HC Deb 05 July 1861 vol 164 cc461-9
LORD NAAS

rose to call the attention of the House to the recent changes in the Board of Directors of Irish Convict Prisons, and said that at the time of the abolition of the transportation system, in 1854, an inquiry was made into the convict establishments of Ireland, which were found to be in a state of the greatest disorder, and a thorough reform took place; and he believed that the new system, under the direction of Captain Crofton, had proved a complete success. When transportation ceased it was feared that great evils would arise from the necessity of maintaining so many unreformed men at home, but in Ireland that apprehension had been proved to be unfounded. A new system had been established in that country. Convicts, in the earlier stage of their detention, were subjected to almost complete separation. They were then placed at work in the open air. They were then passed to an intermediate prison, where they enjoyed a modified freedom, and they were finally released on tickets-of-leave, which differed from tickets-of-leave in England, inasmuch as the men were still kept under the supervision of the police. Knowledge of each individual's character was sought. Industrial training was offered, and by a judicious system of marks the convicts could shorten the period of their detention, and on their release receive a small sum to put them in the way of earning their livelihood. The experiment of the intermediate prisons had been completely successful, as not a single instance of attempting to escape had occurred; and another advantage which was obtained was that a most complete supervision was obtained over the convicts after they had left the prison. The directors of prisons were acquainted with the exact condition and state of those who had been under their care, and it was not, therefore, assumed that every man who did not bring himself within the purview of the criminal law was put down, as a matter of course, as doing well. In addition to other advances, the Irish convict system had been the means of furnishing more valuable criminal statistics to the country than had ever been furnished before. In order to show the House how complete had been the success of the licence system, he would state a few statistics on that point. In 1854 the number of prisoners detained in the Government prisons in Ireland was 3,933, and on the 1st of January, 1861, it was only 1,492. The number of licences issued was 1,462, and the number revoked 89, of which 30 were revocations for irregularity. Only 10 per cent of those who had passed through the intermediate prisons had returned to them. The success of this system in an economical point of view was quite as extra-ordinary. They cost of Irish convict establishments was £28,000 a year loss in 1860 than in 1856, and the cost of maintaining 2,220 convicts at Chatham and Dartmoor was £28,000 a year more than the cost of the whole of the Irish establishments, which contained about the same number. With such results it was no wonder that the system should have been lauded by the press both at home and abroad, and that distinguished foreigners who had seen it in operation should attempt to introduce it into their own countries. It was, therefore, with great regret that he saw it was proposed to make an important change in the Prisons Board, by not filling up a vacancy in the Board of Directors. At all events that seemed to be their intention, from the somewhat ambiguous answers which had been made by the Irish Secretary in that House in reply to questions which had been put to him on the subject. The duties of Chairman of that Board were very onerous, there being no less than five prisons, two refuges, and nine reformatories to manage. The Government would probably defend their proceedings on the ground that three Directors managed the prisons of England, and a smaller number might manage those of Ireland. As far as saving was concerned, the full salary of a Director was only £600 a year, and since the vacancy the services of an assistant had been obliged to be had recourse to, so that the actual saving was only £300. He would also point out that the governors of prisons in England received a much higher salary than those of Ireland, and performed duties somewhat akin to that of Directors in Ireland. The system went on and worked well; but more assistance would be required for the future. It was said that three Directors were found sufficient in England, and that a smaller number would be sufficient for Ireland. The circumstances of the two countries were, however, widely different. A high authority in Ireland had given it as his opinion, that it was utterly impossible that the duties of the Irish Board could be performed, unless further assistance was rendered by the Government. He (Lord Naas) thought that alarming disturbances which lately occurred in Chatham were owing to the want of some central directing authority. There was not one such instance in the convict prisons in Ireland. Captain Crofton, who had had the management of the convict department in Ireland, and to whom the public were deeply indebted for the success of his experiment, was resolved to retire unless he was supplied with sufficient means to carry out his system. He thought it would be a great public misfortune if Captain Crofton resigned the office which he had filled with so much credit to himself and satisfaction to the public. He hoped that he had stated such facts as would induce the Government to reconsider their determination, and to make such arrangements with Captain Crofton as would induce him to remain some time longer in the service of the public. He thought that if it were shown to Captain Crofton that he would have the cordial assistance of the Government, he would not, under the pressing circumstances of the case, be disposed to carry out his present out his present resolution to retire.

