Lords Sitting of 27 February 1838

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time: Custody of Insane Persons.
Petitions presented. By Lord DACRE, from Wisbeach, and several other places, by the Duke of CLEVELAND, from Stockton-upon-Tees, by the Duke of SUTHERLAND, from Kelso, and several places in Scotland, and by Lord BROUGHAM, from Taunton, Wellington, Appleby, Burn-

189
ham-market, Cardiff, Evesham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and many other places, for the immediate and total abolition of Slavery.—By the Bishop of EXETER, from inhabitants of the city of Cork, to protect the Protestant Church against the Roman Catholics.—By the Earl of RADNOR, from Bradford (Wilts), and by Lord BROUGHAM, from St. Michael's, Dublin, for the Ballot.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from the Benevolent Society of Smiths, London, for an extension of the royal mercy to the Glasgow Cotton Spinners; and from St. Michael's Dublin, against Tithes, and for Municipal Reform in Ireland.—By Lord LYNDHURST, from the Cordwainers of Glasgow, complaining of the combination of workmen, and praying for an inquiry.

THE PENITENTIARY.
Lord Broughamwished to ask a question of the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne) relating to a statement which had become public, and to which he (Lord Brougham) should not have called the attention of the House if it had been made in a vague and uncertain manner; but it was a statement which had been very distinctly and very specifically made in public at a meeting of magistrates, and, as he understood, had attracted much of public attention. It related to a person whom he ought to call a gentlewoman if she had not degraded herself by crime. It related to Miss Newman, who, as their Lordships might recollect, was tried with her mother at the Old Bailey, and found guilty upon two of the worst out of five indictments for an extensive system of robbery. Being so found guilty, Miss Newman was sentenced to fourteen years' transportation, which sentence was commuted to imprisonment in the Penitentiary, where she was some time confined, but whence, under very suspicious circumstances (and this was the ground of his question), she had of late been transferred to Bethlem or to some other public lunatic asylum, The matron of that hospital, shortly after Miss Newman became an inmate of it, had a suspicion awakened in her mind that all was not right; she thought that some partiality had been shown and that some favour was intended towards this person, whose disease she suspected was not real. It certainly was remarkable, seeing that Miss Newman had availed herself of the best legal advice, that insanity was not set up either at the trial as a defence against the charge, nor subsequently, when she had been found guilty, to prevent her receiving sentence. Their Lordships were aware that no person could be punished, that no person could even receive sentence, any more than he could be tried, if the mind were alienated at the period at which he was brought up for judgment. This
190
made the whole case very suspicious. It appeared extraordinary that a person who had been engaged in such a complicated course of guilt, who had displayed so much skill, so much collectedness of mind in the commission of crime, should all at once be driven distracted simply by a sentence which certainly was not more severe than she must have anticipated. But upon a few days' further acquaintance the matron, being a skilful person, became certain that the madness was not real, as she saw in the patient none of the symptoms which attended that woful malady. The matron then intimated to this person that her art was discovered, and would not be allowed to screen her; adding that if she went on feigning madness she would be treated as she feigned, and be made subject to the discipline of the House. Whereupon the feigning ceased, and the patient, with strange rapidity, relapsed into a state of sanity. It was said, however, that this person still continued in the lunatic asylum—that though known to be perfectly sane, she had not been restored to the Penitentiary, but was allowed to enjoy a state of great ease and great comparative comfort, in a place whose proper inmates were those who suffered from nature's severest misfortune—not those who were deeply stained by the world's crime. These were the facts stated at the meeting of the justices, and he therefore wished to know from the noble Viscount whether they were correct or not. He begged to add that the noble Viscount could, on this occasion, have no ground of complaint against him for not giving notice of the question he intended to ask. In the first place, the subject was broached last night in the House, and it might therefore be reasonably supposed that the noble Viscount would be fully prepared to give any answer that might be required to-day. But that there might be no doubt upon the point, he (Lord Brougham) thought it might be as well to give a formal notice of his intention. Therefore between seven and eight o'clock that morning, he sent a note to the noble Viscount, couched in as respectful terms as he could employ, intimating his intention of putting a question that evening; but adding, that by so giving a formal notice he (Lord Brougham) by no means intended to express disapprobation of the opposite course, namely, the bringing forward such a motion or the platting such a question as

191
the present without any notice at all. He believed that the note so sent by him to the noble Viscount had been received, though the noble Viscount had not deemed it necessary to favour him with a reply.
