Commons Sitting of 3 June 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Baths and Washhouses. 2° Highway Rates; Stage Carriages, &c. Duties; Soap Allowances.
Reported.—British American Land Company; Van Diemen's Land Company; Quakers' and Jews' Marriages; Juvenile Offenders.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Ewart, from different places in the Colony of New South Wales, against the Renewal of the present System of Transportation.—By Sir B. Hall, and Mr. Masterman, from several places, for Regulating the Qualification of Chemists and Druggists.—By Mr. P. Howard, from Catholic Clergymen and Laymen of Wigton, and Sir R. Peel, from Everingham, for Alteration of the Proposed Plan of Education.—By Mr. C. Buller, from Liskeard, in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.—By Mr. Clive, from two places in Shropshire, and Mr. Hawes, from Members of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and Licentiates of the Society of Apothecaries, London, in favour of the Medical Registration and Medical Law Amendment Bill.

THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
MR. WARD MR. WARD moved the consideration of the Report on the Thames Conservancy Bill.
On the Question that the Amendments made by the Committee to the Bill be read a Second Time,
SIR R. H. INGLIS, was aware that the consent of the Crown must be obtained to this Bill before it could be submitted to Parliament; and he wished to ask whether the law officers of the Crown had advised Her Majesty to surrender the rights of the Crown affected by this measure to a private body to be appointed under the Bill. Prom the time of Lord Hale, there had been no doubt that the Crown was entitled to the soil of the rivers of this country. He did not deny that the corporation
18
of London possessed, and had continually exercised, jurisdiction upon the waters of the Thames; but he was not aware that the Crown had ever parted with its right to the soil; and he wished to know whether the law officers of the Crown had advised Her Majesty to abandon that right?
The ATTORNEY GENERALreplied, that he had felt it his duty to advise Her Majesty to assent to this Bill. It was true that, primâ facie, by the law of England, the land between high and low water mark belonged to the Crown; but it was not so clear in whom the right to the soil of the river Thames was vested. The subject had been brought before the Master of the Rolls; but, although decisions had been given upon points of form, no judgment had been given upon the merits of the question. He was perfectly satisfied that the course proposed to be taken under this Bill would be most beneficial to the public.
MR. HUMEexpressed his approval of the objects of the Bill. There was little probability that the suit now pending between the corporation of London and the Woods and Forests would be determined within twenty years; and the question arose whether the impediments to the navigation of the river Thames ought to be permitted to exist until that suit was decided? This Bill proposed to make over to a board, to be called the Conservancy Board, all the powers possessed by the Crown, by the corporation of the city of London, or by any other parties, with regard to the conservancy of the Thames, in order that that board might take measures for removing impediments to the navigation. By this Bill, every shilling that could legally be applied to the improvement of the Thames would be placed under the administration of the Conservancy Board. He considered that the measure was of the utmost importance to the trade of London; he fully approved of the objects of the Bill; but he did not concur in the system by which it was proposed to carry out those objects. The Bill provided that the Conservancy Board should consist of nineteen persons, who wore to be exclusively aldermen and common councillors. He (Mr. Hume) had recommended, in Committee, that the number of the Board should be reduced to twelve, and that it should comprise eight members of the corporation of London—three aldermen and five common councilmen; and four members to be appointed by the shipping and commercial interests. He moved as an Amendment,

19
that the Bill be recommitted, for the purpose of attaining the objects which he had in view.
MR. WARDsaid, that the object of the Bill was the public advantage. It might be possible to have a better board by joining to it the representatives of the different interests referred to by the hon. Member for Montrose; but the House must recollect that they had to deal with a case where the conservancy of the river Thames had been invested in the corporation of London from time immemorial; and under the provisions of the present Bill they had undertaken to remove shoals at an estimated expense of 100,000 l., and to widen and deepen the navigable channel at an expense of 350,000 l. on the whole. So long as there was a divided authority, no one would undertake to remove the shoals, or to make the necessary improvements. The Bill would leave all the legal rights of the different parties as they stood at present.
The EARL of LINCOLNsaid, that there could not be two opinions with respect to the object of the Bill, for every one must be sensible of the importance of any measure to effect an improvement of the present bad state of the Thames. He had on a former occasion stated to the hon. Member for Montrose that he would not object to a commission of persons representing the interests both of the city and the Crown, but he did not approve of the plan suggested by the present Bill. He had, in 1842, proposed an arrangement for the conservancy of the river Mersey, and since then all the disputes of the conflicting parties there had ceased. He was adverse to such a board of conservancy as was proposed to be appointed by the present Bill, which he feared would give rise to jealousies and difficulties never to be overcome. He was confident that the proposed plan would never give satisfaction; and that the Board would be regarded with distrust and disfavour by the commercial and shipping interests. Neither did he entirely approve of the plan of the hon. Member for Montrose; but, deeming that the lesser evil of the two, he should support the hon. Member's Motion.
VISCOUNT MORPETH, when he came into office, found the suit acting as a complete impediment to improvements which had been recommended. It was stated by Mr. Pemberton, the Solicitor to the Office of Woods and Forests, that the suit might last five years; that the demurrer of the corporation had been overruled by the
20
Master of the Rolls, but that the corporation had appealed to the House of Lords, and that, assuming the judgment to be affirmed, and the corporation to have to answer the information, issues at law would probably be directed when the cause came on to be heard, and application would most likely be made for a second trial of those issues. Now, though he (Lord Morpeth) believed that the right of the Crown was perfectly legitimate and well-founded, yet the claim for any profits in consequence of that right was never formally preferred till three or four years ago, and the amount was stated not to have exceeded 1,400 l. or 1,500 l. in any one year; and at the same time it was declared by the city, that the abeyance of this sum and the existence of this suit prevented the carrying into effect those improvements which they stated they should otherwise be disposed to accomplish. It seemed quite fair and proper that funds derived from the shore and soil of the Thames should be applied for the improvement of the navigation and the accommodation of trade. Experience had certainly failed to prove that there were any means of compelling the city to undertake the operations which were thought necessary; but they now came forward and offered to raise upon their own credit almost an enormous sum of money to carry them into effect. He (Lord Morpeth) had left it to the Admiralty to settle the details of the Bill, and they had consulted those to whom they were accustomed to defer, and were informed that the improvements proposed under this Bill were such as were material and necessary. The Board of Conservancy would be charged with the duty and responsibility of carrying those improvements into effect; and a superior Board of Control was to be instituted—to which the city consented—framed in very close accordance with the Board instituted by the noble Earl (the Earl of Lincoln) for the river Mersey. The three superior members of that Board were the First Lord of the Admiralty, the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and the only difference in the present case was in the substitution of the President of the Board of Trade for the Chancellor of the Duchy. It was not likely that the sums to be received under this Bill would be more than sufficient to defray the expense of the operations which the city had by the Bill bound themselves to undertake; but the details of the expenditure would be laid before Par-

21
liament; and if any surplus should arise in the course of years, Parliament would then be called upon to adjudge its application.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEalways looked with considerable suspicion upon any measure that emanated from the corporation of the city of London. How could the House consent to such a Bill as this, with the praiseworthy example in the case of the Mersey held out to them? What power would the superior Board have to control the aldermanic board? The Bill would give taxing powers to the extent of 350,000 l. Why was this to be considered a private Bill? It was a public measure, affecting the port of London, and thereby the commerce of the country, and ought not to be referred to the Admiralty and a set of aldermen.
MR. W. WILLIAMSthought there should be an efficient body to manage the navigation of the river, and the merchants and shipowners ought to have a voice in the election of that body. Neither the Court of Aldermen nor the Common Council included leading merchants or shipowners. Every shipowner complained of the present system of management. The Government, with right principle on their side, would not find the corporation of London so powerful as they imagined.
MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDthought the Government had taken a wise course in making this compromise.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—Ayes 65; Noes 71: Majority 6.

List of the AYES.

Allix, J. P.

Guest, Sir J.

Arkwright, G.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Baine, W.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Barclay, D.

Hill, Lord E.

Barnard, E. G.

Hodgson, R.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Boyd, J.

Howard, P. H.

Buller, C.

Humphery, Ald.

Busfeild, W.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Lemon, Sir C.

Copeland, Ald.

Lyall, G.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Denison, J. E.

Marjoribanks, S.

Duke, Sir J.

Masterman, J.

Dundas, Adm.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Dundas, Sir D.

Milnes, R. M.

Ebrington, Visct.

Mitchell, T. A.

Escott, B.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Monahan, J. H.

Frewen, C. H.

Morpeth, Visct.

Fuller, A. E.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Palmer, R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Palmerston, Visct,

22

Parker, J.

Stanton, W. H.

Pattison, J.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Philipps, Sir R. B. P.

Stuart, Lord J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Rich, H.

Trelawny, J. S.

Rolleston, Col.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Ross, D. R.

Tufnell, H.

Sheppard, T.

Turner, E.

Smith, A.

TELLERS.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Ward, H. G.

List of the NOES.

Adare, Visct.

Hall, Sir B.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hamilton, W. J.

Austen, Col.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Bailey, J., jun.

Hughes, W. B.

Baillie, H. J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bankes, G.

Irton, S.

Barrington, Visct

Johnstone, Sir J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Knight, F. W.

Bowles, Adm.

Law, hon. C. E.

Bowring, Dr.

Lefroy, A.

Bramston, T. W.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Broadwood, H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Brotherton, J.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Mackenzie, T.

Cardwell, E.

Mahon, Visct.

Carew, W. H. P.

Manners, Lord J.

Carnegie, hon. Capt.

Maunsell, T. P.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Morris, D.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Muntz, G. F.

Collett, J.

Pakington, Sir J.

Deedes, W.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Dickinson, F. H.

Philips, G. R.

Divett, E.

Prime, R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Russell, J. D. W.

Drummond, H. H.

Somerset, Lord G.

Duncan, Visct.

Spooner, R.

Duncan, G.

Thornely, T.

Duncombe, T.

Vernon, G. H.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Walker, R.

Evans, W.

Wawn, J. T.

Ewart, W.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Forster, M.

Wrightson, W. B.

Gladstone, Capt.

Yorke, H. R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Young, J.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

TELLERS.

Granger, T. C.

Hume, J.

Greene, T.

Williams, W.

Bill to be recommitted.

PORTUGAL.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONpresented to the House, by command, a copy of the Protocol of a Conference relating to the affairs of Portugal.
MR. HUMEasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would move a Committee of Supply to-morrow (Friday) night, to enable him to bring on the Motion of which he had given notice?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could only repeat the statement which had been made by his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, that Her Majesty's Government felt it desirable, not only on their own account,

23
but on account of all the parties who were likely to take a share in the discussion, that the House should he in possession of all the papers before the discussion took place. He hoped that the papers would be presented to the House by Monday. To-morrow night he intended to move the third reading of the Loan Discount Bill before the other Orders. As soon as the papers in the case of Portugal were before the House, he should move a Committee of Supply for the purpose of giving his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) the opportunity of bringing forward his Motion.
MR. BAILLIEsaid, that the absence of the papers might be a disadvantage to the hon. Member for Montrose; but it could be none to Her Majesty's Government, who were in possession of all the information on the subject, and could as readily take the discussion to-morrow as any other day.
MR. HUMEwould bring forward his Motion in the event of a Committee of Supply being moved.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONcould only say that every exertion was making and should be made to have all the papers laid on the Table as soon as possible.
MR. BORTHWICKremarked, that when he saw the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) lay a respectable-looking packet of papers on the Table, he was in hopes it was the papers on this question. It appeared, however, he was mistaken. If the noble Lord was to present a large blue book for their perusal on Monday morning, he (Mr. Borthwick) feared there would not be time for them to read it before the discussion.
SIR R. PEELsaid, it would be inconvenient that it should be left in a state of uncertainty whether this subject was to come on on Monday night or not. If the papers were voluminous, he did not think, considering how many members were on Committees, that it would be possible to read the papers with that attention which a matter of such great importance deserved, if they were not delivered until Monday, and the discussion should take place on Monday night. He thought the best plan would be to wait until to-morrow, and then they would know whether it would be possible the papers could be delivered on Saturday night, which would make a material difference. To-morrow the noble Lord would probably be able to state when the papers would be delivered, and then they could
24
settle whether the discussion should come on on Monday or Friday next.
MR. HUME, under these circumstances, would wait till to-morrow.
Papers to lie on the Table.

PRISONS—CONVICT DICIPLINE.
SIR G. GREY, having moved the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Prisons Bill, proceeded to speak to the following effect: I now rise for the purpose of moving that you leave the chair, Sir, in order that the House go into Committee upon the Prisons Bill. That Bill, and the Bill which stands next on the Orders of the Day, called the Custody of Offenders Bill, relate to the same subject, and form part of the general arrangements contemplated by Her Majesty's Government. Before I proceed further, it may be proper and convenient for the House that I should make a general statement on the present occasion of the objects which those Bills are intended to effect. The Prisons Bill proposes to constitute a new board of management for the three national or Government prisons of Milbank, Pentonville, and Parkhurst. By an Act passed in 1843 Milbank prison was placed under the management of a certain number of inspectors of prisons appointed by the Secretary of State. Those inspectors were authorized to make regulations for the government of the prison, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. Milbank prison was also, by the same Act, constituted a depot for the reception of prisoners from England, Wales, and Scotland, who were under sentence of transportation. The prisoners were sent to this prison after their sentences were passed, and previous to their being ultimately disposed of. Pentonville, by an Act passed in 1842, was placed under the management of a board of unpaid Commissioners, who were nominated by the Crown, not less than seven nor more than eleven in number. Two inspectors were also members of that board. Parkhurst prison, by an Act passed in 1838, was placed under the general superintendence of the Secretary of State, who had power to appoint a committee of visitors, with instructions to attend to the management of the prison, and to make stated reports to him. On this visiting committee were two inspectors and the Surveyor General of Prisons, who transacted the greater part of the business, and conducted all the correspondence. The first Bill placed all these prisons under one

25
management; the composition of the board of management being similar in its main features to the present board for the management of Pentonville. The members of the board would consist of men of large experience, whose attention had been directed to the subject of prison discipline—men of weight and influence in the country. Experience having proved that it is impossible, in dealing with the management of an affair which required constant attention on the part of the superintending body, to rely on a board altogether composed of men who had other avocations to attend to, and whom you could not compel to give their attendance, it has been felt desirable to have one paid Commissioner, who will be required to give his whole time to the duties of the commission, to be in constant communication with the Secretary of State, and, in fact, to discharge all the duties which are at present discharged by the governor of Milbank prison and the inspectors of prisons. We also propose to introduce an alteration into the Bill since it came from the other House, owing to other proceedings which have been in progress since that time, namely, that the hulks and other places of confinement for convicts under sentence of transportation, shall be placed under the same board of management. I may remind the House, that the office of Superintendent of Convicts was abolished, immediately as regards the colonies, and prospectively as regards England, by an Act introduced last year by the then Secretary of State for the Home Department; but it was not then decided what alternative should be adopted for the discharge of the duties of that office, the decision being left in the hands of Government when the occasion should arise by the office being vacant. That office is now vacant by the retirement of the gentleman who has long filled it; and it is therefore proposed that the duties which have hitherto been discharged by the Superintendent of Convicts shall now be discharged by the proposed Commission, and that it shall be the board of management for the hulks and other similar places of confinement, the same as for the prisons of Milbank, Pentonville, and Parkhurst. I may here as well state, with reference to a possible objection that may be urged, of an increase of patronage under this measure, that the offices to be created by it will be merely substitutes for the offices abolished by the Bill passed last year to which I have already referred—that there will, in fact, be
26
exactly the same number of offices, but existing under another name. The second Bill, entitled, "A Bill to Amend the Law as to the Custody of Offenders," proposes by the first clause to place the Irish convicts on the same footing as the English and Scotch with reference to transportation. The second clause proposes that offenders under sentence of transportation in Great Britain or Ireland may be removed from the county prisons in which they are severally confined to any other of Her Majesty's prisons or penitentiaries, by order of the Crown. I understand that there is some apprehension entertained with reference to the expense of this scheme. I shall abstain from entering into that point at present; but I hope that by the Amendments which I mean to propose in Committee, and by the explanations which I shall give, to satisfy hon. Members on the subject of the probable expense of the measure to the country. Having thus briefly stated the object of the two Bills, I come now to deal with the general question—and a more important question cannot be brought under the consideration of Parliament—I mean the subject of secondary punishments. I approach the subject with a deep sense of my own inadequacy to do it full justice—under a strong sense of its importance, and the difficulties by which it is surrounded. Of the importance of the subject, I believe every hon. Gentleman who hears me is fully persuaded; but of the difficulties of it no man can be fully aware whose attention has not necessarily been closely directed to, and who has not given the most careful consideration to the course which has been adopted with regard to secondary punishments of late years. I know that the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) is disposed to treat this matter as comparatively free from difficulty—that he is prepared to tell us that prevention is better than cure—and that we ought to give the people a sound, moral, and religious education, in order to obviate the necessity for enactments of this kind in regard to prison discipline, as it is very much owing to-want of education that there is so muck disorder and crime in the country. I agree with the hon. Member as to the importance of education; but after the discussion which has taken place on that subject during the present Session of Parliament, I need say nothing in reference to it. The importance of the question was fully admitted, when this House, by a large majority, declared it

