The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-16 00:00:00

Would tend to continue a wrong impres3lon in that House
as to the actual condition and true remedies or the
country. The Hon. Member concluded by moving the
amendment on the paper, with the exception of the
cmcluding paragraph. _ _

The anae-ndment having been seconded,
Mr. MOORE said it was with great pain that he
found Irish Members neutralising each other in that
llouse. How could they expect that they should ex!,r-
else any influence in it If they acted in this way? With
respect to the amendment, it was ill-timed, ill-reasoned,
and inconsistent. As to the objection that emigration
Was not a large and comprehensive remedy that would
cure all the evils of Ireland, he would Limply say that it
was only charlatans and impostors who professed to cure
a bad leg of forty years' standing by a universal oint-
ment. The simple question was, whether they should
support the people as paupers at home, on out door
relief, or give them the means of emigrating to lands
where they could support themselves. But the people had
s!ttled this question for them. They were, as far as pos-
sible flying from the country, and he wished to know how
the qon. Member would prevent them? lie might as well
ettempt to prevent an eagle escaping from a slaver in
the middle passage. The real object ought to be to
assist and regulate it in the way best calculated to pro-
mote the interests of all parties. Whether by grants
from the Imperial Treasury, or by confiscation of the
bankrupts' estates, something must be done to fulfil the
first duty of all civilized states, namely, the preservation
of life. They must not think thet anything they had yet
done was sufficient for that purpose, and however much
b 0 might differ with the Hon. Member as to the amend-
ment, he united with him in earnestly imploring that
tlouse, in justice to its own character and to the people
of Ireland, and with a view to the judgment of posterity,
to come forward and discharge the duties which devolved
upon them, with a due regard of the heavy responsibili-
ties attached to these duties.—(Hear, hear,)
Sir GEORGE GREY said, the motion which had
been brought forward by the Hon. Member for Lime-
tick (Mr. Monsell), was a most important one, and
the manner in which he had dealt with it was most ju-
dicious. He should regret, therefore, if the few ob-
servations he had to make should tend to discourage that
k.
of emigration which would be useful for Ireland.
ile thought, however, that the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. J.
()Connell) had not dealt fairly with his Hon. Friend
apposite, when he ascribed to him the opinion that emi-
gration was the only remedy for the evils of Ireland.—
(Rear, hear.) On the contrary, his lion. Friend had
expressly said, that he looked upon it as one of a series
of measures which were requisite for that purpose.—
(Rear, hear.) He agreed with his Hon. Friend, that in
some cases emigration might be beneficial. There were
districts in which it might be said there was a con-
gestion of population, and their removal would, un-
doubtedly, be useful, and, in these cases, emi-
gration was, perhaps, one of the speediest re-
medies. But his Honourable Friend had, he
thought, underrated the present emigration from Ireland,
and also undervalued the assistance which was actually
given by the Government. The Hon. Gentleman said
that the emigration now was that of small farmers, who
tarried away with them the capital which was wanted
in Ireland. He doubted, however, whether that class
formed a majority of the emigrants from Ireland. Last
year upwards of two hundred thousand emigrants had
left this country for British North America and the
United States, and nine-tenths of the emigration from
Liverpool was Irish, the great proportion of these were
Merely labourers. In the first four months of the pre-
sent year the number was 120,000 (as we understood),
and he believed that small farmers did not predominate;
but even if a number of that clase did emigrate, he
would ask the Hon. Gentleman if that would not be a
benefit to the colonies, who complained that they were
overstocked by persons who had nothing but their
labour?—(Hear, hear.) During the last year no less
than half a million was remitted from Irish emigrants
to their friends and relatives in Irelaud, for the
purpose of bringing them out to that country, and
he mentioned this circumstance to show that all the
Money necessary for the purpose of emigration was not
supplied by Irish capital. With regard to the proposi-
tion of the Hon. Member for Limerick, that some power
should be given to boards of guardians to advance
money from the rates, to promote emigration, if it were
embodied in a clause, and submitted to the House, when
the amended Irish Poor-law Bill was under discussion,
the Government would give it their best consideration.
having alluded to the several clauses of the Poor Relief
Acts, which enabled boards of guardians to assist emi-
grants, and stated that they were found practically ina-
dequate, he expressed the greatest desire that they might
be amended; and assured 'Hon. Members that he was
most anxious to have practical suggestions with that
view. The proposition for enabling landed proprietors
to encourage emigration also deserved consideration; but
he could not consent that the money already advanced
as loans from the Imperial Treasury for the purposes
of land improvement, could be diverted from its original
channel. He thought the colonies benefited by a well-
conducted system of emigration. When the Honourable
Gentleman's propositions came prominently before the
House, as they could in the form of clauses for insertion in
the new Poor-law Bill, they would meet with favourable
attention from the Government. With regard to the
amendment of the Hon. Member for the city of Lime-
rick, he thought there was much exaggeration in his
;statement of the extent of Irish distress. Destitution
was, no doubt, very severe, and the privations the people
auffered were most distressing; but the statistics of
misery and starvation which the Hon. Gentleman quoted
-Were quite incorrect, especially in the case of the Balli-
masloe Union. The Right lion. Baronet then proceeded
to justify the measures taken by Government for the
prevention of that distress, and having alluded to the
report of the Society of Friends, and quoted several
paragraphs from it, to show the great exertions which
the Irish Executive had made, he concluded by reiterat-
ing his willingness to meet the views and ?vishes so ably
ut forward by the Hon. Member for the county of
Limerick.

