Star.
London, England, 1826-01-11 00:00:00

INSTRUCTION IN PRlSems.

Mr. PALMER rose to suitWllt a propositiou (the consi-
deration of which had been adjourned from the la.tl
Court-day) whiclp, he said, WAN of a most important
nature. It was, that instruction should be given to the
prisoners in the several gaols of the Connty more fre-
quently than it was at present. After some comments
un the benefits of education thus given, Mr. PALMER
moved—

" That notwithstanding the report of a Committee
appointed to considet the instruction of persons corn-
,miued to prison, it be a recommendation to the visit ng
Magistrates of the differens prisons to cause instruction
to be given one hour in each day, during every day in
the week, instead of three day..."
Mr. H. SIDINBR felt it his duty to oppose this mo-
tion; as it was only a repetition of a question which had
already been fully discussed and decided by * large
majority in the committee to•which it had been already
referred. Not thinking that the proposed motion-would
have the effect which the Hon. Mover believed, he would
move " the previous question" as an amendment. ..
Mr. Drosex entirety cancan-red in the view taken of this gun-
don by his Honourable Colleague. lie would therefore oppose
the motion.

Mr. R. JACKSON OIL pressed himself favourable to the
original moion, and bore testimony to the great ad-
vairages which had resulted from the practice of in-
struction on three clAys in the week. He would, how-
ever, beg to suggest, that it be an instruction to the
visiting Magistrates to consider the propriety of giving
instruction on three days instead of six.

Mr. CHAMBERS supported the original motion, and
contended that it was the intention of the Legislature,
that the ignorant prisoners should be instructed, and
therefore that the most effectual 'mode of conveying
that instruction should be adopted ; and it would not
be denied that six hours a week would be mote effectual
for that purpose than three. He would mention one
fact--that at a school at this side of Blackfriars-bridge,
there were upwards of four hundred childless, who,
though they went to their priests once a week for in-
struction, were ignorant of the number of the command-
ments. They knew not the commandment which pro-
hibited stealing. Ifa poor child of that description came
into prison, was he to be lefts in his ignorance, or was he
to be enlighte led by instruction ?
Mr. How's thought that instruction for three hours a week
would be sufficient.
Mr. Balsam said, that it gave him great pain
to find the Honourable Members for the County, dd.-
.fritig as they did on so many points, concur in wishing
to limit the benefits of education. They had stated,
that they thought enough had been already done with
respect to the education of prisoners. He differed
widely on this subject, and he thought that he could
not well discharge his duty as a Magisti ate, if he did
not take every means in his power to cat ry into effect
the intention of the Legislature in the Act alluded to,
which evis!ently was. that ignorant prisoners should be
instructed. Ti.e Honourable Magistrate, after dwel-
ling very forcibly on the advantages of increased oppar-
t inities of education, concluded by expressing his entire
approbation of the original motion.
Mr. Attes supported the original motion.
Sir T. Term opposed it. and thought that in its present form
it would be fettering the visiting Magistrates as much as they were
by the resolution of the Committee minis% three hours in the week.
Mr. Taorrsa did net wish to have it understood that the Court
had any wish to fetter the visiting Magistrates.
Mr. Patters bad no objection to allow his motion to be
amended, as had been suggesteal by the Learned Gentleman (Ur.
It. Jackson).
Mr. H. Sussex& objected to it its any shape.
The question was read from the Chair, and a 'hew of hands was
taken, when the Chairman declared the majority to be in favour of
the amendment.
It was then moved, that the names at each side should be taken
down. This was done, and the Chairman declared the numbers to be
For the original motion 16
For the 'precious que'stion 'lO
Majority against the original motinn
IXIMPTION OT FEMALES I,IIOM 'THE TREAD-winter"
Mr. Batstoz, in consideration of the latehess of the
hour, stas willing to pustpot e his motion.
M. St/Mtint consiJered it strange •thiat when there
were so many Magistrates present; a Gentleman who
complain-d of their absence tal form'r ecciasioos should
sanest a delay.
Mr. flameout then proceeded to state the nature of hi
I motion. It was unfair to mix up the general quesiofi
of the treadmill with tte pArtieulat branch which hi:

mqtion cootemplatel The antiestion, of the treat
as a punishment females. was Nally in a rn-ral
and physical point of. views T t female constitbtion,
character, and habits, were incompatible with ibis spe-
cies of punishment. An Athenian ; bilosopher hsd
that death was only a sufficient penalty far the stwillest
clime,, and he knew no greater punishment for the
most atrocious. Such seemed to be the feelinA of Ho-
nourable Gentlemen.

Mr. H. SUMNER disci timed such a feeling, and ti:noigh:
as the Gentleman (M . J3riscne), at the time ~f making
ihe remark, looked potnteJly at him, some expl 'nation
seeoled necessary.
Mr. lintscox meant zh, p‘iity to extend nn further
than in the principle; for, it seemed to be the H m.
Gentleman's wish to apportion the tread-m-01 as An uni-
versal 'punishment for all classes. •

The motion was then proposed, to the errant exempting females
from the tread wheel, un various physical and moral grounds.
Sir 'l'. Tors'Tom seconded the Motion; though he
thought some words might be better omitted. Flogging
wa, now discontinued in !Doses of Correction ; and he
hoped the Legislature would also put a period to the
trea f-mill as a punishment for. the female sex. lie
secondel the motion as a forlorn hope, for he did not
expect that it would succeed; iu the pres-nt temper of
the meeting.

Mr. It. JACKSON gave every credit to the mover, but
dissented from some facts brought forwari. He re.
forted to some written documents to prove that the
trra.i•mill was not productive of the injuries to the
female sex which were alleged by the pr•tposer of the
necni.n. lie recd a certificate from a surgeon in con-
firmation of this statement.

Mr. H. SUMNICH th .ught that ate very statement of
the mover did wit tend to induce a compliance with his
motion. Mr. Secietsry Peel had submitted a case to
the opinion of medical men of celebrity, who agreed
that the treAd.mill was not an improper mode of
punishment. He respected the female sex as much as
Any man; bin he was at the same time of opinion that
women should be punished according to their de,e•ts.
Mr. PALMiIt did not feet very confident of the suc-
cess of the proposition, yet, whenever it came to the
question of voting, he should certainly support it.
The Rev. Mr. liott.ann opposed the motion. because he con.
ceived it was proved that no injury wu stuitainesi by females, which
rendered the punishment reprehensible.
Mr. Bunco* was anxious to alter IA motion, so that a Commit-
tee should be appointed to consider tbooubjeet, and report to the
next Court.

Mr. 11. Summit refund to accede, sad was supported by some
Magistrates, while Sir Thomas Tuamx and Mr. Phistais argued
strongly in favour of the proposed akeration.
The motion being then put with its original features, was lost
by a majority of 25 to seven, and the Court adjourned at half-past
sight o'clock.