27
was the duty of the State to promote the education of the people by every means at their disposal; hut I am afraid that, whatever means we adopt for the education of the people, prisons will still be necessary—that it will still he incumbent on us to consider in what way we can best deal with criminal offenders suffering under the sentence of the law, and the best mode of discipline that can he applied to them. The great attention which has recently been directed to this subject, must certainly be a satisfactory feature in the present case. The great object is to combine, in any system of this kind, the deterring effect of punishment by the suffering and privation which are inflicted on the offender, with a view to that protection to life and property which society has a right to demand: the great object is to combine with that principle the other important principle of the reformation of offenders; and the difficulty with which Government always has had to contend, was in adjusting the balance between the two principles. The object, however, is one of such importance, that I think no Government should shrink from endeavouring, as far as possible, to carry it out in any system which they may propose with respect to secondary punishments. After the experience of the failure of former schemes—after the results of experience which the documents laid upon the Table of the House from time to time furnish of the various attempts which have been made by able men—by men who have devoted the greatest possible attention to the question, and who were actuated by the most humane, enlightened, and benevolent motives—I must acknowledge that we feel considerable diffidence in bringing forward a new scheme on this subject; but, although the plan of which I am about to state the outline to the House, and which we have adopted after giving it the best consideration in our power, may not be attended with all the beneficial results we might desire—it nevertheless, I trust, holds out the prospect of advantages such as have not attended any system hitherto tried. In stating this, I have no wish to claim undue credit for the present Government; it is the consequence of the circumstances of the time, which afford greater facilities for establishing a system of secondary punishments than at any former period of our history. Looking back to a more remote period than the last few years, I am afraid we must confess that little was done with the view to the reformation of of-
28
fenders. It must be observed, too, that until of late years, almost all that ever was done in the way of the reformation of offenders was effected by the benevolence and zeal in the cause of humanity of private individuals, whose names will be enrolled in the pages of history as benefactors of the human race. It is unnecessary for me to mention the individuals to whom I allude; but there are two to whom, from the circumstance of their belonging to the other sex, I may be excused for referring: I mean Mrs. Fry, whose name will always be associated with the best efforts ever made for the reformation of offenders; and another woman, whose name, owing to the humble sphere in which she moved, has obtained less publicity, though her conduct was influenced by motives no less benevolent than those of the former lady, and whoso philanthropic exertions were characterized with no less zeal and success—I allude to Sarah Martin. Whilst little was done by the State in the way of the reformation of offenders, the system of transportation seemed to afford a ready means of getting rid of them. I do not mean to say that the responsibility of the Government ended when criminals were sent from this country; but the sense of responsibility was weakened by their being removed to a distance. The means of acting on the responsibility that attaches to any Government with regard to the fate of criminals, is materially diminished when the criminals are, for purposes of punishment, sent to a distance. I cannot help remarking that nothing is more indefinite than the idea conveyed by the term "transportation." Few persons could ever know what would be the future condition of criminals who were sentenced to transportation. Deportation did not constitute the punishment, but on the criminal's arrival in the colony to which he was subjected to the loss of liberty, and compelled to undertake forced labour. When the present Government came into office last year, the question of transportation in connexion with secondary punishments forced itself on our attention. The question which demanded immediate consideration was whether, after the experience of successive attempts to carry on the system of transportation under different forms, as recorded in the results of that system which had from time to time been laid before Parliament, it was possible to continue it with a due regard to the reformation of offenders—with due regard to the interests of the convicts

29
themselves, which every Government is bound to provide for—and, still more, with due regard to the interests of the colonial communities to which criminals were transported. On this point my opinion was clear. I had not the slightest doubt, whatever difference of opinion may prevail as to the course which it may be expedient to pursue hereafter, that some essential change was indispensable in the system heretofore pursued. Every precaution which has been taken to make the punishment of transportation productive of beneficial results, consistently with the deportation of criminals to another hemisphere, immediately after they were convicted and sentenced, has signally failed. It is unnecessary for me to refer to the earlier periods of the history of transportation. An able summary of the history of transportation is contained in the report of a Committee which sat in 1837 and 1838, and was presided over with great ability by the hon. Member for Southwark. That report gives the history of transportation from its origin with great clearness, and points out the evils which attach to the system of assignment. Convicts on their arrival in the colonies were deprived of their personal liberty and subjected to compulsory labour, not by the Government, but by a system of assignment to individuals. No attempt was over made to answer the statement made in the report respecting the evils resulting from the system of assignment; and the consequence was the abandonment of that system, on the ground of its incompatibility with the object of transportation. The great objection to the assignment system was, that it was impossible to form any accurate judgment as to what the criminals would be, who, on their arrival in the colonies, were dispersed amongst different settlers. A convict who was utterly destitute of moral principle, if he happened to be educated, and could make himself useful to his employer, was as well or perhaps better off in the colonies than he was in this country previous to committing crime. He was able to acquire wealth; and it can hardly be said that he suffered any of the consequences which ought to attach to the commission of crime; the only difference, indeed, between his new and his former condition was, that he was unable to return to the land of his birth. On the other hand, there was a great difference in the condition of convicts employed in agriculture, which arose from the character of
30
their masters. Many of those convicts were in a condition of absolute slavery, living under masters destitute of principle, and of tyrannical disposition. The only advantages resulting from the system of assignment was, that it tended to the dispersion of convicts, instead of bringing them together in large masses—a system which had been productive of such frightful evils. The report of the Committee of 1837–8 recommended that transportation to New South Wales should cease, and that compulsory labour and other secondary punishments in penitentiaries in this country should be substituted for it. These recommendations underwent the careful consideration of the Government, and were partly adopted. The assignment system was abolished shortly afterwards; and last year transportation to New South Wales ceased. Bermuda and Gibraltar were assigned as places to which convicts might be sent and kept to hard labour; and power was given to the Queen in Council to name other places for the same purposes. When my noble Friend at the head of the Government presided over the Colonial Department, he suggested various improvements in the treatment of convicts, in which he was ably seconded by Sir J. Franklin, the Governor of Van Diemen's Land, and Captain Maconochie. My noble Friend suggested that no convict sentenced to only seven years' transportation should be sent abroad, but that instead he should be kept to hard labour in this country; and if his conduct merited indulgence, he should, after a certain time, be liberated. My noble Friend also contemplated that penitentiaries, after the plan of the Model Prison at Pentonville, should be erected in various parts of the country. In consequence of the abandonment of the hulk system, an increased number of convicts was sent to Norfolk Island and Van Diemen's Land under new regulations. Sir J. Franklin at first thought that these regulations produced good results; but he subsequently saw reason to change his opinion, and in a despatch of November, 1842, he declared that the new system had far from realized his anticipations of the moral improvement of the convicts. The collecting of large masses of convicts in distant colonies, without an effectual separation of individuals, had produced a state of demoralisation which it was found these new regulations were inadequate to correct. Shortly after this, Lord Stanley, who was then Colonial Secretary, took the

31
whole subject into consideration, and framed regulations which he thought calculated to correct the evils which had arrived at so frightful a pitch. In alluding to the despatch of Lord Stanley, or in anything which I may say respecting the failure of the transportation system, it is not my intention to cast the slightest blame on any one who has preceded me in my present office. It is impossible to read the voluminous papers on the Table of the House, without being satisfied of the anxious desire of all those who were responsible for this department of the public service to adopt the steps which they conceived would most conduce to the discharge of that responsibility, and answer the ends of secondary punishment. Lord Stanley, in a despatch to Sir John Franklin, having premised that it was not his intention to enter into any abstract or speculative inquiries on the subject of the punishment of crime, but only to state some broad conclusions necessary to render the more minute regulations intelligible, proceeded to observe—
"Her Majesty's Government regard it as indispensable, that every convict transported, whether for a longer or a shorter period, should actually undergo that punishment without either pardon or mitigation for some predetermined period, bearing in each case a proportion to the length of the sentence. We further think that it should be reserved to the Queen herself to make any exception from this rule; and that the Royal prerogative of mercy should not be delegated to the Governor of the colony in such terms as would enable him to relax it. We do not, however, contemplate a state of things in which the convict, suffering under the sentence of the law, should ever be excluded from the hope of amending his condition by blameless or meritorious behaviour, or from the fear of enhancing the hardships of it by misconduct. On the contrary, to keep alive an invigorating hope and a salutary dread at every stage of the progress of the prisoner, from the commencement to the close of his punishment, appears to us to be an indispensable part of the discipline to which he should be subjected. Further, we contemplate the necessity of subjecting every convict to successive stages of punishment, decreasing in rigour at each successive step until he reaches that ultimate stage in which he shall be capable of a pardon either absolute or conditional, though not ever entitled to demand that indulgence of right. It is, moreover, our opinion that the transition from one stage of punishment to another less severe, should be withheld from any convict, who, by misconduct, may have forfeited his claim to such mitigation. On the other hand, we think that a course of meritorious or blameless conduct in any one stage, should entitle the convict in any future stage of punishment to such proportionate relaxations of the severity of his condition as may be compatible with his continuance in it; and that such good conduct should ultimately have a favourable effect whenever the question of granting a pardon may be ripe for
32
decision. To these general principles it is to be added that in the case of certain classes of convicts sentenced to transportation for not more than seven years, Her Majesty's Government pro pose that the first stage of punishment should be undergone, not in the colony, but in a penitentiary in this country; and that the convicts should, at the expiration of a given time, be sent to the colony, there to enter on such stage of penal discipline as may in each particular case be indicated by the Secretary of State for the Home Department."
His Lordship then described five stages through which a convict would have to pass, on arriving at the colonies. The first stage was detention in Norfolk Island, applied to all sentences of transportation for life, and to the more aggravated cases of convicts sentenced for any term not less than fifteen years. Four years were fixed as the longest, and two years as the shortest, period of detention in Norfolk Island. The second stage of punishment was that of probation gangs, which wore to be assembled in Van Diemen's Land. These gangs were to be composed, first, of those convicts who had passed through the period of detention at Norfolk Island; and, secondly, of convicts sentenced to transportation for less time than life, who might be indicated by the Secretary of State as fit to be placed in this class. No convict placed in the probation gang was to pass less than one, or more than two years there, except in case of misconduct. The third stage of punishment which the convict would have to pass through was on his becoming the holder of a probation pass, which he could obtain only on proof of having duly served in the probation gang, and a certificate of general good conduct from the controller of convicts. In this stage the convict might, with the consent of the Government, engage in any private service for wages. The fourth stage was where the convict might become the holder of a ticket of leave. The essential condition of this class was, that the convicts possessed what might be termed "a probationary and revocable pardon," valid in the colony in which it was granted, but of no avail elsewhere. The fifth and last stage which a convict could reach during his sentence, was that of a pardon conditional or absolute. This pardon might be granted either by the Queen directly, or by the Governor, in the exercise of the Royal prerogative, delegated to him for that purpose. I will now proceed to examine the results of this system, which forced themselves on the attention of the present, and obtained the serious consideration of the

33
late Government. It is necessary to look to the question with reference both to moral and financial considerations. Lord Stanley stated in a subsequent despatch that he was justified in supposing, from the state of things at that time, that the colony was capable of supporting this system in a financial point of view. At that time the land sales were going on rapidly, and there was much capital in the colony. These statements were contained in a letter written in November, 1845, by the Under Secretary of the Colonies, by direction of Lord Stanley, to the Lords of the Treasury: it stated it had been represented to Lord Stanley that the demand for labour in the colony was such as to exclude any reasonable apprehension that the colony would not be able to support any number of free labourers. But experience has too fully demonstrated that the assumption was erroneous; the supply very far exceeded any demand that existed for labourers. Ample details are contained in the papers on the Table of the House, which fully justify the statement made by Lord Stanley in 1845. In consequence of the want of employment, and the inability to obtain their own livelihood, the convicts were thrown on the hands of the Government for support after the period at which they emerged from the first two stages of their punishment, when the Government had undertaken on its responsibility to dispose of them. The consequence of this was, in the exhausted state of the treasury of the colony, a great amount was taken from this country in order to satisfy a demand which the colony felt as an unjust pressure thrown upon its resources. This is the financial part of the subject; but the moral aspect of the question is far more important and far more formidable; but before I come to the more recent evidence on this point, I will just advert to another passage in the same letter of Lord Stanley to the Treasury, in 1845. He alludes to the representations that had been made from the colony as to the moral results of the system, and says that the contaminating influences at work among the convicts could not be contemplated without deep apprehension for its inevitable results. This subject underwent a careful consideration by Mr. Gladstone, who succeeded the noble Lord in the office of Secretary for the Colonies; and we have his deliberate opinion upon it, given two months after he assumed the office, and had had time to acquire full information as to the results of the system.
34
In a letter written on the 13th of May, 1846, by the direction of Mr. Gladstone, to the Home Office, the question was brought under the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham). Mr. Gladstone adverted to the defective character of the official reports with regard to the system, and—I need not quote the passage—to what he terms the singularly meagre details with respect to it forwarded from official sources. But in the meantime he says he has received other local accounts, which describe the system; and he concludes by hoping the Home Secretary would give the subject his early and anxious consideration, with the view of devising suitable employment and discipline for the convicts during the next two years. I wish the House to consider what was the state of things when the present Government succeeded to office, and had to deal with the question. In consequence of the communication between Mr. Gladstone and the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), it was thought essentially necessary to suspend transportation to Van Diemen's Land for a limited period of two years. In the concluding Passage of Mr. Gladstone's letter, he hopes the Government will devise some measures that will enable him to assure those concerned that the matter will speedily be brought to an issue. Immediately after I entered office, I thought it my duty to devote my early and anxious attention to this subject, which had already begun to occupy that of the right hon. Baronet, who devoted to it greater ability, and would perhaps have dealt with it more successfully than I can pretend to do. While it was in course of consideration I received additional evidence from the colony, which, instead of shaking the conclusion I had arrived at, that it was necessary to suspend transportation to Van Diemen's Land, with the expectation of resuming it at the end of two years, made it absolutely necessary to break up the convict establishment at Norfolk Island, and resume the system of sending the convicts immediately to their place of destination. I need not endeavour to prove what I believe no attempt has been made to dispute; and I hope I need not read from papers before me a long series of facts, which must convince the House some essential and radical change in the system is imperative. I will not advert to the frightful amount of crime that has grown up under the former system, the necessary result of aggregating together large masses of con-

35
victs in a distant colony, where the Government has little control; those effects are indisputable, and are the necessary result of the system of that time. But I will just advert to a remarkable document, the report of the Committee of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, contained in the papers presented on the 15th of April last. The suggestion of resuming the practice of transportation to the colony had been made in a despatch of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham), but it was thought the colony should be consulted, and the report was made. It stated that the Council itself would not have negatived the proposal; but the general sense of the colony was against it under any modification whatever, and they protested against it emphatically, denouncing the probation system as rife with evils fatal to society, corrupting and contaminating it. It is impossible to look at all the documents without seeing how strongly the proposal is denounced by all who have had an opportunity of judging of the community which has suffered from these evils. In another part of the report they protest against the re-introduction of convicts, in the probationary gangs. Mr. Pitcairn said—
"Without looking at the consequences to others, look at the convict himself. He is sentenced in England for a crime against English law. He is then put in a gang at Norfolk Island, Port Arthur, or Van Diemen's Land, where he is taught vices that he never before heard of. Is there not under the law of God a heavier crime committed against the convict than he has himself committed?"
Another document quite confirmatory of this evidence is the Fourth Report of the Pentonville Prison Commissioners, in which they state that the prisoners landed in Van Diemen's Land had soon had the benefit they derived from the discipline and teaching of that prison effaced from their minds, and they were induced to recommend that no more prisoners should be sent to Van Diemen's Land. All the other evidence contained in the papers confirms the information which reached the Government soon after its accession to office; and it convinced the Government of the absolute necessity of the breaking up of that establishment at Norfolk Island. In anticipation of that decision, Mr. Latrobe, acting governor of Van Diemen's Land, on his own responsibility, forbade ships arriving from England to land any more convicts there; and in that decision he was completely justified. Then came other accounts of outrages and murders among
36
the convicts, and the capital punishments that followed, and which were absolutely necessary to prevent the recurrence of crimes which were a disgrace to the British name. There were many passages in the papers which those gentlemen who may take part in the discussion will have read for themselves; among them, however, is one to which I would call their attention, a letter from the Bishop of Tasmania to Lord Stanley, enclosing a petition signed by twenty-five of the colonial clergy, praying for the abolition of the probation system, on the ground that throughout the colony unnatural crimes were committed among the probation gangs to a frightful extent. About 25,000 persons signed that petition; and the letters to which the Committee alluded, accompanying the address, were from several clergymen, who, if not signing the document, gave their reasons for refusing to do so. They did not, however, disapprove of the course taken; they acknowledged the fearful extent of the evil; and while stating that the question was mixed up with matters with which they objected to interfere, they expressed a very decided and explicit concurrence in the general allegations of the address. I now come to the decision at which the Government, with these facts before them, have arrived. Their decision simply is, that the first part of the penal sentence of transportation shall be passed, not in those distant colonies where we are necessarily unable to exercise the required vigilance and indispensable superintendence; but that the first part, the strictly penal part, shall be passed in the prisons of this country, or within such a distance from this country as to be free from those very serious evils which hitherto we have found inseparable from the aggregation and collection of a large number of criminals in Van Diemen's Land. I now speak of the essentially penal discipline, after which, under certain circumstances, the prisoner may reach the condition of a holder of a ticket or free pass. We do not propose materially to affect the latter part of the sentence. What we do propose is, that the early part of the punishment—that period when severe penal discipline must be enforced—should partake, as much as shall be found possible, of a reformatory character. We purpose that, during this period, that system of the Penitentiary should be made applicable to all those convicts who, from age or from other circumstances, are likely thereby to derive an ad-

