PRISONS (SCOTLAND). (Hansard, 12 April 1839)

§ Sir G. Clerk
was understood to say, that he should propose a division of the measure into two bills; and he certainly thought, that if a Board of Commissioners were appointed to sit in Edinburgh for 1324 the regulation of jails in Scotland, they ought not to be invested with any greater powers than were absolutely necessary for insuring uniformity in the discipline of prisons in that part of the United Kingdom. It would be highly objectionable to take the control of local funds from the hands of those magistrates who had hitherto exercised it, and lodge it in a general board, and the whole expense of erecting the general prisons or penitentiaries should be defrayed by Government. If however, this could not be granted, he should propose, that instead of such general assessment of the expense, founded on very arbitrary rules, as would be fixed by the bill, all persons sent by the sentence of a court to one of these prisons, should be maintained in it at the expense of the district from which they were sent. This would obviate the very serious evil of imposing a heavy burden on parts of the country where crime was rare. If the hon. Gentlemen opposite would assent to neither of these suggestions, he must still urge, that instead of placing the whole money to be raised under the bill, amounting to 30,000l. per annum, at the disposal of a general board or of the inspectors of prisons, to be distributed at their discretion, without reference to the amount of crime in particular districts, it should be put under the management of local boards, subject to the superintendence of the general board. With respect to assessment, he thought he had the authority of hon. Gentlemen opposite, according to what they had stated last Session, for holding that the two objects of local and general assessment could not be effectually provided for in the same bill. He could assure the House, that he was most anxious for a measure of reform of the system of prisons in Scotland, and very unwilling to throw delays in the way of accomplishing that object. It was therefore only from a sense of paramount duty, that he moved that it be an instruction to the committee to divide the bill into two bills, if they think fit to do so.

§ Mr. Fox Maule
said, that the hon. Baronet must excuse him if he doubted his sincerity when he said, that he advocated the principle of this bill, as his speech was undoubtedly directed against every clause of it. The hon. Baronet chiefly objected to the unconstitutional powers to be given to the board, but that objection was removed by the appeal to Parliament which 1325 the bill gave to any parties who might consider themselves injuriously affected by the operations of the board, The hon. Baronet also said, that the Board would be composed of some of the Judges of the Court of Session, who from the pressure of their other avocations would not be able to attend to the duties connected with it; but those avocations were not so severe as to prevent them from giving half an hour of their time once or twice a week to the duties required under this bill. He could not agree to the proposition of the hon. Baronet, and must give it his opposition.

§ Sir William Rae
denied, that the gentlemen of Scotland had been neglectful of the state of prisons there, and every county would show, that large sums of money had been laid out in the improvements of gaols. He admitted, however, that what had been done had not been done upon a good principle, and therefore, he was very anxious, that every thing should be done under the direction of a board properly constituted. He thought it would have been much better, that upon this subject two bills should have been brought in, instead of the one now before the House, but still he would not divide the House upon an opposition to it.

§ Mr. Hawes
said, that as he had paid some attention to the subject, he hoped he might be allowed to make some observations on the present occasion. There was a great difference between the systems of Scotch and English prisons. In this country the whole of the prisons were supported out of the county funds; but the object of the hon. Baronet was to have the Scotch prisons maintained by the public generally. The whole sum in dispute was 30,000l.; and for this sum, which would not amont to one penny in the pound, the hon. Baronet would risk this bill. As penitentiaries were required in Scotland for the accommodation of Scotch offenders, it was clear, that the expense of such prisons ought to fall upon the landed interest; and as there was no possibility of ascertaining the real state of crime in Scotland, it was no valid objection to the present measure, that they were unable to define the particular amount which must be paid by each district. For his own part, he thought, that this bill would be a great advantage to Scotland, and therefore he should give it his cordial support.

