PENITENTIARY. (Hansard, 10 July 1835)

§ Dr. Bowring
objected to the vote, on account of the great expense of the prisoners. There were 600 of them, and the expense of keeping each was 10s. per week, or nearly 1s. 6d. per day, which was four times as much as the average cost of each prisoner in other prisons.

§ Mr. Hume
complained of the great expense of the medical department. There were two surgeons, one of whom received a salary of 400l. a-year, and the other upwards of 200l. He also said, that the annual average expense of keeping each prisoner was 27l., whilst a labourer, and a family of three children were often supported on the lesser sum of 20l. a-year. He considered such an expense liable to very great objections. He was glad to see that the hulks would soon be got rid of, as they had proved hitherto to be the very hot-beds of crime. He had visited the establishment last month, and saw that it was in a very good condition; but a foreigner that accompanied him said, that the system was the very best contrivance to spend a large sum of money for a given object. He had voted for the establishment of the Penitentiary in 1811, but he had since been convinced that they had been the dupes of a system attended with great expense, and which was perfectly useless. The establishment ought to be got rid of altogether. It might make a good central prison for the confining soldiers, instead of having recourse to the disgraceful practice of flogging them.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had frequently visited the establishment in question, and he agreed with the hon. Member who spoke last as to its being well managed. With respect to the expenses of it, they 423 might, and he understood they were to be reduced. But what was to be done, looking at the present state of crime in the country, if the establishment was got rid of altogether?

§ Sir Thomas Fremantle
was happy to find the hon. Member for Middlesex bearing testimony to the good management of the Penitentiary. The Committee, which sat two years ago on capital punishments, bore testimony to the good caused by this establishment. He confessed that it was an expensive establishment, but it was a very serious question to get rid of it altogether. He was of opinion that no additional prisoners should be sent to the hulks, but an end ought not to be put to the Penitentiary, which now contained 660 prisoners, and that it should not be done especially at this time, when they were about to legislate on the subject of abolishing capital punishments. He was an advocate for the Penitentiary system, and a great number of persons were sent out of the Penitentiary much better on account of the discipline they had undergone in it, and they left it with thanks and gratitude to the officers of the establishment, and especially for the religious benefits they had received while in it. When the expenses of the prison were mentioned, it should be borne in mind that it was never full. It was capable of holding 1,000 persons—only 660 were in it, and the officers, the governor, chaplain, and surgeons, were kept up at the same expense as they would cost if the prison was actually full. It was not fair to calculate what was the expense of each prisoner by dividing the gross expenses by the number of prisoners now in the establishment. He could see no objection to sending military prisoners to the Penitentiary.

§ Mr. Edward Buller
said, that the gaols in Staffordshire averaged about 500 prisoners, and that the annual expense of the medical attendant was only 100l.

§ Viscount Sandon
hoped that the observations that had been made would remove the large expense for medical attendance at the Penitentiary, whether it was 400l. or 700l. a-year, as the hon. Member for Middlesex stated it was. He was in favour of the Penitentiary system; it ought not to be lightly done away with, as it was of great importance that young men should have an opportunity of reforming, and by means of the Penitentiary they 424 were frequently enabled to return reformed to their families.

§ Mr. Fox Maule
begged to state, that no one was discharged from the Penitentiary without having undergone a previous trial as to his or her good conduct. To show that the system was working well, he must inform the House that, in 1833, there were 83 males and 23 females discharged; in 1834 there were 118 males and a number of females in a similarly increased proportion discharged. The silent system had been lately adopted, and it was intended to carry it into more general effect, as good results had been derived from it.

§ Sir Thomas Fremantle
had one other observation to make with respect to the expenses of medical attendance. The hon. Member for Middlesex had stated it to be 700l. a-year; but the hon. Member had laid on 100l. too much, as the accounts of the establishment would prove. One of the medical attendants was constantly at the establishment, and the reason there were two was that cases might occur when the Committee would not be satisfied with the opinion of one medical man. The prison was now in a very healthy state, and perhaps one medical officer would be sufficient.

§ Lord John Russell
agreed with the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, that the Penitentiary system was one that ought not to be lightly abandoned. With regard to establishments of this sort they must be necessarily expensive, but he thought that some reduction might be made in the salaries of the officers. With respect to diminishing the diet of the prisoners, or rendering its quality inferior, no saving would arise, as the consequence would be increased disease. The system had been tried in various prisons, and it appeared that the expenses consequent upon disease arising from poor diet were greater than if a more generous nourishment were made use of.