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

thht he was about to bring under their notice was one that
had excited much' attentio,n in consequence of those re-
ports Which had been made during the last five years by
those individuals who were appointed by the late Govern-
ment, under the authority of Parliament, as Inspectors of
Prisons. He wished not to say one word against those
Reports ; ho thought they were drawn up with an accu-
racy and an ability which did the greatest credit to those
individuals. But there was another reason why this sub-
ject excited so great an interest in the country ; during
the last two or three years the House would recollect
that some 300 or 400 persons had been confined in our
prisons for what they called political offences. They were
a different race of men from those who generally
filled our prisons and houses of correction; They were
men of more intelligence and great ability ; they had
seen, felt, and witnessed the deplorable scenes which
occurred in many of our prisons ; they had called
the attention of a great portion of the com-
munity to what they saw, and they insisted
on a strict and rigid investigation into the government
of those prisons. He (Mr. Duncombe) should be doing
the present Legislature great injustice, and former
governments great injustice, and to the parties great
injustice, if he were not to say that great improve-
ment had been made in our prison discipline
during the last twenty years. When he looked back to
those days when such great philanthropists as Mr.
Howard exerted themselves ; when he looked back to
those days when every sort of disease reigned in those
prisons, and terminated the lives of the inmates
in greater numbers than on the scaffold; and when he looked
at the small number of kath which now occurred, he
had a right to think that a great improvement had taken
place in the government of prisons. For the Committee
for which he was about to ask there were precedents
without end. In 1822 a Committee was appointed in con-
sequence of great complaints of the administration of the
law ; the result of which was, the passing of what was
called the Gaol Act, which introduced great improve-
ments in prison discipline. In 1832 the House thought
proper to appoint another Committee to inquire into the
state of the prison discipline of that time ; that Commit-
tee reported that a greater uniformity of discipline should
be carried out in the whole of the prisons of the country
Nothing ever was done on that point ; but, in 1835, a
Committee was appointed by. the House of Lords, and
that Committee came to the following resolu-
tion : " That it is expedient that one uni-
form system of prison discipline be established
in all the gaols and houses of correction in Eng-
land and Wales, and that it is expedient in order to
the carrying out of this, that the plan proposed be sub-
mitted to the Secretary of State for his approval."
The importance of this question arose principally from
the great increase of crime which had taken place
within the last ten years in this country. Surely her
Majesty's Ministers were well aware of the amount of
that crime ; but he (Mr. Duncombe) did not believe that
the House or the public were aware of the extent
of that crime ; and therefore he would, with the
permission of the House, repeat what the Reports of
the Select Committees upon Prisons had stated. By
the Report of the Committee in 1832, it appeared
that the commitments for the seven years from
1817 to 1824, in one particUlar prison were 56,308,
averaging 8,044 per annum. For the seven years suc-
ceeding 1824, the commitments amounted to 92,848,
averaging 13,264 per annum ; and in the seven years
ending 1831, the number increased to 121,000,
averaging 17,285 per annum. He then referred to the
Reports of the Inspectors of Prisons for 1838, 1839, and
1840 ; in 1838 the House should remember that for the
seven years, preiioug to 1831, the committals
were 121,918 ; in 1838, they were 112,515 ;
in 1839, 112,812, being only. a difference of 297
between 1838 and 1839 ; in 1840, which was
the last Report 'laid before. the House, the number
amounted to 129,237, being 16,722, over
1838, and over 1831, 10 years preceding, at the
rate of 600 or 700 per cent. per annum ; surely that was
an alarming state of crime for the country to he in. It
was increasing every day, and it must certainly be worthy
of the consideration of Parliament.—(Hear). With that
increase of crime of course there was a proportionate
increase of expense ; the expenses, as appeared by the last
return for 1840, were 64,4071. more than for 1838.
What was the reason for this vast increase of crime ?
It had been. attributed to various causes, but he was
inclined to attribute it, in the first place, to a general
want of education ; in the next place, to the want of
employment which produced great poverty and distress,
and forced the sufferers into the commission of crime, and
in some fewinstances to the vice and intemperance of the
persons theinselves who had been committed to prison.
The general want of education was proved 'by
the returns made by the Registrars of Births,
Marriages, and Deaths.—(Hear.) From those re-
turns it appeared that 131,000 marriages had been
contracted last year, and that of the persons mar-
ried, 40,500 males, and 58,999 females could not write.
It was rather a remarkable fact, that the inhabitants
of Lancashire and Wales were the best educated,
and that in Devonshire 55 per cent. of the males, and 66
per cent. of the females were unable to sign their names.
That want of education was one great cause of the increase
in the criminal population was proved from the returns of
the commitments. Out of the whole number of persons
committed ih the year 1840, amounting, as he had be-
fore' stated, 'to 129,000 persons, 35,552 could neither
read nor write, and of the 60,000 persons summarily
convicted in the same period, 26,338 could neither
read nor *rite, 13,344 could read only, and 21,000
could writis but very imperfectly. Many of
these persdns had been committed under the
provisions df the Vagrant Act, and there was
one offence for which, in his opinion, if the House did
its duty,' persons ought never to be committed to pri-
son—he' alluded to the offence of insubordination in
a workhouse, and many persons committed for the offence
of insubordination in a workhouse had, when in prison,
been treated in a most severe, cruel, and brutal manner.
(Hear, hear, hear.) ' The offence itself was a very
venial one; and from the Commissioners' Reports it ap-
peared that many of the persons committed had been
treated with the utmost severity. At Ipswich it appeared
that one mats, convicted of misconduct in a workhouse,
had been shtit I.lp in a refractory cell for a fortnight.
The Ron. Gentleman next referred to the severity of the
treatment of several children in Salford Gaol (as we un-
derstood) wbo suffered solitary confinement, and received
but the scantiest supply of food. The Magistrate who had
committed the parties—he did not know who he was—
took care that their friends should not visit these unfortu-
nate persons; and he should certainly say that the powers
given by the Act of Parliament had been violated in
these cases. The name of the Magistrate
should be given in order that if his con-
duct could not be justified, he might be held
up to merited reprobation. He' would next refer
to a most interesting report made by the Chaplain
of the Lewes House of Correction. That Gentle-
man had taken very great pains to ascertain
the descent and origin of those persons who inhabited
the gaol in question. He said that the result of his in-
vestigations convinced him that those parties were objects
rather of compassion than subjects for judicial regulations.
He found that out of 949 felons and vagrants, 57 were
children of paupers ; 28 Were illegitimate ; 232 were or-
phans under nine years of age ; 133 were or-
phans between nine and sixteen years old ; and
27 had been deserted both by father and mother.
Those children should not be made inmates of gaols,
where they were exposed to constant contamination.
If they took Capt.' Williams' report, they would
not be surprised at the great extent to which
crime prevailed in Manchester. He stated
that in walking through Manchester, he found
the public-houses 'open at a quarter past one in the
morning, and they were only closed on the appearance
of the police. They were crowded with men and women ;
many of the latter had infants in their arms.
On descending into a cellar he vests struck by
what appeared to him the unusual sight of 'the. room
being papered, but on holding a lantern to the wall he
discovered that it was covered with an innumerable
quantity of bugs, which presented the appear-
ance of paper. Such was the 'state of the
manufacturing districts ; the case ' was equally
bad in the rural districts. Let them look to
Cambridge, the seat of all that was orthodox and of
all that was learned. It was a disgrace to the country
that there should be a gaol in that town in
the condition in which it was described by the in-
spectors. He knew that there was a Chancery suit
pending, but though that might be a good reason for
closing the doors, it was no excuse for the state in
which the prison was actually found. The Uni-
versity made no provision for the religieus instruc-
tion of the inmates. A clergyman of King's Col-
lege had• formerly attended, but had discontinued for
private reasons, since which no religious service had been
performed. There was no efficient discipline observed,
The prisoners passed much of their time over the fire,
engaged in obscene talk. One striking fact was, that ac
cording to the return for 1834,there were three commit

