§ Mr. Alderman Wood presented a petition from James Hillier, a prisoner in Ilchester Gaol, complaining of his treatment there. The petition was read, and ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Alderman Woodthen rose. He said, he would not enter at much length into the subject at present, because he believed the motion for the appointment of a committee of inquiry would not be objected to. It would be, therefore, only necessary briefly to point out the principal topics of complaint which an inquiry would go to redress. The first was the irregular and inconvenient construction of the gaol. It was built near the river, and its foundation in some parts being 157 below the bed of the river, it was damp and of course destructive to health. The; stone in some places was porous, and admitted the moisture, and sometimes the river overflowed its banks and inundated the gaol. In the winter before last such an event occurred, and the gaol was flooded to the depth of fourteen inches, during a day and a night, and while it continued in that state there was no access to the prison but by the hazardous conveyance of a boat. It was not matter of surprise that in a prison so circumstanced, the typhus fever should often rage; and at one time it was at such a height in the prison, that it was not considered safe to take the prisoners to the assizes, and the magistrates did not like to approach the gaol. There were often from 2 to 300 prisoners on a Sunday crowded into the chapel, though it could not conveniently contain 100, which was another cause of pestilential distempers; nor was there an3' Infirmary attached to the gaol, although four years ago a piece of ground was purchased for the purpose of erecting one. Two debtors had died there recently, and were left to breathe their last in the midst of the other prisoners. Another subject of complaint was, that there was no proper accommodation for female debtors. They were confined with the female felons. One female debtor, a Quakeress, who was sent there, preferred to be confined in a solitary cell, where the sun never entered: the natural consequence was, bad health. Her friends were naturally anxious that she should be removed, and he understood that she was liberated since the petition had been put into his hands. Another point was, that the wells were so near the river, that it often flowed into them, rendering the water foul; and the sewer for carrying off the soil and filth from the prison sometimes broke into the wells, and mixed its contents with the water. Some of that water had been brought to him in London, and it was in a most filthy state. With regard to the complaints relative to the government of the gaol, he had no motive in bringing them forward but a sense of duty as a member of parliament. The petition stated facts strong enough to warrant inquiry, and even stronger than the statements which induced the House to accede to the motion of sir Samuel Romilly in 1812, for inquiring into the conduct of the governor of Lincoln castle. He was unwilling at present to enter into the subject of the 158 charges against the gaoler at large, but would touch upon them most briefly. The discipline in the prison was exceedingly severe, partly under the direction of the magistrates, and partly at the gaoler's own discretion. No persons were allowed to see the debtors but their wives, and even they were only admitted to see their husbands in the presence of other persons; notwithstanding this severity of discipline, irregularities occurred which the gaoler ought to have been acquainted with. There were other severe restrictions as to hours. The prisoners were locked up from five every evening till eight the next morning, without even the convenience of water, and even debtors could have no communication with their friends, but during three hours each day, between nine in the morning and five in the evening. But as to the gaoler's own house, there were proofs to show that it was kept open to unseasonable hours, and sometimes all night, while it was a scene of riot, drunkenness, and gambling; for he could assure the House, that it was customary for persons to meet there to gamble, and even the names of many of the persons who were accustomed to frequent it, were mentioned to him. There was, among the rest, a clergyman of the neighbourhood, who, it would be proved, had lost 18 guineas there on one night. He understood he was since dead, and he hoped he was gone to a better world. These facts would be proved by some of the persons who had played there themselves. He could not help thinking, that a person, who, like the gaoler, so conducted himself, while he enforced discipline in other parts of the prison, by orders executed even to cruelty, ought not at least to escape inquiry; and he thought the petition alone was sufficient to induce the House to grant a committee, as supposing Hillier guilty of playing at the game of hustle-cap, it was no reason why he should be chained down in the inhuman manner in which he was. For some alleged offence, a man named Gardner was ordered into solitary confinement, and was thrust into a dark dungeon, chained to his bed, his head shaved, and a blister applied to the scalp by the hand of a fellow-prisoner. The unfortunate man contrived, by rubbing his head to the wall, to rub off the blister; but as soon as this was found out, the blister was again applied, and a strait waistcoat placed upon him. He saw the chancellor of the 159 exchequer smile at this, but it was no subject for meriment. He was sure the right hon. gentleman would be sorry to be in a similar situation. All the names of the witnesses who would prove it had been handed to him. He would move, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into, and report to the House, what has been, and now is, the condition and treatment of prisoners confined in Ilchester gaol, and the conduct and management of the said prison, and the site and buildings thereof, and to report the same, with their observations thereupon, to the House."
