Lords Sitting of 23 May 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Ministers Widows and Orphans Fund of the Free Church of Scotland.
3a Royal Naval School.

REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLORpresented a petition against the Bill for the Registration of Assurances of Land. In doing so, his Lordship, who was very indistinctly heard, stated that, while he approved of the principle of the measure, there were many portions of it which he thought liable to objection, and to which he was not prepared to assent.
LORD CAMPBELLexpressed his disappointment at hearing these sentiments from his noble Friend, whose support he had expected to receive. The Bill was founded upon the recommendation of a Commission which had emanated from, his noble Friend; it had been carefully considered by a Select Committee of their Lordships, and had been received with approbation on both sides of the House.
LORD FEVERSHAMsaid, that, although there had as yet been no division upon this Bill, it must not be assumed that there was no difference of opinion amongst their Lordships with respect to it. The noble and learned Lord was equally mistaken in supposing that the measure, as had been stated, was opposed only by the country solicitors; the small landowners were unfriendly to it, on account of the probable expense of lodging their title-deeds in a metropolitan registry office, if, as it appeared, that expense was to be borne by the landed interest. He hoped, too, that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Campbell) would be able to tell them what would be the size and expense, and where the locality, of a building capable of holding all the titles that now were or ever would be in existence? It must be one only inferior in size to the Crystal Palace, which was now exciting, and justly, the admiration of the whole civilised world.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that the course taken by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack appeared to him to be scarcely a fair one. The Bill was founded upon the report of a Commission appointed three years ago, and had been referred to a Select Committee of the House while the Bill was under consideration. The noble and learned Lord took an objection to the plan of registration by
1312
maps; upon this a discussion took place, and this having terminated in the rejection of the plan, the noble and learned Lord quitted the Committee without bringing forward any further objections, but leaving the Committee under the impression that he approved of the Bill. Now, he thought that the Committee was the proper place for the noble Lord to have brought forward whatever objections he entertained to the Bill, and he thought this mode of proceeding was not altogether fair. It was not intended by this Bill to bring the title-deeds of all estates up to London, as his noble Friend opposite (Lord Faversham) supposed. If his noble Friend sold his estate after the Bill passed, there would still be the same examination into the title as at present; but the purchaser would then gain such a title as would enable him hereafter to deal with the property much more easily and rapidly than the noble Lord could at present do, however long his family might have been in possession of the estate. In the North Riding of Yorkshire, where a system of registration existed, it was optional to deposit either the title-deeds or a memorial of them; but it had there been found convenient, in cases where largo estates were sold in small portions, to deposit the title-deeds, in order to avoid the expense of covenants to produce the title-deeds. That was a practical instance of what the working of the Bill would be.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that had he been better known to their Lordships than he had the good fortune at present to be, he should have been contented to pass by the charge of unfairness which had been brought against him; but his recent introduction to their Lordships' House, and the respect which he entertained for them, led him to value their approbation too highly to allow any one to bring a charge of unfairness against him, for which there was not the slightest ground. He had too many duties to perform in his own peculiar court, and in the appellate jurisdiction of their Lordships' House, to allow him to attend on all the various Committees of the House. When, therefore, the Bill was brought into the House, and he was asked to sit upon the Select Committee to which it was referred, he declined on account of his public duties. In consequence, however, of a request from the Committee, he attended one of their meetings, to state his views with respect to a proposed system of registration, with the

