The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-12-16 00:00:00

notice

in expL

remarksln the
ay aererlsinlply these :
part of last month, an inquisition was
held before Mr. Curry, the borough coroner, on view
of the body of John Barber Love, who died in the
gaol on the previous day. The deceased, who was 55
years of age, had been tried at the quarter sessions in
the previous April, for forgery, and sentenced to three
years' imprisonment and hard labour. That sentence
we by no means impugn ; for the prisoner (who had
once moved in respectable society) had doubtless been
guilty of a very grave offence. It was, however,
admitted by the governor of the gaol, as well as by
the surgeon, that he was, from the time of his appre-
hension, in a very delicate state of health, and had
frequently been in the prison hospital. While in the

-room, after conviction

Mr. Hightor

he wfote some letters

t appears, the duty of

punishment devolves in such cases), finding, on en-

luiry from the surgeon of the gaol, that in the opinion
f that functionary he could undergo additional re-

raint without injury to his then state of health—
laced him in solitary confinement in a cell, where his

food was only bread and water. At the expiration of
three days he was removed to another and less rigorous
place of punishment—namely, amongst the boys, in

ward No. 10, after which he was again sent to the
hospital, where, never having rallied, and becoming
daily worse, he died in about a fortnight afterwards.
" lle had complained of pain in his chest, was much
relaxed, and had a violent cough." It was stated by

the governor that the cell was boarded, and that it was

the same as those in the hospital, with the exception
that it had no light. He should have added, that it
had no fire. The wife of the deceased said that he had

been afflicted with dysentery for twelve weeks pre-

viously to his being put in solitary confinement. The
coroner, on the evidence being heard, said that, as an
individual, he lamented that the man had, under the

circumstances, been subjected to the confinement

stated, as his treatment in that respect might he sup-
posed to have accelerated his death. He himself, how-

ever, did not assume to judge so competently as the
surgeon, and left the matter to the conscientious opi-

nion of the jury. The latter returned a verdict, in
the first instance, to the effect that the deceased had
died by the visitation of God, in a natural way, but

appended an opinion that the deceased, considering his
illness, had not been properly treated in being placed

in solitary confinement, as stated. The coroner, how-
ever, urged that such a verdict went to attach an im-

putation which it was not perhaps meant to convey—
both the surgeon and the gaoler having acted, in their
official capacity, to the best of their judgment, and in
of their duty. The surgeon said,

ct exercis

ition, that he had no conception that the
solitary confinement would affect the prisoner's health,
nor did he notice such effect when he visited him
while undergoing it. On the contrary, if he had had
a doubt he would have given the prisoner the benefit
Mr. liighton also explained that he had only

acted in strict accordance with his duty, as laid down
by the authorities he was bound to obey; and on these
assurances the jury, " good easy men," recalled the
obnoxious appendage to their verdict, and reduced it
to a simple finding of " died from natural causes."
Such is a brief statement of the facts as they trans-
pired, and as recorded more fully by us, without con-
tradiction, at the time ; and they certainly give rise in
our minds to some painful reflections. The unfortu-
nate man—whose original sentence, we repeat, we do
not impugn—was evidently in a very feeble and de-
clining state of health throughout. His constitution,
from whatever cause, was broken up, and he was in
the last stage of mortal decay. He could scarcely be
deemed a fit subject on whom to experimentalise in
the matter of physical, and, we may add, mental en-
durance, involved in solitary confinement on bread and
Due nourishment, hospital comfort, and com-
parative forbearance, were more likely to effect his re-
covery ; and the law, in the sentence properly pro-
nounced against him, never contemplated anything
beyond his term of imprisonment, with hard labour,
if he were enabled to endure it—not else. We have
no maudlin sympathy for felons, whatever their former
station may previously have been ; neither do we
charge the goaler nor the surgeon with acting beyond
the strictboundaries of their duty ; though we think that
both might, in the exercise of their discretion, have con-
sidered a little more minutely, that solitary confinement,
with such meagre diet, was to a declining man, who
had been accustomed to some of the luxuries of life,
a much more trying and severe alterative than to one
in robust health, to whom they could only have meted
out the same punishment. That the governor had his
doubts of the culprit's power of endurance, is shown
by the fact of his consulting the surgeon. There is a
point, too, in the evidence of the former, which de-
mands some slight observation. He stated that the
solitary cell was " precisely the same as those in the
hospital," with the exception of the absence, in the
former, of " the light." If such be the fact, (and we
take it for granted from such a quarter,) either the
punishment cells are far too " comfortable," or the
hospital rooms are totally inadequate to the purpose of
accommodation and care for which they are intended
by the legislature; and the sooner an amendment is
made in them the better, both on the score of good
policy and humanity. What the contents of " the
letters" were which constituted the new offence of the
prisoner we cannot tell, as they did not transpire. This
is, however, of little or no moment as affecting our
argument ; for whatever their character, no great dread
need be entertained, we think, of epistles from such a
quarter being pregnant with "treasons, stratagems, and
spoils." If the writing of letters at all—except such
as are complimentary to a gaoler—be a crime, why
facilitate its commission by permitting prisoners the
use of pens, ink, and paper, which may easily be kept
beyond their reach. If, on the other hand, the prison
regulations permit the furnishing of the materials, and
the keeper has the legal power to intercept and peruse
the letters of prisoners, (of which last we have, how-
ever, strong doubts,) the simplest course, if they con-
tain offensive matter, is to destroy them in the prisoner's
presence, and thus cure him for the future of his
furor scribendi. These are, however, minor points. What
we mainly complain of is the uncontrolled power given
(as herre developed) to a gaoler to inflict a new and
additional punishment on a prisoner after his judicial
sentence—that gaoler being himself solewitness, judge,
and jury—without the enquiry and immediate sanction
of one, or two, magistrates. A prisoner for felony is,
we admit, in the eye of the law, civilly and politically
dead ; but he ought not to be so far outlawed as to be
at the mercy or the caprice of any individual not
clothed with magisterial authority, and merely a ser-
vant to carry out the sentence pronounced by a legiti-
mate tribunal. We fully recognise the necessity of
strict discipline in a gaol, and of additional punishment
being inflicted on delinquents who infringe the esta-
blished and necessary rules ; but we deprecate the ad-
judication, in such case, and the:measure and kind of
punishment, being left solely in the hands of any go-
vernor—be lie who he may—much less, as in this in-
stance, in those of a young man, not of the greatest
experience in the world, and who cannot be 'so well
qualified as his superiors and seniors to appreciate those
peculiar feelings, mental and bodily, of which, even
culprits are possessed, in common with others of our
species. We doubt not but such a power is given by
the gaol regulations ; but its delegation is impolitic and
dangerous, and as justice ought ever to be tempered
with mercy, and the tempers of gaolers are frequently
put to severe trials, the presumption is, that it may be
exercised at times without that due consideration and
discretion which would naturally characterise the de-
cisions of those, who, not being in immediate contact
with the offenders, are unenfluenced by personal of-
fence. We would, therefore, urge upon the authorities,
and particulary upon the Prison Committee, the pro-
priety of an amendment on this point. No new pun-
ishment ; no new deprivation or restraint, beyond those
involved in his original and legal sentence, should, we
think, be inflicted upon a prisoner without magisterial
investigation, sanction, and signature. There are al-
ways active visiting justices, whose aid may readily be
had on any emergency. Such a course would vindi-
cate the law from all suspicion of undue severity; ren-
der the management of our gaols as purely constitu-
tional and respected as that of our courts of justice;
and remove from their keepers a burden of responsi-
bility from which, we doubt not, they would most
gladly be relieved.