37
vantage or to be improved. I mean, when I say this, the ordinary class of convicts. I think it is very desirable that there should be a class, such as that of which the majority of convicts consists, to whom the hope shall be held out, that by their conduct and good behaviour, and obedience to discipline when in confinement, they may become entitled, on being sent abroad, to conditional pardons, relieving them from the necessity of undergoing the subsequent stages of their sentence. The intention is, that at the expiration of a limited period of separate confinement, the convicts shall be employed in this country, at Bermuda, or at Gibraltar, on public works, subject to a management, to which I shall presently advert, the effect of which, we anticipate, will be to prevent those evils which hitherto have attended the system where convicts have been banded in large numbers together; and if, after this period, the sentence of transportation remains still, we propose that they shall be removed to the Australian colonies, and that there they shall be placed in the same position as the prisoners now emerging from the second class of punishment—with this exception, that instead of having undergone a process which has been demoralising to an appalling extent, they shall have reaped benefit from a system conducing largely to moral and mental improvement. The plan now about to be adopted of sending convicts out to Australia, with tickets of leave or conditional pardons, has been suggested by the Committee of the Council of New South Wales. Their recommendation was, that a system should be established under which convicts could still be sent out to New South Wales as holders of tickets of leave, being free, within certain limits, to render their labour available to their own maintenance. If accompanied by free emigrants, by their wives and families, it was thought that, in that case, it might be desirable to send them out; and the Committee of the Legislative Council seemed to be of opinion that there would be every probability of their becoming good and useful members of society. [Sir J. PAKINGTON: How long would that secondary stage be?] That will depend on the age of the convict, and I will come to that point immediately. We do not propose that actual debarkation shall take place while the prisoner is being subject to penal restraint; but that, on his arrival at the colony, he shall be a free man, within limits assigned by the ticket of leave; and
38
that he shall be uncontrolled in the free exercise of his labour; and that eventually he shall entitle himself to a pardon. Thus, effectually, the object of diffusion instead of aggregation of convicts will be attained; and thus we shall get rid of those evils and mischiefs which have characterized the system of assignment and the system hitherto resorted to. In answer to the question which has been put to me by an hon. Member, as to whether or not it is the intention of Government to resume transportation to Now South Wales, I can only say that it is not our purpose to pursue that system in the spirit in which, hitherto, it has been pursued. It is not our intention, either in Van Diemen's Land or New South Wales, to resume that system denounced by the Committee of the Legislative Council; and with regard to transportation to New South Wales, that will depend very much on what may hereafter take place. At present, it is a place to which convicts cannot with propriety be transported. On this subject, I may quote the report of the Committee of the House of Commons, dated 1832, appointed to inquire into the best mode of giving efficiency to secondary punishments. The report says, that the Committee cannot recommend the abolition of the convict establishment; that hitherto, mere transportation had not been found sufficient to deter from the commission of crime; that no system inflicting adequate punishment, could be adopted in the penal colonies, without entailing a vast expense upon the country; and that, therefore, the more exclusively penal part of the sentence should be inflicted previous to the convict being sent out of the kingdom. The Committee represented that, as the Penitentiary was not sufficiently large to contain all those, even for limited periods, sentenced to transportation, a system of hard labour in the dockyards and arsenals would be desirable; and they expressed an opinion, that such a system would return to the country the cost incurred in maintaining the convict, and would, at the same time, tend to the improvement of the individual. They admitted the vicious state of society which transportation produces; they admitted also, that transportation might be made to answer its professed object, if, on arriving at the settlement, the convict were placed in the road gangs, and compelled to go through severe labour; but they pointed out, that the result would be still more to deprave each

39
member of the gang: and they argued that, if convicts were thus employed by the Government, the colony would be injured, inasmuch as public works might be undertaken, if by contract, at a far cheaper rate. The system thus suggested was tried, and such was the result which attended the attempt. The prediction of the Committee was verified, after the experiment had been made, in every particular. The allusion of the Committee to the inadequacy of the accommodation at the penitentiaries for the number who were under sentence of transportation, was fully founded in fact, even as regarded the first period of the penal punishment; but the facilities which now exist, as I have already said, are much greater. Pentonville has since been built (I think in 1842) for the reception of 500 prisoners. The prison at Perth has also been opened since that period, and has for some time been appropriated to the reception of prisoners, and, at this moment, arrangements are in progress for the erection of prisons of a similar character in Ireland. The greatest improvements have recently been suggested, and carried out in the county and borough prisons in different parts of England; model prisons have been in operation, and the prisons lately built, have all been on that model, while in those of older date extensive alterations have been made, with a view to the adoption of the same system as that pursued in Pentonville. We have now, too, as an additional aid to assist us in the solution of the difficult problem, the actual experience at Pentonville. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), the other night, in the course of the discussion which took place on the estimates, seemed to entertain very considerable doubts as to the success of that system. I am ready to admit, with him, that the time during which the experiment has been tried, has been, as yet, short. If he asks what has been the result—what has been the success—he can only expect an answer dependent on the limited opportunity we have hitherto had. And I must say, that the result, so far as it has gone, is of a most cheering and satisfactory kind. The hon. Member expresses an opinion, that we are not in a position to judge of a convict while he is in prison; that we can only judge of him, and of the effect which the system we adopt has had on him, after he has arrived at his destination. The evidence of which we are in possession on this subject, is small, because of our brief
40
experience; but, so far as it goes, it is satisfactory. I will read to the House the last report of the Pentonville Commissioners, laid on the Table some short time ago, which is, as I may say, a summary of the progressive opinions at which previously the Commissioners had arrived. The report consists of extracts from different annual reports, referring to the effects of the discipline on the convicts, either during their probation in this country, or on their passage to the colonies. They recapitulate the declaration previously made, that there existed abundant proof of the religious and moral improvement of the prisoners; they state that the corrective influence of the discipline had been strictly maintained, without being sacrificed to the objects of reformation; and, without any hesitation, they express their satisfaction at the results. In the report of 1844, they expressed an anticipation that the system of separate confinement would effect a most salutary change in the characters of criminals, and would be most beneficial, in holding out the probability of reclaiming the offender: they concluded their fourth report with a statement that the experience of another year had confirmed all their hopes; and in the report of this year they say—
"On reviewing these opinions, we feel warranted in expressing our firm conviction, that the moral results of the discipline have been most encouraging, and attended with a success which, we believe, is without parallel in the history of prison discipline."
They refer to the specific reports of the medical commissioners to show that, as regarded the mental and bodily health of the convicts, the system had also worked admirably. They say (and in this I quite concur), that in carrying out a system of separating one prisoner from another, it is indispensable to secure a constant and vigilant medical surperintendence, and those mitigations of absolute solitude which hitherto had operated so beneficially, What they mean by "mitigation" is, access to moral and religious instruction, and that constant employment which would interest and occupy the mind.
"If these preventions are attended to," say the Commissioners, "we have no doubt that great public advantage would result from the general application of this modified system of separate confinement; for, whilst we believe that it is open to no objections which are not applicable to every other mode of imprisonment for long periods, we are confident that it affords moral advantages which no other can secure."
Such is the important, deliberate opinion

41
of the Pentonville Commissioners; and I think it right to call the attention of the House to the fact, that among the signatures appended to this report are the names of Sir B. Brodie and Dr. Ferguson, gentlemen to whoso authority, I have no doubt, the House will attach great weight. These gentlemen have not thought it consistent with their other duties to continue to be longer members of the Commission. I have received information that another arrangement has been made; and, though they will still permit their experience to be made available to the insuring the good management of the prison, they will not be called upon to take part in those general duties which devolve upon the Commission. In giving the reasons which have induced them to retire, they state that they have come to the conclusion that the separate system, regulated as at Pentonville, may be made a great instrument of good. They are further of opinion, that—
"Wherever the separate system may be adopted, it will require not only a constant vigilance, but the exercise of a very sound discretion on the part of those to whom it is intrusted, especially of the governor, the chaplain, and the medical attendants; and we apprehend that wherever these are wanting, the attempt to carry it into execution will terminate in disappointment."
I have now laid before the House the collective opinions of the Commissioners, and the individual opinions of Sir B. Brodie and Dr. R. Ferguson; and I think these opinions are entitled to all the greater credit, because, while not underrating the advantages of the system, they point out those alleviations which will always be absolutely indispensable to solitary confinement. In a former part of the same report, the Commissioners speak of an application having been made from Lieutenant Colonel Clarke, Governor of Western Australia, requesting a supply of labourers from Pentonville; and it appears that not the slightest difficulty had arisen in the way of the exiles finding, on their landing, immediate employment; their conduct, it subsequently proved, was excellent, their habits regular, and they showed themselves free from that vice of intemperance which is generally found to characterize those who obtain indulgence. Very few instances, the official letters declare, have occurred of Pentonville exiles committing crime after they had arrived in the colony. Such is the testimony on which the Government has relied; and I think, so far as it goes, I was justified in the assurance which I gave the other night, that when the time
42
came I should demonstrate that the system had succeeded. Mr. Latrobe, in a letter announcing the arrival of the last ship with exiles at Van Diemen's Land, states, that his close and constant attention will be given to the conduct of those persons in the colonies; and I have reason to hope that the results will justify the indulgence which has been extended to them. I do not quote any description of the system of separate imprisonment, because I have proceeded on the assumption that the general details of the practice at Pentonville are fully understood by the House. I will now call the attention of the House to a document of the greatest interest—a copy of the report of a special committee, presented by M. de Berenger to the Chamber of Peers of France. It is a very ample and valuable report; it enters fully into those considerations which must receive attention preliminary to the adoption of any system of secondary punishments; and it discusses fully the comparative excellence of the arrangements in the separate system as conducted in America, at Pentonville, and in various countries in Europe. They examined every alternative which presented itself for the punishment and reformation of offenders against the law, having kept those two very different objects distinctly in view; and they arrived at a positive recommendation to the Chamber to adopt the system of separate confinement in Franco with regard to all classes of criminals. There are certainly cases to which the principle could not apply; but, in admitting that, I concede only what is true of every system. Transportation, it sometimes happens, is altogether inoperative as a punishment. It is only the other day I read a letter from a learned Judge, informing me that, at the last assizes at which he had presided, he had found a large number of offenders, whose crimes called for a very heavy punishment, not at all fit to be transported; and he applied to me to know how otherwise they could be disposed of. Whatever mode of punishment we adopt, we cannot avoid meeting with exceptional cases. With regard to those cases disqualified for transportation, the greatest difficulty has from time to time been experienced. But as regards the great mass of offenders, I think the evidence now before us will warrant us in passing on them, as a body, the sentence of solitary confinement; and it will be the duty of the Government to see that the sentence is executed with all those precautions which have been recommended by

43
the eminent medical gentlemen from whose letter I have quoted, and which, I think, are undoubtedly essential to the success of the system. The term which we propose for the first stage of punishment, will vary from six to eighteen months. In the opinion of the Commissioners, eighteen months is the fullest period to which, in ordinary cases, this punishment ought to be extended. There will arise many cases which will require the utmost watchfulness on the part of the governor, the chaplain, and the physician; and they will always be enabled to exercise their discretion, if it should be found necessary to limit or curtail the original sentence. The average period of confinement would he twelve months, subject to particular considerations. With reference to the accommodation required for carrying out the plan, there are 500 cells in Pentonville prison where the punishment can be inflicted; and, by another Bill now before the House—the Custody of Offenders Bill—Her Majesty's Government will be able to avail themselves of any spare room which may exist in other prisons throughout the country. Considerable alarm has been expressed in counties as to the expense which may be entailed upon them in carrying out the system; but any such alarm is groundless, as it will be provided by a clause which is to be afterwards introduced, that any extra expense incurred by the retention of prisoners in county gaols shall be borne, not by the counties, but in the same way as the cost of transportation is now paid. In furtherance of the plan laid down in the measure now before the House, preparatory stops have already been taken by the Government, to the extent, at least, of sending circulars round to the counties, to ascertain what spare accommodation there is in the various prisons. In the new prison at Wakefield, greatly increased accommodation has been provided. A communication was some time since received from the magistrates, stating that they were anxious to know on what terms the Government wished to obtain the accommodation, and an arrangement has been made that will not only be economical to the Government, hut well calculated to advance the object they have in view. The opinion of persons competent to judge is, that it is a prison admirably constructed and fitted for the purpose; and it has been resolved by Government to avail themselves of two wings which have been added, and which contain about 400 cells. I may also in-
44
stance Reading gaol, where increased accommodation will be obtained; and I may state generally that six months' notice has been given in all cases to provide the increase of accommodation deemed necessary. In Reading a mutual arrangement will be come to by Government and the magistrates as to the additional cost incurred; and perhaps I may be permitted to observe, with reference to all these arrangements, that Her Majesty's Government is most anxious to act fairly towards all parties, and that there is not the slightest disposition to drive a hard bargain with any of the local authorities interested in the new arrangements. I now come to the second stage of punishments to which it is proposed to subject the prisoners; that second stage being employment on public works, such as harbours of refuge, fortifications, and the like. On this point I cannot express myself more clearly than in the terms of the letter to which I have already more than once referred. [The right hon. Gentleman here read a quotation from the letter, to the effect that on the expiration of the period of separate imprisonment, the prisoners would be sent to Milbank, and thence, according to the circumstances of their respective cases, either to Bermuda or Gibraltar, or other places which may be appointed out of England, or to employment on public works in this country, such as the construction of harbours of refuge or other works under some public department.] Before entering on the second stage of punishments, the convicts must pass through a course of separate imprisonment, accompanied by a system of moral and religious instruction, and of industrial training, which it is hoped will in most cases he attended with a beneficial effect on their character, and prepare them for that intercourse with their fellow-prisoners which is inseparable from their employment on public works. While in this stage of their punishment, care will be taken to provide them with proper accommodation, efficient superintendence, and adequate means of moral and religious instruction; and it is intended that incentives to industry and good conduct shall be furnished by adopting, with such improvements as experience may suggest, the system recommended by Colonel Reid, the late Governor of Bermuda, and already partially tried in that island with considerable success. This system is in principle that so ably advocated by Captain Maconochie; the convicts work by task; but the labour is not

45
exacted by the mere influence of fear or coercion, as in the case of slave labour; motives of a higher class being called into action by the offer of advantages, both immediate and prospective, to the industrious and well educated. I am well aware of the difficulties that will attend carrying out the second stage of punishment. No system that can he proposed will be perfect; and the suddenness with which this change has come upon us, leaving no time to make all the preparations necessary, will occasion considerable inconvenience in carrying it into effect. Of course, in working certain portions of the plan, the hulks could he made available. I do not see the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) in his place; but in stating that it would be necessary materially to increase the number of prisoners in the hulks, I may take the opportunity of saying, that the fullest investigation has been made into the allegations brought forward by the hon. Gentleman in the early part of the Session. I then expressed my disbelief in many of his charges, and, agreeably to the promise then made, I have caused full inquiry to be made into the facts, and only yesterday a report was sent to me by Captain Williams: that report is very voluminous, and I have not yet had time to read it; but I have no hesitation in saying, that there is ample ground for many of the statements which the hon. Member brought forward as to the abuses existing in the hulks. Without saying one word to cast discredit on the officer who has charge of that establishment, I must say that the thanks of the House are due to the hon. Member for having called the attention of the House to the subject. As I have already observed, I have not yet perused the report on this subject, but I will lose no time in doing so, with a view to the adoption of such practical results as may be found necessary. The House on a former evening sanctioned a vote of 25,000 l. for the erection of convict barracks in Portland, suited to the reception of prisoners. This subject was then alluded to by an hon. Gentleman opposite, who was in office in July last, and who stated that he thought it essential to avoid the evils arising from the aggregation of convicts, by a sufficient separation, and that temporary buildings might be made which would effect the object at a small expense. The erection of such separate establishments is, I may state, already resolved upon; and I have been in communication with Colonel Jebb
46
on the subject, with the view of getting the sanction of the House to the arrangement. A plan of buildings for erection at Portland has been prepared, and measures will be taken to secure a contract with the person by whom the plans had been made for erecting temporary buildings capable of being removed to another site when such is found necessary. By this arrangement a very short time will elapse when 300 convicts may be located at Portland in these temporary buildings; and this, I trust, will suffice for carrying out to a considerable extent the separate system. An hon. Gentleman opposite asked me how long this system would continue on the public works? Now that must depend upon the term of the sentence, which may vary from seven to ten and fifteen years. But it is intended at the same time to adopt the principle which has been ably advocated by Captain Maconochie; and I cannot here help bearing my testimony to the very valuable information which that gentleman has collected, as well as to the able suggestions which he has made on this subject. Those suggestions related to the conduct of the convicts, and the rewards which should be held out to the industrious and well-conducted. Now, it is intended that in cases where a convict conducts himself well and industriously, he shall be entitled to his release at an earlier period than that to which he had been originally sentenced. [Sir J. PAKINGTON: I presume there is to be a maximum period.] I have already said so. Supposing that a convict conducts himself well at what are generally called the hulks, his period of punishment will be reduced one-half; that is to say, if he has been originally sentenced to seven years, and conducted himself well, he will be liberated at the expiration of three years and a half; and a man who has been sentenced to ten years, but whose conduct has been good (a proper account of which will be kept on record), will be released at the expiration of five years. The House will see that these records of the conduct of the convicts will operate as perpetual stimuli to their industry and good conduct. I hope that that course will have the most beneficial effects; indeed it has already had that result in the Island of Bermuda, where it has now been carried out for some time past. I may say that measures are in progress, under the direction of Mr. Armstrong, for also establishing at Bermuda, and the other places chosen for the

