The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-11 00:00:00

SWITZERLAND.
Sir 11. VERNEY wished to know from the Noble
Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the
decree of the canton of Friburg (as we understood), I
of the 24th of November, 1847, would in any mar ,ner
affect the interests of British residents in that c.
~rity
At
and also whether the offers which had be, Vitade
to mediate between the contending partie-, ~,,,a Swit-
zerland had been attended with any succ'
~,,,d.
Lord PAL INIERSTON said that he
iras not aware
of any British subject who had ber„.
t at all affected
by the decree referred to. With re,
spect to the latter
part of the question it was true that her Majesty's
Charge d'Affaires had made a communication with
respect to arbitrating betw '''en the parties of an un-
official nature, but he -,(P:s not able to state whether
any success had atte /ted that communication.
'
WEST
INDIA COLONIES.

Sir R. PEET , presented a petition from the island
of St. Vincent, praying relief to the West India
colonies.

PRISON DISCIPLINE.
Lord NUGENT rose, pursuant to notice, to move
for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the
2d and 31 Victoria, which gave the power of apply-
ing the system of separate imprisonment to persons
before trial. The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of
the -Home Department had paid a good deal of attention
to this subject, and he hoped he should have the
sanction of the Right Hon. Baronet to introduce the
Bill. They had no right to imprison parties in this
manner who had not undergone a trial. It was said,
however, this system of separate confinement was
established to prevent contvlnination amongst pri-
soners; but it was opposed 44;0 all principles of equity
and justice to test experirants of this sort upon par-
ties who ought to be. considered innocent of any
crime until they 'nad been convicted by a jury
of their countrl; tnen. Besides, if this system were
to be continued, there would be an end to the barrier
which drew a distinction between those who

