a good species of punishment—proper, perhaps, fur
hardened criminals. He knew what it was, for he had
suffered it.—(A laugh.)—The Hon. Member might
laugh, but if that Hop. Member were
to suff
confinement, it would make him laugh on the other side
e r solitary
of his mouth. In the gaol where he had been, the gaoler
had power to inflict solitary confinement.—(No, no, no.)
He said yes, yes, and the Magistrates who pretended to
regulate the gaols knew nothing about them. lie had
seen men sentenced to solitary confinement by the gaoler,
but he never knew those who had been so confined to
again commit the offence for which they had been punished
in that manner. Besides solitary confinement, there Ni ere
some species of torture in our pole. The tread-mill was
a species of torture. To the man who was accustomed
to walk tip anti down stairs, and out in the fields, and
who could sway his body to the motion of the wheel, the
tread-naill was no punishment at all; but to the tailor, or
any man whose business was chiefly performed sitting, it
was most grievous punishment. If the visiting Magi-
strates were good for anything—and they were good for
very little—they might regulate these matters more
equally. All punishments, however, were unequal ; but if
the teeect of the Government was to prevent the increase
of crime, and to decrease that which, unfortunately, was
increasing, it would not ohj ct to try some other plan.
It was plain, from the increase of crime, that the pre-
sent
method had failed ; and the country was surely not
so wedded to its present method, as not to be willing to
try some other means of checking the increase of crime.
There was none better, he believed, none which had more
influence on profligate and hardened offenders, than soli-
tary confinement. He, however, wished that it should be
introduced by degrees. He hoped that what he was about
to say would be communicated to some of the Ministers
connected with the navy. He knew that great dissatis-
faction prevailed among the workmen of Portsmouth dock-
yard, because they were obliged to work with the con-
victs. He had received a great many letters on the sub-
ject, and thought it was one which ought to be attended
to. Formerly political offences were punished by solitary
confinement. In 1819 and 1820, the people who peti-
tioned only for a moderate Reform, and did not use halt
such strong language as was now used in petitions on this
subject, were put into prison. Then the Habeas Corpus
Act was suspended, and the poor petitioners for moderate
Reform were shut up in solitary confinement—were de-
barred the use of pen, ink, anti paper—were secretly moved
about from place to place, so that their families and friends
could not tell where they were. There was a horrible
case happened at York gaol. Two brothers, of the name
of Riley, were put into solitary confinement for a political
offence. They had done nothing but sign a petition for
moderate Reform. One of these men was a weak-minded
man, and he was thrown by the solitary conineenent into
such terror that he cut his throat. What did the gaoler
then do? Why, in order to punish the other brother, he
threw him into the cell yet dripping and streaming with
the blood of the brother who had committed suicide.—
(No, no I—an exclamation of horror !)—That statement
was Intiet true. The Reformers were then exposed to
punishment for demanding moderate Reform, and now the
Ministers brought forward large and comprehensive Re-
form. But he hoped those days were gone by. As to
what was practised in gaols, he knew that in Uchester
gaol two pretty women, who were sentenced to transpor-
tation, had been kept there by the influence of the gaoler,
arid kept there for several years. One of them had a
child in the prison, which was six years old, and had never
been baptized, though among the visiting Magistrates were
clergymen; but they knew nothing about the gaol.—
(Hear, hear, and no, no.)—The way the gaolers exercise
their power was to send the female prisoners into solitary
confinement, that they might be in private with them ;
anti these things were performed at Ilchester, which Mr.
Fowell Buxton had stated to be one of the best conducted
gaols in the kingdom. That might convince the House
what was done in other gaols.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN had no inclination to ad-
dress the 'louse at any length, but he must say that be
never had heard a speech in that House which so much
deserved to be remarked as that which the Hon. Member
his just delivered. Anything moro •outrageous than to
refer to the proceedings of 1817 and 1819 at that time,
when no motion connected with them was before the
House, he had never heard. He remembered the circum-
stances of that time very imperfectly, but when the Hon.
Member stated that the case of the brother, who was
most unfeelingly shut up in the cell'yet with his brother's
blood, who had committed suicide, and shut up for pu-
nishment, I e must say that the statement wa snot credible.
—(Heer, hear.)—That a man should be so punished by
any gaoler, anti because he was a Reformer, no man would
believe. It was an unheard of cruelty, and he challenged
the lien. Member to bring it before the House in a proper
enanner. If such a thing had happened, he was sure that,
without any respect to political feelings, the Members on
both sides of the House would have risen up to protest
with one voice against the nefarious transaction.—(No,
no, and a laugh.)—He was sure that he was speaking the
sentiments of Members on both sides of the Httuse. Any
man who had so conducted himself would have met with
the severest reprehension.—(Bear, hear. ).---No punish-
ment would be too great for such a wretch, and be could
not believe that any gaoler had been guilty of the offence
described by the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member, too,
had attacked the gaolers in their absence. Was that pro-
per? And was it proper to asperse the characters of men
who had no means of defending themselves? Were the
gaolers to be stigmatised without any chance of defending
their characters ? These gaolers had families and friends
who would feel such assertions. It was particularly the
duty of the Hon. Member not to make such observations,
and lie ought, if lie wished to make them, to bring for-
ward a motion after giving notice, so that the guilty 014
might be condemned, and the innocent exonerated. He
denied what the Hon. Member said of the. visiting Magis-
trates. He had been a visiting Magistrate himself, and
had gone into all the wards and holes of the prison. lie
had asked every person if he had any reason to complain.
He was sure that the visiting Magistrates of the county
were men of honour and feeling, and did their duty a,
became them. With respect to the motion before the
House, he thought it of great importance. He was one
of those who wished to find a good secondary punish-
ment ; because he wished to see the punishment of death
for forgery abolished ; and lie thought that hardly practi-
cable, unless such a secondary punishment were found.---
He would certainly support the motion, thot.igh he did not
expect much good would result from it. All punish-
ments—even the punishment of death—were necessarily
unequal, depending on the habits and manners of indivi-
duals ; and of all punishments, perhaps, solitary confine-
ment was the most unequal. He would roost readily ac-
quiesce in the motion, and give to the Committee every
assistance in his power ; and he hoped that the result of
its inquiries niight prove more favourable than he expected.
Mr. HUNT explained. The lion. Member said, that
if he, (Mr. Hunt) wanted to make a statement, why he
did not bring forward a motion ? He did bring it before
the House. his had sent petitions to the House, and
Commissioners had been sent to llchester—(Sir E. Sugdcn
said his observations applied to York ; Mr. /hunt repeated
Ilchester.)—An investigation had taken place, and the
Commissioners had proved that all his assertions were
correct. The charges were proved, and the gaoler was
dismissed. With respect to the occurrences at York, that,
too, had been brought before the House by a petition—( A
voice demanded at what time ?") In 1816 or 1817.' At
that time there were 16 or 17 persons sent to prison for
petitioning in favour of Reform. He defied the Hon. and
Learned Member to contradict his assertion.
Lord SANDON supported the motion. Solitary con-
Elneinent produced different effects on different constitu-
tions, and one man probably would
derive greater advan
tage from it than another ; but he thought that, under
proper regulations, anti with due care on the part of those
applying it that it, was preferable to other kinds of pu-
nishment.