47
second stage of punishment, the same system as now exists at Pentonville. [Mr. G. BANKES: What do you propose as to transportation for life?] As far as regards transportation for life, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that a rule was laid down by Lord Stanley on that subject when he was in office, in which it was stated in the most distinct terms that a man who had been sentenced to transportation for life should not be treated as a convict during the whole of his life. Transportation for life was supposed to be equivalent to twenty-four years, and that will be the maximum duration of imprisonment of a man henceforth sentenced to transportation for life. The earnings of a man suffering under such a sentence will be partially kept by the Government; so that, when a sufficiency has been accumulated, his wife and family, if he have them, may be conveyed at his own charge to the colony in which he works. I think that we cannot attach too much importance to such a provision as that, which will tend to meet the evil which at present prevails of the dispersion of the sexes. It is proposed that on the expiration of that period the convict shall rise in the scale of society by receiving a ticket of leave or a conditional pardon. I am aware that great misapprehension exists on this subject, in consequence of what has been already said. A noble Lord of very great talent and very great ingenuity, has addressed a pamphlet to Lord Lyndhurst, although that noble Lord did me the honour of saying that it was his intention to have addressed it to me; but the noble Lord feared that it would have embarrassed me too much, in addition to the public business which I have to transact. I should, however, have considered myself greatly honoured if that noble Lord (I mean Lord Brougham) had addressed that pamphlet to me. In his pamphlet the noble and learned Lord describes the punishment of compulsory exile as unknown in this country. I believe, however, there is an Act of Parliament by which the punishment of exile is imposed on certain religious bodies who came to this country. Notwithstanding what is said by the noble Lord, the whole purpose of the proposed punishment will be found reformatory; to endeavour to reform the convicts so as to enable them to follow industrious and honest lives. In a populous country like this, where labour is plentiful, people always prefer to employ men whose characters are unimpeachable; and there is
48
great difficulty in finding employment for persons who have once been in the situation of convicts. It is therefore proposed to remove them to a distant part of the world, where such a difficulty will not be experienced. The noble and learned Lord has also endeavoured to create great alarm and apprehension in France and the other countries of continental Europe as to the baneful effects which will result to them if the system of the Government be adopted. But the subject has been fully discussed in the report presented to the Legislature of France; and in that the reporters see no reason to apprehend the evils prophesied by the noble and learned Lord, whose brilliant and lively imagination is perhaps the only one that could have conjured up such a host of frightful evils. I can assure the House, and the country, and France, and the neighbouring European countries, that it is not intended to turn out the convicts of England—neither those that might undergo the sentence of separate imprisonment or employment upon the public works—upon the shores of Franco or any part of continental Europe, as the most convenient way of getting rid of them. The ticket-of-leave man and the conditional-pardon man will be on the same footing under the new as under the present system in the convict colonies. It is proposed to restrict the area in which the convict may become a free labourer; but the conditional-pardon man will be allowed to go wherever he pleases in pursuit of employment; and that will constitute the essential difference between the two classes. The ticket-of-leave man, too, will be able to emerge into the class of the conditional-pardon man, just as under the present system; and I hope that such will be the end in the majority of cases. I have not as yet adverted to the power of the Crown in this matter. A good deal has been said elsewhere on that subject; it has been repeatedly said, that if the provisions of the Act are carried out, the constitution would be endangered. I believe there can be no doubt that a power exists in the Crown to make the proposed changes; and that power has been extensively acted upon, not by virtue of any prerogative, but by virtue of the 10th Clause of the Transportation Act; by which the Crown is enabled either to mitigate, commute, or abolish a sentence of transportation, or direct in what manner the sentence shall be carried out. With respect to convicts under sentence of transportation for seven years, it has always

49
been customary to commute their sentences. The matter is, in fact, left entirely to the liberty and pleasure of the Crown. I am quite ready to admit that a large and extensive change, such as this, is one which ought to be brought under the consideration of Parliament. But there was a difficulty in framing the Bill; I stated in my letter that it was difficult to define the offences that subjected to the punishment of transportation. With regard to the sentence of transportation itself, we are not prepared at present, I must observe, to offer any measure for its abolition. The sentence will continue to be passed, although it will be understood that it will not be carried into effect as heretofore; for it will cause great inconvenience if Parliament were to interfere, at once, to alter the existing plan. I have said nothing hitherto with regard to the new colony of North Australia, because it is not necessarily connected with the subject of transportation. It was not intended to be a place where criminals are to be transported, but a place for the reception of convicts conditionally pardoned; though it is not contemplated that the labour should be entirely performed by pardoned convicts, under the superintendence of Government officers; but that it should to a certain degree be an additional settlement, with a free-labour market, where the labour should not be performed by a mere convict population—but that it should have a free population as well as conditionally-pardoned criminals. It is not intended to establish any settlement in North Australia for slave labour, or the labour of convicts subject to coercion; but by free labour in conjunction with that contemplated by this Bill. But on that question the Government has not had sufficient experience; and it could not, therefore, be made a subject of discussion; had it been, the plan would have come materially to the aid of the present proposition. I will not now enter upon the treatment of juvenile offenders. There is nothing before the House which necessarily raises that question. I have stated my general views on the whole subject, in the letter which I addressed to my noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies. I will only further say, that measures are now in progress, by which I hope those views may be carried out; and by which public works may be established in this country, to which criminals of tender age may be sent, with a view of checking their disposition to crime
50
at a period when there will be, I trust, a far better hope of training them up into a moral course of living, than there could be if the attempt to reform them were postponed to a more advanced period of their lives. I believe I have stated the general outline of the plan which Her Majesty's Government proposed to the House. In doing so, as I said before, I am aware that it is open to objections. It is very easy to anticipate a failure; and I do not think, looking at the results of every other system which has hitherto been tried, that we are entitled to rely with perfect confidence on the success of the plan which we now propose. But I ask those hon. Gentlemen who might feel disposed to object to it, seriously to consider the contents of that mass of documents and evidence which lies upon the Table of the House, with reference to the systems which have hitherto been tried; and I will ask them, before they hastily condemn this experiment—thinking it may fail, that it contains some feature which they believe will not be successful—I ask them to consider the fearful alternative of leaving these matters in their present condition. I will ask them, before they decide to oppose the measure, to consider the formidable extent of the moral and physical evils of the present system, and the lamentable rate at which those evils, if unchecked, must increase. I ask them to look at the evils which the present system brings upon the virtuous and un-convicted portion of our penal colonies; the baneful effects of its contamination. I will direct the attention of the House to a short extract from the letter of Mr. Naylor, a magistrate and clergyman residing in Norfolk Island, in which, after deploring the dreadful contamination of the free labour there by the convict population, he goes on to observe—
"Let the criminals of England, whether employed at home in national works, or transported to other regions, be required to repay the injury they have done to the community, not by undergoing a sentence measured by time alone, but one to be determined by a fixed amount of industrial labour, assisted by good conduct; in other words, commute the sentence of a term of years into a proportionate amount of useful labour; you will then inflict a penalty on crime far more decided than the present one, and you will secure a guarantee that the offender is prepared for society, by a habit of self-control, before he can enter it again."
And that is the principle which the Government are anxious to adopt. After giving the best consideration which they can to the subject, they have resolved upon

51
the plan of which I have detailed the general outline to the House; and I trust that no hostile feeling will be expressed on the part of the House to the trial of this proposed experiment. I will only say, before sitting down, that I shall be most willing to receive any assistance or suggestions from hon. Members, which may aid in carrying out the intentions of the Government on this subject. I hope, as I have before said, that those hon. Members who condemn the plan, will consider the frightful alternative of allowing these matters to run on in their present course. I have now only to thank the House for the attention which it has paid to me. I trust that the measures which I have proposed, will lead to the attainment of those great objects which I am sure we are all anxious to see accomplished—the amelioration of the present system of penal discipline. I have no doubt that we shall all use our best endeavours to attain those objects, and that the efforts which are now being made—begun with a due sense of the importance and difficulty of the object to be obtained—will be more effectual than any that has been hitherto made.
LORD MAHONsaid, he should deeply condemn himself, if he thought that in the course which he was about to take on this great question, he was influenced by any feelings of party strife or political hostility. On the contrary, he desired to express the pleasure which he felt, whilst he listened to the very clear and powerful statement of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and to offer his tribute of praise to the very great ability with which he had discussed this subject—discussed it both in the speech which they had just heard, and in the letter which the right hon. Gentleman, on the 20th of January last, addressed to his kinsman and his Colleague Earl Grey. Nor would he be understood to speak of all the parts of this scheme with blame; but he must confess that there were circumstances in it and connected with it that filled him with doubts and apprehensions. Now, in the first place, he would advert to one of the last points on which his right hon. Friend had touched; and he would ask the House to consider how great a change was attempted to be made, not by this Bill—not by any Bill whatever—but by prerogative alone. He thought he was entitled to say that, during the seventeen years in which he had held a seat in that House, he had never known so great a change, or any thing like so
52
great a change, having been attempted to be made without the authority of Parliament. [Sir G. GREY: I rely on the Clause in the Transportation Act.] The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the Tenth Clause of the Transportation Act gave the Crown the power of deciding how a sentence of transportation should be carried out; but he (Lord Mahon) did not think that clause afforded any valid ground for the course now attempted. The object of the Legislature in passing that Act, was to confer upon the Crown the right of directing how a sentence should be carried out in the case of a single convict in special circumstances, or of a single colony in special circumstances; but it was not meant to give the Crown a discretionary power over the cases of all convicts in all colonies. The 5,000 or 6,000 convicts who were annually sentenced to be transported from this country, were now, as Earl Grey decided, in the first instance to be confined in England; and so great a change as that, he would repeat, he had never seen attempted without the authority of Parliament. There was another point in this proposal to which also he confessed he felt the strongest objection—he alluded to the practice which would be carried on under this system of passing a nominal sentence of transportation, whilst it was no longer in the first instance to be carried out, and while the criminal was, in fact, to remain at home. Now there could be no worse system than that the letter of the law should go in one direction, and its practice in another; that was a point on which he imagined that there could scarcely be any difference of opinion. He felt sure that such a system would be protested against by all those who had either studied the principles or directed the execution of criminal law, and especially by those hon. Members who had acted as chairmen of quarter-sessions. They all remembered how much was said some years ago, when the practice prevailed of a sentence of death being frequently pronounced upon criminals even when it was not intended to carry that sentence into execution. But there it might at least be argued that the Crown stepped in with its prerogative of mercy; that law there was on one side, and prerogative on the other; here, however, as he understood it, the object was not to mitigate, but only to commute, the penalty; to give the same amount of punishment, but only in another form. He maintained that if this part of the proposal were

53
carried out, it would not be treating the courts of justice with that respect to which they were entitled. They would henceforth he called upon to pronounce sentences which they knew perfectly well it was not the intention of the Government to carry into effect. They would have to tell the culprit, "Our sentence is that you shall be transported; but we also have to inform you that in the new language of Earl Grey, Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, to be transported signifies to be imprisoned at home; and you may accordingly expect a confinement in the neighbouring gaol! We talk of Australia; but what we really mean is Pentonville!" In reviewing the different stages of punishment which the right hon. Gentleman had substituted for transportation, he found in the first place that the convicts were to undergo the separate system, and be confined for not less than six, nor more than eighteen months. On the whole he was disposed to look very favourably upon the separate system. He did think that in many cases its effects had been most beneficial; but whilst he said that, he must confess that he doubted whether it had been sufficiently long in practice—whether, in fact, it had been tried so fully as to warrant the right hon. Gentleman in making it the foundation of a system of secondary punishment. He doubted whether it was not desirable that some further reports as to its results should be first awaited. The right hon. Gentlemen had referred to the various reports of the Pentonville prison as evidence of the success of the separate system; and in the last report, presented only a few days ago, there were some valuable observations from the chaplain, the Rev. Joseph Kingsmill, decidedly in favour of the separate system; but he added these remarkable words:—
"While thus asserting my conviction as to the favourable results, in general, of the experiment in Pentonville as regards mind, I am compelled, by another year's most anxious observation on the actual working of the system, to say that there are cases where it is otherwise."
He (Lord Mahon), therefore, considered the separate system, though not disposed to speak of it disparagingly, still as an experiment, the success of which was not so clear and decisive as to entitle the right hon. Gentleman to assume it to be perfectly successful, and to warrant him in making it the foundation of an altered system of secondary punishment. But, moreover, had the right hon. Gentleman
54
sufficiently considered how his system of imprisonment was to be carried into effect? He (Lord Mahon) had moved for returns of the replies from the chairmen of quarter-sessions to the circular letter of the Secretary of State, and those returns showed that, in the greatest proportion of instances, in the different prisons, there was not anything like adequate accommodation for the convicts proposed to be confined in them. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted the cases of Wakefield and Reading. These were picked and favourable instances; but was it possible that he had overlooked the fact that, in numerous instances, the magistrates had reported that, so far from there being space to spare for any fresh number of convicts, there was not enough for the convicts they had already to provide for?
Sir G. GREY: I can state, on the authority of Major Jebb, that all the county gaols together, in addition to the building at Portland, would accommodate 1,000 more persons.
LORD MAHONcontinued: He bowed with all respect to the authority of Major Jebb on such a subject, but could scarcely reconcile that statement with the official returns then before him. He found, in a view of Scottish prisons, supplied by Mr. Ludovick Colquhoun, a return recently delivered to Members of the House, that the prisons in Scotland were wholly inadequate to the reception of the prisoners even now, on the present system, required to be kept at home. It appeared that in the year ending June 30, 1846, the total number of cells or rooms for confinement in Scotland was 1,632, while the greatest number of prisoners confined at any one time during the year was no less than 2,334; so that there were nearly 800 cells short of the number required to carry out the separate system. And when the right hon. Gentleman quoted the information supplied by Major Jebb, that there was sufficient space for 1,000 persons more, could there be a greater proof of the inadequacy of the accommodation, when the number of convicts to be provided for during each future year was 5,000 or 6,000? But he came to the second branch of the punishments proposed. There was to be labour in the hulks or upon public works. With regard to the hulks, it might be in the recollection of the House, that he had brought the subject of labour in the hulks before it in the time of Lord Melbourne's Administration, when the House by a majo-

55
rity decided that the number of convicts employed in the hulks was too large, and ought to be diminished; and yet, notwithstanding this vote, without any attempt to controvert his reasoning or to deny the facts, the right hon. Gentleman told them that the number of persons in the hulks must be very considerably increased, and not only so, but a system of public works must be established. To this latter part of the plan, he (Lord Mahon) entertained the strongest objection. He could not but think that it was the first step to the establishment in this country of what in France was felt to be a great evil, the system of bagnes, as they were called. He had heard some of the most intelligent French statesmen deplore the evils of this system; saying, that in the departments round the bagnes of Toulon and Brest—the departments, namely, of the Var and of Finisterre, the people had been exposed to grievous suffering—subjected to martial law for the recovery of convicts who had escaped, and military discipline enforced to prevent their escape; whilst every kind of atrocity took place in the bagnes themselves, and whilst the periodical release of prisoners cast loose every year a number of unreformed and desperate characters. He had heard some of the most eminent French statesmen lament this state of things at home, and express their opinion that, among other advantages of England, our law for the reform and punishment of criminals in our colonies was one of the greatest. He believed that this opinion was almost unanimous in France; it had very recently led to the abolition of the bagnes; and now, when this system of bagnes was abolished in France, was it not strange that we were about to establish something like it in England? There was a further objection to this part of the plan in the competition which it would raise against free labour. He thought it no light thing to deprive the honest free labourer of an opportunity of employment, for the sake of the malefactor. The House had heard in former debates, of the scanty food, the threadbare clothing, and the insufficient wages of the peasantry of Dorsetshire; and would the free labourers of Dorsetshire not have good ground to complain, if they were excluded from labour on their own shores of Portland by the employment of convicts upon harbours of refuge and other public works? He could not but think, although the convict establishment at Portland as now proposed might be defensible on a
56
limited scale, or for a temporary service, that if it were intended to make it the foundation of a kind of national system, it would be fraught with misery and danger. He had had the advantage of hearing, a few days since, an opinion on this subject of a Prelate who was peculiarly qualified to form a judgment on the question, and who was distinguished for his powerful understanding and his benevolent character—he referred to the Bishop of Tasmania, who was now on a visit in this country. That Prelate expressed his decided opinion, from what he had seen and known in Australia, that in the present scheme that was put second which ought to have been first, and that was put first which ought to have been second. In the opinion of the Bishop of Tasmania, if the two systems of public works and separate confinement were to be adopted, the employment on public works ought to precede the separate confinement. He now came to the third important feature in the plan now before the House, which provided, that after the expiration of the period of their employment on public works, convicts should be exiled to the colonies. He must here observe, that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) in his statement to-night, had announced a very important departure from the principles set forth in the letter he addressed to Earl Grey on this subject on the 20th of January. The right hon. Gentleman had tonight told the House, that the great mass of the convicts were to be sent to the Australian colonies. Now, let the House observe how materially this feature of the plan differed from the scheme propounded in the right hon. Gentleman's letter of the 20th of January. In that letter the right hon. Gentleman said—
"To send large numbers of convicts collectively to any of our colonies, though they were to become free on their arrival there, would, if continued for a series of years, lead to many of the evils which resulted from transportation."
Yet this was the very course which the Government now proposed to adopt! But the right hon. Gentleman, in his letter, also said—
"It is proposed that, on obtaining this conditional pardon, the only restriction on the liberty of persons holding such a pardon, shall be the prohibition of remaining in this country, and that facilities for emigration shall be afforded them individually instead of collectively."
This part of the scheme, however, was entirely abandoned; and the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to send the convicts out collectively to the Australian colonies.