Mr. E. B. ROCHE was not one of those who de-
tracted from the great value of the grants made from
the Imperial Treasury; but while ho was willing to
give credit to the Government for the exertions
already made, he felt bound to state that the con-
dition of the labouring population was worse than
ewer, and that unless active measure; were at once
adopted, by employing that class in the cultivation of
the soil, the Government would, in the words of Mr.
Twisleton, become parties to the destruction of a fine
and a noble nation. The landlords, although they were
now doing their duty to is great extent, had formerly
neglected it, and many of the evils which afflicted the
worthy farmers were in a great measure attributable to
their misconduct. With regard to the proposition of
the Ron. Member for the county Limerick, he objected
to any extensive system of emigration, because of the
great expense it would entail. Besides, he did not think
they could do any good by their plans with respect to
*migration. Immediate measure 3 were required, and
unless they were adopted on the heads of the Govern-
ment would be the result.

, A messenger from the Lords brought up a copy of
the proceedings in the case of " Smith O'Brien v. the
Queen in error."
Mr. F. O'CONNOR said he had abstained from taking
part in the discussion on the Rate in ALL Bill, because
he did not wish to interpose any delay to the enactment
of a measure of relief for the suffering people of Ireland,
bit when he found the subject of emigration brought
before the House, and the duties of the landlords
attempted to be thrown off their own shoulders,
he felt that to remain silent any longer would be
criminal. Was he to be told that this House,
which could deal with taxation, which could deal
with the property of the country, was to be called upon
night after night to do that for the Irish landlords which
they would not do for themselves ? Their notions of
Ireland in this country were derived from the conduct
of the middlemen, the representatives of the absentee
landlords, who resided in this and other countries. What
had been the cause of Irish misery and destitution was
this, that the Irish landlord cultivated his estate accord-
ing to the standard of political patronage, and not ac-
cording to the measure of its productive power. The
Iron. Member then proceeded to argue that the so-called
free-trade system had inflictedgreat mischief on Ireland,
and that many of those who had given their support to
the measure were now so convinced of the mischief that
had resulted, that if the question were again to come
before them they would vote against it. He had told
them, above a year ago, that they would lose Canada, and
they were now about to lose that colony. And he now
told them, that before another year they would lose Ire-
land; ezci if they did lose Ireland the fault would not
be so much in the Government as in the landlords of
Ireland. As the present was an Irish debate, and the
subject was that of emigration, lie would say, God for-
bid that he should be a party to separating the people of
Ireland from the land of their birth. Ireland was a
country which might be great. Ireland was a country
which had been great, and which would yet be great, in
spite of the conduct of its landed proprietors.
Sir J. YOUNG said that the Hon. Member (Mr.
O'Connor) had stated that Ireland had been ruined by
free trade. Now he (Sir J. Young) thought it would b_ e
easy to show that the miseries of Ireland were to be
traced to other and very different causes.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member (Mr. O'Connor) had also stated that
every Irish Member, without exceplion, had informed
him that such was their change of sentiments regarding
free trade that they would now, it they had the opportu-
nity, vote against it. So far, however, from that being
his (Sir J. Young's) opinion, he thought that, on the
contrary, no part of the empire had benefited so much
by the measure of free trade as Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member then went into statements to show the
extent and character of the distress that prevailed in the
county he had the honour to represent (Cavan), a county
in which the landholders had done their duty; and the
opinion generally prevailed that nothing but a wall-re
gulated system of emigration could afford beneficial re •
lief. Ile supported the measure of emigration because he
had not much faith in many of the measures which had
been proposed in that House. II had every confidence
in the industry and energy of the'' people. of Ireland, and
he believed that the onlyelessontnincsheithe people could
.place dependence was the people
Mr. SCULLY was opposed to annyeemviasirths,,of ernli-
:gration when there was iso much
:remaining in Ireland to cultivate the soil of Irell'ne? e
(Hear, hear.) He thought, at all events, that no mea-
sure of emigration could be useful unless it could be
made general. Another portion cif the speech of the
Right Honourable Member for Limerick (Mr. John
O'Connell) was directed to show that means should be
taken for the preservation of life in Ireland, and he (Mr.
'Scully) would give every support to any measure having
:that object in view.
Mr. BOURKE supported the proposition before the
:House, on the ground that it would produce imme-
diate benefit to the people of Ireland. He believed
that a well regulated system of emigration would meet
with the support of the great body of the people of that
country.
The House then divided, when there appared—

For the motion
For the amendment
Majority
PHISON DISCIPLINE.

