The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-11 00:00:00

TH SUN,

- -
State of things. He knew the obiectione which might
be brought against him with regard to the subject, and
one that seemed to have some weight, was, that if they
endeavoured to improve the condition of the criminal,
they would make his condition better than that of those
who had c tmmi ted no crime, and would, in consequence,
be holding out a premium upon the commission of crime.
This argument, hoe ever, wes unsound ; but even if it
had the smallest particle of truth, he thought they should
treat those unfortunate creatures as repentant sinners
were treated in the other world, wheie there was more
foy for one who had chanced from his evil courses than
or the ninety and n:ue, who Irel never gone astray.—
(Hear, hear.) He wouhl support the Government in
this measure, and he hoped to see the day when some
further reforms of a more extensive nature would be in-
troduced on the subject of criminal punishment.
Mr. P. MILES said that it was not a question of the
abolition of transportation, but of the amelioration of
that punishment, szlich was involved in the present
question. He considered that the change, at present
proposed, was a hazardous experiment. It became ne-
cessary, therefore, for them to consider how the system
of transportation had worked in the penal colonies.
They had one system carried out there in 1840. Cap-
tain Macconochie had changed that system for one of
kindness and mercy, and that again had been changed
from another superintendence by Major Child, so that
these continual changes prevented any plan from having
had a fair trial. In some of these plans the effect was
rather to exclude hope from the criminal, than to
hold out a prospect of his bettering his condithere
by improved conduct. The lion. Member for Warwick
said that the judges were against the abolition of
trenvporta tion, but he was of a different opinion, and
he thought he could show from the evidence which Hon. he
held in his hands that this was not the case. The
Member then read the opinions of Baron Alderson,
Baron Rolre, Baron Parke, and Mr. Justice Patterson,
all of whom were of opinion that the punishment should
still be carried into effect for aggravated offences and
crimes of a more serious nature. He wished the question
had been more carefully considered, and that if it was
intended to abolish the punishment of transportation, a
Bill had been introduced for that purpose. He thought
the proposed plan was adding the premium of cruelty
to the common offences, and from his own experi-
ence of the salutary effects of the punishment in
repressing crime he could not vote for its abo-
lition. He prayed the Government to consider
what they were &dna, and as long as they had free in-
dependent labourers, not to employ on the public works
convicted criminals. The Hon. Gentleman then quoted
the opinions of the governors of several prisons, to show
the effect of transportation as a secondary punishment
in deterring crime. He did not, however, approve
of the entire mode at present adopted, of carrying out
the punishment of transportation in the penal colonies ;
hut notwithstanding the evils of the system, he thought
the punishment should not be abolished altogether.
Sir R. INGLIS gave the Government credit for the
hest intentions in the propesed plan, but he regretted
that this step should be taken without more careful
consideration anti somewhat stronger authority to sup-
port it than had been brought forward. There weree
thirteen of the judges voting against the abolition of the
punishment. and he believed Mr. Justice Perrin was
the only judge who had expressed an opinion in favour
of the abolition of the punishment. The Hon.
had Gentle.
man, the Under Secretary for the Coloniesquoted
the opinion of Baron Alderson in favour of the abolition
of the punishment, but he thought that he (Sir R. 11,
Inglis) could show from his evidence that this was not
the ease.
Mr. B. HAWES said that he had not quoted Baron
Alderson to that effect.
Sir H. INGLIS understood that he had quoted him
as an authority, in favour of the abolition of the punish-
ment. At any rate they had the opinions of all the
judges of England and Scotland against the abolition,
with the exception of Mr. Justice Perrin, arid even he
thought there were some crimes of an aggravated na-
ture, in regird to whic7l it should not be abolished.
He fully aereed with the Hon. Member for Somerset-
shire, that they should not, in consequence of the evils
which at present accompenied the system of transporta-
tion abolish it altogather. The Hon. Member for Man-
chester had stated that his quotation from Scripture had
been treated with ridicule, but he (Sir R. Inglis) thought
that he could undertake to say, that it was not at the
quotation the ridicule was directed, but at the subse-
quent applicetion of it.—(Hear, hear.) He would now
revert.again to the opinions and the practices of the
judges, and he would ask could the judges legally
pronounce a sentence of imprisonment for the same
terms of years as they did for transportation ?