57
He must admit that he considered this alteration was an improvement in the plan; but he thought it would have facilitated the discussion of the subject in the House, if, when it was intended to make so important a change in the plan propounded in his letter of the 20th of January, the right hon. Gentleman had given them some other document embodying his editio nova, et emendata. He was ready, however, to welcome the plan in its altered form; and he believed the change would obviate many of the objections entertained against the scheme. He thought it most essential that the State should at once decide to what colonies the convicts should be sent; or otherwise, when the yearly estimates came under discussion, there would be a continual struggle between the pecuniary interests of the State, and the advantage of the convicts; because the pecuniary interests of the State would be to remove the convicts to the nearest settlements to which they could be conveyed at the least expense; while it would be for the advantage of the convicts themselves that they should be removed to some more distant destination. Another important consideration connected with this subject was, how far the salutary fear produced by a sentence of transportation was likely to be weakened by the altered system of applying that punishment? That certainly was a question, the importance of which it was impossible to overrate. It had been stated on very high authority, that a strong sense of discouragement pervaded the minds of many convicts, when they knew that they were again to be tinned loose among their old associates. Indeed, this was a system which tended to remove all terror from the minds of those who were disposed to return to their evil practices; while, on the other hand, it was most discouraging to those who were really anxious to reform their conduct. A striking instance, bearing upon this point, was contained in a report of the Rev. John Clay, chaplain of the House of Correction at Preston, Lancashire, dated October 20, 1841. That gentleman stated that a convict who had been sentenced to transportation, and who had been to some extent reformed through his efforts, but who had been confined in a prison at home, and was surrounded by his old associates in crime, exclaimed, "It's no use trying to repent here." This case was mentioned by Mr. Clay as an example of the feeling which was in many instances entertained by the convicts. He would ask,
58
then, whether it were likely that the salutary terror which was necessary for the repression of crime would still be maintained, if transportation was altogether dispensed with? He must blame the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department for not consulting those eminent authorities most competent, from their knowledge and pursuits, to form a judgment on this subject, before he brought forward his plan. Surely, although they might differ in opinion upon political matters, all must respect the opinion of Lord Ashburton as a statesman, and of Lord Denman as a judge. Both had declared, as the result of their knowledge and experience, that the abandonment of transportation would go far to destroy that terror of punishment upon which they must mainly depend for the prevention of crime. The House of Lords had since appointed a Committee to investigate the subject: that Committee had already presented a report; and he had moved, a week ago, for its communication to this House. [Sir G. GREY: The Committee have not presented their report, but merely the evidence.] It might not, technically speaking, be a report, but it contained a mass of very important evidence. As the report had not yet been communicated to that House, it might not be quite regular for him to refer to it further; but he might put the case hypothetically, and might ask hon. Gentlemen what they would think, if queries relating to this subject had been addressed to every one of the Judges, and to persons of note connected with the administration of the law, and if the opinions of all these persons were unanimous in condemnation of the scheme of Her Majesty's Government? He was informed that the opinions of the high authorities to whom he had referred, were, without a single exception, adverse to the Government plan. If this were the case, he would ask the House what they thought of the prudence and judgment of Lord Grey, who had proposed a change of this nature without ascertaining the opinions of the eminent men to whom he had referred? He had understood the right hon. Home Secretary to acknowledge that the system he had explained was by no means free from difficulty and objection; but the right hon. Gentleman said, "Though you may find fault with our proposal, I entreat you to look at the greater faults and evils of the present system of transportation." He did not intend to deny the evils which had in many cases attended the existing system

59
of transportation; but he must caution the House against confounding the abuses of a system with the system itself. Because there had been a maladministration of the existing system, and great abuses had prevailed, it did not follow that the system was incapable of improvement or reformation. He would ask the attention of the House to the opinions of several persons well qualified to form a judgment on this subject, who were satisfied that transportation, under a due system of discipline, might be made conducive to the reformation of the convicts, and to the advantage of the State. The first authority to which he would refer was that of Sir James Mackintosh, who, in a letter he wrote from Bombay, in July, 1807, said, "The experiment of a reforming penal colony is perhaps the grandest ever tried in morals;" and Sir James indulged the hope of going out as governor of one of the penal colonies, and endeavouring to render the practice as perfect as the theory. It might be said, that Sir James Mackintosh had no practical knowledge of a penal colony; but he would observe, that when they spoke of a new country—of lands to be reclaimed from the wilderness and peopled with fresh settlers—then there appeared a wide scope for realizing schemes of government; and there practical knowledge, so essential to our complicated forms and ancient institutions of society, was of far less avail. But he would now come to another authority, who had been already that evening honourably mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and whose practical knowledge and experience could not be for a moment questioned. Sir John Franklin, in an important despatch from Van Diemen's Land, dated March 11, 1839, stated that he had for upwards of two years watched the results of transportation in that colony, and observed—
"If the view which I have taken of reformatory discipline be a just one, it can be conducted only in a new country, where labour is valuable, where alone the convict can readily obtain employment, and where there is a community from the sympathies of which he will not be of necessity excluded. The continuance of transportation, therefore, appears to me to be essential."
It was true that in 1842 Sir John Franklin expressed his disappointment at the failure of some parts of the system; but, since Sir John's return, he had had the honour to converse with him; and he then declared his adherence to the general opinions he had expressed in 1839. The Rev. Henry Fry, chaplain of St. George's, Ho-
60
bart Town, also bore testimony to the general good effects of transportation; and in a letter dated August 17, 1846, declared that the statements of the wonderful tranquillity, security, and good order of the colony were completely true; that the presence of convicts had not a seriously demoralising effect upon the habits or manners of the free inhabitants, male or female; and that instances of reformation and of respectable conduct in the convicts were very common and delightful to witness. Mr. Fry concluded by saying—"I am strongly convinced, therefore, that transportation is a blessing to thousands." But it might be very fairly asked, if transportation was considered by high authority as capable of being worked for the advantage of the convict and of the State, why, instead of congratulating themselves on the success of the system, they had on the whole to lament its failure? This brought him to speak of the late Governor of Van Diemen's Land, Sir Eardley Wilmot; of whose death, he regretted to observe by the newspapers, intelligence had been that very morning received. With these painful tidings fresh before him, nothing could be farther from his wish than to impeach the intelligence, judgment, or ability of Sir Eardley Wilmot; but he could not say that the system of transportation admitted of being well administered, without implying that the qualities of activity, vigilance, and care, had not been so strongly exercised by that lamented gentleman as the nature of his duties required. He would say no more on this point; but it was absolutely necessary to say thus much, for the purpose of explaining how a system which was capable of being well worked, had, nevertheless, been productive of so much evil. He wished again to observe that he made no kind of imputation against that gentleman, in point of character or integrity, but merely that he had not altogether realized the, perhaps exaggerated, expectations which the public had formed. As to the inferior appointments in Van Diemen's Land and Norfolk Island, there had been a fault, generally speaking, committed in this respect, that a system of economy, useful in other instances, had been carried to a pernicious extent. With regard to the present administration of the colony of Van Diemen's Land, he thought that that colony was certainly fortunate in the possession of a Governor like Sir William Denison, who was distinguished by all the diligence and unremitting care requisite

61
to alleviate the evils under which that colony was suffering; and who was able to govern the large body of convicts under his charge with the greatest advantage to themselves, and with every prospect of a reformatory result. But how happened it that the system of transportation had not proved satisfactory? There were two great settlements for transportation, New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, and it was suddenly announced by the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) that no more convicts could be sent to New South Wales. Consequently from the accumulation of convicts in Van Diemen's Land and Norfolk Island, ensued those horrors of which it was painful to speak. But was it possible to read the details contained in the blue book presented to Parliament, and not see how very much the administration of the officers appointed to superintend the convicts had tended to the result which they all deplored? It appeared that the officers, in order to go out and spend the evening, had locked up the convicts in gangs of sixty or eighty in dormitories, without light, from six o'clock in the evening until eight o'clock in the next morning. Was that giving the system a fair trial? If it had been administered in a different manner, were they entitled to say that it would necessarily fail? Had any one contemplated this horrible system of looking up men for fourteen hours together, without light, in contravention of the regulations? And when Mr. Stewart was sent over to inquire, Major Childs, the Governor, said he did not know that such a thing was done. Then, he repeated, this was not a fair trial of the system. With such proceedings and such governors the system could end in nothing but a disgraceful failure; but they were not entitled to argue that such a failure was inherent in and essential to the system. He thought it was possible, by means of sufficient salaries, to provide an efficient service, even on such a spot as Norfolk Island. He confessed he was at issue on this subject with Mr. Gladstone, who stated in his despatch to Governor Sir Charles Fitzroy, dated May 7, 1846, while giving directions for the formation of a new penal colony in North Australia—
"It is a fundamental and essential part of our design that the local establishment should be maintained at a very low scale, both as respects the emoluments, the rank, and the titular distinctions to be enjoyed by the various officers employed there."
62
And again, in another passage of the same despatch—
"The officers will, I hope, be few in number, and their emoluments of small amount."
If they meant to maintain these penal settlements with any prospect of success, they ought to pay liberally the officers who perform the painful duties connected with them. The same salary which will secure a proper discharge of pleasant duties in a pleasant colony, will not tempt men of sufficient energy and talent to grapple with the vices of any convict population, or the painful scenes of any penal settlement. Undoubtedly, the evils described in the papers before Parliament were to be traced to the disproportion of the sexes. The number of male convicts was larger by five or six times every year than the female. If they were sent to Portland Island, the same disadvantage would exist as in Norfolk Island, only the convicts would be subject to closer superintendence; but, continuing the system of transportation, it was possible by emigration to restore the proper proportion of the sexes. From the best information he could obtain, he was of opinion that it was not impossible to establish such a system of penal discipline in our colonies as would he attended with the advantages for which the system was first established. He thought that there were two points, with respect to which considerable blame might be ascribed to Lord Grey. He did not blame Lord Grey for anything he did with respect to Norfolk Island; for, arrived at the point which it had attained there, he felt inclined to concur with Lord Grey in thinking that nothing short of breaking up the whole establishment could reach the evil. It was impossible to allow such contaminations to continue to exist. But he did not think Lord Grey was justified in what he did with respect to the settlement of North Australia, founded by Lord Stanley. The plan was deliberately reviewed by Mr. Gladstone, who came to the conclusion of sanctioning the establishment. The Governor was appointed, instructions wore given, some expenses were incurred in the works; and then all of a sudden, without any apparent cause, Lord Grey reversed the decision of his two predecessors, sent out a summary order that the works should be discontinued: the Governor was to be recalled, and the establishments abandoned. He also thought that blame was to be ascribed to Lord Grey in having at once announced that at no future period

63
should transportation to Van Diemen's Land be resumed. The system might have been suspended; but he did not think that Lord Grey was justified in tying up for the future the discretion of himself and his successors. With respect to the whole subject now under consideration, he could not but think that even after the lapse of nearly 2,000 years—even after the elevating influence of the Christian faith, they could scarcely describe the exact aim of penal legislation with more perfect truth or more admirable clearness than were supplied by a few short words of Cicero:—Ult pœna in paucos perveniat, metus in omnes. The right hon. Gentleman had well studied the pœna in paucos, but how had he provided for the metus in omnes? He was of opinion, that among the many blessings which Providence had vouchsafed to those islands, this was to be reckoned—that by our dominion over far distant and hitherto uncultivated lands, a large scope was afforded for the reformation of our erring and degraded fellow-men. By our dominion over those distant lands, and by a right system of discipline once established, a salutary reformation might be wrought. So well did he know that the steps now proposed to be taken would, if not early checked, be irrevocable, that he should be disposed, if he found the feeling of the House concur with his, to give the House an early opportunity of coming to a vote on this question. To this, however, he could not pledge himself; but meanwhile he must claim the privilege of protesting, and he hoped other hon. Gentlemen would also protest, against a change not sanctioned by Act of Parliament, and which, he believed, to be fraught with rashness, with error, and with danger.
SIR W. MOLESWORTH: There are two questions for the consideration of the House: first, whether transportation should or should not be discontinued; secondly, supposing it should be discontinued, what punishment should be substituted in its stead? With regard to the propriety of discontinuing transportation, I entertain the strongest opinion. For I undertake to prove that in every shape and under every form transportation is a bad punishment. I undertake to prove this position with regard to the assignment system, which was the original punishment of our penal colonies; with regard to the road parties and chain-gangs of New South Wales; with regard to the probation system of Van Diemen's Laud; and with regard to the penal
64
system of Norfolk Island and Port Arthur—I will show that all attempts to improve transportation have been signal failures, and that it cannot be rendered a good punishment. Therefore it appears to me that the Government are acting with wisdom and judgment in determining at once to abolish transportation, and to substitute in its stead a scheme of punishment more in accordance with the feelings and knowledge of the age. I must trespass somewhat upon the patience of the House. I hope I may be pardoned for so doing, in consideration of the circumstance that I was Chairman of the Committee appointed by the House to inquire into the efficacy of transportation as a punishment, and into its moral effects on the state of society in the penal colonies. The Committee sat during the Sessions of 1837 and 1838. They collected ample information with regard to transportation. They laid a full report on the subject before the House. That report was unanimously agreed to by the Committee. The Members who were present when it was agreed to were—Sir R. Peel, Lord John Russell, Sir George Grey, Lord Grey, Lord Fortescue, Sir C. Lemon, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Ward, myself, and others. That report is, therefore, deserving of some consideration from the House. I will suppose that hon. Members are generally acquainted with it, and will confine my observations to what has occurred since its publication. In that report the Committee approved of the intention of the Government to discontinue the assignment system. Now, did the Government act rightly in discontinuing the assignment system? The assignment system was the main and characteristic feature of the old punishment of transportation. By many persons it was considered (perhaps not unjustly) as the best portion of that system. When it was discontinued, transportation became an ordinary punishment, similar to that of the galleys, of the hulks, dockyards, and gaols of this country, with this important exception, that it was administered at the distance of some twelve or fourteen thousand miles, in a place where it was impossible to obtain efficient superintendence and inspection, and where everything was left to the discretion of all but irresponsible subordinates. In order to answer the question whether it was right to discontinue the assignment, I will describe it to the House as briefly as I can, and almost in the words of the Transportation Committee. A convict was said

65
to be assigned, when the right of the Government to the labour of the convict was transferred to some private individual, who became his master. Convicts were assigned as domestic servants, mechanics, or field labourers. Their previous occupation in this country mainly determined their condition as assigned convicts in the penal colonies. For. instance, domestic servants transported for any offence became domestic servants in Australia, and were to be found in the establishments of the wealthiest settlers. They wore well fed, well clothed, and frequently received wages from 10 l. to 15 l. a year. Convict mechanics were even better off than the convict servants. For, as skilled labour was very scarce in Australia, they were eagerly sought for, and well paid for their work. The most numerous class of assigned convicts, however, were the field labourers, the shepherds, the neatherds, and others employed in agriculture. They were, generally speaking, better fed than agricultural labourers in this country; but, as the Committee remarked—
"The condition of each convict mainly depended upon the character and temper of the settler to whom he was assigned. On this account Sir George Arthur, late Governor of Van Diemen's Land, likened the convict to a slave, and described him as deprived of liberty, exposed to all the caprice of the family to whose service he might happen to be assigned, and subject to the most summary laws,"
Sir R. Bourke, a Governor of New South Wales, stated—
"That the result of the system of assignment was to render the condition of the convicts so placed extremely unequal, depending upon a variety of circumstances over which the Government could not possibly exercise any control."
And the Committee reported, as the result of their inquiries—
"That the condition of an assigned convict was a mere lottery; that it might and did range between the extremes of comfort and misery;"
and they quoted the words of a Chief Justice of Australia—
"That it frequently happened that lesser offenders against the law came to be punished with disproportionate severity, while greater criminals escaped with comparative impunity."
I have only been speaking of the assignment of convict men; now, with regard to the assignment of convict women. On this subject I beg the House to bear in mind a most important fact, namely, that all experience with regard to transportation proves that if convict men are permitted in any degree to meet and associate together, convict wo-
66
men in almost equal numbers must be transported likewise, to become their companions, or the most degrading and disgusting vices will be common. If, therefore, any form of the assignment system be re-established, women must be assigned as well as men. Now what is the description given by the Committee of the assignment of women? The Committee report that—
"In respectable families the condition of assigned convict women was much the same as that of women servants in this country; their general conduct was as bad as anything could be; the tendency of assignment was to render them still more profligate; all of them were, with scarcely an exception, drunken and abandoned prostitutes; and even if any of them were inclined to be well conducted, they were exposed to inevitable temptations."
The Committee observe, that it is easy to imagine what must frequently be the consequence of placing the children of settlers under the charge of such persons:—
"Many respectable settlers were unwilling to receive convict women as assigned servants; in many instances they preferred employing convict men in the domestic services which were only performed by women in this country. A considerable portion, therefore, of the female convicts were assigned to the lower description of settlers, by whom they were not uncommonly employed as public prostitutes."
In confirmation of these statements I may observe that Sir John Franklin, late Governor of Van Diemen's Laud, has stated in a despatch to the Colonial Office, that he perfectly concurred with the Committee in everything they had alleged respecting the assignment of female convicts. For these reasons, and because (as the Committee state)—
"The practice of assigning convicts to settlers has this inherent defect as a punishment, namely, that it is as uncertain as the diversity of temper, character, and occupation amongst human beings could render it."
The Committee unanimously approved of the abolition of the assignment system. It is now said that the colonists of New South Wales wish for the re-establishment of the assignment system. Is this true? Mr. Gladstone, in a despatch dated April, 1846, desired the Governor of New South Wales to ascertain the opinion of the inhabitants with regard to the renewal of transportation. The Governor referred the question to the Legislative Council, which immediately appointed a Select Committee to report upon the subject. I hold in my hand the report of the Committee, and memorials from the inhabitants of New South Wales with regard to the renewal of transportation. The

