The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-27 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS, FEB. 26.
ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Loan CHANCELLOR, the Archbishop of CANTERBURY,
and the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, sat as Commissioners, and
gave the Royal Assent to the following Bills, viz.—The Ex.
chequer Bills Bill, the Transfer in Aids Bill, and the Water.
ford Grand Juries Bill.
The House then adjourned during pleasure.
The Loan Citexceeeort took his scat on the Woolsack at
a few minutes past five o'clock.
Lord WYNFORD presented a petition from the Hundred
of Glossop, in the city of Derby, signed by between 400 and
500 persons, against the workhouse system under the New
Poor Act Amendment Bill, and praying for an alteration in it.
. Lord L ANSDOWNE gave notice, that ho should not
proceed with the Presbyterian (Ireland) Bill which had come
up from the House of Commons, as his Noble and Learned
Friend, the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's
Bench, was about to bring in a Bill on this subject, which
would be much more extensive and satisfactory.
PENITENTIART.
Lord L YNDIIURST desired to call the attention of the
House, and particularly her !Majesty's Ministers, to a sub-
ject of great importance to the public, and to the administra-
tion of justice. The Penitentiary at Millbauk was in-
tended to be regularly visited by the Magistrates of the
county, and was under the superintendence of the Secretary
of State and of the persons in that office. It was therefore of
the utmost importance that every thing which took place in
that institution should be observed with the greatest vigilance,
and every thing like abuse in it made the subject of the strictest
investigation. He was informed that three very young female
children had been for a considerable time confined under the se-
parate or solitary system in that establishment. Their Lordships
would be surprised to learn that the youngest of these
children when first committed to that prison was of the tender
age of seven years and a half. Another was only eight years ;
and the other had not reached its tenth year !—( Hear, hear.)
He felt called on to bring this subject before their Lord-
ships, more particularly from the part he had taken last Ses-
sion upon the Bills that came up from the other House
of Parliament, to mitigate the Criminal Law. There
were clauses in those Acts, imposing in some instances two
years solitary confinement, and in some instances, ho be-
lieved, five years.
Lord BROUGHAM—Not solitary confinement.
Lord LYNDHURST—Yes, solitary confinement for car-
jtain crimes. He (Lord Lyndhurst) called their Lordships' at-
'attention to that, and the House agreed unanimously with
him, that in no instance should there be more than one
month's solitary confinement at a time ; and in no
nstance more than three months in one year.—
(Hear, hear.) In the case of the youngest child to
which he had just alluded, she had been already
in separate confinement for thirteen months, under a commit-
ment for three years. The others had been sentenced for
periods of about the same duration, but had not yet suffered a
punishment so extensive. To show their Lordships how
utterly improper such a punishment must be for infants of such
tender years, he had to inform them that when one of them
was brought into the prison, and when the matron asked her
what she could do for her, she said to the matron—" Give
,me a doll f'—( Hear, hear.) And one morning they were
found sleeping in their beds with their bed-clothes pressed up
..,
somewhat into the shape of a doll, and graSped in her arms as
if indicating their anxious desire to have even some appearance
of society witlithern. —( Hear, hear.) He had bet n further told
by a magistrate that in conversing with one of those children
in this prison, which was under the direction of her Majesty's
Ministers, it was easy to observe that she had suffered from this
system of separate confinement by the impediment that had
happened to her speech. It was extraordinary that in a prison
which was meant to be a pattern prison such abuses should
exist. The youngest child to whom he had referred
had been committed for theft ; that theft was committed at the
instance of the mother; the mother was tried for receiving
the goods ; the mother was sentenced to six months' imprison-
ment, and the infant was sentenced to transportation, which
was commuted to three years imprisonment in the Penitentiary.