1313
accompaniment of plans or maps; and also two other meetings of the Committee, when that subject was very fully discussed before them by two learned gentlemen with great learning and acuteness. Having heard enough to satisfy himself that the plan of registration by maps (against which he was informed that the Committee ultimately decided) was impracticable, and that its effect would be to mystify, complicate, and confuse, he did not attend any further sittings of the Committee; not because he was opposed or indifferent to the Bill, or because he had any covert objection to the Bill to bring forward at a future time, but because his duties in the Court of Chancery, and in the administration of justice in that House, rendered it impossible for him also to attend the Committee. Those who advocated the Bill were too much in the habit of speaking of the opponents of it as the opponents of the entire system of registration. Now, if the plan devised for a system of registration was calculated to accomplish the objects intended to be accomplished by it, he should be most happy to support it; but if a Bill were brought in imperfectly framed for those objects, it was not to be expected even that the friends of a system of registration should give it general support. If the Bill introduced by his noble and learned Friend would accomplish its objects, it would be a great boon to the landed proprietors, and would materially benefit their interests; but if it would not, it might be detrimental instead of beneficial. Why should he be reproached with unfairness in the Committee? Where was the unfairness of which the noble Lord (Lord Beaumont) complained? How did he support his complaint? He had only got the Bill, printed in its present form, the day before yesterday. Since then he had clone his best to examine its provisions, and he perceived that it required amendment. He would mention one clause which struck him as improper. It was proposed to be enacted that if a will be made, and be not registered within two years, and the heir-at-law shall in the meantime have disposed of the estate coming to him by descent, that in that case all the titles derived under the will were to be destroyed. Now by will, provision was made for unborn children the issue of marriages, and for absent persons, and yet this Bill would destroy all titles under a will not registered within two years, if some person having a colourable title to the property disposed of it in
1314
the meantime. It was true that, if a person was prevented from registration, he might make an affidavit to that effect; but the fact was that those to whom property was bequeathed did not always know of the will, while the heir had that advantage. And yet, because he had stated to their Lordships that he thought the Bill required amendment, his noble Friend who brought in the Bill said that he was surprised that he (the Lord Chancellor) should oppose it. He was not an opponent of registration; and he would assist him to the utmost in carrying a measure for that purpose, seeing, at the same time, that the measure introduced had not an effect exactly the reverse of that intended. He believed that no one was opposed to a general system of registration, if it could be practically carried out in such a manner that its advantages were not counterbalanced by accompanying disadvantages. But the difficulty lay in the details; and it appeared to him that this Bill left that difficulty still to be solved. It provided that certain things should be done by rules, to be framed by the Registrar General, with the approbation of the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls. Now, he believed those functionaries were incompetent to the performance of that duty, not from want of ability, but from the nature of the inquiry, and the labour that would be required. He thought that the whole question as to whether the Bill would be beneficial or mischievous turned upon the nature of the regulations; and he thought that Parliament should not entrust the framing of these to others. He thought that the Commissioners should have pointed out, not minutely but in substance, what those regulations should be. He could assure his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), that although he might find him objecting to some of the clauses of his Bill, he would also find him giving assistance to him generally, for he was a friend to the system of registration.
LORD BEAUMONTexplained that, in what he had said about "unfairness," he did not mean anything personally offensive to the noble and learned Lord. He simply meant that the noble and learned Lord, being a friend to the Bill and of registration, might have done a service to the Bill by endeavouring, in Committee, to render it as perfect as possible, and that he did not think the measure was advanced by the noble Lord reserving his objections until it was before the

1315
House, instead of making them at the earlier stage.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, it had appeared to the Select Committee that to have waited until they had maps in existence to suit the exigencies of the case, would have been tantamount to postponing their legislation on this subject sine die. As to the details of the measure not having been provided, the nature of the machinery of the Bill was already pointed out, and also the modus operandi; but if they had delayed the Bill till the details were all drawn up, they might as well have postponed the question indefinitely. He felt, however, that there was great force in the objection that the Bill had only been laid upon the table yesterday, printed in its amended shape, and it might not, therefore, be expedient to go on with the Committee on the Bill that evening.

