The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-02 00:00:00

system, would institute an inquiry into its merits
and demerits. He had trespassed on the attention of
the House longer than perhaps he ought, but he
had such a body of evidence, and so many. complaints on the
subject, that he did not know where to begin or where to end,
and he feared he had not said enough to induce the House to
agree to his motion.—(lean ) He trusted lie might suc-
ceed in inducing the House to grant him a Committee of In-
quiry, but whether he succeeded or no in impressing on the
House the necessity of inquiry into the present system, and
showing that the cruelty with which it was attended ought to
be redressed, he was at least satisfied that they would have
ample consolation in having engaged to take into their con-
sideration a subject of such importance and such humanity.—
(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving fur a •
Select Committee to inquire into the rules, regulations, and
discipline of the several Gaols and Houses of Correction 'in.
England and Wales; to report what alterations appear to be
necessary in the laws now in force for the government of
Prisons, in order to insure a more uniform system of discipline
throughout the whole ; and further, to report upon the expe-
diency of abolishing the infliction of corporal punishment upon
criminal offenders.
On the motion being put,
Sir J. GRAHAM said he gave the Hon. Gentleman wise.
had just sat down, every credit for the humane motives which
induced him to make thei present motion, and for the calm and
temperate manner in which he brought it forward. He most
cordially agreed is the sentiment with which he opened his ad-
dress, that this was not a party question, nor one which should
be considered in such light.--( Hear. ) And looking upon it
without any such feelings, he must declare to the House that he
was opposed to the appointment of a Committee. • He was glad
to see the Noble Lord, the Member for London, in his plate.
because he had devoted great attention to the subject, and had
rendered considerable service to the Government by the attest-
tion•he devoted to it. By the Act Of 1835 inspectors were ap-
pointed, and he (Sir James Graham) having an official
intercourse with the persons appointed to discharge
the important duties of that office, could state that
it was impossible for a more judicious selection to be made
than the gentlemen who were appointed.---( Hear, hear.) He
would now point out the course of proceeding under the Act
of 1835. Four times in every year every gaol and house of
correction was visited by responsible officers of Government;`
: nd reports of . a confidential nature were made to the Secre- .
tary of State. Every year, moreover, a full report was pre-
pared by each inspector, in reference to each gaol and house of
correction, giving details of everything discovered contrary to
the Act of Parliament, and these reports were laid on the
tableof both Houses of Parliament. What was the consequence
.of such a practice ? It was . that the utmost publicity was
given to everything connected with the gaols and houses of
correction ; and light was not only thrown upon their working.
but the greatest publicity was given, and discussion, if news.,
vary, ensued.—( Hear, hear.) The House should recollect
that, in consequence of that publicity, a check existed upon the
proceedings that might arise within the prison walls.
The consequence of the absence of direct enactment was the '
want of uniformity in the proceedings of these gaols. The
Noble Lord opposite, when he was Secretary of State, with
infinite care, assiduity, and labour, framed one general mode of
regulation, which, after consulting the prison inspectors, he
thought on the whole would be most conducive to the good re-
gulation of the gaols throughout the kingdom; and he must •
say he thought the course adopted by the Noble Lord in eon
formity with the decision of the Legislature, was that which
was most expedient and practicable. The Noble Lord as .---
Secretary of State, recommended the adoption of certain regu-
lations, though he had no power to enforce them; and even
where those regulations had not been entirely adopted they
had been adopted to a great extent. A most salutary power
had been given to the Secretary of State with reference to
prison regulations ; for though be had not the power of en-
forcing regulations, but could only recommend them for adop-
tion, the power of recommending had been combined with the
exercise of a veto in cases where the recommendation was not
adopted, and this double power had had the effect of produeing
much greater uniformity than exeisted under the old system.
He would state to the House, the counties in which the regu-
lations which had been recommended were adopted. They
were adopted in Bedford, Cornwall, Carnarvon, Cardigan,
Chester, Gloucester, Hants, Hereford, Lancaster, Leicester, •
Lincoln, Nottingham, Kent, Middlesex, Norfolk, Oxford.