Viscount Melbournehad certainly received the noble and learned Lord's note, and as the object of it seemed to extend no further than to give notice of certain business to be transacted in that House, he really had not thought it necessary to go through the form and ceremony of returning an answer. He now begged pardon for the omission; and at the same time begged leave to thank the noble and learned Lord for the very temperate and fair manner in which he had brought forward the question, as well as for his courtesy in giving notice of his intention to introduce it—a course which tended more than any other, not merely to his convenience, which was nothing, but to a full, fair, and satisfactory discussion of any topic that might be brought under the consideration of the House. The facts which the noble and learned Lord had related with respect to this individual were for the most part true. Miss Newman was convicted along with her mother, in February 1837, of various acts of robbery. It was a conviction which excited a good deal of attention at the time, and was regarded as a matter of interest all over the town. The sentence passed upon her was fourteen years' transportation. That sentence, however, was commuted to confinement in the Penitentiary upon the special recommendation of the learned Judge who tried the case—the Recorder of London. The Secretary of State yielded to the recommendation of the learned Judge, although it was in some degree contrary to what otherwise would have been his opinion; and this person was confined in the Penitentiary. Not long after she had become an inmate of that establishment there came the strongest representations possible from the governor, of the great disturbances which she created in the prison; of the great difficulty of managing her; of her breaking through all rules; and of the utter impossibility of confining her within any of the decent bounds of order. She refused food—violently assaulted every person who came near her—made loud outcries, and, in short, disturbed the whole prison. Of this conduct the governor made repeated representations. At the same time he must observe, that
192
although the actions of this person were the actions of derangement, it was for a long time the opinion of the governor, and also of the medical attendant of the prison, that the madness was simulated and pretended. However, this nuisance, this annoyance to the governor and to the whole prison, continued more and more; and as the actions of the disturber were the actions of a mad woman, Dr. Monro was desired by the government to see her, and report upon her case. Dr. Monro accordingly saw her, considered her case, and gave it as his opinion that her madness was pretended. He held in his hand two letters written by Dr. Monro, in which that gentleman stated what were the symptoms and what his opinion of her case. In the first letter, which was dated the 20th of September, 1837, Dr. Monro, after entering into some detail of the case, said, "I am persuaded that the symptoms she exhibits are assumed." And again, in the second letter, which was dated Oct. 23, 1837, he said, "Having again visited Julia Newman, in the prison at Millbank, I see no reason to reverse my former opinion." About this time, however, there began to prevail in the prison a different opinion. The medical attendant of the Penitentiary, who previously had strongly coincided in the opinion expressed by Dr. Monro, began to waver in that opinion, and to entertain the idea that this person was actually insane. It must be observed that Dr. Monro, when he expressed his conviction that the symptoms of madness were assumed, at the same time signified that although such was his opinion, founded upon the few opportunities he had had of seeing the patient, yet that he was not absolutely determined in it, and that if a different opinion should prevail in the mind of the medical attendant of the prison, he should have no objection to receive the patient into the hospital of Bethlem. About that time a letter was received from the medical attendant of the prison, in which he stated, that, after four months of close and careful observation, he was induced to alter his former opinion, and to believe that Julia Newman really was not in herright mind. In consequence of that letter an immediate communication was made to Dr. Monro and to Mr. Anthony White, a surgeon, as their Lordships knew, of great eminence, which terminated in the transfer of the supposed lunatic from the Penitentiary to Bethlem. Under all the circumstances,

193
and after all the representations that had been made to him upon the subject, the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, thought that the course most fitting to pursue would be to have this person placed in an establishment which was peculiarly intended for the treatment of the insane, in order that it might be clearly ascertained whether she were really mad or not. As to any suspicion of partiality or favour in the case, he (Lord Melbourne) could not see how such a feeling could have arisen in any one single person's mind. The prisoner had hitherto continued in Bethlem, because until yesterday the noble Lord, the Home Secretary, had received no report upon her case. Yesterday evening, however, a report was received from the authorities of that asylum, stating that Julia Newman was perfectly sane, and that they entertained no doubt that she had been perfectly sane throughout, and that her madness was a pretence and deception from beginning to end. Under these circumstances, he thought that no blame could attach to his noble Friend the Home Secretary, for the course he had taken. He wished now to say a few words with respect to the cases brought forward by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) last evening. His noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, considering the gravity and weight of those cases, and also the effect which they were likely to have upon the public mind, felt it necessary that a full report of them should be drawn up, and that that full report should be laid upon the table of the House. He did not exactly know the object of the complaint made by the noble and learned Lord last night, whether it were intended to apply to the punishment as being too severe, or to the conduct of the superintendents of the prison as being improper. These were the cases of three children convicted at Quarter Sessions in the country. Three female children, each of them, he believed, of the age of ten years—
Lord Lyndhurst: The ages of the children to whose cases I referred were seven, eight, and ten years.