This he thought was the great practical difficulty.
It would have been far better had this subject been
introduced through the medium of a Bill. He would
not impugn the prerogative of the Crown, but it would
have been more satisfantory to this country had these
changes cow proposed been embodied in a Bill. As it
was they were now discussing the subject inferentially
without having any opportunity or power of altering
the details of the proposal. There could be no doubt
that Captain Macconochie had rendered great ser-
vice to the country, in his efforts to render
the punishment of transportation effective, and
the failure of the existing system could not
be laid at his door. The free inhabitants of Van Die-
men's Land had, long foes, and again and again, pro-
tested against that island' being made the depository of
the criminals of this country, and the consequence was,
the administrators of the law had experienced consider
able difficulty in carrying out the prevailing system of
transportation. He was hardly aware how there could
be a division upon this questien, but should it be decid,l
that there could be a division, he should certainly vote
against the measure.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had been anxious before
to address the House upon this important subject,
anti he was only prevented from doing so by an acci-
dent. He had, from his former official position, been
able to collect some information upon this subject,
aid he was, therefore, particularly anxious to
tike part in this debate. In the very outset
he mu,t express his regret, that her Ma-
jesty's Government had not brought forward this
measure in such a form as to give the House an oppor-
tunity of expressing a direct opinion upon it. Now,
with regard to the first clause of this Bill, which gave
power to the Crown to transfer the convicts of Ireland to
this country, he most decidedly objected to it. The
Lord Chief Justice of Ireland had expressed himself
against it, and there could be no doubt that the clause
would prove highly injurious. What effect would im-
prisonment hare upon an Irish convict; but, above all,
what effect would it produce, by letting the convict
loose upon society in Ireland after the expiration of his
time of imprisonment.—(Hear, hear.) He entertained
no less objection to the other clauses of the measure,
and particularly to that clause which transferred the pa-
tronage and control of the prisons of this country from
the Secretary of State to the Prison Commissioners. It
would transter the responsibility from a Member of the
Government, holding a seat in that House,' to these
Commissioners, who could not be present in that House
to give any explanations that might be required of them.
But these matters of detail could be disposed of in Com-
mittee. The real matter for the was to
consider the question of transportation (Hear.
hear)—and here 14 could not but join in
the regret expressed ty his Honourable Friend the
Member for the University, that her Majesty's Govern-
ment had not brought this question forward in a more
formal shape. Now with regard to this question of
transportation he must admit that at the time he left
office he felt that the period had arrived when it Was
necessary to suipend transportation, at least he felt
that the extent to which transportation had been carried
for the previous five years, must necessarily be sus-
pended. lie should, therefore, have been prepared now
to support a plan for suspending that mode of secondary
punishment, but the House was not called upon to
consider the question of suspension. They were called
upon to consider its abolition rather than its suspension,
and he certainly was not prepared to support such I.
proposal.—(Hear, hear.) Before proceeding further he
could not help adverting to a most important topic, to
which his Hon. Friend the Member for the University
had also addressed himself. What, asked his Hon. Friend,
was the state of the administration of the penal laws
at this moment, upon the due administration of which
depended the ssfety of life and property in this country.:
(Hear, hear.) It hal been the policy of modern times—
as which he approved of—to temper the rigour ce
the criminal law—to administer justice with greater
mercy than formerly, and to mitigate the sanguinary
spirit which once characterised the criminal code of this
country. Ile might say, speaking generally, that-except
io the case of the crime of murder, capital punishment
had latterly been inflicted on no criminal, but ha could
not conceal from the House the fact, that in
proportion to the mitigation of the punishment there
hal been a corresponding increase in crime. The
entries which had been prepared by the Home-office,
proved this. In 1829, capital punishment was remitted
with regard to the crime of forgery. In that year the
number of commitments for forgery was 321. In the
y.-ar 1841, the commitments were 514, and in the year
18,16 they were 706, showing an increase of nearly
double. The crime of arson ceased to be capital in the
year 1827. In that year the number of commitments
"ere 31. In 1836 they were 366, and in 1846 they
rose to 581, being an increase of somewhere about 60
per cent. Again, with regard to that remarkably at-
trocious crime of rape, which ceased to be capital in 1841.
