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

rection the allowance was only 224 ounces of bread and eight
ousices of cheese, and three pints of gruel per week. In some
other; prisons Abe diet was much better. Take Worcester for
example, where, though the labour was hard, the diet was
'very good—there the allowance was 172 ounces of bread, 24
ounces of meat, 2lbs. of potatoes, four pints of soup, 14 pints of
gruel, and 11b. of suet-pudding, per man per week. If the
diet at Bedford were right the diet at Worcester must be
wrong.—( Hear' hear.) The diet at Aylesbury was very low,
and a complaint had been made relative to the treatment of
females with children at the breast. The inspector stated
that when a woman went in with a child'at the breast she had
no more than the ordinary allowance, out of which she had to
support herself and infant. The females in these prisons were
subject to the most severe privations; and the quantity of diet
was extremely small. The Hon. Gentleman then referred to
a statement or the quantity and nature of diet given to female
prisoners in the Coldbath-fields prison. But it might be said
that the surgeon had a power to increase the quantity of food.
Why the surgeon had always that power—but why was not a
regular rule adopted for individuals in such circumstances. In
the inspector's report it was stated that though a small quan-
tity of food might not be immediately injurious, yet it would
operate slowly, and come against the individual at some remote
period of time. He would now call the attention of the
House to the prison discipline of theaUnited States, and there
they would find a much better system in operation. In the
Eastern Penitentiary the prisoner had a pint of coffee and
three-quarters of a pound of bread for breakfast, for dinner
he had meat and soup, and for supper he had Indian corn and
molasses. The same, or as good a system prevailed
in the other prisons of the Union.—( Hear, hear.) If the
House were to introduce the American system, he hoped
that a better dietary than the present should he also intro-
duced. There was likewise not only a want of uniformity in
labour and diet, but there was also a great want of uniformity
with regard to the religious instruction which should be
afforded to the inmates of prisons in this country, and he
thought also that the power which the gaolers possessed, and
the manner in which they used it, was most objectionable. He
had got statements here in the House from individuals who had
suffered greatly in consequence of the arbitrary and cruel con-
duct of gaolers. In one instance, with the particulars of which
he (Mr. Duncombe) had been furnished, a boy was put into a
refractory cell in the depth of winter for quarelling with an-
other boy—he was kept there for three days without fire, and
with nothing on him but a rug—at the end of that time he
had actually lost two of his toes from the excessive cold he had
suffered, and he ultimately became a cripple for life.—( Hear,
hear.) All that punishment was inflicted for a very trifling
offence indeed.
An Host. MEMBER on the Ministerial benches—What is the
name ?
Mr. DUNCOMBE said the name was William Griffith; the
boy had suffered so much that he was not able to be tried'
when the Court sat, and the result was that he was kept in
prison for three months longer than he should have been kept,
in order that he might be sufficiently recovered to be taken
from the cell to the place of trial. There were several other
instances of equal hardship in other prisons—there was the case
of John Riley, who was confined in the Wakefield House of
Correction. The fact had already been represented to Lord.
Normanby. It appeared that when the prisoners were in the
yards at work, they were not allowed to turn their heads to the
right or to the left—much less to speak. However, to that he
( Mr. Duncombe) did not object, as the silent system was ap-
proved of. This man Riley was affected with asthma. He
was told when in the yard that he was not to move or turn his
head, nor yet to expectorate. Now, as Riley was affected with
asthma, it was necessary for him to expectorate. He was not
allowed to expectorate for twelve weeks ; arid the consequence
was that his throat and chest swelled in such a manner that his
life was despaired of.—( Hear, hear.) When the case was first
related to him (Mr. T. Duncombe), he almost felt inclined to
doubt whether it could be true. He laid the case before the
Marquis of Normanby. The Home-office instituted an inquiry,
and Lord Nermanby directed, if the allegatiors should turn
out to be correct, that the prisoner should be imme-
diately released. He (Mr. T. Duncombe) at the same
time, wrote to a gentleman, living in the neighbourhood of
Wakefield, to inquire if this could possibly be, true. The next
post brought the man's release. What had been stated in rela-
tion to this poor man was but too true. The gentleman to
whom he (Mr. T. Duncombe) had written, replied that the
statement was true, that the man had been prevented from ex-
pectorating for twelve weeks—that since his release, as he was
enabled to expectorate, his health had been better, but that
the swelling in the throat still continued, and that it would be
a long time before he recovered from the effects of the torture
he had undergone in the Wakefield House of Correction.—
( Hear, hear.) Now, with regard to the spiritual instruction of
the prisoners. He would relate to the House what was the
practice in the prison at Salford; and his Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Salford was ready to corroborate his statement. It ap-
peared that there were 131 Roman Catholics among the pri-
soners in that prison. The Visiting Magistrates had made re-
gulations which at first sight appeared well calculated to secure
to the Roman Catholic prisoners the right of seeing their priests,
and receiving spiritual consolation from them, but these regula-
tions were rendered of no effect by the conduct of the officers of
the prison. It was with great regret that he (Mr. T. D.)