By the law of England, a wife could not be found guilty of
felony committed in the presence of her husband—for what
reason ? On account of the influence the husband was sup-
posed to have over her. What comparison was there
between the influence that the husband could be
supposed to have over a wife, and the influence a mother had
over her infant daughter of seven years of age ? He did not
mean to say but by the law of England this infant
might have been found guilty, but the influence of
the mother and the age of the child ought to have
weighed with those who had to pass the sentence as well as with
those who had to carry that sentence into execution.—( Hear,
hear.) It was by mere accident that these circumstances
had come to light. A gentleman had obtained au order to
visit that institution from curiosity, or for the purposes of
science, and he made the discovery. He made the discovery
known to one of her Majesty's Ministers; and had he not
done so it was probable those children would have
been confined during the whole period for which
were sentenced. Whether her Majesty's Ministers
had interfered he was not correctly informed ; but having thus
publicly made a statement of these circumstances, he trusted
that Ministers would now effectually interpose to pre-
vent a recurrence of such injustice. This was not
all. He was informed that two young men, one of' the age
of 17, and another rather more tl-in. 20 years of age had been
committed to solitary confinement also in the Penitentiary
for a-year. What was the result ? One was an actice,
and intelligent young man when he went in, but he came out
an idiot, and was now confined as an idiot in Merylebone
workhouse, not capable of even of being employed to
break stones.—( Hear.) The other was not of the same
intelligence, but he came out also an idiot. Was it possible
that such abuses could be permitted to go on in a prison under
the management of her Majesty's Government ? It was
the more important he should make this statement in the
face of the public and of her Majesty's Ministers, at
the moment when there was an intention existing of
extending this sytcm to different prisons throughout the
country.—( Hear. ) He hoped their Lordships would see
the absolute necessity of great caution in the exercise of their
power, before they assented to such an extension, because
the circumstances he had now bronglit forward deeply
concerned not only the welfare of society, but every man
who had a particle of humane feeling. (Hear, hear.)
Ho would conclude by moving for a return of the number of
children who had been committed to the Penitentiary,
during the last seven years, under the age of sixteen
years—and distinguishing the sex—the (periods of commit-
ment, and whether originally sentenced to be confinedthcre, or
confined there under a commutation of some other sentence.
Lord MELBOURNE said, that there could be no doubt
that those facts coming to the attention of the Noble and
Learned Lord, it would have been improper for him to have
withheld making them public; but, at the same time,
considering the nature of those facts, considering the
effect which a statement of them was likely to have
upon the character of those who were at the head
of that establishment, and considering, too, the effect
which the statement of them was likely to have upon the
public mind, he could not help thinking that the Noble and
Learned Lord had acted in a manner not the most fair and just
to those whose characters were thus to be impeached, in not
giving some notice of his intention to bring forward the sub-
ject, particularly as he had concluded his statement by a mo-
tion, in order that some one might have been prepared to have
given an answer to the statement, and to have pointed out
any exaggeration it might have contained. The Noble and
Learned Lord, from the habits of his profession, well knew
the effect which the first word had on all occasions. He know
that the effect to be produced by his calm and artful state-
ment was not likely very easily to be removed. He
knew that an explanation, however satisfactory, would come
a little too late after such a statement, and when the effect
had been produced which was likely to be engraven so deeply
by the manner in which the Noble Lord had made it.
He contended that it was due, not to the Government for that
signified nothing, but that it was due to the officers at the
head of that establishment, and whose characters were deeply
implicated by what the Noble and Learned Lord had stated, that
he should have given them the opportunity of having their de-
fence recorded. With respect to the circumstances of the
various cases to which the Noble and Learned Lord had re-
ferred, he ( Lord M.) was totally unacquainted with them.
In the general principles the Noble and Learned Lord had
laid down, it was impossible for him not entirely to concur.
They were completely self-evident ; but, considering the effect
this statement was likely to have upon the character of those
who are engaged in so awful and responsible a duty, the Noble
and Learned Lord would have acted more properly if he had
given notice of his intention.
Lord L YND /I UR ST said, the statement he made was calm,
but he could assure their Lordships it was not artful. The
Noble Lord professed to be ignorant of the circumstances
of those cases. Why, there was not an individual in the me-
tropolis who did not now know of them, and they had
been the subject of correspondence with the Secretary of State
for the Home Department. For the Noble Lord to be ignorant
of them therefore showed him to be as neglectful of duty in that
respect as he showed himself to be (as we uuderstood) ig-
norant of his political duty.
Lord BROUGHAM said that it was only by accident he
had been prevented from falling into the offence which had
drawn down upon his Noble and Learned Friend all the
Noble Viscount's vituperation. He (Lord Brougham),
knew, by painful experience, how that vituperation would
have fallen on him, if accident had not placed his Noble Friend
in the position which he had intended to take. Nothing
was more apparent than the tranquillity of men in place, who
were satisfied when they had made a solitude around them,
and called it peace.—( Hear, hear.) The fact that by
the Secretary of State's order, children of the ages of
seven or ten years were subjected to three years' im-
prisonment in solitude was not denied, and it was
~ne which called for all the thunder of public indignation.
If he had found any parallel case amongst the cruelties charged
against the masters of apprentices, he would have topped with
it the climax of those statements by which he was lately come