67
memorials are signed by 8,400 persons, who state the re-introduction
—"of convicts into the colony would be injurious to the morals and destructive of the best interests of the community."
The Committee of the Legislative Council report their opinion that
—"if it were placed at the option of the colonists, whether they would at once and for ever free themselves and their posterity from the further taint of the convict system, doubtless a large majority would give the proposal for renewed transportation an unhesitating veto;"
and if the Secretary of State for the Colonies
—"be prepared to discontinue the transportation of convicts to the Australian colonies, and thus practically, as well as nominally to free this continent from their presence, your Committee beg unequivocally to state that such a course would be most generally conducive to the interests and agreeable to the inclinations of those whom it will most directly and ultimately concern."
But if
—"transportation is still to go on to Van Diemen's Land and the other penal establishments formed in these seas; if a new penal settlement is immediately to be formed on the northern boundary of the colony; if this colony, already inundated on the south with the outpourings of the probation system in Van Diemen's Land, the most demoralising that was ever invented, is soon to have poured in upon it from the north the exiles from the penitentiaries of the mother country, as well as the expirees from that colony; if New South Wales must submit to this double stream of felony, whether it will or not, then the question is narrowed to this: whether it is expedient that transportation should be renewed in a direct form on equitable conditions, or whether it should virtually exist in the indirect and polluted shape which it has already assumed; whether, in short, we are to have this double tide of moral contamination flowing in upon us without check or restraint, and without any counteracting advantages.
"This being the true state of the question, your Committee have been driven to the conclusion that the only safe alternative left to the colony is to accede to the proposition 'that a modified and carefully regulated introduction of convict labourers in New South Wales, or in some part of it, under the present circumstances is advisable.'"
The Committee then state that they will
—"submit to a renewal of transportation on certain conditions: first, on condition that no system of road parties, chain gangs, probation gangs, nor any conceivable modification of it by which convicts are to be aggregated in masses"—
shall be introduced into the colony. For the Committee state that in consequence of that system, the
—"worst days of Sodom and Gomorrah were not so bad as the present days of Van Diemen's Land. That such, indeed, would be the necessary result of any large aggregations of vicious men, debarred from access to female society, might have been inferred à priori. And the wonder is, how it could have ever entered into the contemplation of
68
its benevolent authors that large masses of human beings, composed principally of the very dregs of society, and for the most part debased by crime previous to their deportation, could be thus aggregated and reformed."
I may be permitted to state that the Transportation Committee in 1838, and myself in 1840, both pointed out what would be the consequences of establishing the gang system; but our predictions were unheeded. The other conditions insisted upon by the Committee of the Legislative Council of New South Wales would entail enormous expense upon this country. The Committee required that whatever might be the number of male convicts transported, they should he accompanied by the importation of an equal number of women cither convict or free; and that in addition there should be a further importation of an equal number of free emigrants, as nearly as possible in equal proportion as to sexes; the expense of all this to be defrayed by Great Britain. Thus, suppose 5,000 convict men and 1,000 convict women were to be transported, then, in order to fulfil the conditions to which I have referred, first, 4,000 free women, and secondly, 5,000 free emigrants, half of them women, in all 9,000 free persons, would require to be conveyed to New South Wales at the expense of this country for every 6,000 convicts transported. Would free emigrants, especially women, like thus to be sent to the colony as companions of convicts? The cost of this free emigration, if it could take place, would not be much less than 150,000 l.; and supposing convicts could be conveyed to New South Wales at an average of 20 l. a head, then the total cost of merely landing a convict on the shores of that colony would amount on an average to 45 1., or twice what it has hitherto been. In addition, the Committee of the Legislative Council require that two-thirds of the expense of the police, gaols, and criminal administration of justice should be defrayed by the Home Government, which would entail a further expenditure of about 47,000 l. a year. I do not think these conditions at all extravagant. I believe they would by no means compensate the colony for the evils of a renewal of transportation. On the other hand, the expense to this country would probably be as great as that of punishing convicts in the best penitentiaries. But what is to become of the convicts after their arrival in the colony? The Committee declare that they are on no account to be employed in gangs of any kind, but they

69
are to be assigned. To whom?—to persons into whose character a rigid inquiry is to be instituted as to their fitness for the discharge of the duties of a master of convicts? How is such an inquiry to be instituted? What is the test of fitness? What a farce such an inquiry would be, yet what an opening for favouritism and abuse! The convicts, I repeat, are to be assigned—not in the cities nor in the towns, but they are to be dispersed over the wilds of the interior, as shepherds, by twos and by threes, in huts of bark and slabs, many miles apart—thus thousands and tens of thousands are to be got rid of; and it is expected that the loneliness of these vast solitudes will reform their characters, and that wandering missionaries will afford them religious consolation. I acknowledge that if transportation is to be renewed to New South Wales, this is the best form of it; still it is most objectionable, and one of the strongest objections is to be found in the report of the Committee of the Legislative Council. In that report, as I have already said, they demand that as many women should be conveyed to the colony as men, in order to diminish the existing disproportion of sexes, in order to prevent, as they term it, "the abominations of a populus virorum, such as polluted the earlier days of this colony, and such as now pollutes the sister colony of Van Diemen's Land." But will not the thousands of convict shepherds beyond the limits of location be a populus virorum? No provision is proposed in order to associate women with them. On the contrary, the project of the Committee is to create a community of males; the hut, the home of the shepherd, is to be inhabited by three men—two to follow the flocks or herds, one to keep the hut, to cook, and to perform the other domestic duties. These huts are to be scattered over hundreds and hundreds of miles, without one woman to inhabit them. Again, all these convict shepherds must be armed, in order to defend their flocks against the native dogs and the blacks. What control can be exercised over them? What is to prevent them running away, and becoming bush-rangers? They would be an armed banditti prowling upon the frontiers of the colony, massacring the natives, devastating and destroying. In their vicinity no respectable man—no man with wife or children of either sex—could live without the constant apprehension of the most fearful outrages—outrages such as the imagi-
70
nation can hardly conceive, but of which the history of the penal colonies affords too many lamentable instances. What, then, can tempt any portion of the inhabitants of New South Wales even to "submit" to such a plan? The Legislative Council say that it is a mere choice of evils, which whatever may be the general desire, this community has not the power to escape from." But it must be acknowledged that there are some persons in that colony, the demoralised and base offering of the old convict system, who sec in the renewal of the assignment system a mode of obtaining cheap labour, and thus of acquiring wealth. Possessed of numerous flocks, unable to hire shepherds, they wish for convict slaves, careless of the moral consequences to themselves and to posterity. Their object is wealth, and they calculate upon our ignorance to afford them the means of obtaining it under the plea of reforming our criminals. Hideous and execrable cupidity, insulting to our understandings! Nothing, I trust, will ever induce the Government or the Legislature to disregard the recommendations of the Transportation Committee, and re-establish the assignment system. The Transportation Committee likewise recommended that transportation should cease to New South Wales and the settled districts of Van Diemen's Land; and accordingly the noble Lord the Member for the city of London discontinued it. I regret that the noble Lord did not go one step further, and abolish transportation entirely. In 1840 I took the liberty of bringing this subject under the consideration of the House. I endeavoured to prove that transportation could not he made a good punishment—that all attempts to improve it would be signal failures—and that it would ultimately be abandoned after a worse than useless expenditure of public money. I entreated the noble Lord to reconsider the question, to abolish transportation at once, and to substitute in its stead a scheme of punishment similar to that which is now proposed by the Government, and which was proposed by the Archbishop of Dublin, who for the last eighteen years has been the consistent and determined opponent of transportation. The noble Lord would not at once comply with my wishes; and in refusing to do so, it is but fair to state that he acted in accordance with the views of the majority of the Transportation Committee. He continued to send convicts to Norfolk Island and Van

71
Diemen's Land. He greatly diminished, however, the number of convicts so transported; and I feel persuaded that if the noble Lord had remained in office, he would before long have seen the necessity of abolishing transportation. Unfortunately—most unfortunately—his place was soon after filled by Lord Stanley. Lord Stanley greatly increased the number of convicts to be transported. The noble Lord, it is said, did this in consequence of a resolution of the House, which was moved by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford. If this be true, the House never agreed to a more noxious and mischievous vote. It does appear to me that in an important matter like that of the whole penal system of the country, a great alteration should not be made without an Act of Parliament. I feel persuaded that if, in the instance in question, an Act of Parliament had been required, it would never have obtained the sanction of the House; whilst the resolution of the noble Lord was carried in a thin House, at the termination of a Parliament, and on the eve of the dissolution of the Government, when few Members were present to attend to the subject. Lord Stanley established in Van Diemen's Land what is termed the system of probation gangs. It was intended to be an improvement on the existing system of road parties and chain gangs. That system had been emphatically condemned by the Transportation Committee, who had taken much pains to prove that it could not be converted into a good punishment. Lord Stanley, however, determined to try the experiment, and the result has more than justified the assertions of the Committee. I will describe the main features of the probation system and its consequences. According to the regulations of Lord Stanley, convicts transported for life or for very grave offences were first to be sent to Norfolk Island; having remained there a certain period of time, they were to be transferred to Van Diemen's Land. To this colony all other transported convicts were to be sent directly. Both of these classes of convicts were to be employed in the probation gangs for a period of time; which depended partly upon the original sentence of the convict, partly upon his subsequent conduct in the gang. The gangs were to consist of from 250 to 300 individuals; they were to execute, in concert, works of public utility, and to live in huts in the immediate vicinity of those works. It was intended that about 8,000 convicts should be employed
72
in this manner. At the expiration of the first period of probation (as in mockery it must have been called), the convict obtained a probation pass, which enabled him, under certain restrictions, to enter private service, and to receive wages. The length of this second period of probation depended entirely upon the conduct of the convict; at its expiration, he obtained a ticket of leave, which enabled him to work entirely on his own account, to possess property, and to move from one part of the colony to the other. And ultimately the convict might obtain a conditional pardon, which restored him to the station of a free man in all respects, except that he could not return to the United Kingdom. In order that this system should work well, two things were absolutely requisite—first, efficient superintendence over the gangs; secondly, sufficient demand for the labour of the pass-holders and ticket-of-leave men. But how did this system work? Lord Stanley bitterly complained that he could get no information on the subject. In a despatch directed to Sir B. Wilmot, Governor of Van Diemen's Land, September, 1845, he stated that three years before, he had directed that ample reports should be regularly sent to him with regard to the working of the convict system. Reports, such as they were, had been sent; but they did not contain the information which he required. The noble Lord seems to have been wonderfully patient; but at length his patence was exhausted, and he wrote to Sir Eardley Wilmot in angry terms, that—
"On some of the most important topics he had received cither no intelligence whatever, or none at all commensurate with the magnitude and importance of the inquiry. Respecting the condition of the convicts, and of the working of the system, the remarks had been slight and few. There was no distinct intimation of the defects or errors which experience might have brought to light; no suggestion as to the means of correcting such defects or errors; no review of the state and efficiency of each distinct establishment; no advice as to the means by which economy and efficiency might be best promoted. The superintendent of convicts had habitually confined himself to details. Sir E. Wilmot had confined himself exclusively to the exposition of financial difficulties."
And Lord Stanley avowed with regret—
"That at the end of nearly three years, he was destitute of any clear understanding as to the conclusions which the immediate agent and the chief superintendent must have formed respecting the soundness of the principles and the wisdom of the plans which they had been called on to administer."
From some transient expressions, however,

73
of the superintendent of convicts—from the "significant silence," as the noble Lord termed it, of Sir E. Wilmot—the noble Lord inferred—what? That there was no "material omission or mistake in the regulations of the system. There were, however," said the noble Lord, "two exceptions, or apparent exceptions, to this position;" and then the noble Lord referred, first
—"to the accounts which Sir E. Wilmot had privately transmitted to him (and which were, the noble Lord said, altogether unfit for publicity) of the vices generated and fostered by the assemblage, at stations remote from society at large, of numerous bodies of convicts of the same sex."
Secondly, the noble Lord referred
—"to the absence at Van Diemen's Land of an effective demand for the labour of the convicts there, whether in a state of probation, or of qualified or of absolute freedom."
The noble Lord seems to have been little aware that these two apparent exceptions, as he was pleased to call them, proved that this system of punishment was a signal failure, and a hideous reproach and a disgrace to the British name. This despatch is a curious document. It shows in what manner our remote colonies are sometimes governed by noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen in Downing-street—it shows with what accurate information they have pretended to direct a complicated system of punishment at the antipodes, and to exercise vigilant control over their subordinates in the other hemisphere. Of this class of statesmen, by whom our colonies have been so often ruled, Lord Stanley was facile princeps. Lord Stanley was succeeded by Mr. Gladstone, who, in February, 1846, repeated the complaint of Lord Stanley, and peremptorily ordered a detailed report of the state of the colony to be sent to him. He directed Sir E. Wilmot to apply for that purpose to the Bishop of Tasmania, to the Roman Catholic bishop, and to all the clergymen of the colony. Before these reports could reach this country, petitions and letters had arrived from the colony, giving a fearful description of the results of the convict system in Van Diemen's Land. Some of them are printed amongst the papers of the House. I will refer first to a petition signed by 1,700 free inhabitants of Van Diemen's Land, in which they all allege that—
"They were in a state of continual dread and anxiety for themselves and their families, owing to the number of convicts by whom they were surrounded; they had no security for life or property;
74
the moral condition of the colony was daily becoming worse and worse; no regulations could counteract the evils of the enormous mass of criminals that were poured upon their shores; and if the present system of transportation continued, they must abandon a colony which would become unfit for any man to inhabit who regarded the highest interests of himself or his children."
They state, likewise—
"That there was yet a more fearful evil produced by the present system of transportation."
With regard to this subject, I must refer to a letter from Mr. Pitcairn, a respectable solicitor in Van Diemen's Land; and another from the Rev. Dr. Fry, chaplain of St. George's Church, Hobart Town. Both letters describe the hideous moral consequences of the assemblage of convicts in gangs in the colony. Dr. Fry says, addressing the Secretary of State for the Colonies—
"Having had occasion about six months since to visit the large convict station of the coal mines, and the adjacent stations, I was struck with horror at the representations of the chaplain, and other accounts, which I believe the bishop will submit to you. It is fearful to think of the scenes represented, and they are such as cannot be written. The aspect of the men indicated the dreadful habit to which they were addicted; and inquiry was met with silent reluctance, as if the condition of the men was too dreadful to speak of."
He goes on to say—
"Communications with various persons, religious instructors, and probation men themselves, confirm me in the conviction of the great prevalence of the evil, and the contagion and corruption among the men, which I am convinced exists oven in the Penitentiary in Hobart Town. When the men are locked in (to use a phrase common and undisputed) the place is worse than hell."
He adds—
"I am convinced, that in this country no care or vigilance in the Government will prevent abuses and calamitous negligence in some or other of the gangs. The stations are remote and unobserved, it is the interest of the superintendents to conceal and overlook shocking offences. In most cases, the officers of the gangs will be more anxious to save money, in order to leave so revolting a service, or to live without trouble, than to detect crime, and to watch the secret and private habits of the men."
Mr. Pitcairn stated, in his letter, that two men in one of the gangs bad lately been hung for a rape on a convict boy—that a particular disease had been caused among the convicts by the crimes alluded to by Mr. Fry—and that a colonial surgeon, Dr. Motherwell, now in this country, had had three hundred cases of it under his care. Sir E. Wilmot, in consequence of these statements, caused a surgical examination to be made of the convicts, and it was

75
found, that at the station of the coal mines, where about 550 convicts were assembled, no less than twenty men were suffering from disease produced by unnatural crime. At Impression Bay, there were likewise twenty cases of similar disease among 450 convicts. At the other stations, the amount of disease was less; but at the majority of the stations, the surgeons reported that there were appearances of unnatural offences having been committed. Unnatural crimes seem likewise to have prevailed among the female convicts. The despatch upon this subject, from Sir Eardley Wilmot to Lord Stanley has not been published. But Mr. Gladstone refers to it in his last public despatch to Sir Eardley Wilmot, and expresses his surprise at the negligence of that officer, because, after
—"the most horrible and revolting accounts of the state of morals among a portion of the female convicts" which Sir Eardley Wilmot had transmitted to Lord Stanley, "he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had never followed up that statement, either by a detail of remedial measures, or by tendering suggestions of that character for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government."
In confirmation of these statements, I may refer to an address to the Bishop of Tasmania, which has lately been laid before the House. That address is signed by the Archdeacon and twenty-four clergymen of Van Diemen's Land, a very large portion of the clergy of that diocese. They state that they are convinced, that in the gangs of convicts throughout the diocese, unnatural crimes are committed to a dreadful extent; and they earnestly implore that the probation system may be discontinued. I will say no more on this subject. I predicted that any system similar to that of the probation gangs would prove a failure in the penal colonies. That system has failed, and for the following reasons. It was impossible to obtain efficient superintendence over such gangs; it was impracticable to provide proper employment for them; there was no sufficient demand for the labour of the pass-holder and ticket-of-leave-men; the labour market was overstocked; the industrious, respectable, and free, emigrated; the convict population acquired the preponderance, congregated together in gangs, all of one sex, without proper separation and superintendence: the consequences were such as I need not repeat. Transportation to Van Diemen's Land is now discontinued, and I trust to God, for ever. Now, with regard to Norfolk Island: Three systems of punishment have of late years been suc-
76
cessively employed in Norfolk Island. They may be described as the cruel, the indulgent, and the lax. The cruel system existed previous to the report of the Transportation Committee; the indulgent system was the offspring of the noble Lord the Member for the city of London; and the lax belonged to Lord Stanley. First, with regard to the cruel system. Under it, according to the report of the Transportation Committee, the condition of the convict in Norfolk Island was one of unmitigated wretchedness. The Chief Justice of Australia stated, that
—"suffering was carried to such an extent as to render death desirable, and to induce many prisoners to seek it under the most appalling aspects."
He quoted cases in which the convicts at Norfolk Island had committed crime in order to be executed, and he declared that
—"he would prefer death, under any form, rather than such a state of endurance as that of a convict at Norfolk Island."
What were the moral consequences of such a system? The Rev. R. Stiles, in a report to Lord Glenelg, stated that
—"blasphemy, rage, mutual hatred, and the unrestrained indulgence of unnatural lust, were the things with which a short residence in the prison wards of Norfolk Island, must necessarily familiarise the convict."
In consequence of the cruel system, attempts at mutiny have not been uncommon in Norfolk Island. In 1834, a mutiny took place, which was nearly successful. In the struggle, nine convicts were killed. Twenty-nine were subsequently condemned to death, and eleven executed. This was the cruel system. For the cruel system, the noble Lord the Member for the city of London substituted the indulgent one, under Captain Maconochie, who was its author. According to that system, the convicts were in the first instance to undergo positive punishment for a certain period of time. At the expiration of that period, they were to be associated together in parties of six or eight individuals. Each individual was to be held responsible, not only for his own conduct, but for the conduct of his associates. If the conduct of the convict was good, he obtained a certain number of marks of good conduct. In proportion as the convict obtained a greater and greater number of these marks, he was entitled to greater and greater indulgences. First, he was to be rendered independent of his associates; secondly, he might obtain a ticket of leave; and, ulti-