said anything that could be considered as casting any reflec-
tion on the chaplain of that prison ; but it seemed that that
Rev. Gentlemen was actuated by hostile feelings to the Ro-
man Catholics—in fact, his feelings almost amounted to per-
sonal antipathy to persons of that religion. It seemed that
the Rev. Gentleman was in the habit of preaching contro-
versial sermons in the chapel of the prison—sermons in-
tended, not only to show the superiority of the Protes.
tant over the Roman Catholic faith, but holding out indi-
viduals professing the Roman Catholic ;religion as persons
to be avoided ; and there was one instance of a prisoner, a
Protestant, saying to the turnkey, at the conclusion of one of
these controversial discourses, "Do ask the chaplain to
preach that sermon over again, for it makes our Roman Ca-
tholic fellow-prisoners as mad as blazes."—( Hear, hear, and
a laugh.) Now he (Mr. Duncombe) would ask if that were
the way to administer spiritual instruction ? And was it pos-
sible to anticipate any reformation from such bigotry and in-
tolerance ? The Reverend Mr. .111‘Carthy, who made those
statements, added that no Roman Catholic priests were ad-
mitted to see the prisoners in the prison in question. They bad
repeatedly made a request to that effect of the Governor to the gaol,
to the turnkey and to the chaplain, but in only two cases had
they succeeded ; and they were then told that they should not
have had access to the prisoners, were it not that they had said
that they wanted to consult their clergyman as to their de-
fence. In his opinion no governor or chaplain should be en-
trusted with the power which had been thus abused. There
was another subject, and it was one of a most painful nature, to
which he wished to call the attention of the House—he meant
the infliction of corporal punishment.upon criminal offenders.
He thought that if he could succeed in obtaining a Committee
that would be a proper subject for its inquiry. He did not
ask the House to express an opinion as to the expediency of
abolishing corporal punishment altogether; be only asked them
to institute an inquiry into the subject. He believed that
most persons admitted that that was a. description of pu-
nishment which ought never be inflicted upon adults ;
while all practical men of the highest authority were in favour
of its complete abolition. Perhaps the House was not aware of
the number of eases in which corporal punishment had been
inflicted of late years. In the year 1838 there had been 939
of these cases; in the year 1839 there had been 1,026 cases;
and in the year 1840—the last year for which there had been
any returns—the number of cases amounted to 1,207. It
appeared, however, that in the year 1828 there were but 222
cases of' corporal punishment; in 1829 there had been 336
cases; and in 1830 there had been 384 cases, making for those
three years only 942 cases, which was less than the number in
the single year 1840. It appeared from the report of Inspector
Williams, that in some prisons a scourge was used similar to
that used in the army ; in others it was a scourge similar to
that used in the navy ; in others, it was a simple rod ; but he
had in some prisons found scourges of a very improper descrip-
tion. In Swaffham, where the handle" of the scourge
consisted of whalebone, the keeper himself inflicted the
punishment. the number of lashes was not specified, but
the sentence was, that the person "should be whipped until
his back was blooded." No medical man was in attendance.
Now wills regard to that case at Salford, where an individual
had been taken out of his bed and lashed. On June 2d, he was
taken out of his bed and his sentence carried into effect, pre-
vious to his discharge the next morning. Could it be right to
keep a prisoner thus in suspense ? Instead of going to bed re-
joicing in the expectation of being released on the following
morning, he thinks only of the punishment he is to undergo
previous to quitting his place of confinement. Could he leave
the prison with any other feeling but revenge ? If he (Mr.