DUTY ON GUANO.
The DUKE of RICHMONDsaid, that seeing the noble Earl the Secretary of the Colonies in his place, he wished to ask him the question of which he had privately given him notice. Their Lordships were aware that, a tthe present moment, there had been a very great increase in the importation of guano from various parts of the world, and they were also probably all aware that the Peruvian Government had made a monopoly of their guano, and that, while they could sell the article with a profit at 5l. per ton in the port of London, the farmers of England were charged from 9l. to 10 l. per ton by those who held guano. The agriculturists of this country had therefore learnt, with great satisfaction, that there had recently been an important discovery of guano in Western Australia; but they had at the same time learnt from the newspapers, with deep regret, that the Governor of that colony had imposed on the article the enormous export duty of 2l. per ton. Now as this country took Australian corn and wool free from all duty, surely it was a little hard on the farmers of England, if they had to put up with the produce of that colony coming here which they would sooner see remaining in that quarter, that when there was an article which they required, the Government of that colony should be found placing so heavy a duty as 2l. a ton upon it. He, therefore, wished to ask the noble Earl if he was aware that the Governor of Western Australia had imposed such a tax, and if so, whether the proceeding met with
1316
his approbation? and also to express a hope that the British farmer might at all events be treated with respect to guano in the same way as Australia was treated with regard to the export of corn.
EARL GREYsaid, in answer to the question of his noble Friend, he begged to inform him that it was perfectly true that a discovery of guano had been made in Western Australia, about 300 miles to the north of Freemantle; and it was also true that a duty of 2l. per ton had been imposed by the Governor on the exportation of that article. When the intelligence reached him (Earl Grey), he was of opinion that the duty was a higher duty than ought to be levied. He thought it very fair, considering the great value of the product, and that it existed in a limited quantity, which made it necessary to take measures to prevent its being wasted, that a moderate duty should be charged on the ships going there to export it. In 1844 and 1845, a duty of 1l. per ton had been fixed on the exportation of guano from the Cape of Good Hope, and no complaint was made against it; and it seemed to him desirable that the same amount of duty should be adopted in Western Australia; and accordingly, as soon as the intelligence reached him, he had addressed a despatch to the Governor, directing him to reduce the duty to 1l. per ton, and at the same time to afford all the facilities in his power to the merchants who wished to embark in the trade, without creating a monopoly for any particular house.
The DUKE of RICHMONDwas much obliged to the noble Earl for his answer, which, so far as it went, was satisfactory; but in 1844 and 1845, when the duty of 1l. was imposed at the Cape, the farmers of England were much abler to pay it than they were now. They were now living in days when they could not get 40 s. a quarter for their corn, but in 1844 and 1845 they could get 60 s. a quarter; and if the noble Earl could give them back that price, they would readily pay this 1l. or 2l. per ton of duty on their guano. He would, at all events, suggest that the noble Earl should give an order at the Custom House—which could not lead to any possible inconvenience—that all those who had been charged 2l. per ton by mistake should have 1l. of it returned to them, as the overcharge.
EARL GREYsaid, it was not so easy for him to remedy such a mistake by issuing an order of the kind which the noble Duke

1317
suggested; and, if it were done, it would be of little service to the farmer, because, if the 1l. were returned, it would only go into the pocket of the shipper.

PENTONVILLE PRISON.
The BISHOP of OXFORDwished to put to the noble Earl (Earl Grey) the question of which he had given him notice, on the subject of the alterations in the management of Pentonville Prison; and, in so doing, he should briefly remind their Lordships of what was the origin of the present system of discipline in that prison. In 1842 the Government of the day determined to make an experiment, with the view of reforming, at the same time that they punished, the criminal population; and for this purpose Pentonville Prison was organised, under a despatch from Sir James Graham, dated in December of that year, and administered by a body of Commissioners of high rank and station, including several Members of their Lordships' House, who were appointed to carry out that great experiment. The principle of what was laid down in that despatch to govern the experiment, was especially this—that in the first place only these prisoners should be confined in Pentonville Prison who had not, by length of time, become indurated in crime—who, if possible, were undergoing punishment for their first, and certainly for not more than their second, offence; and also that those to be so confined there, having been carefully selected, should continue there a sufficient length of time to give the system of separate confinement a fair trial as a means of their amelioration. This system was established, and it continued for four or five years; and the reports laid before Parliament on the subject by the Commissioners showed that, while the experiment had been attended with many disappointments, yet that, on the whole, there had been an average of success as great as could be expected. Of course the Government was put to considerable expense in maintaining the prison; but the country, feeling that the existence of the criminal population was much its own fault, and to be greatly owing to the neglected education and general condition of the class which furnished those criminals, who were generally found to belong to the poorest and most uninstructed class—the nation felt it to be its duty—its bounden duty—to incur the necessary expense in an endeavour to discover a solution of the great problem how
1318
far it was possible to combine together the two separate elements of punishing the convict, and at the same time reforming him, without the one element defeating the other—without either leading to the convict going unpunished, or to the convict continuing unreformed. And so this prison was administered down till very recently. The total number of prisoners in Pentonville confined in separate cells was about 500; while the Government had about 2,800 cells at their command in their different prisons for the separate confinement of the convict population; and it was on the success of that separate system that a judgment could be formed as to whether the system could or could not be considered as calculated to render the beneficial effects which were expected from it. The administration of Pentonville Prison on these principles received the approbation of the highest authorities in the State. Now, the Eighth Report of the Commissioners, which had been laid on their Lordships' table last year, and the report which this year would be laid very soon on the table, concurred in remarking that there had been a considerable alteration in the management of Pentonville Prison; and the alteration affected these special points: first, the rules laid down by Sir James Graham as to the number of times which the criminals, who were to be received into the prison, should have been convicted; and first as to the age at which they should be received, and next as to the duration of confinement the convicts admitted should undergo. It was stated that these two points had been lately neglected. In the report of last year it was said that of the convicts sent to Pentonville there had been many who had been punished and in prison five times, some six times, some ten, some sixteen, some twenty, and others (and this was the strangest point of all) who had been previously transported, and been in Van Diemen's Land in the worst times of the worst convict administration in that colony, who had returned to this country, and again made themselves liable to be punished for a breach of the laws, and who were sent to Pentonville Prison, with all the worst and most degraded habits formed in them, which, alas! were too well known as being associated with that unhappy colony in those times; and yet these convicts were admitted, to spread the contagion of their deep-rooted depravity amongst the prisoners at Pentonville. The reports on