Somerset, Pembroke, Salop, Surrey, Suffolk, Wilts, and
Yorkshire. In all these countries the code recom-
mended by the Secretary of State had been adopted
without variation. Now, that was a great approximation
to uniformity.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman
had dwelt upon the state of crime for the last ten years. He bad •
'before him, as the result of a regulation made by the Noble
I Lord opposite at the Home-office, a valuable register of the
number of persons committed for trial. He would state to the
House the number of committals for trial before 1835, when
the improved discipline commenced under the Act to which he
had already referred, and which had been followed up by subse-
quent enactments introduced by the Noble Lord opposite. The •
number of persons committed for trial in the year 1830 was
18,657, or one in every 744 of the population. The number
committed for trial in -1840 was 27,187, or one in every 580 of
the population, showing an increase of 45 per cent. The
Honourable Gentleman, in order to make out his statement et
that crime in the course of the last ten years had increased 600 ,1
per cent. had included summary convictions in his calculation, 0
bat he (Sir J. Graham) had purposely omitted them, because . '
the commitments for trial included all crimes of any magni- '''
tude, and afforded a much more certain base on which to calm-
late the comparative increase or diminution of crime, and from '
that it appeared that the increase within the last ten years had
been 45 per cent., and not 600 per cent., as had been repro= i
sented by the Hon. Gentleman. He now wished to direct the
attention of the House to what had been the practical effects of
the recent improvements in prison discipline. In 1835 the
number of commitments for trial amounted to 27,731, while in
1840 they amounted to 37,187; so that, although there had
been an increase of 45 per cent. upon the period of ten years,
yet during the last five years there had been a reduction from
45 per cent. 'to 30 per cent. He regretted as much as any
man could the increase of crime ; he admitted it, and he re-
gretted it, but at the same time he thought it was more appa-
reut than real. He attributed this increase to several causes ;
first, to the increase of population, our population having, during -:
the last ten years increased 14 per cent ; in the next place. •
to the increased. efficiency of our policees tablishments. It -'
was beyond a doubt that there were a large number
of crimes which formerly', were committed with impunity
in consequence of the difficulty of detection, the perpetratons'
of which were now frequently discovered and brought, to ''
punishment, in consequence of the increased eatoieenY- of our
police force. Those persons were now frequently detected.--
.:
commitment followed detection, and conviction followed coo" '
mitment, much snore frequently than formerly. This he at--
7
tributed to the salutary effect produced by the mitigation 01
our criminal code, in consequence of which there els no ,114
longer that unwillingness, on the part of parties injured, to "..
prosecute, nor on the part of Juries to convict, for now they
felt assured that the prisoner would receive a proper punish-
ment, and no more than a proper one ; and he rejoiced at the
salutary effect thus produced by the mitigation of our criminal
code. Another alteration, which had been introduced, some
years since, by his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Tam-
worth, by which one half of the expense of the prosecution was,
in all cases, defrayed out of the public purse, had likewise ten-
ded materially to increase the number of prosecutions. These
were the reasons why there had been an apparent increase or
crime within the last ten years. The Hon. Gentleman "
had referred to the want of education as one of the
causes of increase of crime. No man deplored the ignorance ,
of the great mass of the population more than he (Sir lunge :
Graham) did. With reference to the public morals,, with rem ,i
ference to the public safety, no man could be more strongly.
convinced than he was of the absolute necessity for the diffu-
sion of education among all classes of the community ; and, in
any measure which it might be his duty to bring forward
,in
reference to the condition of the pauper population, he should
consider it his duty not to lose sight of that very important
subject. It would be impossible for him to follow the Right
Hon. Gentleman into all the cafes to which he had referred-
He thought, therefore, that it would be most desirable that
he shoUld, with the permission of the House' point out the
general course, both of the Legislature and the Executive Go
vernment, upon that important subject. He would not at-
tempt to say that some abuses had not taken place, as pointed
out by the Honourable Gentleman; but he was quite certain
that those abuses were in course of gradual diminution; that
effective checks were now applied to them ; and that if the
Legislature would but steadily adhere to the course pursued
within the last six or seven years of progressive legislation,
coupled with the constant check of the executive authoritiette
they would arrive at the most desirable result, an ultimate
uniformity of system, and a really effective and well regulated
discipline. He should observe that the cases to which the .