77
mately, he might procure his pardon. I will not deny, that in a proper place, and under proper superintendence, some good might not result from some modification of this system; but in Norfolk Island, and under Captain Maconochie, it was certain to prove a failure. I presumed to make this statement to the noble Lord in 1840; and I think the noble Lord soon discovered that I was in the right; for in a despatch, dated November, 1840, the noble Lord authorized Sir George Gipps, the Governor of Now South Wales, to supersede Captain Maconochie. The noble Lord's reasons for so doing, were certain statements contained in a despatch of Sir George Gipps, in which Sir George stated that Captain Maconochie had disregarded all the instructions given to him, and within a few weeks after his arrival in Norfolk Island, had abolished all distinctions between the two classes of convicts in Norfolk Island; he had extended equally to all a system of extreme indulgence, and hold out hopes to them, almost indiscriminately, of being speedily restored to freedom; he had entirely overlooked the instructions—that a fixed period of imprisonment should, in the first instance, be allotted for the punishment of the crime for which the prisoner had been convicted; and he had disregarded equally the effects which so great a change of discipline at Norfolk Island was calculated to produce on the large convict population of New South Wales. Sir George Gipps likewise stated, that no attention whatever had been paid by Captain Maconochie to his communications; but on the contrary, within a few days after the receipt of them, the whole convict population of the island had been, on the occasion of Her Majesty's birthday, regaled with punch, and entertained with the performance of a play. Captain Maconochie was not, however, superseded, and he was allowed to continue his experiment for a period of nearly four years. About the end of this period, in March, 1843, Sir George Gipps thought it necessary to pay a visit of inspection to Norfolk Island. His despatch of April seems to me to contain a temperate and impartial account of the result of Captain Maconochie's experiment. I will state the substance of it. Though Sir George Gipps's arrival was unexpected, he found that good order everywhere prevailed, and that the demeanour of the prisoners was respectful and quiet. He describes two classes of convicts at Norfolk Island: first, the new
78
hands, or experimental prisoners, who had been sent there for the express purpose of being subjected to Captain Maconochie's peculiar system of discipline; secondly, the old hands, or doubly-convicted convicts, who had been re-transported from the Australian colonies. Sir George Gipps stated that the mortality amongst the experimental prisoners had been unusually large, oven for convicts; in throe years one-ninth of them had perished; their general appearance was inferior to that of the old hands. With regard to their moral improvement, it was difficult for Sir George Gipps to speak with any degree of certainty: gambling was prevalent amongst them—they had become familiarised with unnatural crime—that crime was likewise on the increase among them; and, strange to say, it was far more common among Captain Maconochie's experimental prisoners than the old hands. According to different estimates, from one-eighth to one-twentieth of them were addicted to it; and the consequences were loathsome diseases. Sir George Gipps likewise reported, that in fact Captain Maconochie's original system had never been put in practice; that Captain Maconochie, from his peculiar disposition and habits of thought, was unable to bring it into effect; that the only portion of that system which had been tried—that of the mutual responsibility of the convicts—had, according to Captain Maconochie's own acknowledgment, proved a failure; and, lastly, that notwithstanding Captain Maconochie's aversion to the infliction of positive punishment, he had at length been obliged to have recourse to the lash and the chain. It is but fair to add that Sir George Gipps expressed unqualified approbation of Captain Maconochie's management of the old hands; and, from the tenor of his despatch, it is evident that he was not inclined to deprive Captain Maconochie of that management. It is but fair, likewise, to Captain Maconochie's successor to state, that competent authorities have considered that the dreadful results to which I shall now refer, were the necessary consequences of what they considered to be the erroneous notions of Captain Maconochie with regard to convict discipline. Meanwhile Lord Stanley superseded Captain Maconochie. Lord Stanley determined to place Norfolk Island under the jurisdiction of Van Diemen's Land, and he appointed Major Childs superintendent of that island, with detailed instructions, it is said, as to his conduct. Under that

79
gentleman commenced what I have termed the lax system. He arrived in Norfolk Island in February, 1844; and for two years nothing seems to have been known of his conduct, either in this country or in Van Diemen's Land, except from his own account. About the expiration of that period, strange rumours with regard to Norfolk Island reached this country, and probably Van Diemen's Land. For in 1846, Mr. Stewart, an experienced magistrate of the convict department of Van Diemen's Land, was sent to investigate the state of Norfolk Island. Here is his report on the subject. It is simply a description of a hell on earth—no discipline—unbridled and unnatural lust—insolence and insubordination without parallel in the universe. In order to form a notion of this dwelling-place of fiends, the whole of the report should be road by hon. Members. I will merely select an extract or two from it. Here is a description of some hundred convicts at work at a crank-mill:—
"A more disorderly, riotous, and unseemly exhibition I never witnessed; the men are engaged in one incessant alternation of shouting, whistling, yelling, hooting, screeching, &c, of the loudest description, and the use of the most offensive and disgusting language; they can see through the windows all the passers by; and these, especially officers (as the commandant's office is immediately contiguous), are greeted either by excessive shouting and cheering, or by hooting and yelling ab libitum. Not any attempt appears to be made to subdue this unseemly indulgence; indeed the practice appears established, and excused as the manner in which the men incite each other to exertion. This is the explanation Major Childs afforded me."
Here is the description of the arrival of a party of convicts from England:—
"On landing the prisoners, those intended for removal to Cascade station, were, for protection, placed during the day time in one of the wards; the ward was entered by a body of twenty or thirty convicts, the lock having been picked, and the work of plunder, of ordinary occurrence, I may say, almost invariable on such occasions, commenced. Knocking down the men and rifling them had begun, when assistance arrived in time to check it; but, strange to say, not one of the offenders was secured or even identified, though the barracks stands in a square enclosed by walls, and two watchmen are stationed at the gates."
On the occasion of the landing of another party of convicts the men were ordered to bathe, and were marched to the seaside for that purpose, escorted by constables. A considerable number of men from the settlement rushed upon them, seized their clothes, and plundered them, not with stand-
80
ing the efforts of the constabulary. Here is an account of a visit which Mr. Stuart paid unexpectedly to the sleeping wards of the convicts:—
"On the doors being opened, men were scrambling into their own beds from others, in a hurried manner, concealment being evidently their object. It was very evident that the wardsmen, not being liable to supervision, nor having any external support, did not exercise any authority, and were mere passive spectators of irregularity, which prevails here to an enormous amount. How can anything else be expected? Here are 800 men immured from six o'clock in the evening until sunrise on the following morning, variously by hundreds, sixties, forties, thirties, &c., without lights, without visitation by the officers, or the check that even liability to these would produce. It is my painful duty (he says) to state that I am informed—and of the truth of the information I entertain no doubt—that atrocities of the most shocking, odious character, are there perpetrated; and that unnatural crime is indulged in to excess; that the young have no chance of escaping from abuse; and that even forcible violation is resorted to. To resist, can hardly be expected in a situation so utterly removed from, and lamentably destitute of, protection. A terrorism is sternly and resolutely maintained to revenge not merely exposure, but even complaint; and threats of murder, too likely to be carried into effect, from the violent, desperate characters here associated, are made more alarming by the general practice of carrying knives."
Now, only one statement more with regard to Norfolk Island. In consequence of some observations which had fallen from Mr. Stuart, Major Childs hastily determined to adopt a more rigorous system; yet, with extraordinary negligence, he took no precautions against an outbreak. He ordered the knives and cooking utensils of the convicts to be secretly removed by night. The next morning the convicts discovered the treachery (for treachery it was) that had been practised upon them. They immediately broke open the building which contained their property; they attacked the officers and the police, and in the most brutal manner murdered one overseer and three convict constables; and had not a small body of troops arrived a few days afterwards from Van Diemen's Land, in all probability the convicts would have overcome the civil officers and the military, and slaughtered every one of them. Mr. Latrobe likewise confirms the accuracy of Mr. Stuart's report with regard to Norfolk Island, and encloses another report from Mr. Price, the present commandant at Norfolk Island. In that report, Mr. Price gives a fuller explanation of the causes which led to the outbreak. The explanation is a horrible one; but I feel it my painful duty to make the House understand

81
the question, Mr. Price writes to the following effect:—
"In the removing of the cooking utensils from the prisoners, I cannot see a sufficient reason for the murderous outbreak of July last, except in what I gathered from the lips of some of the murderers prior to their deaths. Horrible though it be, I consider that I am bound to make known to you what I learnt from them shortly before their execution. Many of these wretched beings acknowledged to mo that for years, indeed almost from their first conviction, they had been given to unnatural practices, declaring that the crime prevailed to a great extent both in Van Diemen's Land and in this island; and from one I learnt that those who pandered to their passions were paid in tobacco, extra provisions, fancy articles made for them, and any indulgences they could obtain, to induce them to yield to their brutal desires. That by their being deprived of their cooking utensils, they would have been unable to prepare the food they might surreptitiously obtain for the objects of their lusts, and that this aroused their savage and ferocious passions to a pitch of madness. This is the tale of a man about to die. The relation of these abominable practices came from men who knew they must in a few days be numbered with the dead; and I have no reason to doubt the disgusting and horrible confession.
"The address of another to myself, on entering his cell, was to this effect:—For as you value your soul, separate, both here and at Van Diemen's Land, as much as possible my class of people. We are nearly all given to unnatural practices. I have witnessed scenes that you would not believe were I to recount them. No check can be given to it but by separating the men as much as possible; and I beseech you to use your best endeavours to let the men sleep in the cells."
And with regard to the outbreak, Mr. Price states that it
—"would not have taken place to the extent it did, had Major Childs, with the military at his disposal, adopted such measures as the furious conduct of the convicts rendered imperatively necessary."
From the information which I acquired as chairman of the Transportation Committee, I ventured seven years ago to predict what would be the consequences of continuing any portion of that system of punishment. My predictions were disregarded, and being disregarded, I hoped they would prove erroneous. It was with horror, therefore, that I found in the papers laid this Session upon the Table of the House, that every one of these predictions had been fulfilled to the letter. I have always objected to transportation, on the grounds that on account of the distance from this country at which that punishment is administered, the people of this country and their representatives in Parliament can seldom or never have any knowledge of the manner in which it is administered. Consequently, the authorities both at home and in the colonies who are intrusted with its administration
82
are virtually irresponsible. The home authorities are rarely, if ever, cited before the tribunal of public opinion, however negligent their conduct may be. They can likewise exercise but little control over the conduct of their subordinates at the antipodes. They are obliged to trust almost entirely to the discretion of these subordinates. Frequent inspection is impossible. The most lamentable abuses may be concealed for years, and when discovered, a year is frequently required to apply a remedy—the ordinary consequences of official irresponsibility, negligence, and neglect. Of such negligence and neglect, the history of transportation under Lord Stanley is a striking instance—of negligence on the part of a Secretary of State for the Colonies—of neglect on the part of the Governor of a penal colony—and of worse than negligence or neglect on the part of a functionary entrusted with a most important office. For two years Major Childs had the uncontrolled charge of nearly two thousand convicts; if those convicts had been in England, Major Childs could not have retained that office for more than as many weeks. At the end of two years Sir Eardley Wilmot thought proper to make some inquiries as to how matters were going on under his subordinate in Norfolk Island; and when he at last discovered that nothing could be worse, he dismissed Major Childs. Again, for three whole years Sir Eardley Wilmot neglected to inform Lord Stanley of the state of Van Diemen's Land. At the expiration of those three years Lord Stanley awoke as it were from a trance—began to wonder how his new system of punishment was going on, and why he had heard nothing on the subject. The result of his inquiries induced his successor, Mr. Gladstone, immediately to dismiss Sir Eardley Wilmot. In saying this I do not refer to the charges which have been brought against the private character of Sir Eardley Wilmot, for those charges have not been substantiated; but I refer to the charges contained in the despatches of Lord Stanley and Mr. Gladstone of negligence and inattention. As for Lord Stanley, he was as guilty of negligence, and as deserving of being dismissed as either of his subordinates. I wish the noble Lord were still a Member of this House, that I might say this in his presence. But though he be absent, I feel that I am entitled, as a representative of the people, to take this, the earliest pos-

83
sible opportunity, of calling the noble Lord to account for his conduct when he was a responsible Minister of the Crown. For four years the noble Lord was Secretary of State for the Colonies. During that period, I accuse the noble Lord of negligence in appointing officers who have proved themselves unfit for the trust which he reposed in them. I accuse him of neglect in not watching over the conduct of those officers, and allowing years to elapse without receiving from them the information which he ought to have required. I charge him with the consequences of his negligence and neglect, with the existence of a state of things in Norfolk Island and Van Diemen's Land so horrible and so disgusting, that if a convulsion of nature were to sweep those communities from the face of the earth, it would be a matter for rejoicing rather than for lamentation. I speak in the presence of some who are the friends, and others who were the colleagues of Lord Stanley. Let them defend his conduct as Colonial Secretary if they can. I defy them to do so. I think I have succeeded in establishing my original position, that transportation ought to be abolished. The question now is, what should be substituted for it? What is the best mode of dealing with offenders against the law? In dealing with such persons, the only object of the Legislature is to prevent crime. For this purpose, according to Mr. Bentham, and other high authorities, the offender should be subjected to a certain amount of positive suffering, or punishment properly so called. The amount of punishment should depend upon the nature of the offence, and should be inflicted not in anger or revenge, but as a warning and example, with the view of deterring both the offender himself and all other persons from transgressing the law. The punishment should, if possible, be of such a description, or accompanied with such measures, as shall tend to improve the moral character of the offender, and to render him unwilling to commit fresh offences, so that punishment should be for an example to all men, and for the reformation of the individual offenders. To this doctrine some persons, and amongst them a noble ex-Chancellor (Lord Brougham), raise objections on the following grounds: They contend that punishment to be effectual as a means of deterring from crime, should follow certainly and immediately upon the commission of an offence; but no punishment, they say, can
84
be either certain or immediate, therefore no punishment can have any real effect in preventing crime. In proof of this position they allege that the majority of offences, especially of those against property, pass unpunished; that a large portion of the offenders who came under the cognizance of the courts of justice have experienced the effects of punishment, and been undeterred by it; that the majority of those who transgress the law belong to the class of habitual criminals, men bred in crime, living by crime, whose only industry is crime, and who are constantly issuing from and returning to the gaols and other places of banishment; that the remainder are casual criminals, who, under the influence of some strong and overpowering motive, disobey the law; that those persons, though criminal, are not necessarily depraved ones; that in many cases they might easily be reclaimed; but the effect of inflicting punishment upon them is to degrade and demoralise them, and to force them into the class of habitual criminals. Upon these grounds the noble Lord and others maintain, first, that punishment has no effect in deterring from crime; and, secondly, that it ought not to be inflicted upon offenders, but that offenders should merely be subjected to a species of educational restraint, with the view of reforming them, which restraint should continue till their reformation be effected. With regard to the first of these positions, that punishment has no effect in preventing crime, the argument is simply this—numerous crimes, it is said, are committed, many of them by persons who have experienced the effects of punishment; thence it is attempted to be inferred that few or no persons are deterred from crime by the fear of punishment. The inference is evidently an illogical one; the only logical inference is, that some persons, and especially old offenders, are not deterred from crime by the fear of punishment; but it does not follow that ten times or ten thousand times that number, have not in the first instance been prevented from becoming criminals by the fear of punishment. It must be borne in mind that we have only a record of cases in which the threat of punishment has been ineffectual; there is no record, and there can be no record, of the cases in which the threat has been effectual. If the number of cases in which the threat of punishment has prevented crime, were ten times or ten thousand times more numerous than those of a contrary character, yet of the former we

85
should rarely, if ever, have any direct evidence, though of the latter we should have, in almost every instance, ample and sufficient proof. Therefore, from the facts to which I have referred, no strictly logical inference can he drawn as to the efficacy or inefficacy of punishment in preventing crime. In order to determine this question, other considerations should he taken into account. When I consider that daily experience proves that the dread of evil is one of the readiest and most potent means of determining the conduct of men, I cannot doubt that the fear of punishment tends to prevent crime. It may not have that effect to any considerable extent with habitual criminals, or with those who have been demoralised by a had punishment, though in all probability it makes them more cautious about committing crimes, therefore induces them to commit both fewer crimes and crimes of lesser magnitude, to which lesser punishments are attached. But in my opinion, the fear of punishment chiefly influences the half-vicious and the half-moral, the weak, the wavering, and the uncertain, who compose a very large class in every community, and to whom the menaces of the Legislature supply a powerful and constant motive from without to induce obedience to the laws. I feel persuaded, therefore, that in no community which exists, or as yet has existed, can positive punishment be dispensed with; but the facts which I have mentioned undoubtedly prove, that in addition to positive punishment the Legislature should employ other means of combating crime. Those means must be of an educational character. I do not now speak of general education; though I believe (as I said the other night) that in order successfully to combat crime, not only good gaols, good gaolers, and a good system of punishment are necessary, but good schools, good schoolmasters, and a good system of education, are still more necessary. I speak of education, or rather moral training, with regard to offenders, and especially with regard to persons who are likely to become offenders. I will explain what I mean. I have already said that the majority of crimes are committed by habitual criminals, who form in every community a criminal caste. The children of these persons constitute the rising generation of criminals—the future population of the gaols, the penitentiaries, and the penal colonies. They are nurtured in crime, and familiarised from their earliest youth with scenes and tales
86
of crime; they receive, in short, a criminal education, and learn a criminal morality: the inevitable consequence is they become criminals; in their turn beget fresh criminals, and perpetuate the noxious breed. Now if the Legislature wished to put a stop to crime at one of its chief sources, it must direct its attention to these children: it should seize them, separate them from their parents, and educate them in respect and obedience to the law. This subject is one which well deserves the attention of the Government. I will not further discuss it at the present moment, but will confine myself to the question now especially before the House, namely, of the best mode of dealing with convicted offenders. When I proposed to the noble Lord the Member for the city of London to abolish transportation, I recommended him to employ in its stead some one or more forms of the penitentiary system. And I stated that in my opinion the best form was that which was originally suggested by Mr. Bentham, as preferable to the formation of a penal colony in Botany Bay—I mean the separate system. According to that system, offenders should never be permitted to associate together; they should be visited by persons whose duty it should be to afford them moral and religious instruction; and they should be permitted, not compelled, to work. This system of punishment appears to me to be the best that has hitherto been devised for the threefold purpose of punishing an offender, preventing his further demoralisation during the period of punishment, and improving, as far as possible, his moral character. First, as a punishment, it appears a most formidable one to the vicious and ill-disposed; but in proportion as the moral character of the offender improves, the suffering diminishes in intensity. Secondly, it prevents the utter demoralisation of the lesser offenders and casual criminals, which is the almost inevitable result of permitting them to associate with the habitual criminals or with each other. Thirdly, it breaks through the vicious habits of the criminal, changes entirely his train of thought, affords him opportunity for reflection, brings him in contact with properly chosen instructors, and thus tends to improve his moral character; and, lastly, under this system, arbitrary punishments are not required to preserve discipline and enforce labour; labour becomes a source of enjoyment, and the culprit is prepared for a subsequent life of honest industry. Two objections have