Mr. H. SUMNER defended the Visiting Magistrates

from the imputation cast on them by the Member for
Preston. According to the regulations laid down in the
Act of 1823, the female prisoners were kept totally sepa-
rate from the males, and placed under the superintendence
of governesses and governors, that it was now impossible
for the one to have access to the other. He believed, how-
ever, that the prisoners were invariably treated with too
much indulgence, and enjoyed too large and liberal an al-
lowance for any purposes of }-roper punishment through
the means of confinement ; but he had known cases in
which a due applicatien of solitary confinement produced
beneficial bffects on the most hardened offenders.—(Bear.)
Alderman WOOD supported the statements of the
Member for Preston, with reference to the had discipline
of some of the gaols, and reminded the House that al-
though the facts of the petition of that Hon. Member
were wholly discredited, and even denied by the Members
for the county, at the time he was confined in Ilehester,
yet, on the appointment of the Commission, which he
(Alderman Wood) moved for, the whole of the accusation,
against the gaoler were completely proved. (The Hon.
Alderman then proceeded to say that he had one or two
observations to offer on the hulk system, when an
Hon. Member below hint rejoined, in a tone loud
enough to be heard in the gallery, " Aye, do ;
but make haste then.")—(A laugh.) He was sure
it was quite out of order fur any Hon. Member
to make use of such exprestions to another, and he thought
the House should interfere to protect him. Ile was not to
be put down by such observations, nor would he abstain
from saying one word leas than he intended. He repeated
that the hulk system was as bad as any system could be;
omen were paid sixpence a day, when the country was charged
one shilling and ninepence ; and he really must say, he
thought it all a dead robbery on the country. With resitect
to the Penitentiary, although so touch was said of the
excellence of its discipline and of the good effects of con-
finement there, he believed that the millions it had cost
were thrown away. It was well known that no men
would be taken from Newgate for that place of confine.
ment unless they had a perfect character for good conduct.
They must, in short, he the best behaved convicts in the
gaol ; but it was frequently found, notwithstanding the be-
nefits of a four years' confinement in the Penitentiary, and
a previous good character, that they found their way back
again to Newgate a very short time after they obtained
their discharge. Convinced that the whole system of con-
finement was bad and demanded inquiry, he cordially
supported the motion.
Sir CHARLES BURRELL also supported the motion.
Solitary confinement, as it existed at present, was not so
great a punishment as it might be made, because the pri-
soners could speak to each other when the windows were
open ; hut he thought tiro means of making it more effi-
cient as a punishment were well worth inquiry.
Mr. SHAW said, he had always considered a fortnight's
solitary confinement equal to several months' imprison-
ment. The House would therefore see, that even if ex-
pence was considered, the cost of solitary confinement
would be less than time common imprisonment, which was
found to be so ill calculated to produce good effects on the
prisoners.

After a few words from Sir T. Fremantle, Sir J. Car-
rington, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Wilks, in favour of the
inquiry, the motion was agreed to, and the Committee
appointed.