Duncombe) were to take the opinions of those who were deeply
and well acquainted with these matters, he should take the opi-
nion of the Chaplain of the Devizes House of Correction, as de-
livered in his report to the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions.
In that report he commenced by saying that he trusted he should
not be considered out of order, or as going beyond his duty,
when he stated his belief that the punishment awarded to discharge
confinement was
prisoner's msoonsetrs persesevoiriasilyto
btande;ir
confine-
ment, he might perhaps have been • made aware of
the sin and folly of his former course, and his heart
might have been softened ; but previous to his leaving the
prison, his flesh must be torn and lacerated by the lash. The
report went onto state that the writer had many times noticed
the countenances of the people to be cast down and dejected
for some days previous to their dismissal, and all his efforts to
reels' them to a conviction of their duties had bean ineffectual,
and the man leaves the prisons degraded and a hardened sin-
ner. The report concluded by expressing the greatest horror
at all corporal punishments. There was only more instance
with which he should trouble the House on this part
of his address. It took place in- the gaol of Lan-
caster, for insubordination, and breach of prison discipline.
The case was as follows :—The prisoner objected to 'his hod,
and called on the gaoler to send for one of the Visiting Magis-
trates. This the gaoler did not do, and paid no attention to
his complaint; the prisoner said he would not be locked up
unless his food was improved, or a Visiting Magistrate was sent
for; great confusion took place in the prison, in consequence
of which the Visiting Magistrate arrived the next day; the
' gaoler reported the case of the prisoner, and he was sentenced
to receive twelve dozen lashes on his bare back. Then came
that account of the punishment. He was punished in the in-
specting-room, in the presence of all the prisoners of the ward.
Previous to the day fixed for the punishment the chaplain had
been conversing with . the prisoners, requesting them to
act with propriety during the, ceremony of which they
were about to he the painful spectators. When the
culprit was brought forth, and the prisoners ranged
round the room, the most perfect order and tran-
quillity prevailed, every eye was intently fixed upon the
unfortunate culprit, and tears were observed to course down
the cheeks of many of the beholders. It was said that such
punishment- was inflicted for the benefit of the Crown pri-
soners, but he would ask whether such scenes were to be per..
mated, or whether they were likely to be causes of reforma-
tion?.—( Hear, hear.) He had a return from Warwickshire of
persons confined in the Houses of Correction there, from the
age of twenty years and upwards, and from the 'lst of Fe-
bruary, 1840, to the Ist of February, 1842. By that return
he found seven persons were flogged in Warwick Castle, five
in Warwick gaol, of whom four had been sentenced by a Re-
verend Gentleman. He would ask if it were right that a
single Blagistrate, and he a minister of the Gospel, should have
the power to order such punishment ? If a Committee were
appointed he would like that that gentleman should be' exa-
mined as to the motives that inducedhim to award such punish-
ment.—(Hear, hear.) No doubt he had reasons, and he might
convince him (Mr. D.) of the utility of corporal punish-
ment ; but until he heard such reasons 'he would consider
that so brutalising a system should be abolished.—( Hear. )
He now begged to refer to the principle of solitary confine-
ment, and he found that system recommended by two of the
Inspectors, and condemned by the third. It was recommended
by Inspectors Crawford and Russell, and condemned by Mr.
Williams, and he (Mr. Duncombe) thought that, however
well it might look, the system of solitary confinement was one
that wouldnot be acceptable to the people of this country.
(Hear, hear.) There was a model prison in the Milbank Pe-
netentiary for the purpose of carrying out the principle of soli-
tary confinement, but the result was, that they were obliged to
relax the regulations, in consequence of eight persons being.
attacked with insanity. That model was erected upon the
principle of that which existed in Philadelphia, in the United
States ; but the Report of the Commission instituted by the
Legislature of Lower Canada in 1836, to investigate the diffe-
rent system 3 in operation there, decided against the system
pursued in Philadelphia. The Hon. Gentleman then quoted
the opinion of Dr. Parsons, who stated that, though in many
of the cases the prisoners might be predisposed to insanity, yet
the cases were too numerous to justify him in saying that all
whO were attacked had been .predisposed to it. The Hon.
Gentleman then referred to the testimony of Captain Hall
against the system of solitary' confinement. He trusted that
her Majesty's Government, before they decided on such a