§ Mr. Buxtonseconded the motion, but in doing so, did not pledge himself to any opinion; his object was to ascertain whether the charges were true or false. They were charges of the most serious nature, and if they were not substantiated, he hoped every one would join with him in giving the character of the gaoler its just vindication; but if they were true, or bore the slightest approximation to truth—if any one of the gross acts of irregularity and debauchery charged on the gaoler had been committed, he was sure every member would join with him in visiting the gaoler with the severest punishment. He was charged by a person who had published a pamphlet on the subject of the prison (Mr. Hunt), with having given a high character of the gaol contrary to all fact. He could only say, that he had visited the prison, and discovered the errors of its construction; but he found there such a system of discipline and industry, as reflected the highest credit on the character of the gaoler; but he acknowledged, that in minor matters he might be liable to deception: whatever was good in those things was made obvious to every one, what was evil was concealed and kept out of view. He had gone to the prison, unacquainted with the name of the gaoler: he did not even know one of the magistrates, and it was through the intervention of a friend that he procured admission. What he had seen he had faithfully described: if he had been imposed upon when he gave that description, there was but one atonement which he could make, and that was, that when in the committee he would be as ready to expose his own mistakes as those of any body else. He would most heartily join with the worthy alderman to detect the truth; and he would join with others to do justice to the character of the gaoler, 160 if it was shown that the charges rested on nothing more solid than mere imputation.
§ Mr. Dickinsonconfessed that, knowing what he did of the gaoler, he should be extremely surprised if these allegations could be proved. As to the disorders which were said to have prevailed in the gaoler's house, it was true that they had existed; and it was also true that the magistrates lost not one moment upon information being conveyed to them, in inquiring into the truth. It being found that these malpractices had gone on through the connivance of five or six servants, whose duty it was to have informed the gaoler, they were instantly discharged but the evil was proved to have existed entirely without the knowledge of that individual. As to the infirmary, the ground had been purchased and the building was still going on. With respect to the water, he had himself tasted it, and he understood it was uniformly good. He could of his own knowledge affirm that the bed of the river was 18 feet below the surface of the prison; and so far from the cells being exposed to any noxious effluvia, they were airy and commodious. The hon. gentleman then entered into some explanation relative to the case of Esther Church, a Quakeress, confined for debt, and read a letter from an individual of her own persuasion, to prove that the most humane attentions had been uniformly rendered to her by the gaoler. More than this, her own voluntary acknowledgements, had confirmed the account of her good treatment. He submitted, on the whole, whether it would not be better—as no person was more anxious than himself that the truth should be elicited in this case—to have a commission rather than a committee.
§ Sir Isaac Coffinstated, that having been represented by the writer of a pamphlet on the gaol, as having played cards there and got drunk, he would support the motion for investigation.
Dr. Lushingtonobserved, that he had made some inquiry relative to these charges, and the result not having been satisfactory to his own mind, he thought a further inquiry ought to take place, and was due not only to the character of the gaoler, but of the magistrates. He thought the conduct of the magistrates entitled to commendation; they had made great improvements by introducing accommodation and discipline into the gaol, which did not exist there before. He 161 had examined into those things when at Ilchester, and gave the gaoler great credit for the manner in which the prisoners were employed, and which could not be carried into effect in the manner it was, unless there was a person over them of zeal and ability. He agreed that there were many faults in the construction of the prison, and he only hesitated whether the inquiry ought to be by commission or committee. The character of the gaoler he had always understood to stand high; but lately there had been representations made against him by persons whose testimony he was not entitled to question, but as things stood at present he could form no decided opinion. He believed acts of great mismanagement occurred in many prisons without the knowledge of the persons under whose management they were. He then stated a fact which occurred in the Borough compter, where two female vagrants had been committed, and who had not a rag to cover them—he had witnessed it with his own eyes. [A laugh]. This was no laughing matter. It was one of the most culpable acts that had ever taken place in a moral and Christian country, that those females, without a rag to cover them, should be left in the common prison for eleven days with free access to them by all the male prisoners. This was enough to excite indignation. He would in this case support inquiry, and he was sure the magistrates would come purified out of it, but in the mean time he would suspend his opinion as to the conduct of the gaoler.
