The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-03 00:00:00

sion than by a Committee. He was of a different opinion
A Commission worked in the dark, and the country felt
no satisfaction in reading the report. But a Committee
examined openly and fairly, and the public saw the
grounds of their derision. The Hon. Member concluded
by moving for the Committee.
Mr. WILLIAMS seconded the motion. There was
no subject of more importance than that. He was
alarmed at the intention of the Secretary of State to intro-
duce the solitary system before conviction. A more in-
human scheme he could not imagine. The Hon. Member
then read a letter from the Under-Secretary of State to
the Middlesex Magistrates, stating that Sir James
Graham wished arrangements to be made for the intro-
duction of the system of solitary confinement before con-
viction. In America the effect of this system had been
to produce idiotcy and insanity. Did the Right Hon.
Gentleman feel justified, as a Christian, in enforcing such
a system against those who might proved to be innocent?
The greatest delusion existed in reference to the cost of
prisoners confined under this system. He had shown,
some time since, that the cost of maintaining each
prisoner in Pentonville was not less than 401. a year.
The prison at Pentonville, which was sufficient to hold
500 prisoners, had already cost 870,000/., and the prisoners
there cost not less a sum than 481. 12s. yearly ; while
poor labourer in Suffolk, to keep himself, his wife, and
family, did not get more than 201. a year. Then, with
respect to Parkhurst prison in the Isle of Wight, that
had already cost this country 76,0001., and 5,0001. or
6,0001. was being spent upon it every year. He thought
a check ought to be put upon these things, and that the
Committee asked for by his Friend should be granted.
He would cheerfully second his motion.
Sir J. GRAIIAM said that it appeared to him rather
inconsistent that tho Hon. Member for Coventry should
second the motion of his Hon. Friend, considering that
they held such different opinions on the subject of prisons
and their discipline. His Hen. Friend, who had brought
forward the motion, thought the local magistrates should
retain their power, while the Hoe. Member for Coventry
designated them as an ignorant and malignant body.
The Hon. Member had fallen into several errors in the
statements he had made ; he had talked a good deal
about the solitary system—solitary confinement was un-
known in this country. There was what was called the
separate system, but that was as different as light and
dark from the solitary system. He thought, upon the
whole, that the system, as it now existed, was a good.
one. , Solitary confinement he considered to be indefen-
sible, as it often led to madness and idiotcy ; but sepa-
rate confinement, when the party was properly watched,
he believed to be the best system that could be adopted.
As to the statements that had been made by his Hon.
Friend who had brought forward the motion, that pri-
soners were not allowed to speak even to the gaoler, they
were totally without foundation ; the truth was, that the
prisoners spoke, if they chose, to u. or 10 persons in the
course of the day, and they were instructed by masters.
The separate system in England was combined with
what was called the factory system, and by means of
that system the prisoner was preserved from the risk of
contamination from intercourse, and from the effects of
total solitude. The Government had no intention of
forcing the separate system on the magistrates of Mid-
dlesex. All he wished to do was to give the magistrates
the best information in the power of the Government as
to the mode either of enlarging old prisonS or building
new ones, and that best mode he believed was to be
found in the construction of separate cells. But it must
not be imazined from that reason, that it was intended
also to force the separate system of discipline on pri-
soners. As to the motion of his Right lion. Friend, he
could not believe that at this period of the session it
would be advisable to appoint a Committee. That would
only have the effect of throwing confusion and uncer-
tainty into the subject. He hoped his Hon. Friend would
not press his motion ; but if he did, he trusted the
House would agree with him in not acceding to it.
Mr. WILLIAMS explained. He had not made any
charge against the magistrates as a body.
Mr. ESCOTT said, in the early part of the session he
had asked the Right Hon. Baronet to give his opinion
ns to the legality of applying the separate confinement
to prisoners before trial. He believed that the law
merely contemplated the security of the persons of pri-
soners, that they might be forthcoming on the day of
trial; they were not placed there for punishment. What
he wanted to know was this, where was the authority
for applying punishments to persons not proved guilty
of any offence? He should not go into any controversy
as to the various shades and degrees of punishment con-
tained in the various systems, the silent, or the separate;
he wanted to know where the Act of Parliament was to
he found that authorised magistrates in England in in-
flicting punishment on those who were merely placed in
prison for safe custody before trial. He had never heard
of any such statute on the book ; he should be glad to
hear if no such statute existed. But .if no such statute
existed there arose a much more serious question, for it
would then be the bounden duty of the House, in the ab-
sence of any law, to see that no such practice was
continued.

Sir J. GRAHAM said the General Prison Act gave
the magistrates the power of classifying prisoners; and
if that was desirable in any case, it was the most so
between convicted and unconvicted prisoners. The pri-
soners waiting their trial had separate sleeping cells, but
they were permitted an intercourse with others during
the day, which was not allowed to those who had been
convicted. He referred the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man to the 2d and 3d of Victoria, sec. 56.
