SECOND READING. (Hansard, 20 June 1865)

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

said, he regarded this as one of the most important Bills which had been submitted to their Lordships consideration during the present Session; and as he had had the honour of being Chairman of the Committee of their Lordships which considered the question some two or three years ago, they would probably pardon him if he made a few remarks on the Bill. He entirely agreed in the important proposals which this Bill contained, which in the main carried out very fully the recommendations which had been made by the Committee. He certainly should have preferred the Bill in the shape in which it had originally left the Home Office, and without the alterations which had been made in the Select Committee of the other House. At the same time, these alterations did not affect the principle of the Bill, and could be dealt with in Committee. As far as he understood the Bill it did not profess to lay down a fixed code of regulations which must be followed undeviatingly in every prison in the country; but it laid down a sort of skeleton code, leaving it to the local authorities to clothe that skeleton with all the accessories necessary in each case. That he thought the wisest and most prudent course, for he thought it of great importance to preserve the executive control of the prisons in the hands of the local authorities. The history of prison discipline, like that of many other things, was the history of progress, not towards one particular point—but in a zigzag sort of direction. At the commencement of the century we had a system of treatment of prisoners which was marked by extreme severity. Some thirty or forty years afterwards a better state of things arose; and the reform gradually went on, until at last we got to a system which, instead of being marked by extreme severity, was marked by undue leniency, and under which, in fact, felons in prison enjoyed greater comforts than many people out of it. The point at which we ought to aim was a plan of prison discipline somewhere between the two extremes, which would secure effective punishment 520 combined with every reasonable provision for the improvement of the prisoner. When this Bill was first brought forward by the Home Secretary the right hon. Gentleman stated that it was founded on a system which he (the Earl of Carnarvon), concurrently with other local magistrates, had established in Hampshire. Unless for short periods of punishment and during the earlier stages of longer sentences indulgences were avoided there would be a danger of falling into the old state of things, which had incurred the reproach of making a prison a place of indulgence, instead of a place of punishment. For short periods of imprisonment a system of hard unproductive labour should be enforced; for without it he thought the whole system of deterring punishments would break down; and even during the course of longer sentences he did not think that all traces of that rigorous system should entirely disappear; during the earlier stages of long sentences severe penal labour should be enforced, and prisoners should be enabled to pass step by step, and degree by degree, from the lower to the upper penal class. It was quite true that such a plan would involve a system of classification, and that, again, would also involve a system of marks; but, although it was possible to devise an elaborate system of marks, it was also possible to adopt a plain and simple system. He had personal experience of the admirable results which had followed the adoption of such a system, and in proof he would mention two facts, which were better than any arguments. When he adopted the system in the prison with which he was connected he found there was an immediate and noticeable decrease in the number of punishments for prison offences, and he also found that of those punishments which were still inflicted they were mostly inflicted upon men who were undergoing their first month's imprisonment, during which period by the rules of the prison no marks were granted. He maintained, therefore, that a system of classes and marks was indispensable to give effect to a good system of prison discipline. But, whatever plan they might adopt, it would be of no use unless the whole system was based upon the great principle of accepting no promises or professions of good conduct, but of accepting as the only test of good disposition the actual work done by the man, and of profitable work done in his leisure hours over 521 and above that required from him by the prison rules. It might be objected to a system of classification that it would grant too great indulgences. If that were the case it would be a fatal objection to the system; but he did not think that a series of small indulgencies and remissions would have any but a beneficial effect. The principle of remission had the advantage of bringing discipline in county prisons into an analogy with the system pursued in convict prisons. It would be, of course, impossible in county and borough gaols to grant remissions in the duration of sentences, but it was possible to make remissions in the character of the punishment. Having taken much interest in this question, he had ventured to trouble their Lordships with these few remarks on the general question. With respect to the Bill before the House, he must point out one or two matters which he thought required alteration. As the Bill was originally introduced into the House of Commons the hard labour clause was drawn up in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee, that the punishment should be definite; but, in the Bill as it stood now, there were alterations in that clause which materially changed its character. He would prefer to see the clause restored to its original state; but if that were not done he should in Committee move an Amendment with a view to make the clause more intelligible. There was also in the Bill a clause providing for the abolition of solitary confinement, which clause was not in the original Bill, and was quite at variance with the recommendation of the Select Committee. He might also observe that the Select Committee recommended that a certain number of gaols which were open to grave objection as to the manner in which they had been conducted should be scheduled for abolition. A certain number of gaols had been scheduled accordingly; but he was sorry to find that some prisons which were shown to have been conducted in a very improper manner had been omitted, and he should like to know the reasons for such omissions. For instance, there was a prison at Poole, and another at Falmouth where the average number of prisoners was seven, and whenever the gaoler went out he locked the prisoners in a courtyard, leaving his wife in charge, armed with a dinner bell, to alarm the neighbours in case of an attempt at escape. Such prisons ought not to have been left out of the schedule.