MR. CARDWELL

could assure the noble Lord it was not necessary, as far as the Government were concerned, to show the value of the convict system in Ireland. That system was instituted by the Government of Lord Aberdeen, and it had been followed by the most satisfactory results. He (Mr. Cardwell) had always given that system his most cordial support. He concurred entirely with the noble Lord as to the value of the services of Captain Crofton, and had recommended the Treasury to increase the remuneration of that able officer, when he added to his other duties those of inspector of reformatories. As to the intention of the Government with respect to the Prisons Board the circumstances were these. The other day there occurred a vacancy in the County Prisons Board, and it occurred to the Irish Government that by appointing one of the Convict Directors to the vacancy, and thus forming a union between the two Boards, increased efficiency would be obtained. With this view it was intended that Mr. Lantaigne should be appointed to the vacancy without resigning his seat at the Convict Board; but it was found that there was a difficulty in the way, and Mr. Lantaigne was then appointed to the County Prisons Board, and resigned his seat at the Convict Prisons Board. It then became necessary to consider whether the vacancy should be filled up or not. When the system was first established it was the intention of Parliament that the number of Directors should be reviewed from time to time. The system then was new, and the number of convicts was 4,000. Now it was working excellently, and the number of convicts was less than 1,500—a result, no doubt, very creditable to the system. In the month of May he received from the Directors a proposal that, inasmuch as the time of Captain Barlow, the Inspector of convicts at Spike Island, had been relieved by the removal of the convicts from Forts Carlisle and Campbell, he should be taken to Dublin to assist the Directors. That was carried into effect, and he was now engaged in further inquiry as to whether or not it was right to fill up the vacancy. The Irish convict system was established by a Government of which he had the honour to be a member. To that system he had always given, and should continue to give, the most cordial support—no object of small economy would induce the Government to impair its efficiency—but when a vacancy occurred in any department it was the duty of the Government carefully to consider whether or not it was necessary to fill it up. Captain Crofton would have the best support of the Government in the discharge of his laborious duties. He was sorry to hear that the health that of that gentleman was so bad, but hoped that it would soon be sufficiently restored to enable him to continue the discharge of his duties.

MR. WHITESIDE

trusted that the expression of opinion by the House would prevent a valuable department being sacrificed by a course which the right hon. Gentleman was rashly going to take. The gentleman who was at the head of this department had a peculiar genius for the office. Captain Crofton had succeeded in accomplishing what no other man, perhaps, had been able to effect—namely, in showing that no criminal, however great, was incapable of being reclaimed. Captain Crofton had succeeded in a great degree in his noble task of reformation. When the late Government proposed to consider whether the punishment of death might not be abolished for a great many offences, he (Mr. Whiteside) was induced, from his observations of Captain Crofton's system of secondary punishment, to concur in the opinion that the punishment of death might be abolished for all crimes except that of murder. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to be advised by anybody in Ireland who could give him sound advice, and it was believed that he had intimated his intention to change a system that had worked extremely well, without having the courtesy to consult the eminent gentleman who was at the head of the department. The excuse of ill-health put forward by Captain Crofton was, it was generally supposed, but the way in which he had been treated by the Government. He (Mr. Whiteside) asked whether this was the act of Lord Carlisle, or whether it was re-commended by Colonel Larcom? Was it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to break up a system which had proved so successful, and which had given satisfaction to the people of all religious denominations? He did not complain of the right hon. Gentleman's wishes—it was of his conduct he complained. It appeared that the right hon. Gentleman had borrowed the services of the Inspector of Spike Island, when Captain Crofton said it was impossible to do without further assistance. In acting thus the Government were enabled to save £200 a year, at the risk of breaking up the department which had attracted the notice of every philanthropist in Europe. He had a high respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he could not help thinking that there was great danger and mischief in his attempting to undertake the Government of Ireland alone.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