merits Eor each individual. The only provision which this
University had made consisted of religious tracts. These
statements were contained in the inspectors' reports. He
thought that, if true, they proved the necessity which there
was for inquiry. They proved that there was no uniform
system in the discipline and management .of the prisons, and
that the recommendations of the House of Commons, in 1835,
had been in no respect attended to. It was impossible that
there should be uniformity under the present system. Under
that system the Visiting Magistrates had the power of drawing
up certain rules ; those rules were submitted to the Secretary
of State for his approbation, and different sets of rules were
. _

approved for different parts of the country. He did not blame
either the Secretary of State or the Magistrates, but he blamed
the Legislature, who allowed such a system to be pursued.
He blamed that House, who did not grapple with the difficulty,
and lay down one general rule to be observed throughout all
the prisons in the country. He believed that such a rule would
be of great advantage both to the ends of justice and to the
prisoners themselves. It was totally impossible, at present,
that any Judge, in passing a sentence upon a prisoner, could
know precisely what amount of punishment that prisoner would
undergo. There was, in fact, a total want of uniformity, both
with regard to labour and diet. When an individual was put
to the treadmill, the amount of labour which he performed
must depend upon the number of hours, the height of the step,
and the rap:dity of the rotation of the wheel. But if one in-
dividual was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard
labour in Devonshire, and another received a similar sentence
in Northumberland, there would be a great inequality in the
punishment inflicted by the two sentences.—( Hear, hear.) In
Exeter a prisoner was kept at the wheel for eight hours and a
half; the height of the step was eight inches, the number of
steps taken in a minute was twenty-four, snaking altogether an
ascent of 3,120 feet by that individual. In Newcastle-upon-
Tyne the number of hours was six, the height of the step was
ten inches, the number of the steps in the minute fifty-two,
and the prisoner performed altogether an ascent of 13,066 feet.
In Worcester, instead of being six hours atthe wheel, the priso-
ner was kept there ten hou:s and a quarter, the step was
seven and three-quarter inches, the number of steps
per minute forty-eight, and the ascent was 12,000 feet.
It was quite clear, then, that though the sentences were the
same, the punishment of one would often treble the amount of
punishment of another; this ought to be investigated. Then,
how did they stand with regard to diet? In some Place,'
where the labour was the hardest, the diet was the steeliest
and the lowest. In the Bedford House of Correction, the
Aylesbury, and the Spring-field, the diet was very low, they
bad neither meat nor potatoes. In the Bedford House of Cor- ,