-35

Mr. PEARSON then rose to move for the appeint-
meat of a Select Committee to inquire and report upon
the practicability of establishing an uniform system of
discipline, punitive, reformatory, and self-supporting, to
be applied to all prisoners convicted of crime; and com-
menced by observing that the prisons of line:hind cost
400,0001, irrespective of the expenditure incidental to
the punishment of pi ironer s by means of the hulks and
transportation. He undertook to prove that the criminal
class could be made to support themselves, without a
shilling of expense to the nation, and that, too, without
having recourse to slave labour, upon a reformatory
principle, and without interfering with the just rights of
labour. It was now twenty-five years since his atten-
tion was first directed to this subject as a member of the
Prison Discipline Society. Ho was twice Under• Sheriff
of London and Middlesex, and he at present held the
situation of public prosecutor for the city of London.
having made himself fully acquainted with the subject,
he was prepared to prove his case if the house granted
him a Committee. His fast proposition was in favour
of a uniform system. The cost of the prisoners
varied to such an extent as in itself demanded correction.
He saw by the inspector's report of the northern district,
that there had been recently erected a prison in this
country at a cost of 1,2001. per prisoner. The Milibank
Prison cost 5001. per prisoner. The New Prison, under
the new system—that at Reading, for instance—cost
2201. per prisoner. The enunciation of tins fact entitled
him to a Committee of Inquiry. If that system of sepa-
rate imprisonment be carried through, it would cost the
country six millions of money to erect the necessary ac-
commodation that would beerequired for the purpose.
The enormous increase of crime in this country was
enough to startle every considerate man. He had ex-
amined the statistics on this subject, and took upon
himself to be auswerable for the truths of these figures.
The number of commitments and re-commitments in
England and Wales to trial on criminal charges had in-
creased within the last forty y ears upwards of 400 per
cent., whilst the population only increased within the
same period 65 per cent. The committals for
trial had increased, in 1845, 428 per cent. beyond
what they were in 1810. He was aware that
this enormous increase of crime was not to be attrib ited
entirely to un increased depravity on the part of the
people. The transition from war to peace had its in-
fluence in respect to it. Then, again, the vigilance of
the police had so increased that crime was more effec-
tually detected than heretofore. Again, the altered state
of the law, by which the county was made to bear the
cost of prosecutions, had an effect in increasing the
number of persons convicted of crime. But the changes
made in the law since 1810 had the greatest influence
in causing this increase in respect to the statistics of
crime. He begged just to mention that it had been in-
timated to him, that if he did not apply at once for his
Committee he should lose his House.—(A laugh.) Well,
he had no desire to lose his Committee; but it was
necessary, in order that he should obtain it, to lay
before the House the grounds upon which he claimed
it—and if those persons connected with the Govern-
ment, whose duty it was to keep a House, did so on
this occasion, he would be enabled to lay sufficient
grounds before it to warrant him in asking for this Com-
mittee of Inquiry. The commitments to prison for lar-
cenies and petty offences which were punished with
imprisonment varying from seven days to six months,
were about 80 per cent. The committals for trial in
1846 amounted to ?6,851, and the summary committals
during the same year amounted to 65,992, making a
total of committals of 92,843. Under the present sys-
tem prisoners a ere better fed, lodged, and cared for,
than such a class of persons when out of prison. In
acting in this way, they did an injury to the class of
persons in question, and they inflicted an injury on the
ratepayers.