In year the commitments were 319, but in 1846. they amounted to 59',
an increase of 90 per cent.
Now did not these figures convince
o vince them that they ought
to be cautious in their dealingsclo secondary this
question 0. ,
transportation ? The only s
unishment that'
could be substituted for capital punishment was
transportation for life, and
htnatehtnet could lithue7
was called upon to abolish even thatp.yriesteipon
asndr
substitute for it ? Nettling but ina
soli-
tary confinement. Bat in the application of
esufinemeut there was required great caution ancilt4r'
in-
spection ; and even then it must be viewed with some
hear.) lie had, therefore, arrived
at the conelusioq that lire and property would be ren-
dered more unsitth than they were at present, if the
punishment of transportzttion were altogeatheir
the Huabolished,ose
and lei seriously prayed the Government m
to exercise extreme caution in dealing with this matter.
He would wish, then, to ask, should a change like. this
be made unless by Act of Parliament ?—(Hear, hear.)
The Act of the sth of George the Fourth did not place
any prerogative in the Crown to change the punishment,
but rather left it in its power to superadd imprisonment.
What was the punishment that they intended to adopt
if they abolished transportation ? Lord Denman, whose
opinion had been read to the House, and who also spoke
the opinions of his brethren, deprecated the abolition o'
transportation. The Justice Clerk, the Chief Commo•
Judge is Scotland, said, that he regarded the punish-
ment as most valuable; that nothing could compensate
for its Joss; and that it would be most prejudicial ti
contract the class of off -aces to which it was
at present canumscribed. He would not weary the
House by r,'sding the opinion of the Chief Justice of
Ireland. 'The iNght Hon. Baronet then read the opinion,

which sated that he had no objection to employing the
criminal upon public works as a temporary expedient.
Ile considered that convicts of the better class, and those
engaged in unlawful associations, appeared most to dread
it. The plan, since its first introduction, had undergone
a considerable change, for it was contemplated at the
end of the imprisonment, the criminal should be exiled
under Act of Parliament, but since that part of the sys-
tem had been abandoned, it was useless to argue itftr-
then But very severe observations had
been
passed upon Lord Brougham fur his speech_ upon
the measure, but he agreed with Lord Brougham
end he considered that originally the plan was open
to ail the objections which he had urged. Such a
system would have shocked all civilised Europe. Now,
what was the change proposed? "Deportation," why
that would involve all the expenses of a penal colony.
Tande ye
oshoulds
uhpaevrei
nctoennvdi
ec
at
tess. t a bilfi sh
theym e natds , 0 cpon t
adv i
thec t ships,
sepa-
rate system, they would not have separate cells to
confine the criminals, for the convictions of even one
twelve months four thousand five hundred separate cells
would hardly be sufficient. But he would go on to
prove that this plan was not new, it had been
tried, had been found to have failed, and did
not prevent crime by inspiring dread.—(Hear, hear.)
and had also been condemned by that House, he would
read to them the opinion of the Justice Clerk, who
reported upon its experiment as made in Perth. The
Right lion. Baronet then read the words of the Learned
Judge to whom he referred:—" The separate system
which was at first looked upon with alarm, has now
utterly_ failed to prever t offenders from again committing
crime." He had stated that the plan was not new, that
it had failed, and that it was condemned by that House.
He would, therefore, read the able report of the Com-
mittee appointed in 1832, to report upon secondary
punishment, which condemned the system in very strong
language. What was the great evil of society in
France ? Why, this very system of secondary punish-
ment, which threw back the criminals upon society after
the short term of their punishment. This was admitted
by all her statesmen and politicians, and they should
take care how they adopted a plan which had
been found in other countries so prejudicial.