87
been raised to the separate system. One is on the score of expense. On a former occasion I attempted to prove that the separate system would not be more expensive than transportation would become when the assignment system was abolished. I will not trouble the House with repeating the calculations. I do not, however, pretend that the separate system will be a cheap punishment. I consider that all our attempts at cheap punishments have been failures, and the results have been had and expensive punishments. And I contend, in an economical point of view, a had punishment, though it may he cheaply inflicted, is in the end more expensive than a good punishment, the immediate cost of which may be somewhat greater: for a bad punishment demoralises the offender, and returns him to society a worse criminal than before. He continues, therefore, his career of crime, and lives by crime; and it is evident that even leaving out of consideration the cost of the subsequent punishment of the offender, the pecuniary damage which would be done to the community by a life of crime would soon far exceed the cost of the most expensive punishment; therefore I believe that however great may be the direct cost of a really good system of punishment, the community would ultimately be the gainer by it even in a pecuniary point of view. The other objection to the separate system is, that by secluding the offender, it affects his health, tends to impair his mental energies, and thus disqualifies him for an active life at the termination of his punishment. Now I do not pretend that the separate system is a perfect punishment, or even the best possible punishment. I hope that future experience and careful observation will discover the means of greatly improving it. I only contend that it is better than any other known system of punishment. With regard to its effects on the health of the culprit, I have no doubt that a sudden change from a life of vicious and uncontrolled indulgence, to the quiet restraint of a well-conducted prison, is likely to be injurious to the health of very many criminals. But then, I ask, would any one propose that this transition should he gradually made? The real question is, whether the separate system is more injurious to health than other systems of punishment. The contrary, I believe, is the fact. Experience proves that every system of punishment, every mode of inflicting pain, is injurious to the health of some of the punished.
88
The mortality among convicts is generally higher than the average; in Norfolk Island one-ninth of the new convicts died in the course of the year, under the indulgent system of Captain Maconochie. It may likewise be true that, in certain cases, the separate system tends to impair the mental energies of the convict, and to unfit him for an active life of industry. But, on the other hand, every other system of punishment tends to brutalise and demoralise the convict, and to fit him only for an active life of crime. For these reasons it appears to me that the defects of the separate system are both less in degree and less in kind than the defects of any other system of punishment. I acknowledge, however, that every effort consistent with the great end of punishment, should be made to obviate these defects; and I believe they may be prevented by precautionary attention and proper care on the part of the medical officers who should be appointed to every penitentiary. The Government has taken the separate system as the basis of its substitute for transportation, with certain additions, for the purpose of obviating the defects to which I have referred. The Government proposes, in the first instance, to subject the offender to the discipline of the separate system, with the view of reforming his character, and subsequently to employ him on public works, in order to re-accustom him to the society of his fellow-beings, and thus to prepare him for the active life of the world. I am much afraid that, unless the greatest possible care be taken, this association of offenders on the public works will neutralise and destroy the reformatory effects of the separate system; however, as it is a mere adjunct of that system—an experiment which can easily be discontinued if it fail, while if it succeed, it will obviate one of the strongest objections to the separate system, I shall refrain from offering any opposition to it. The last question is, what is to become of the offender at the expiration of his punishment? In this country, when the labour market is so frequently overstocked, it is difficult for a liberated offender to find employment; and the consequence is, that he is sometimes almost compelled to have recourse to crime as a means of subsistence. Therefore it appears to mo that a system of punishment is incomplete, which does not make some provision for the future career of the culprit at the termination of his punishment. What that provision should be, is a difficult

89
question to answer. The Archbishop of Dublin, whom I consider to be the highest authority on all matters connected with this subject, proposed for this purpose that liberated offenders, who should be willing to emigrate, should be furnished with the means of conveyance to those colonies where they could easily find employment. They should on no account be all sent to the same place, for that would tend to re-produce the social and moral evils of transportation. But by dispersing them—by removing them from the scenes of their original transgressions—by separating them from those who knew they had been criminals, the good feelings and industrious habits which (it is to be hoped) they would acquire in confinement, would be strengthened, and a new career would be opened to them. From the papers laid on the Table of the House, it appears that the Government intended to adopt the plan, with the exception, that instead of the emigration being voluntary, it was to be compulsory. The more I consider this subject, the more I am inclined to doubt whether this alteration would be an improvement upon the plan of the Archbishop of Dublin. Consider what would be the results of a compulsory, as compared with a voluntary, emigration of liberated offenders. If the emigration be compulsory, it becomes a punishment, liable, though in a lesser degree, to many of the objections which have been urged to transportation, and of which it would be a remnant. As a punishment, it would be a very severe one to some offenders—of little or no importance to others. With compulsory emigration, the unreformed as well as the reformed, the bad as well as the good, would equally be banished. Where are they to be sent? If sent all to the same place, they would form a criminal caste, and reproduce many of the social evils of transportation. On the other hand, it would be very difficult to disperse them. Many of the colonies—for instance, the North American ones—would be unwilling to receive them; and I doubt whether it would be prudent or politic to force them upon Canada. They must be sent, therefore, to colonies that are either too weak to complain with success, or to colonies that would be willing to receive them. But the only colonies (if any there are) that would be at all willing to receive banished offenders, would be the penal colonies; and this is very doubtful, for it appears from the papers to which I have already refer-
90
red, that New South Wales would only submit to it with extreme reluctance, and on conditions very burdensome to this country. Now the penal colonies are the very last places to which liberated offenders ought to be sent, for they are the least adapted for the permanent reformation and continued good conduct of such; for in those colonies the standard of morality is at the lowest. In them there exists a numerous criminal caste, which the liberated offender would in all probability be compelled to join and recruit. These appear to me very solid objections to the compulsory emigration of liberated offenders. On the other hand, if the emigration be voluntary, most of the liberated offenders who would willingly emigrate, would be those who have been reformed by their punishment, who would be desirous of pursuing a life of honest industry, and who would be afraid of not finding employment in this country. The liberated offenders who would not emigrate without compulsion would generally be the unreformed, who would in all probability continue criminals, and live a life of crime, whether in this country or in the colonies. If they remain in this country, they would return again and again to our gaols; if they are sent to the colonies, they would fill the colonial gaols. Now, I contend that we ought not to shovel out our worst criminals upon the colonies: by so doing we do not diminish the sum total of crime in the British dominions, we only alter its location, and lay the heaviest burden upon the weaker portions of the empire. The utmost which the Legislature ought to do is to open a career for the liberated offender in any part of its dominions; and if he be willing to accept of such an opening, it will he a strong proof of the beneficial moral effects which the punishment has had upon his character, and will hold out a fair hope of his becoming a useful citizen. I feel it, therefore, my duty to protest, in the name of the colonies, against the compulsory emigration of liberated offenders. But it appears from the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport, that another, and in my opinion, a worse alteration in the plan of the Archbishop of Dublin, is intended by the Government. Not only are liberated offenders to be compelled to emigrate to the Australian colonies, but they are to be treated in those colonies as convicts; they are to be marked out and distinguished from the rest of the inhabitants under the

91
designation of ticket-of-leave men; and they are to be subjected to the special control and supervision of the colonial authorities, who are to determine in what places they are to reside. They will constitute, therefore, a separate class—an inferior, a degraded, and a convict caste—and will bring into discredit those industrial occupations in which they will be chiefly employed. In order to palliate the moral evils which are certain to ensue, the right hon. Baronet says, that free emigrants are to be conveyed to the colony at the expense of this country. Now, let me ask, are equal numbers of the two sexes to be sent to the colony? As the number of convict men many times exceeds that of convict women, is the proportion of the sexes to be made equal by the emigration of a greater number of free women? Will respectable free emigrants, especially women, consent to be made the companions of convicts? What will be the cost of this system of conjoined transportation and emigration? Will it be wise to confound the two together, especially at present, when so much importance is attached to colonisation? Again, are the ticket-of-leave men to be herded together within narrow limits, so as to be more easily under the control of the Government? If so, they will form a plague spot, a second Norfolk Island. Or are they to be dispersed over the colony? If dispersed over the colony—over an area much greater than that of the United Kingdoms—what efficient control can be exerted over them? What use, then, in degrading them by the designation of ticket-of-leave men? None whatever. Again, will the inhabitants of New South Wales consent to this renewal of transportation? The House should bear in mind, that when transportation was discontinued to New South Wales, an implied promise was given, that it should not be renewed without the consent of the colonists. And consequently, last year, when Mr. Gladstone wished to renew transportation, he felt it his duty to desire the Governor of New South Wales to ascertain the opinions of the colonists upon the subject. I have already stated, that the Committee of the Legislative Council, to whom the question was referred, reported as their opinion, that the majority of the colonists were decidedly averse to the renewal of transportation in any shape; and that they would only submit to it as a choice of evils, and on conditions very burdensome to this country. To renew transportation with-
92
out the consent of the colonists, would be a breach of faith; and I feel confident that I speak in the name of a majority of the inhabitants of New South Wales, when I say, that they do not, and will not, consent to the plan of the Government. I beg hon. Members to satisfy themselves upon this subject, by reading attentively the report of the Legislative Council, and the various petitions from New South Wales, with regard to the renewal of transportation. I am obliged to the House for the indulgence it has shown me. I support the measure of the Government, in so far as it discontinues transportation, and substitutes in its stead the separate system of punishment, which appears to me to be more in accordance with the feelings and knowledge of the age; and which, I trust and believe, careful observation and future experience will discover the means of greatly improving. I object to that portion of the measure of the Government, which continues or renews any portion of transportation. I predict the worst consequences from it; and I solemnly entreat the Government not again to disregard my predictions with reference to transportation.
MR. BANKESacknowledged the great importance of the subject, but he could not consent to the further progress of these Bills, because he believed the Government took an erroneous view of the subject, and treated it an unconstitutional manner. He did not think it expedient that the Royal prerogative should be exercised in any out a direct and express manner. It was strange that those Bills, which, on the face and title of them, bore so little show of importance, should, in reality, involve a vast power. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had made a clear and luminous statement, as a statement, but which he took the liberty of saying had very little application to those Bills. With regard to one of these Bills—the one which was called a Bill for the better Custody of Offenders—it amounted to very little. The first clause gave a power to transport Irish offenders into England; and the second provided that offenders subject to transportation might be removed from one prison to another; and that was all of an Act called, "An Act to Amend the Law relating to the Custody of Offenders." With regard to the other, the title was more limited, but its powers were more extensive. It professed to be an Act for the better government of the Milbank, Pen-

93
tonville, and Parkhurst prisons; but, on listening to the statement of the right hon. Baronet, and reading carefully the Bill, it would be found that its operation extended over every gaol in the kingdom, every one of which would be subject to a power now first created. The control, now the high privilege of the Secretary of State, would then be vested in the Commission appointed by this Bill. He viewed the powers conferred by this Bill with surprise and apprehension. There were Commissioners—not more than eleven or less than seven—appointed by the Bill for the government of prisons, and whom, as the Act stated, the Crown might from time to time remove and appoint others in their places. This government of "national prisons" extended, in reality, to every prison in the kingdom; and this Commission not only took upon itself to exercise the high powers now vested in the Home Secretary, but was to supersede all those powers which for a long period of years had been vested—he believed without abuse—in the magistracy of this kingdom. Those were all to be superseded. [Sir G. GREY: NO!] His right hon. Friend said that was a mistake; but he would prove that all the mistake was on the side of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman's remark proved that what he had said on a former occasion was true—that the Ministers had so much to do that they had not time to read the Bills prepared by their subordinates; and he would show that the Bills now before them contained provisions, and an amount of patronage, which the right hon. Gentleman himself would not sanction when it was brought under his notice. He assured his right hon. Friend that there was in the Bills a creation of patronage to an extent which would surprise him; not a mere change of officers, but a new creation under the powers of the Bill. He had been accused of finding fault with the patronage of the Crown; but he thought he was scarcely liable to the charge of wishing to reduce its powers. Its patronage had been much reduced in modern times, and he regretted it; but he thought, notwithstanding, that he had a right to find fault with the patronage of a party. When that party was in opposition, it cut down the Government patronage as much as possible; but when it came into power, it created patronage, and called it filling up vacancies. But they made the vacancies "for the public good," as they said; and when anything was said of these creations, they
94
replied that they had no higher degree of patronage than was common in former times. But if hon. Members looked closely at the Bill, they would find that secretaries, clerks, and subordinate officers—and he recommended this especially to the notice of the hon. Member for Montrose, who would find that his Friends on that side of the House had a little deceived his vigilance in that and some other matters he should offer to the notice of the House—a set of new officers were provided by Clause 4. Yes, the clause said, that there should be a secretary, and sub-clerks, and servants as they should think necessary, subject to the appointment and removal—that was the perfection of patronage—of the Commissioners. Then, the next clause fixed a salary of the Chief Commissioner; and with that he must find fault; for if they were to have such an officer, who was to take the place in certain respects of the Secretary of State, 800 1. a year was scarcely sufficient. But with the clerks and secretary there was no limit at all; and, of course, they would have plenty. These Commissioners were to have the appointments of all these prisons, and when the existing prisons all over the country become national prisons—that was, by being made use of for the custody of offenders for transportation—it would then be in the power of the Commissioners to turn out all the existing gaolers and officers, chaplain and all, only subject in the latter case—and that was the only restriction—to the approval of the bishop. It mattered not that these gaolers had been appointed, tried, and approved by the magistrates. And then came the question, when did they become national prisons? The right hon. Baronet had said that Wakefield had offered two wings of that prison for the accommodation of transported offenders, and, of course, those wings became a national prison; though, perhaps, possession of the wings might give a right to the whole. There must be two gaolers in Wakefield prison. Would they act cordially together? It was quite true, if the several counties chose to be obdurate, they might not be liable to this innovation; but, if that took place, what would become of this Government scheme, for it was all founded on the assumption that the county gaols would be the receptacles for those persons? It was quite true, they were going to make one of the counties of England a penal settlement. It was the county which he had

95
the honour to represent; and they had entered into contracts for the building of temporary prisons to receive the convicts. What a delightful prospect was it not for the inhabitants of the island of Portland, to have those temporary buildings of wood and stone erected in their neighbourhood! He contended that, according to the natural construction of the Bill before the House, every prison, when it became the receptacle for convicts intended for transportation, became a national prison. If this were not the case, what was the object of the Bill, and what was the object of providing new guardians over the management of the prisons? The hon. Baronet who last spoke (Sir William Molesworth) had addressed himself to those particulars which, in his opinion, proved the entire failure of the present system of transportation. He would not follow the hon. Baronet through those particulars, because he believed there was no doubt that the system of transportation carried out had failed; but he must say that with regard to the attack which the hon. Baronet had made on Lord Stanley, the hon. Baronet was not actuated by a perfect spirit of fairness. The hon. Baronet said, that Lord Stanley, following after two experiments which had failed, namely, the experiments of cruelty and indulgence, both of which had signally failed—tried the third experiment, which failed also. Now, if the hon. Baronet's argument was right, that under no system could the principle of transportation succeed, how could Lord Stanley have failed? The hon. Baronet's accusation destroyed the force of his argument. He was quite ready to admit, that if, in the ease of Lord Stanley, failure had attended the system, the failure could not be remedied; but at the same time, they ought to try whether some other efficacious principle might not be carried out. They ought also to consider that there were others whom it was their duty to regard on the score of humanity, and whom it was their province to protect. He confessed he had heard with apprehension the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had given as to the manner in which he would deal with those who were transported; for the effect of the Bill was, that in no case would the criminals be imprisoned in those national prisons for more than eighteen months; and what was afterwards to become of them? They were to be transported for twenty-four years, but un-
96
der regulations which virtually curtailed the punishment by one-half; yet this was the sentence which was to be applied to those found guilty of the serious crimes of forgery, manslaughter, and the like. Looking at the question in all its bearings, he could not but consider that if the Government had made up their minds seriously to adopt a course so materially altering the regulations respecting criminal punishments, they ought to have introduced it by a Bill more specifically declaring what they intended to do. It should also be borne in mind that they adopted this course in direct opposition to the opinions of the highest authorities of the land. They ought boldly to assert their intention in an intelligible Act of Parliament, and not call upon the House to pass Acts of Parliament of doubtful interpretation. Under these circumstances, and feeling that the question of transportation required essential alteration, they were not necessarily obliged to pass Acts of Parliament of a doubtful nature. Feeling the Bill had essential defects, the party with whom he acted did fairly when they said, openly and candidly, that they refused to go into the discussion of the clauses of a Bill which they considered would be inoperative of good. He would oppose the Speaker's leaving the chair to go into Committee.
In answer to a question from Mr. G. W. HOPE,
SIR G. GREYsaid, that convicts, on their arrival in the colonies, would be in the same position as if they had obtained tickets of leave.
Debate adjourned.
House adjourned at a quarter to One.