An Hon. MEMBER here moved that the House be
counted, but there being more than 40 members present,
Mr. PEARSON resumed, and said that four. fifths of
the criminals were led to crime from intemperance,
which
was also mixed up with idleness. The point
upon which he rested was, that the great body of the
male criminals consisted of able bodied me le and who
could, at liberty, net only maintain themselves, but
five other persons. Now, there was a feeling in this
country against slave labour, and the lion. Member for
Montrose reeretted that they could not look this ques-
tion in the face. Solt it sires justifiable. It was de-
clared in scripture, he that steals should be sold in
bondage, and their Saxon ancestors carried that prin-
ciple into practical effect. The scripture further says—
if a man do not labour, neither shall he eat. The scrip-
ture was part of the law, and was recognised by them
all. There was nothing new in the proposal ho should
make, that prisoners should maintain themselves. In
Massachussets prisoners were enabled to maintain them-
selves and pay the salaries of the officers of the institu-
tion. They were also enabled to give each prisoner, on
his liberation, a suit of clothes and a gift of money, be-
sides appropriating an annual sum towards the liquida-
tion of the original cost of the building. The same thing
was done in Belgium and France. He, however, objected
to the American system, because it was not adapted to
this country. The employment of prisoners displaced
the work of honest artisans, and flooded the market of
honest industry. In France and Belgium machinery
was used, and as the prisoners could not, on their libera-
tion, purchase machines, they, of course, could not earn
their bread when they came out of prison. He, there-
fore, did not approve of steel systems, but nought tee
establish a Letter system. In this country, however, they
adopted this system with all i!s disadvantages without
its benefit, as was the ease in the Pentonville and Mil-
bank prisons. What was the case with regard to the
continental system? They received the produce of prison
labour in this country to displace the labour of our own
free artisans. It was beyond doubt that various articles
of prison manufacture were imported into this country
from Belgium. lie denied that Mr. 'Toward was favour-
able to the separate and solitary system. He would also
quote in favour of his suggestion the names of Arch-
bishop Wheatley, Archdeacon Paley, and Captain Ma-
conochie. They should apply to prisoners the prin-
ciple that if a man do not labour neither should he eat.
All men were stimulated to exertion by present enjoy-
ment and future independence. Why not give the same
stimulating impetus to prisoners? He asked them to try
the experiment, to make the period of their imprison-
ment and the quality of their food depend upon their
industry. That would be extending to them the prin-
ciple of present enjoyment by the quality of their food,
and that of independence by shortening the period of
their imprisonment. He proposed that prisoners should
be employed upon the land. He maintained that a thou-
sand acres of land would support a thousand prisoners
and two hundred officers. He did not himself possess
any broad acres, and might not be regarded as
an authority upon the subject; but he had the
opportunity of communicating with the mem-
bers of the Farmers' Club, from whom he
had received a hundred letters, in which it was stated
that a thousand acres would produce all that was requi-
site for the support of a thousand persons, estimating
the food of the parties on the highest scale of allowance.
He had already stated that it would be sufficient to
clothe them, and to a great extent to pay the salaries of
the officers, He would prefer putting the prisoners on
the land, because it was a natural occupation, it was
easiest to be learned, and particularly suited to these
parties, who were between twenty and forty years of
age. It was also the most healthy, which was worth
consideration, as it was stated as a reason for the great