He would also show the House the danger of precipitate
legislation. It was supposed that the great difficulty
was the want of labour in Van Diemen's Land. He had
received a letter from a person of the highest authority,
who assured him that the want of labour was not at pre-
sent felt, and that in a short time the colony would be
clamouring for more convicts. They might mitigate
the sentence on those who had behaved themselves
well; but what was to be done with those who had
riot? Would they imprison them, or transport them for
life? It was a question fraught with the greatest diffi-
culties. He had thought it his duty frankly to point out
the difficulties; and he was perfectly ready to go iuto
Committee with the Bill, and to suggest amendments
whilst it was in that state, if the Government
would state that during the recess they
would take the whole subject of secondary
punishment into consideration, and bring
tormed a measure next session, with the view of perma-
nently settling the nature of that punishment. He was
desirCius that the Crown should retain the prerogative
it had hitherto exercised ; but, at the same time, h was
most unwilling that the law should remain in an uncer-
tain and undefined state ; and, therefore, on this
understanding he should support the Bill,
though he considered it of minor importance
compared with the great question involved in this dis-
cussion. In bringing forward such a measure he would
gladly give them every facility and aid in his power to
meet the difficulties of the present moment.
Mr. C. BULLER felt at any time and on every sub-
ject great difficulty in arresting the attention of the
House in rising after the Right Honourable Gen
tleman, who, on this occasion, had brought for-
ward his great experience to bear upon the question
before the House. The measure had been fully criti-
cised, but no lion. Member had suggested a better plan.
But surely no one was so able to deal with the sub-
ject so well as the Hon. Gentleman who was connected
with the Government during the administration of
which, ail the difficulties with which they were now deal-
ing arose.—(Hear, hear.) The late Government sus-
pended transportation altogether, as it was expressly
stipulated that it should be discontinued to New South
Wales, Van Diemen's Land, South Australia—
Lard MAHON—Norfolk Island ?
Mr. C. BULLER—Yes, it was also suspended to Nor-
folk Island. lie gave the Noble Lord the full benefit of
that, as he believed no one, after the accounts which had
been received from the island, would wish to see trans-
portation to that quarter continued.—(Hear, hear.) It
was also discontinued to New Zealand, as an express
stipulation was made by the English settlers that no
convicts should be sent there. Well, transportation
being suspended to those places, he was at a loss to know
to what place they could continue to send transports.
The Right Honourable Baronet asked where they
would. find cells ? but, in reply, he would also
ask where the Right Honourable Baronet expected
to find cells fur criminals during the suspension of
transportation for two years,as proposed by the late Go-
vernment ? lie (Mr. Buller) did not blame the late Go-
vernment for the course they had adopted, but he asked
the House to extend the same indulgence to the present
Government as they did to the Government which pre-
ceded them. When the present Government came into
office, they were compelled, without delay, to decide on
the course which they would adopt, and he thought they
acted wisely in acting as they had done. The Right
Hon. Baronet said that secondary punishment should be
brought to an intelligible point. The present discipline
divided itself into two branches—imprisonment in this
country, and coercive punishment in the country to which
the prisoner was taken ; and the Government must prove
that the coercive punishment must be inflicted in this
country, and that exile must take place afterwards. The
difference between the Right Hon. Baronet and the Go-
vernment was this, that the coercive punishment should
be secondary ; but he (Mr. Buller) appealed to au-
thorities, to show that the mode of punishment inflicted
in the colonies had utterly and completely failed. It
was true the old assignment system in New South
Wales possessed much of the reformatory principle inas-
much as it induced habits of industry and self reliance.