Viscount Melbourne: I believe not. I believe that is not the real state of the case.
Lord Lyndhurst: I can only say, that their ages were so stated to me by a magistrate, who had seen the children, and investigated their case with great attention.
Viscount Melbournebelieved it was not so. He did not know how the mistake in the noble and learned Lord's mind had arisen; but he believed that each of the children in question had attained the age of ten years. But upon a point of this kind a year more or less was not of any material importance. They were three very profligate children. One of the worst moral signs of the present day was the great number of crimes committed by children of a tender age. This evil was entirely new in the country, and appeared to have been the growth of the last thirty or forty years. He was assured, that at that distance of time the number of offences committed by children were rare and few, in comparison with those which were committed now. One of the principal causes of this increase of juvenile crime was most unquestionably the profligacy of the parents themselves, who made their children the instruments for executing their own evil designs. These three children were sent up from the country, with a representation from the magistrates by whom they were tried that they had been prosecuted with the view of removing them from the pernicious example v structive counsel of their parents. This was the object of the magistrates in imposing the amount of punishment (originally seven years' transportation, but commuted to three years' confinement in the Penitentiary), of which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) complained. The object of the magistrates was to remove the children from the control of their parents, and to give the Government an opportunity of effecting a reformation in their character and conduct. He could conceive persons objecting to that course, although he did not know whether the noble and learned Lord was one of them, and he could conceive persons saying, "I do not think much of your reform; I would rather follow the old course;" he could conceive persons saying, "Take the circumstances of the person brought before you and the circumstances of the offence with which he is charged into consideration—pass sentence upon him accordingly, and do not trouble yourself about what becomes of him afterwards." He could conceive persons who entertained such notions; but they were different from the object—different from the policy—of the present Government. The object of the present Government was reformation;

195
and when these children were sent up by the magistrates, with a statement that they had been committed for the purpose of rescuing them from the evil influence of their parents, he should like to know what course his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, could take except that of sending them to the Penitentiary, which was a prison especially appointed for the purpose of working a reformation in offenders, and the only prison which the Government had to use for that purpose, until the new one, for which money had been voted by Parliament, and which was to be built in the Isle of Wight—a prison to be more especially devoted to the object of reformation than any yet established,—was completed. As to the manner in which the children had been treated in the Penitentiary, when be said last evening that the charge made by the noble and learned Lord reflected upon the persons who had the entire control and management of the establishment, he was told that he was entirely wrong, and that the reflection, if any reflection there were, must be taken as falling upon the Secretary for the Home Department. Seeing, however, that the discipline of the prison was directed by certain particular rules which had been laid down, not by the Secretary of State, but by a Committee of that House in 1835, if any undue severity had been practised he still thought that the blame must be attributed to the officer of the prison, and not to the Home Secretary. With respect to solitary confinement, he believed there was no such thing in the Penitentiary except as a punishment for prison offences. Separate confinement there certainly was, but solitary confinement, that was to say, complete exclusion without being visited, without being seen, without going out to public worship, as a general practice was, he believed, unknown in that establishment. In the report which he had received with respect to these children it was stated that they took exercise regularly twice a day, half an hour each time, in company with the other prisoners of their ward; that they attended school together twice a week; that in addition to that schooling they received instruction in classes twice a week, once from the chaplain, and once from the schoolmaster; that they attended divine service in the chapel on Sunday, and that they were regularly visited and instructed during the week by benevolent Christian
196
ladies, who spent much time with them This, he thought, could hardly be regarded as a condition of very great hardship. The report besides contained a statement of the very great improvement which had taken place in the habits, morals, and learning, of the children, since they had become inmates of the prison. The noble and learned Lord also brought forward the cases of two young men who, he said, had been kept in solitary confinement for some time; he did not state how long. The names of these two persons were Welsh and Ray. They had been convicted of serious offences, and were sent to the Penitentiary, with the view, if possible, of effecting some reformation in their ill-conducted and irregular lives. It was stated in the paper with which he (Lord Melbourne) had been furnished, that Welsh and Ray were in the Penitentiary for one year, that they were confined in separate cells like other prisoners, but had never been placed in solitary confinement except for prison offences. It seemed that Welsh, whose conduct was the most irregular, had been reported thirty times, and subjected to solitary confinement fifteen times, the extent of that confinement amounting to twenty-two days in the whole, the longest period of confinement at any one time being three days. Ray, whose behaviour had not been so disorderly, had been confined only on a few occasions, and that for a very short time. This was a short and plain statement of the facts as they had actually occurred. Whether it would be satisfactory or not to the two noble and learned Lords he could not say, but was quite sure it would be satisfactory to the House in general.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that his attention had been first drawn to this subject by what had passed before the magistrates at their public meeting. He had seen the same statement in several of the public papers, and he had afterwards had personal communication with two of the magistrates, who had told him, that their representations were perfectly correct. One of the magistrates had himself seen the children, and he had told him distinctly, that the youngest was not more than seven and a half years old when she was first placed in the prison. Lord Hale had stated, and he believed it to be the law of the country, that no child could commit a felony under the age of seven.