expense incurred for the maintenance of prisoners, that
it was necessary to feed them better in idleness than if
they were engaged in industrial occupations; that in fact
they were, during their confinement, in a state of disease;
besides, the prisoner would not be in the condition of the
Belgian, who, on his liberation, would want a machine
to engage in industry; all that would be required in
this case was a spade, which was easily obtained. He
had the certificate of two eminent architects, and was
prepared to prove it before the Committee, it he got one,
they could get one thousand acres of laud, say at 401. an
acre, build a wall around it as high as that of Millbunk
Prison, and all Coat could be done at one-half the cost
which the prisoners now imposed on the nation. He
came to that House to discuss and promote that use of
it, and if he were not able to prove all he asserted ho
should resign his seat into the hands of his constituents.
Why should not the tailors in prison make clothes for
the prisoners, why not the shoemakers shoes, and the
women spin—and, in fact, why not a prison community
support itself? All prison discipline carried on in this
country was bad, but that now in particular favour was
especially bad, namely, the system carried on at Reading
gaol. He should ray nothing of the expense to the
country in building prisons, which must amount to at
least six millions; because, if a reform really took
place, no expense should be spared; but the separate
or silent system, he contended, was a total failure. That
system was religious instruction, amusing labour, diet,
as Mr. Murray, one of the magistrates, said in describ-
ing, "until they were ready to burst"—(A laugh)—
warmth and ten hours of sleep.—(Loud laughter.) He
should now read for the House the description given of
the treatment of the prisoners at Reading gaol. (The
Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from the Rev. Mr.
Field's work on prison discipline, describing the manner
in which prisoners were treated at Reading, and which
appeared in this paper during the discussions which took
place in the City of London Institution in February last.)
That was the description of the manner in which sheep
stealers and criminals were treated, and he had no hesi-
tation in saying that such a proceeding would in the
space of 18 months destroy the morals of the most
honest in society. It was well known that the silent
system, if applied with inhumanity and parsimony, would
mate° he would prove that p
and if
he
a isowerreantelorwiend I.ateLarang-
produce insanity,
e
osTp
hitealenintirceonsysea:
(let,
s of reformation. He wished
gaoln,we of asnothweatlrue:aitamtiecnitn
tern was ft f ailure as a 11 e received.Bethlehem
why it was that hard
State for the Home Department, •
soners in the model
to know front the Ritehmt eHaonn. Bironet, the Secretary of
labour was not provlded for
for hard labour to
pri-
sons, as directed by the Gaol Act, the 4th of Geo. IV.
The number of prisoners sentenced
Reading gaol, as estimated from the printed calendars
—beina those alone discharged at assi
• d to hard labour,
6• and though sentenced 1848, was 1,2. J, gaol,
instead indulgence of that
assizes—from 1844 to
were subjected to the effeminate
instead of being deterred from committing further crime
by severe punishment. He had now, thanks to the kind
ea be indule ace of the House, made his statement, and being
convinced that no snore useful subject could
dis-
cussed; recollecting that the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government had declared prison discipline to
be a problem which was yet to be solved, lie should
persevere in brineing it forward before the linear, on
every occasion which should present itself. He only
asked to deal with prisoners in gaols as they did
with persons not imprisoned, or guilty of crime ; to
act upon the principle, that if a man did not work
neither should he east, and believing a reformation nut
impracticable, he should conclude, again thanking the
House, by moving tor a Select Committee to inquire
and report upon the practicability of establishing an uni-