The assignment system broke down because it was
found impossible to inflict any punishment on the
labourer so assigned, the employers being naturally
anxious to meet their will in order to obtain as much
work as possible from them, and in consequence of this
the convict became much better off, and more comfort-
able than the labourer in this country, Persons were
induced to commit crime in order to get themselves
transported, fully aware that in that colony their
wants would be much better provided for than
in this country. He would be a bold man
who would now say that the assignment system should
be revived. After the failure of that mode of punish-
ment, a system of coersive punishment was introduced—
Port Arthur, Norfolk Island, the road-gangs, and other
modes. Then, again, there came a universal cry from
this country, and from the colony, praying the House to
put an end to this system of things, and describing the
horrible state of things which existed there. The
revelations from Norfolk Island were horrible
and disgraceful to the British name. Some
of the Honourable Members who had addressed
the House had stated in what mode this system of
punishment could be carried out, sa as to avoid these
evils. The Right lion. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had
said that the system could be better carried out und, r
more efficient control and management. Now he (Mr.
Buller) contended that no better class of governors could
be found to perform those duties than had had the
management of this concern. The really great
difficulty of the case was the enormous distance at
which the colony was situated from this country.
It could not be denied that it was an impossibility to
carry out a system of reformatory punishment in a co-
lony li,ooo miles distant from the mother country. lie
said that until the remedy Is as vouchsafed to them, the
convicts would be better attended at home, under the
eye of the Ministry. They were to remember
that this question affected only a very few individuals
at home, while the arrangement of society was such,
that the colonies of New South Wales, and their other
penal colonies would suffer dreadfully from the infliction
of so great an evil. This was the main ground on which
he rested his objections to the old system; that it filled
the colony with a degraded system of slave labour, and
that at a disproportioned rate. He was perfectly ready
to admit that transportation was a severe punish-
ment ; the real tenor of it was, that the pri-
soner must spend his life, perhaps, in some distant
and unknown country, and if the terror of exile was
the real terror of transportation, then under the present
system that terror would be equally forcible as at pre-
sent. A frightful state of things bad been spoken of in
France, as resulting from the liberation of the prisoners
from the galleys, and letting them loose again on society.
But it must also be taken into account that the punish-
ment at the galleys was, with the exception of Norfolk
Island, perhaps the most detestable upon the face of the
earth. When her Majesty's Government had to deal
with this state of things, they were compelled to adopt
immediate measures, and it was necessary to decide at
once what course should be adopted, and he thought
that the course which the Government had taken was a
wise one. The necessity for that due deliberation had
been imposed upon the. present Government by the
course taken by the.-lilt Government. The proposed
system, if not a peifect one, at all events went far to
remove someeof the evils of the present system.
Mr. FITZROY KELLY said, while the Hon. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Buller) had pointed out many of the evils
of the present system, he had altogether, and
he regretted to say it, omitted to deal with
the question in its legal and constitutional
character, anctite (Sir F. Kelly) felt bound to oppose
the measure in its every stage. The object of this mea-
sure was to substitute for transportation, imprisonment
of indeterminate period, and then emigration. They
were at present quite ignorant of the extent of punish-
ment which they were to substitute for the well-known
Punishment of transportation, which was to be exercised
by the Government, without even the authority
different purpose,
And yet this very power was
of
be exercised under an Act of Parliament, the
sth of George IV but that Aet was passed for quite a
purpose and he wes satisfied that no lawyer
raent could carryg4o rtepue,
Had any high legal authority would stake his le l in asserting that Govern-
is measure under this Act.
l stated that this measure
'as legal. There was
eertaur in the Act of Par-
liament to legalise transapimartion, and ao far from
for Pt
ri banns u a erntt .or anything
its beine. intended ttheadt
131 :at isoeh his;e would
else should be substitu
show that quite the contrary was
jesty's Government claimed a right, which he contre
was not legal. He would appeal to the House whetherned
the House should give its sanction to an Act of Parlia-
tihncisrevaseiryngAtehte severity
nent which was in its very nature opposed to all the
the Legislature. The sth of George
srevious Acts of .
•if transportation, a
IV. was passed
yetwithridth
- been about n"
• hment. A good des
e viewunder of
I had said the
Govern-
mentiarypculaniimsed the right of abolishing that mode of seco
but he would not follow
history of transportation,