197
If this child, then, had just turned that age, it seemed to him, that the punishment inflicted had been very severe; for to punish such a child with as verity which would be considered extreme for persons of mature age was highly improper and inconsistent with the spirit of the law. But, further, it appeared, that the theft which had been committed by this child had been committed at the instigation of her mother, who had been indicted or receiving the goods which the child had stolen. The mother was tried and convicted of that offence, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, whilst the child was sentenced to transportation for seven years. Now, he had said, to impose that punishment on the child was, in the highest degree, improper, and upon that ground he had imputed some blame to the noble Lord, the Home Secretary; but it was said, that the noble Secretary was no party to that transaction. He fully admitted that; but the sentence must have been brought under his consideration, because there could be no confirmation of it without his consent; and the noble Lord, therefore, had been a party to the confirmation of a sentence of transportation for seven years on a child not much more than seven years old, for a theft which she had committed at the instigation of her mother. Now, had any contradiction been given to that part of the statement? The noble Viscount said, the children had not been committed to solitary confinement. He was aware of the distinction, and he had stated, that they had been punished by what was called separate confinement, which to persons of that age, and under the circumstances, amounted to solitary confinement. But let them mark the statement of the noble Viscount. During the whole of the night the child was secluded and during a great part of the day; still she was allowed to take exercise for a certain time, but during that time she was not permitted to communicate with any person—she was not allowed to go to church on Sunday, and on two occasions in the course of the week and for three hours—three hours only in the whole week—she was allowed to go to school. Was not that in reality solitary confinement? Was not the distinction which the noble Viscount had attempted to draw a minute distinction indeed, and one entitled to no weight or consideration? He had stated, and it
198
had not been contradicted, that the effect upon the voice of the children was visible and palpable to all those who had any communication with them. That information had been conveyed to him by a magistrate who had seen them; but he did not choose to make the statement upon the authority even of that verbal communication, and accordingly he had written a letter to that magistrate, asking him what he meant by the effect on their voice; and that Gentleman stated, in his answer, that "the effect was to render their voices feeble, low, and inarticulate—to produce a kind of inward speaking, visible to and palpable to every one who heard them." He would beg leave to ask, then, if the statement he had made last night was not true in every particular? But what had been his object in making that statement? He considered, that the administration of justice in this particular case had been harsh and severe, and he considered, too, that the prison discipline had been harsh and severe; and he had therefore thought it expedient and proper, by way of example, to call their Lordships' attention to the particular facts of this case. The noble Viscount had stated, that the representation was incorrect with respect to Welsh, who had suffered, as he had been informed and had, stated considerably in health of body and mind. Now, upon that point he had received a letter from a magistrate which confirmed his statement; for in that letter the magistrate said, that a relation of the prisoner had told him, and was ready to maintain the truth of it upon his oath, that ever since his release from the penitentiary Welsh had been incapable of gaining a livelihood, or even doing any slight work in the yard of the workhouse. Now that statement might incorrect. The statement of the noble Viscount might be correct, but it was at least sufficient to show, that the matter ought to be put into a course of investigation, and if the noble Viscount would propose a Committee to inquire into these cases he should be most happy and ready to attend every hour of its sitting. He was only desirous of ascertaining the truth. It was to be remembered, that the Penitentiary was directly under the superintendence of Government. It was visited and conducted by persons appointed by the, Government, and everything, therefore, which took place in an establishment of that nature, so man-

199
aged and directed, ought to be watched with peculiar vigilance, and it was for that reason partly, that he had felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the subject of these cases, and more particularly to that species of punishment which had been alluded to, because he had been a party to those proceedings of their Lordships which had led them to state unanimously their opinion, that extension of solitary confinement—and he was unable to distinguish between that and separate confinement—beyond a very limited time was harsh, unnecessary, and severe. Their Lordships had expressed that opinion by adopting the amendments which he had proposed to the series of measures formerly under their consideration. He hoped, he believed, now, after the statements which he had made, that their Lordships would think, that he had been justified in bringing the question before that House; that he had not only been justified, but that it was his duty so to do. And he would appeal to the few noble Lords who were present, to say whether there was anything in his tone or manner of bringing it forward, which could justify any man in imputing to him, that he had introduced the subject from party or political motives or with any other view than to discharge what he felt to be his duty as having been connected with the law of the country, by pointing out to public attention a case which he considered to present an instance of the harsh administration of that law?