form system of discipline, punitive, reformatory, and
self-supporting, t he applied to all persons sentcueed to
imprisonment for crime.
31r. OSBORNE seccmded the motion.

Sir G. GREY said he give every credit to the
Hoe. Gentleman for the trouble that he took in bringing
the motion forward. He should also say that he agreed
with many of his arguments on the matter; yet he
would suggest to him not to press his motion hr the
present, unless it wore tl'e general wish of the House
that he should do so. He should at the same time
observe, that while the Honourable Membrr alluded
particularly to the Model Prison at Reading. that.
he had aitogsther excluded from his e:italo;s•ue
of prisons Milioank, Pentonville, and others, where the
prisoners were employed in works of 1-,bour under the
separate system, andd that even much of what ho bad
stated respecting Reading was not by any means
applicable to his motion. He hoped that the Honourable
Member would admit that the object of every prison dis-
cipline was to reform and inflict just punishment at the
same time, and that such was practised at Reading he
had not the least occasion to doubt. He also considered
that the Honourable Gentleman had not done justice to
the recent improvements made in prison discipline, for
he (Mr. Pearson) stated that he was for a uniform
system of discipline, but did not point out the means by
which it could be universally adopted. When he agreed
with the Hon. Gentleman that there should be no useless
expense, he (Sir G. Grey) should inform him that the
expense.of 1,2001., to whicti he alluded in the improve-
ment of one gaol, occurred 25 years ego, and that the
present separate model system did not then exist.
Mr. I'EARSON said that he quoted the words of the
inspector of prisons, who asserts that it amounted to
1,2001. _ _

Sir G. GREY—When the Hon. Gentleman alluded
to the increase of committals in the several gaols in Eng-
land, he (Sir G. Grey) was at a loss to know whether
he made a comparison with the time of If fm ard, or with
any particular period since then, as he (Mr. Pearson)
should understand that his comparison of late years
with former might be true in one sense, because there
were formerly- very few police in the country, and that,
therefore, those few did not perform those duties due to
justice and society, as well as the force that now exists,
and consequently there were then fewer committals; but
he hoped that the Hon. Gentleman would admit that
there were great improvements in society of late years,
though there were more committals, and that, therefore,
his opinion was, that the prison discipline was more effi-
cacious than the past system of other days. He did not
think that he alluded to the discipline of the days of
Howard, and would be therefore glad to know to what
time he alluded.

Mr. PEARSON said, that if the Committee were
granted, he would then show to what time he alluded.