Hon. Gentleman had referred, had taken place two years age,
and were cases referred to in the fourth Report of the prison
inspectors. But ahuses had since been of much Tess frequent
occurrence, in consequence of the superintendence of the
prison inspectors, and the constant vigilance of the Secretary
of State for the Home Department. He did not in ;raking
that statement, mean to take any credit to himself. He bad -
been but a short time in office, and he should say. .
that the inquiry he had made into the matter only taught him
that upon the present subject be had nothing to do but steadily
to adhere to the line taken by his predecessors.—(Hear,
hear.) In September last, immediately after he had some
into office, the sixth annual Report of the Prisons' Inspectors
had been published. The Hon. Gentleman opposite, the
Member for Lambeth, who had taken much interest in the
subject, had called upon him on that occasion, and pointed out .
some improvements in the manner of dealing with the re-
ports of the inspectors; and upon the suggestions of the Hon.
Gentleman he (Sir J. Graham) had acted.. The reports
were very voluminous; and he had called upon the inspectors
to subdivide their report into three parts ; first, they were to
point out any matters to which the Secretary of State should '
'devote his particular attention ; next, they were to
indicate' any matters within his control, upon which.
in their opinion, he ought to remonstrate forthwith e .
with the Magistrates; and thirdly, they were to point
out any matters which, in their opinion required further
legislative interference. They had at once, with great ability '
and promptitude, acted upon these suggestions. He had after-
wards written to the Magistrates, and pointed out to them the
statements of the Inspectors ; the Magistrates made a very
large and free admission of several irregularities, and in no
case was there a refusal, on their part, to adopt the recom
mendation suggested to them. They stated, however, that
they were unable to carry out at once all that was desired of
them upon the subject of prison discipline. A very important
portion of the improvement in discipline rested upon the adop-
tion of tjie separate system of confinement. Now, the Hon.
Gentleman opposite appeared, in a good deal of what he, had
said, to have confounded the separate system with the solitary
system. The solitary system was no doubt open to very great
abuses, and required the utmost discretion in its application.--
(Hear, hear.) He agreed with the Hon. Gentleman that the
solitary system, if pushed to excess, coupling low diet with
close confinement, might operate most prejudicially, or most
dangerously, upon many temperaments ; and he was not pre-
pared to vindicate its adoption by a square rule, without all
reference to particular subjects •, and he was sure that the,Le- .
gislature had not considered the matter in such ' a light. •
The Legislature had decided that in no case should solitary . '''„
confinement be inflicted for more than one month at a time, . .
and that the same person should not be subjected to it for
raore than three months in the space of a year. The lion' ~
Gentleman had stated that at Ipswich the surgeon had never
,_,
visited parties undergoing the punishment in question. Now
that was clearly a violation of the law at which he (Sir Jaw's
Graham) could not but feel surprised. The law provided
or that
solitary confinement was inflicted, the governorwas ,
llatt
, -
a,
chaplain should visit the prisoner once a day. But be ! e
about to point out the difference between separate confinement
circulara nil tli e
lesottleitar,rsyyrsitstetenmby litheeh-e-Nidoiblehi
London, in which the distinction between the two puntahment ,
was plainly and clearly pointed out ; of that letter he would „i
s hand
Lord, a
the m ots
ft
ember admirable
fors
be taken when the system was put into operation not to ea?!
read one nr two sentences. It stated that " great care shoould. •,e,,
found separate with solitary imprisonment. It was generally
understood that solitary imprisoament implied confinement T_°,,
gloomy and narrow cell, without any occupation, and an ale'
of bread and water only. Separate imprisonment, o
,t,t,. .
other hand, implied confinement in a large, ,atar_Y,
~,
lighted, well warmed, and well ventilated cell, with nioral. an
.0
religious instruction, and regular employment, and the (TY. N
visits of the chaplain." Now, it wag necessary to erect
,srt
tr stem . .
rate-cells in th different prisons, in order to carry each
ec they
into operation; and the Magistrates wished that befor 'ofus .
had incurred such an expense they should have some pr
,1°
eer
experience of the operation of these systems. An fl,4l'''ber
had been appointed by the Noble Lord the pac *
orks. of
for London to superintend the erection of . W
entry.
any kind in. the different gaols of the C
Ho gave them a plan gratuitously, the result of his experience P