Lord Broughamentirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend that the distinction between separate and solitary confinement was most flimsy, shadowy, and unsubstantial. It was admitted on all hands that the matter could not rest here; and in their Lordships' House—the tribunal of justice of the last resort in this country—it would be highly proper to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole of the cases. With regard to the case of the young child, the defence of the magistrates who sentenced the child was, that she was so young that every means ought to be employed to reclaim her; and, secondly, that it was absolutely essential to separate the parent and child. Now, as to the first point, the objection to solitary confinement was that it had no tendency to cure persons of their thievish propensities, or to deter others from the same offence, and that its effects were
200
grievous to be considered. The separation of the parent and child might be effected in two ways—they might send the parent to Botany Bay, or they might send the child to Botany Bay. In this case there could be no doubt that the mother was the principal offender, but the child was sentenced to transportation, the mother to six months' imprisonment. He should have thought it was reasonable if the mother had received the more severe punishment; but perhaps that might be an awkward mode of looking at the question.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the magistrates had sentenced the child to seven years' transportation, in order to give the Government a more immediate control over her. His noble Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, could only send her to the Penitentiary or to Botany Bay, or shorten the punishment which would be to do that which the magistrates had especially guarded against. He did not think that there was any sufficient case for a Committee; but if it should appear to be the opinion of their Lordships that it was desirable to appoint a Committee he could, of course, have no objection.
The Earl of Radnorthought, that a Committee should be appointed. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had said that there was no difference between separate and solitary confinement when applied to children; of course in that case the difference could not be as great as in the case of adults, who felt the great punishment to consist in the absolute solitude—the total seclusion and total absence of employment—which characterised solitary confinement. He had been informed that the cells of the prisoners in the Penitentiary were adjacent, and that the prisoners actually conversed from one cell to another. He had reason to believe that there was no truth in the statement that those children could not speak articulately; for in fact their voices were quite as full as those of children of their age generally were. That was the representation which had been made to him and by a person who had seen the children. With respect to the boys, too, the governor said that the only difference he found in them was that they were rather more orderly, but that they were just as acute as when they entered the prison; and with respect to Welsh, he had declared that he

201
was much more comfortable in the Penitentiary than in the workhouse. He (the Earl of Radnor) only wished that for the future noble Lords would take a lesson and not be so ready to come forward with statements, without having first instituted every possible inquiry as to the truth of those statements; for undoubtedly great mischief was frequently done by those hyperbolical statements. As, however, those introductory representations had been made, it was advisable that a Committee should be appointed, and then he believed that the result would be to show that the statements which had been made were wholly unfounded.
Lord Lyndhurstbegged leave to ask the noble Lord what course he could have taken for the purpose of obtaining information in these cases, except that of applying to the magistrates before whom they had been investigated?