Mr. Colquhoun
said, that great injustice had been done to the gentry of Scotland, when it was said, that they had done nothing for the prisons of that country, and this would be apparent when he stated, that from the year 1819 down to the present time they had expended no less a sum than 66,000l. on the improvements of the prisons of that country, He did not object to the proposed central board; on the contrary, it might be advantageous; but what he feared was that placing such extensive powers in their hands would operate unfairly on the different counties, by making those counties where prisons were carefully managed contribute to the support of the prisons of other counties, in which there might be an improvident expenditure. He objected to taxation without representation, and therefore he thought, that though it might be proper to place the penitentiaries under the control of a general board, it would be most unfair to take the government of the county prisons out of the hands in in which they were now placed. On the whole he approved of dividing the bill into two bills.

§ The Lord Advocate
thought there might be an advantageous division of the prisoners detained on charges before trial, and those confined afterwards. Those detained in custody before trial, ought to share in various advantages which those kept in custody afterwards ought not to have. That was the only advantage that could be derived from dividing the bill into two parts. Under the superintendence of the board, such prisons would be erected as were necessary. He was glad that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock was not against the tax. The purpose they all had in view—namely, the better regulation of prisons, would not be attained by dividing the bill into two. There were great objections to dividing the bill into two; in the first place, only one might pass, and the Members for England might not be disposed to advance 10,000l. without security that the other bill would pass to provide adequate prison accommodation for other parts of Scotland.

Captain Gordon
regretted exceedingly that the proposition of his hon. Friend below (Sir G. Clerk) was not acceded to. The gentlemen of Scotland were very desirous to have good prison accommodation provided. Many districts had already assessed themselves for that purpose, and 1327 they were extremely anxious that those who had not done so should be compelled to do so; and he had no doubt, therefore, if his hon. Friend would provide a bill for that especial purpose, but that he would pass it. The hon. Member talked of district prisons. Let each district pay for its prisons; but why tax a distant district for prisons in which it had no benefit? He contended that the jail of Perth, if properly fitted up, would answer all the purposes required, and provide sufficient accommodation for the prisoners, without going to the expense of 30,000l. in fitting up prisons. If the hon. Member the Under Secretary of State was not prepared to divide the bill into two, let the bill compel those who had not hitherto provided prisons to provide them.

List of the AYES.
Arbuthnott, hon. H.	Houstoun, G.
Baillie, Colonel.	Kemble, H.
Blair, J.	Lockhart, A. M.
Broadley, H.	Mackenzie, T.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Rae, rt. hon. sir W.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Sinclair, Sir G.
Hepburn, sir T. B.	Vivian, J. E.
Hodgson. R.	TELLERS
Hope, hon. C.	Clerk, Sir G.
Hope, G. W.	Colquhoun, I. C.

List of the NOES.
Abercromby, hn. G. R.	Gillon, W. D.
Adam, Admiral	Gordon, R.
Aglionby, H. A.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Baines, E.	Hastie, A.
Bannerman, A.	Hawes, B.
Baring, F. T.	Hobhouse, T. B.
Barnard, E. G.	Howick, Lord Visct.
Bentinck, Lord W.	Hutton, R.
Bernal, R.	Loch, J.
Blake, W. J.	Macleod, R.
Bodkin, J. J.	M'Taggart J.
Briscoe, J. I.	Melgund, Lord Vis.
Brotherton, J.	Morris, D.
Campbell, Sir J.	Murray, A.
Chalmers, P.	Murray, rt. hon. J. A.
Craig, W. G.	Muskett, G. A.
Dalmeny, Lord	O'Ferrall, R. M.
Dennistoun, J.	Parker, J.
Donkin, Sir R. S.	Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.
Dundas, F.	Rice, rt. hon. T. S.
Dundas, hon. J. C.	Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Dundas, Sir R.	Salwey, Colonel
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Smith, B.
Ellice, E.	Stanley, E. J.
Ferguson, R.	Steuart, R.
Finch, F.	Stuart, Lord J.
Fort, J.	Stock, Dr.

Strickland, Sir G.	Wallace, R.
Strutt, E.	Warburton, H.
Thornely, T.	Worsley, Lord
Troubridge, Sir E. T.	Yates, J.
Turner, E.	TELLERS.
Vigors, N. A.	Fox Maule, hon. F.
Villiers, hon. C. P.	Kinnaird, hon. A. F.