Mr. Bathurstadmitted, that this was a case fully justifying inquiry, and was decidedly of opinion, that the circumstances of the case called upon them to appoint a commission in preference to a committee.
Mr. Bennetobserved, that some of the complaints respecting Ilchester gaol were now allowed to be true by gentlemen who, when the subject was on a former occasion brought before the House by the worthy alderman, denied every word he uttered. One hon. gentleman had even gone so far as to state, that he believed the worthy alderman had not visited the gaol at all. In such a case as this, the House would do wrong not to take the inquiry into its own hands. He thought the best mode of inquiry was by a committee, and not by commission, which in the case of Lincoln castle, had turned out a mere mockery. He had 162 seen a list of 30 witnesses to be examined in this case, very few of whom were prisoners, and the rest officers in the army or navy, or the sons of magistrates.
§ Sir M. Cholmeleysaid, that the hon. member was not justified in calling the commission of inquiry relative to Lincoln Castle a mockery. He objected to the source whence the hon. member drew his information; he believed he had it from Mr. Finnerty.
Mr. Bennetstated, that he had had no communication with Mr. Finnerty on the subject, but he believed him to be entitled to as much personal credit as the hon. baronet himself.
Sir T. Lethbridgedid not pretend to say that the conduct of the gaoler might not be exceptionable, but he was sure that not the slightest blame could be attributed to the visiting magistrates. The best means had been used to improve the gaol, especially with regard to its relation to the river; the foundation was several feet above the level of the river. He preferred a commission, by which both time and money would be saved.
§ Mr. Creeveywould vote for a committee in preference to a commission. In one case the House had the affair in its own hands; in the other it listened to commissioners appointed by the Crown, of whom he confessed he entertained a peculiar jealousy. He did not like to see places made on such occasions as this, of 1,000l. or 1,500l. a year for the dependents of ministers. It was one of the many ways in which the Crown added to its patronage.
Mr. D. Brownehoped the House would not allow itself to be led into a serious discussion by all the babbling trifles that were uttered with respect to every gaol in the kingdom. The appointment of commissions or committees was a power which the House ought to exercise rarely.
§ Mr. Humeexpressed his surprise at the words used by the hon. member. As the hon. member had come from Ireland, where oppression, especially in prisons, was notoriously so familiar, his feelings might be steeled to the complaints or sufferings of prisoners. But the parliament of England was not yet, he hoped, prepared to adopt such indifference, or to sanction such scenes as had desolated and degraded Ireland. The case stated by the worthy aldermen was so flagitious, that he could not conceive it possible for the House to refuse inquiry.
Mr. Robinsonspoke in favour of a commission, observing, that although all the witnesses for the complainants might be at large, it did not follow that some of the witnesses on the other side might not be in prison. So that if a committee were even appointed, it might be necessary to resort to a commission at last. As to what had been suggested by the hon. member for Appleby, that the appointment of the commission might invest government with some trumpery patronage, he was not surprised at such a suggestion from such a quarter; but he had no hesitation in stating, that no consideration of patronage could weigh with him, or any of his friends near him, upon a question of this nature.
§ Mr. Harbordthought that if a commission were appointed, it ought to consist of persons perfectly acquainted with the prison. He would object to any paid commission.
§ Mr. Goulburnthen moved as an amendment, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to issue a commission to inquire into what has been, and now is, the condition and treatment of prisoners confined in Ilchester gaol, the conduct and management of the said gaol, and the site and buildings of the same." After some further conversation, the question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question," was put and negatived. The main question as amended, was then put and agreed to.