Lord Broughamwished to say one word in his own defence, and that of his noble and learned Friend, against the lecture which the noble Earl mounting in cathedram had delivered ex cathedrâ against noble Lords for calling attention to facts that were in every one's mouth, and were discussed in every circle of the law within this city. His noble and learned Friend had not chosen this matter as the subject of a party attack; it had been pressed upon his attention. Application had been made to him in private; but since the noble Earl (Radnor) had ceased putting questions to Ministers whenever they were in their places, since he had ceased making frequent motions, since his habits had so entirely changed, did they think he had forgotten that Parliament was never better occupied than in considering any grievance alleged by any of the subjects of this realm? Did the noble Earl hold, that because his noble and learned Friend had obtained those statements in private from a person whose name was not before the public, he was therefore guilty of a breach of duty, which ought to call down a lecture, in the terms of a formal reprimand, for rashly bringing forward unfounded accusations? Let his Lordship wait till he saw whether they were unfounded. The statements which had been made were only those which had remained uncontradicted for a length of time, and which had been proclaimed to the world at a meeting of magistrates. He considered that the statements were made
202
on a very solid foundation; and if his noble and learned Friend had not brought them forward he should have thought him a most fastidious Member of Parliament.
The Earl of Devonsaid, that it could not be denied that his noble and learned Friend might by possibility have made a more accurate and satisfactory inquiry before he brought this matter forward. He the (Earl of Devon) had for many years been one of the Committee under whose direction the Penitentiary was placed, and he consequently knew that nothing could have occurred within that place upon which five or six gentlemen of great intelligence and respectability and of the highest honour would not have been perfectly ready and able to give him every information. In his opinion it would have been better for his noble and learned Friend to have applied to one of those gentlemen. It was said that the application had been made to those who knew best concerning the matter; but the magistrates had no jurisdiction or superintendence over this prison. It was not his business to defend the Secretary of State, but he confessed that it was not easy to see what other course the noble Lord could have taken with respect to these children. There was the greatest danger in confining them in an ordinary prison amongst other offenders, where they would be subject to every species of contamination; and they had accordingly been then placed where they could have the most accurate and careful superintendence. He had the opportunity of knowing from persons well informed on the subject, that there was no foundation for the charge as to the articulation of the children, and it was the opinion of several highly-respectable persons that the prisoners had much improved, and were in a happier and more healthy state than when they were sent to the Penitentiary.
Lord Lyndhurstbegged only to ask his noble Friend what statement made by him, except that having reference to the articulation of the children, had been at all contradicted? If he would point out one single fact which had been contradicted then he (Lord Lyndhurst) would admit the weight of his observations.
Lord Broughamwished to say another word upon this second lecture, and he could not help observing that Chairmen of Quarter Sessions were very fond of giving them lectures. "Never touch a

203
magistrate," said the late Mr. Wyndham, "because the instant you do so all the rest of the Justices set their backs up, and then follows a buz, buz, and bubble, bubble, and they are all upon you as if the most sacred penetralia of the Constitution had been entered." So it was with his noble and learned Friend. There was the Whig on that side of the House—and the rank Tory near him, and the Waverers not far off. Every, Justice in the country was on the back of his noble and learned Friend—and all this for supposing that a Justice was a fallible animal—he begged pardon—a fallible being. But the noble Lord had said, why didn't they apply to five vastly respectable men. For that purpose it would have been as well if their names had been mentioned, but this quinquevirum of respectability was not applied to, and for the best reason, because they wished to know facts, of which those respectable men knew nothing, and all of which were in the breasts of other persons—such facts as the indictment, the trial, the conviction, upon which the magistrates were the proper, and, indeed, only authority.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, it might, perhaps, have been Quixotic in him to take up the case against the magistrates, but most undoubtedly he had not supported them.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had no intention to enter into the facts of those cases, but he wished to make one or two observations on some general principles, which had been introduced into the discussion. It was an increasing evil that persons put forward children to commit thefts principally because they imagined that the child would escape with a slight punishment, and that was a practice which not only produced but perpetuated crime. Now it had been found that the habit of keeping these young offenders from other criminals was the only way of reclaiming them. It appeared to him that that was a most desirable object which might very properly in that manner be attained. It had been stated as to the young men that one of them especially had been rebellious in prison, and had been subjected to solitary confinement for a very short time. It could not be supposed that that punishment had affected their minds. In conclusion, he begged to move that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the cases of Matilda Seymour, Ann Gray, and Harriet Simpson, prisoners in the Pe-
204
nitentiary, Millbank, and of John Welch and William Ray, who have been lately confined in that prison.
Lord Lyndhurstsuggested that Miss Newman's case ought to be included in the inquiry.
Suggestion agreed to, and Committee appointed.