Sir G. GREY said, that he was also at a loss to know,.
whether those 1,000 prisoners, in 1,000 acres, at a cost of
1,0001., were to have separate sleeping pieces, or to be
together day and night, but he supposed that that too
would be given in evidence before a Committee. There
were three reports of the Inspectors of Prisons in 1.779,
and solitary confinement was strongly approved of in
of those reports ; also Archdeacon Paley concurred in
that opinion, as did also Mr. Howard. He perfectly
agreed with the Honourable Gentleman, that labour
should be associated with the system of separate con-
finement, and that it would be of very great advantage
that the prisoners should be employed in the open air.
Ho should next ask the county Members whether they
were prepared to afford 500 or 1,000 acres for those pri-
sons, bat he (Sir G. Grey) thought that the expense woul 1
be too great, though he, at the same time, fully concurred
that the shoemaaer and the tailor should be employed
at their respective callings, yet be subject to such sepa-
rate confinement as would give them a dictate for pri-
son discipline. At the same time it should he borne in
wind that the work of these men should not interfere
with the labour-market, for then the honest man would
be interfered with in his employment. In fact, he (Sir
George Grey) did not see what the Committee could do
in that matter, but at the same time that he would op-
pose an inquiry, but not a speculative one, if it were the
general wise of the House that such should take place.
But when he (Mr. Pearson) said that the present system
was destructive of its object, he did not at all agree with
him, for it was obvious to every one that the condition of
the age, strength, and morals of prisoners should be con-
sidered, and that justices of prisons should have a dire
etionary plwer of relaxing or remitting punishment,
under the sauction of the Secretary of State, according as
they consider the prisoner worthy of such remission.
Nor did he see what was the plan that the lion.
Member intended to substitute instead of the present one.
He looked upon the plan of 1,000 acres for 1,000 prison-
ers, at a cost of 1,000/., as merely speculative, becatve
it should be considered that prisons in one locality
would cost twice as much as in another, through stone
and other necessaries being contiguous or remote; and
i also that n buildings near towns, that the ground is
also a much higher item than that more distant. He
thought, from tee opinions of the most distineuiehed
men on that subject, and also from his own experience,
that the separate system was the better one for the im-
provement the moral and social condition of the pri-
soners, and that by it there is not now any additional
expense; whereas, if the Hon. Member's plan were to
be carried out, there would be a double expense; first,
that those prisons already built should be kept for per-
sons not convicts, according to him (Mr. Pearson); and,
secondly, that those buildings to which he alluded would
be of such an enormous and exorbitant expense, that
the country was not prepared to meet such a heavy
pressure at present. Ha also agreed with him that
the dietary should be less; but should remark, that
be (Sir George Grey) had for some time had to com-
ply with the regulations in that department which were
in force on his accession to office as being established
by the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Ripon
(Sir J. Graham). and that that was now considerably
altered, he hoped for the better, so as to make the dis-
cipline as distasteful as possible to the prisoners. He
should say that Mr. Merry, the inspector of the Read-
ing gaol, totally disagrees with the Hon. Gentleman as
to the number of recommitments, and that ha (Mr.
Merry) stares that they are less by 10 per cent., and that
the reports of the recommitments are very unsatisfactory.
He had been informed by the Hon. Member for Berk-
shire (Mr. R. Palmer) since he (Sir G. Grey) had come
into tne House, that the inspectors and officers of the
Reading gaol courted inquiry. He hoped, however,
that he (Hr. Pearson) would not press for a division on
his motion, as it evinced so much of a speculative
scheme.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. R. PALMER said that he considered that the
case of Reading gaol was exaggerated by the Hon. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Pearson), and he could assure him that Mr.
Merry and the other persons connected with thatestablish-
ment had not the slightest objection to any inquiry. From
his experience of five years, during which time he
had been a visiting magistrate, he considered that there
were very great improvements in that gaol. He would
read two letters from persons belonging to the Reading
prison confirmatory of his assertion. He explained that
there was a great difference between solitary confinement
and separate confinement. Solitary confinement was one
of the greatest punishments that could be inflicted upon
human beings, but separate confinement involved no
more than the enforcement of a discipline which was es-
sential to the good order of a gaol. He apporoved gene-
rally of the plans suggested by the prison inspectors.
The Hon. Gentleman made some further observations,
but they were so imperfectly heard in the gallery that
their purport could nut be eathered wieh certainty.
On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON, the debate
was adjourned till to-day.
The Grants of Land (New South Wales) Bill was
read a third time.

