PRISONS (SCOTLAND). (Hansard, 26 July 1838)

Lord Brougham
thought it was high time that some improvement should be effected in the prisons of Scotland; but although he was anxious that a measure with such a tendency should be passed, he did not think the present bill by any 632 means likely to answer the object for which it was intended. No one could, for a moment, hesitate to admit the necessity of introducing something like discipline into the gaols; but he was at a loss to know how a bill so preposterous, so monstrous as the present, could have been swallowed wholesale by another House, for which he had the highest respect, although the bills emanating from that House were sent up to their Lordships rather late in the Session. It was his intention to propose many alterations in this bill, if their Lordships went into Committee upon it. He had strong objections to the extraordinary powers given to the Central Board of Commissioners, who were irresponsible for their acts, and could not be removed without a special act of Parliament.

The Duke of Buccleuch
said, that since the bill had been read a second time, he had devoted the greatest attention to a subject of so much importance. He resided in Scotland, and had ample opportunities of knowing the state of the prisons there, which certainly reflected disgrace on the country; he agreed, however, with the noble and learned Lord, that the present bill was not likely to remedy the evil. Had it been sent up earlier in the Session, he should have recommended its being referred to a select committee; but under existing circumstances, he felt himself reluctantly bound to oppose the measure in all its future stages. He agreed with the noble and learned Lord as to the indiscretion of giving such extraordinary powers to irresponsible commissioners. It was said, that if the present bill were not passed, it would be impossible to improve the prisons in Scotland. He was not satisfied as to the correctness of that assertion; for by an Act passed some time since, new prisons might be erected in that country, and a bill might be introduced during the present Session, making such a step compulsory, not optional. The noble Duke concluded by moving, that the bill be committed that day three months.

§ The Duke of Richmond
regretted extremely the course taken by the noble and learned Lord, and by the noble Duke, who admitted the present disgraceful state of the prisons in Scotland. A great deal had been said about the extraordinary powers given to the Central Board of Commissioners; but it would be easy in 633 Committee to introduce amendments to check that power. The state of the gaols in Scotland (with the exception of those in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen) was such, that rather than the present measure should not pass, he would wish to see a bill introduced preventing imprisonment altogether for the next twelve months, as felons came out of the gaols much more depraved than they were on their committal. He still thought, that there was abundance of time left within which to mature a useful bill, and it really was a matter of the highest necessity, that their Lordships should immediately apply themselves to the accomplishment of that object. He believed, that he need not then more urgently press upon their attention the great degree in which an uniform system was demanded in Scotland; for example, what could be more unjust than that judges should inflict the same length of imprisonment in different gaols for similar offences, seeing that no two prisons were alike in their system of discipline? He felt persuaded that the people of Scotland would not complain at having to pay 30,000l. a-year for the improvement of their prisons, and he hoped, that the noble Duke, though he might not consent to their going into a Committee of the whole House, might still agree to refer the measure to a Select Committee, which certainly could report before the Session was brought to a close.

§ Lord Wharncliffe
objected to the bill altogether. There was not the least use in appointing a board, for the inspector and the secretary would really do the whole of the duty, and he thought, that if the bill did go into Committee, they ought to strike out the whole of that part which related to penitentiaries.

The Earl of Minto
said, that Scottish gaols, both the buildings and the management were of the very worst description, and he felt satisfied, that to prolong the prison system of Scotland for six months would be a much greater evil than could result from the most ill-devised measure that Parliament could possibly adopt. He therefore recommended the House to refer the bill to a Select Committee.

The Earl of Haddington
said, that according to the bill itself, as it stood, the proposed enactments could not come into operation before a year and a half; if they waited till next Session, they might 634 prepare a bill which could operate nearly as soon as that, and yet be free from the disadvantages which marked the present measure.

§ The Duke of Richmond
said, that it was of very great importance that their Lordships should inform the other House of Parliament of the details of a measure to be introduced in the next year upon this subject, which would have some chance of meeting their Lordships' views. Under all the circumstances, he thought it most advisable that the whole subject should be referred to a Select Committee.

§ Lord Wharncliffe
said, that the question appeared to him to be whether this was a proper measure or not. In his opinion they would find that, if the bill now before the House were to pass into a law, it never would work with efficiency. The noble Duke had proposed to refer the bill to a Select Committee. If he (Lord Wharncliffe) thought, that in a Select Committee they could agree to such a bill as would be likely to pass during this Session of Parliament, then he should be perfectly willing to concur in that proposition, but as that, was not likely, it would be an entire loss of time. The noble Lord said, "Let us show the House of Commons what is the principle of assessment which we wish to see carried out." But it was not an easy thing to agree upon such a principle, it would take a great deal of time, and would require much more information than their Lordships now possessed, and especially from those parties who had petitioned against the bill.

The Earl of Minto
observed; that the 636 question of assessment had been before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and had been thoroughly considered by the Scotch Members, and had met with their approbation.

The Duke of Buccleuch
said, that he was perfectly aware of the evils which now existed in the prisons of Scotland, which he was most anxious should be removed, but he did not think that the provisions of this bill would remove them in the manner in which they ought to be removed. He did not think that a delay of this bill till an early part of next Session would produce very serious results, as the real powers of the act could not be put in force till January 1, 1840.

List of the CONTENTS
DUKES.	Falkland
Richmond	BARONS.
Argyle	Brougham
Roxburghe	Mostyn
MARQUESS.	Gardiner
Lansdowne	Foley
EARLS.	Montford
Albemarle	Cottenham
Radnor	Holland
Camperdown	Portman
Scarborough	Byron
Ilchester	Plunkett
Minto	Strafford
Lovelace	Belhaven
Chichester	Carew
VISCOUNTS.	Say and Sele
Melbourne	BISHOP.
Lismore	Hereford
Paired off.
FOR	AGAINST.
Poltimore	Saltoun
Ducie	Reay
Fingall	Sandys
Torrington	Warwick
Headfort	Beresford
Gosford	Bandon
Clanricarde	Bute
Glenelg	Lyndhurst
Effingham	Delawarr
Langdale	Bathurst
Carlisle	Skelmersdale
Cowper	Dunsany
Howden	Winchilsea
Vernon	Exmouth
Segrave	Moray
Tavistock	Wilton
Sutherland	Clanwilliam
Lichfield	Alvanley
Uxbridge	Cardigan
Hatherton	Tenterden
Lilford	Charleville
Vaux	Hood
Wrottesley	Forester
Sudeley	Jersey
Barham	Ravensworth

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.
DUKES.	Aberdeen
Hamilton	Rosslyn
Buccleuch	Devon
Wellington	VISCOUNTS.
MARQUESS	Canning
Tweeddale	Canterbury
Lothian	Hawarden
EARLS.	LORDS.
Kinnoull	Colville
Abingdon	Montagu
Mansfield	Carbery
Brecknock	Boston
Ripon	Redesdale
Haddington	Ellenborough
De L'Isle	Wharncliffe
Rayleigh	Colchester