Mr. WAI(LEY perfectly an-reed, with the lion. Mem-
ber opposite. He believed that when that Act was
passed it contemplated merely the personal security of
prisoners before their trial. He had been much struck
with what he had heard in one of the gaols in this
country two or three days ago. He found, on inqpiry,
that the lowest kind of diet was forced on prisoners in
that gaol on their remand ; they were not allowed any
animal food for the first fourteen days of their detention.
Now was that fair or just ? These men were merely
suspected of offences.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM—What gaol is that ?
Mr. WAKLEY—The New Prison, Cleikenwell. Had
he known this motion was coming on he would have
brought down the dietary of the prison. He had the
statement on the best authority ; the diet was gruel,
bread, and broth ; they had no meat till after fourteen
days. He was so struck with the circumstance that he
stated he would mention the subject in the House on the
first opportunity. He believed the Committee, at this
period of the session would be useless; but he hoped, from
the manner in which the subject was treated, that he
would not object to grant it at an early period of the next.
The subject was one of immense importance, and not
only ought they to inquire into the subject of prison
discipline, but into the manner in which persons in
authority exercised the power of commitment. He had
known cases of persons sentenced to hard labour when
suffering in the last stage of disease, and living only a
few days after their commitment. lie had known per-
sons who had been sent into the infirmary the day
they had been committed, and who in a week after
had expired. At the present moment, there were a
number of idiots in the House of Correction
who had been committed by police magistrates for
de-
manded a searching scrutiny. The Right Hon. Gentleman
had complained of the different views entertained by
various offences. These were matters which
the mover and seconder, on the subject of solitary and
separate confinement. The fact was, the solitary system
ought t 3 be known as the demoniacal system. Nothing
could he more atrocious or horrible, and when the
separate system made any
.advances towards the solitary,
it became objectionable in the highest degree. The
Right Hon. Baronet had alluded to the Pentonville
prison. He (Mr. Wakley) had originally entertained
the strongest objections to that system. He had opposed
the erection of it when it had been originally proposed,
and had used all his efforts to prevent its establishment,
because he considered that the system would produce
the most horrible effects on the prisoners confined
there. He had been called upon to exercise the
functions of his office in that gaol, and, knowing
the desire there was to ascertain what was going on there
he had gone a little beyond his duty, in ordt r to know
by
y the system on the prisoners.
surprising. The prisoners
the The effectsresult
badpr od it beenced
most
were brought before the jury ; ell persons in authority
in the gaol were ordered to leave the room ; the pri-
soners were informed that they need be under no fear of
consequences—that they need entertain no apprehen-
sion of any danger or inconvenience to themselves
from any communication which they might make, and it
was again and again intimated to them in the broadest
manner, that no person in connexion with the gaol was in
the room. They were questioned as to how they were situ-
ated, and asked if they preferred the discipline of that
gaol over any other? Every prisoner examined gave his
most unqualified approval of the Pentonville over every
other gaol. They all stated that the diet was ample,
and that the education they received, and the trades
they were taught, were of the greatest service to them,
and afforded them amusement. They were asked if, on
suffering separate confinement, they found the solitude
annoying to them? The reply was, not in the slightest
degree. They were asked if they had any complaint to
make against anything
they found in the gaol? and the
answer was, they had not one complaint to make. These
results had astonished him, and, having previously ex-
pressed himself as hostile to the system, he thought it
but right to state these extraordinary results of his ex-
perience to the House.—.(Hear.) No doubt separate
confinement had the effect of depressing the spirits, and
he thought he had noticed something of that sort in the
manner of those prisoners; but they all spoke most
gratefully of the treatment which they had received, and
seemed much rejoiced at the idea of going to the colonies
on tickets of leave, and gaining an honest livelihood as
respectable persons there. He could easily believe that
they would be buoyed up by the hope of bettering their
condition, and he hoped that the Right Hon. Baronet
might be induced to shorten the period of con-
finement from eighteen to twelve months, if he
found that period sufficient for the correction of
their moral character. Thera had been three cases of
lunacy removed from Pentonville to Bedlam. He did
not believe that either of those cases had been produced
by the discipline of the gaol, and in two instances it
had been proved that there had been an hereditary pre-
disposition to the disease. He thought it his duty to
make these statements to the House, as he had origi-
nally opposed the institution of that prison.
Mr. MACKINNON replied. He would not press the
motion to a division.
Mr. COLLETT, on behalf of Viscount Ingestre,
postponed the consideration of the petition of Captain
Dickenson respecting the ship Thetis.
The motion was withdrawn.
Captain POLHILL moved for leave to bring in a Bill
to exempt from payment of the stamp duties all policies
of insurance made for protection against loss of growing
crops, &c.,
But the SPEAKER having ruled that, in the first in-
stance, notice of the motion should be given ; and, in the
second, that it could only be made in a Committee of the
House on the Stamp Act, the motion fell to the ground.
Mr. MILNES' motion to call the attentidn of the
House to the papers lately presented respecting the trial
of a Maltese at Tunis, for murder, was postponed in con-
sequence of tho absence of Sir Robert Peel.