The Grand Jury Cess (Ireland) Bill went through
Committee.

The House adjourned at Half-past TweLe o'clock.

THE SEA SERPENT.—Many have been the state-
ments of late respecting this lusus ncgurce having been
sr en in its natural element. Much to our surprise, we
find that what has hitherto been deemed a fictional
monster, is likely to be soon exhibited in our own me-
tropolis. We observe in the Newcastle papers, that a
strange and hitherto unknown fish, nearly thirteen feet
in Length, and possessing many of the characteristics
which the captain of the Thedalus enumerated in his
description of the great Sea Snake, has really been
caught off the Northumbrian coast, by the Cullercoats
fishermen, and has been exhibited in Newcastle, where
it has created the greatest sensation. The members of
the Natural history Society of that town have duly re-
ported upon it, and expressed their opinion, that it is a
young specimen of the genus Gymnetru7, only four of
which species, and those very rare, are known to
ietbyologists; and described by caviar and others as in-
habiting the Indian, Mediterranean, and White Seas.
To this new and extraordinary one, the name of Gym-
ni tres Notthumbricus has baen given, specimens of which,
in their adult state, have most probably led to the
astounding descriptions hitherto published of the sea
serpent. The present specimen has become the property
of a Newcastle merchant, who has presented it to the
Museum of that town, and we hear, that in accordance
with a very general wish of most of our distinguished
naturalists, it is on its way to the metropolis, for the pur-
pose of being exhibit,. d. If its appearance be 7eally us
strange as the report of the Natural History Society re-
presents it to be, it is likely to attract as much attention
in London as it already has done in the north, and fully
to account for the many seemingly fabulous descripticus
of the great marine monster.

MR. GROOM'S TULIP Show.—The private view
of the annual show of tulips at the grounds of the Me-
nob
on
amivt ebidoe
rufldooart
,e,tuhlaet
nundt
oi vistryrt t Gat
enrnaodoehmd, , Clapham, took place
florists,ry, y a more thanam atuesuurasl,
enbt
&c. Amongst them were the Duchess of Marl-
borough and party, Madame Bunsen, Lords Mannerv,
Falkland, Mint°. Ilawarden, Gage, Northwich, Lilford;
Lady Langdale, Miss Coutts Burdett, &c. The appearance
of the ibwers, about 2,000 in the bed, under cover,
showed what art could do to counteract the niggard-
ness of an ungenial spring and the cutting in
fluence of an easterly wind. They were of extra-
ordinary splendour, and amongst them wero
some specimens of the most exquisite beauty. The
flowers in the grounds not beneath covering had suffered
from the cold, and were consequently inferior to those of
more propitious former seasons; indeed, it is known that
in most places the Lbours of tulip-growers have been
this year completely lost, and not only the flowers, but
the roots ihemselves have been destroyed. Amongst the
most excellent of the specimens were those known as the
Addison, Duke of Devonshire, Norfolk, Victoria, Louis
XVI., Michael Angelo, Catalini, Bacchus, Nourri El-
' handl, impere,irix Ilorum, and one unique and novel spt-
,de,scription.
J. F. Denham, the rector of St. Mary-
aAND FLAG RAGGED SCIIOOLS.—On Sunday
110wpaerful and eloquent di.course,
cintnAi‘(i_inf
Pentonville, to a crowded congre •
morning thßelf:tit.lY
0f35/. In the evenhig
alet
SSttr.anida,rdke'3liCyrhruecric'h•a, the Rev. Henry Hughes, the in-
cumbent of All Saints, Gordon-squere, delivered an ilia-
gation, who responded to the appeal by the subscripi,n
suapip,uorrtthcorf taluiej-riseoticiii7oLds. The con-
gregation!r e s si
vediscourse
contributedil