had never heard a charge which had less foundation than that which had been made against his right hon. Friend, of endeavouring to over-throw the convict system of Ireland. That system had been strictly adhered to by his right hon. Friend, and there was not the smallest ground for the imputations which has been cast upon him. What he had done he was called upon by his duty to the public to do—namely, when an office fell vacant, to consider whether the public service required that it should be filled up. In England the number of convicts was 8,000, while in Ireland it was only 1,500; or rather less. The Board of Management in England consisted of only three persons; and as he was convinced that the recent disturbances at Chatham, to which reference had been made, arose in no degree from insufficiency of superintendence, there was a prima facie case that the number in Ireland was unnecessarily large. Something had been said of the greater expense of English as compared with Irish convicts; but, in making such a comparison, it was necessary to bear in mind the earnings of the English convicts. It appeared to him that the course which had been taken by his right hon. Friend was fully justified by the circumstances, and he trusted that these continual appeals for the increase, or against the diminution of establishments would not discourage the Executive in performing what used to be thought one of its most important duties—namely, keeping the expenditure of the administrative departments within reasonable bounds.

MR. MONSELL

said, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) involved a complete fallacy. His strong point was that as the 8,000 English convicts were managed by three Directors Ireland could not require so many to manage 1,500. But the difference between the two countries was this—that the work left to be done in England by the governors of the prisons was in Ireland done by the Directors themselves—they became acquainted with each individual convict, and kept their eye on them for years after they had left the prison. The right hon. Gentleman talked of economy; but he believed there would be no economy at all, for what was taken from the Directors would be added to the governors of prisons. But if they wanted economy—though he did not think there were too many offices in Ireland—he would recommend the Government to abolish an aide-de-camp or two, which Ireland would cheerfully sacrifice rather than risk the abandonment of a system of prison discipline which was attracting the attention, not of this country alone, but of the whole civilized world.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the impression seemed to prevail that his right hon. Friend was about to make important changes in the system of prison discipline. But his right hon. Friend had stated in the most explicit terms that he contemplated no change whatever, and that the only question was whether, seeing an establishment of three Directors was thought sufficient when the Irish convicts amounted to 4,000, a smaller number of Directors might not be adequate now that the convicts had fallen to 1,500? But his right hon. Friend had not even decided on that step; he was only trying whether the experiment would answer, and he hoped the House would not force the Government to fill up the appointment before the experiment was fairly tried. He could not believe that Captain Crofton, for whom he had the highest respect, was at all concerned in this attempt to force the Government to fill up the vacancy.

MR. KINNAIRD

was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have made this imputation on Captain Crofton. That Gentleman had taken no steps whatever in opposition to the Government; he offered to resign his appointment. It was they who believed that the system of Captain Crofton was a most admirable one, and who believed that it was in jeopardy from Captain Crofton's resignation in consequence of the increased duties put upon him, that they were induced to come forward and insist that his duties should be lightened by the vacancy being filled up.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

said, that the right hon. Baronet had put the case in a most unfair light to the House. What was the state of the case? Here was a system of convict discipline not only far superior to that in England, but such that it had attracted the attention and was commented on by all who took an interest in these questions throughout Europe. Captain Crofton's system was, he believed, the most perfect system of convict discipline that had yet been adopted. But it was not the Government that could claim any credit for this system; it was not the Government that commenced the system; the whole credit of it was due to Captain Crofton. Now, that system being perfectly successful, a vacancy occurred, and the Government hesitated to fill it up, their plea being economy. He believed the saving would be somewhere about £200 a year; and for that sum this admirable system was to be put in jeopardy. What they said was this—that when Captain Crofton had established a system the beneficial results of which had attracted the notice of statesmen and philanthropists all over Europe, it was only fair that the Government, before making any change in the appointments, should have consulted Captain Crofton. ["Hear!"] He observed that hon. Gentleman opposite cheered that statement, but he believed no communication had been made to Captain Crofton whatever; or if there was, it was made in such a manner as left him no room to express his opinion. Captain Crofton felt that as he was not properly supported by the Government, nor supplied with the proper assistants to work out his plans, it would be better for him to resign, and it was to prevent that they now urged on the Government to give him that support to which he was so well entitled.

MR. BEAMISH

strongly urged on the Government to support Captain Crofton, as the results of his system were more than enough to justify a greater outlay than it incurred.

Question put, and agreed to.

Supply considered in Committee.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.