HC Deb 12 March 1817 vol 35 cc989-91
Mr. Bennet

said, he rose for the purpose of moving for a paper, respecting which he had given a notice on a preceding evening. It was for a return of the number and names of persons who were now imprisoned in the House of Correction, Cold Bath-fields, under the 39th and 40th of the king. Since the last discussion he had visited the Cold Bath-fields prison, and he there found that every thing was precisely as he had stated. The elder Evans was confined with another person who bore the character which he had described, and the younger Evans was confined in the foul ward of the hospital.

Mr. Bathurst

said, the motion of the hon. member referred to two objects, and with respect to the first, which related to the number of criminal lunatics confined, he could have no objection. He would find, however, that they all stood peculiarly situated, and did not come under; the statute, which enabled and authorized the government to provide them with proper places. With respect to the allegations made by the hon. member concerning the two Evans's, he wished his candour had allowed him to go a little further, and state what passed between him and those individuals. He asked the hon. member whether, when he saw them, they did not say they had no complaints to make upon the subjects which he had mentioned in that House? For how stood the case? When the elder Evans was committed, the prison was so full that there was no accommodation for him on the first night, except by sleeping with a person who, he understood, was a felon. The next day the keeper himself stated that he thought it unfit he should be so associated; but Mr. Evans said the man was a very decent and respectable individual, that he liked his Company and conversation, and wished that he might be permitted to remain with him. The same facts were declared to the hon. member by Evans, and why did he not, in candour, state it to the House? Evans now occupied what were called the state rooms, and he appealed to the hon. gentleman whether they were not comfortable and commodious? With regard to the younger Evans, it was true he was confined in what the hon. member chose to call the foul ward of the hospital; but he would again ask the hon. member, whether he ever saw a room more clean, or more proper for a person in that condition? Because, however, it formed part of what was denominated the infirmary, the hon. member transformed it into a foul ward. He asked the hon. member whether the younger Evans made any complaint to him upon that subject? The younger Evans was also permitted to walk in the governor's garden, a privilege of which he frequently availed himself, because he should not be compelled to walk where the other prisoners assembled. He really, therefore, could not help wishing that the hon. member, while he stated that his former assertions were true in fact, had also stated, that no unfavourable circumstances were deducible from them.

Mr. Bennet

said, that with regard to his not stating what passed between himself and the Evans's, the right hon. gentleman should recollect, that it was not he who urged whether they were pleased or displeased, but the right hon. gentleman himself. As to the name of foul ward, given to the place where young Evans was confined, that was the term by which the governor of the prison designated it. The place was clean, he allowed, but the grounds upon which he had brought forward the question were public, and connected with the general management of the prisons of this country. He still contended, therefore, that to confine persons who were merely imprisoned upon a charge of high treason with common felons, was improper.

The Attorney General

bore testimony to the fact, that the younger Evans had frequently declared he had no complaint to offer, and that, as he could not be in the state room with his father, the place he now occupied was the most agreeable to him.

Sir F. Burdett

said, that what had been stated respecting the treatment of those persons might be very true, but there was one thing that struck him very forcibly in this case, namely, that they were in close custody, which was the greatest punishment the law could inflict on any person, for any length of time. One of them, indeed, was confined in a place where there were six thieves, who, certainly, were not very respectable company; but, such was the frame of the human mind, it would be glad to have any company, and to be associated with almost any persons rather than be left to pine in solitude and despair.

Mr. Canning

did not suppose that the hon. mover wished to make any false statements, but what he understood him to § say on a former night was, that the prisoners complained of the mode in which they were treated. On the contrary, however, it now turned out, that they did not complain of the treatment they had experienced during their confinement. The complaint of the lion, gentleman was a sort of speculative feeling as to the nature of these confinements. The ground of complaint now was, that these men were allowed to have companions. He remembered a story of a man who was placed in solitary confinement having made a spider his companion; he watched his motions, fed it, and taught it to spin its web in a peculiar way; but the malicious gaoler observing the pleasure he derived from this mode of diverting his mind, killed the spider, when the unhappy prisoner exclaimed, that he felt a pang more severe than he had ever endured in his life. If the hon. gentleman, therefore, wished to have the associates of Mr. Evans removed, let the Mouse of Commons and Mr. Evans himself remember, that it was the hon. member who had killed his spider.

The motion was agreed to.