were guilty and those whom Government
was only justified in holding in detention.
By the law as it at present stood, all letters from the
nearest and dearest friends were taken from prisoners
untried, and read by the authorities of the gaol. He
might be told that all this was necessary, in order to
prevent improper communications, but in his opinion
nothing could justify such a tax upon an unhappy
and unfortunate prisoner. It appeared to him to be
a tyranny without any purpose whatever; he be-
lieved it to be totally inconsistent with the system
of jurisprudence of which this country so proudly
boasted, and it was an aggravation of punish-
ment upon the untried totally inconsistent N 1 ith
the merciful policy of the English law.
Separate punishment was a severe reformatory prin-
ciple. Sir James Graham, in his letter, printed in
the first report of the Commissioners of Pentonville
Prison, stated it to be a probationary punishment,
instituted for the purpose of preparing criminals for
transportation, and for regulating the nature of the
punishment to which they were to be subjected. Hard
labour was not described by the Commissioners as an
additional punishment, but as a relief from the hor-
rors of separate confinement. Mr. William Merry,
one of the prison inspectors, who took an active part
in the construction of the gaol of Reading for seperate
confinement, said, before the Committee of the House
of Lords on criminal law, " I believe there is no
man confined in a separate cell who would not
escape from such confinement if he could for the
purpose of labouring on the tread-mill ;" an I the pri-
son inspectors in their last year's report stated that
persons separately confined " are obliged to work,
irons the irksomeness of idleness." The Rev. Mr.
Field, the chaplain of Reading gaol for 20 years, and
the highest authority on the subject, stated in a
book which he had written—" As a general
rule I assert with confidence that prisoners prefer the
hardest labour, even that under ordinary circum-
stances extremely irksome, to idleness which is con-
strained." Mr. M. D. Hill, the Recorder of Bir-
mingham, was of the same opinion; he said that the
punishment was extremely severe in itself without
any addition. And Mr. Baron Alderson, a most
enlightened and benevolent man, said, " It appears to
me that there will be no effectual reform in prison
discipline so long as the county gaols continue as at
present. What is wanted is this—we ought to have
county houses of detention for untried prisoners."
Most cordially did he agree with his Lordship's
sentiments, as he belived, with him, that
there never could be any effectual punishment
until they had powers of detention, such as he re-
commended, separate from the ordinary gaols.
Separate punishment fell far more severely on the
poor than on the rich, as the friends of the rich were
enabled to gather round him and to administer con-
solation to him, whereas the poor could not afford to
pay travelling expenses, or the expenses incidental to
an occasional stay in a country town for the pur-
pose of visiting their relations in confinement.
The rich man might surround himself with many
comforts which the poor man could not obtain. The
poor man more than the rich required communion
with his fellow-men, and from this he was entirely
debarred. The authorities to which he referred
showed that the punishment was a formidable refor-
matory one, and it might be said, if this was such a
reformatory kind of punishment, why not carry it
out to the utmost ? The answer to such a question
would be that they had no right to apply refor-
matory punishment to unconvicted persons. To act
upon the presumption that a party required referma-
tion was to act contrary to the whole presumption of
the common law as declared by the judges, and by all
the commentators upon the common law. The fun-
damental principle of that law was, that all persons
should be held to be innocent till they
were convicted. If the parties therefore were
untried there was not one of them but
might say they had no more business with their
reformation until they were convicted than they had
with his worrship who committed him upon suspi-
cion, and until the issue " not guilty " had
been tried, and his guilt pronounced, they had
no right whatever to apply to them
any penal reformatory punishment. There were,
however, exceptions to this rule. It was obvious
that very young persons ought not to be allowed
to associate with persons under the suspicion of having
committe .1 grave offences. The child was very dif-
ferent from the adult, the child had no civil rights
whatever with the exception of the right to protec-
tion. The State stood towards it in loco parentis,
and was bound to exercise the same rights and per-
form the same duties as were required of
the parent or other guardian of the child.
There was also a certain class of offences with respect
to which it was evident that it would be improper to
allow persons suspected to mix in the so•
ciety of ethers, and perhaps those who
had been already convicted of offences might
constitute another exception to the rule.
All these were, however, examples that could easily
be dealt with. It was the duty of the State to make
this portion of the punishment as light as
possible, and were it could not be mitigated
in severity, in point of discipline, it was
obviously necessary that the duration of the impri-
sonment should be shortened as much as possible.
To this end it was necessary to afford more frequent
opportunities to the prisoners to have their cases
heard and determined, by multiplying the times of
the various gaol deliveries throughout the country.
He rested this motion on these grounds, namely—that
this system was contrary to the principles of general
justice. The system pressed heavier upon the poor
than the rich, and while it interfered with the
undoubted right of an accused party to prepare his
defence without being subjected to the inspection of
his detainers, it drew no distinction between the
guilty and the innocent. Thanking the House for
the indulgence it had affOrded him in allowing him
to make this statement, he begged leave tc move the
resolution of which he had given notice.
Dr. BOWRING seconded the motion.
Sir G. GREY gave his Noble Friend due credit
for the motives which had induced him to make this
motion, but he could not at the same time concur
with him in the reasons he had just advanced in sup-
port of his motion. It was of the utmost importance
that the Act to which the Noble Lord had so often
alluded should be kept in force. The provision which
the Noble Lord sought to repeal was a most
valuable one. It had established one of the
most wholesome rules at present existing in
the system of prison discipline prevailing
in the country. He fully agreed with the Noble
Lord that, speaking generally, a distinction ought to
be drawn between an accused party and a convicted
criminal, but he could not go the length of the Noble
Lord in asserting that all accused parties, previous
to their conviction, ought to be placed upon
an equl footing. For instance, a party charged
with the wilful crime of murder ought
never to be allowed to intermix with
parties accused of lighter offences ; and here he must
take leave to say that the Noble Lord was in error in
supposing that the system of separate confinement,
which the 2d and 34 of Victoria established,
was opposed to the old common law of the country,
for it was a notorious fact, that from time im-
memorial, parties charged with heinous offences
had been kept separate from other prisoners while
they were awaiting their trials.—(Hear, hear.)
The whole object of subjecting untried prisoners to
separate imprisonment was for their good, and in
order to show the Noble Lord that the course he pro-
posed to pursue of repealing this statute was injudicious,
he would refer to even' documents, some of which
had been before the House. (The Right Honourable
Baronet then read extracts from the report of the
Committee of the house of Commons on Secondary
Punishments ; also the report of the Select Committee
in the House of Lords on the same subject ; the report
of Mr. Clay, the Chaplain of the House of Correction ;
and the report of M. Tocqueville to the Chamber of
Deputies 'n France, all of which spoke of the neces-
sity, for, the good of untried prisoners themselves,
of subjecting them to separate imprisonment.)