1319
their Lordships' table showed them that a change had been made in that first and most important regulation, the persons who were to be made the subjects of the experiment at Pentonville. But he gathered further from the reports that there was also an alteration in the time during which the subjects of the experiment were to be kept in confinement. To give the system a full trial, the chaplain stated that eighteen months' confinement was necessary, and other authorities named twelve months; but it now appeared that the average period during which the criminals were kept in prison was only forty weeks, which was much too short a time, and therefore the prisoners who had been confined for that reduced period could not be taken as in any way fair examples of what the system, when efficiently carried out, could do for our criminal population. There was also a third point in which the original system had been altered, namely, the destination and disposal of the prisoners after they were removed from the prison. It was at first intended, if possible, to give these unhappy men a fresh start in life after being so sent forth, either here or in the colonies, to enable them to regain by industry and honesty their former places in society; whereas it appeared in the return which was already in print, and would shortly be published, that this rule had been entirely changed in the course of the last year, and that those who had passed through the reformatory system of Pentonville, instead of being sent out to the penal colonies, in any manner to enable them to recover the character they had lost, were sent out in this proportion: eighty-three to the York hulk, fifty-three others to Portland Prison, and in another draught to the York hulk in the same year there were twenty-three more; while 109 others were sent to the hulks at Bermuda. Certainly, when these unhappy men were sent to the hulks at Bermuda and elsewhere, it could never be contended that in any sense that was carrying out the intention with which Pentonville Prison was founded, which never contemplated sending those who had passed through the reformatory discipline of that establishment to be afterwards thrown into the midst of the contamination of the places which he had named. Now, he had the greatest respect personally for the Surveyor General of Prisons (Colonel Jebb), under whose régime these alterations had been made; and he knew that that officer thought
1320
the system would not be made to work any worse on the whole from these alterations. Still, all that was only mere matter of opinion; and the question he wished to ask the noble Earl in their Lordships' presence was this—how far the Government had carried out, and were intending to carry out, these alterations in the fundamental principles of the administration of Pentonville Prison? One of the essential principles of administration on which that prison was founded was, that the criminals confined there should not be suffered to associate at all together. But by the present alteration, while they were all separated at night, they were suffered to associate together in the day. He was aware that a certain number did certain works in the prison, with the view of diminishing the expense of the establishment; but the point to which he wished to call the attention of the Government was this—here was a model prison, in which a great moral experiment was proposed to be tried in the face of the world, with a comparatively few prisoners; and the efficacy of the system would be judged by the result of that particular experiment, as well as, perhaps, by the high character and weight of the Commissioners who were appointed to conduct it; and he asked the Government whether it could be their intention, in order to effect some small saving in expense, to break through that one main principle for the full and fair working out of which this model prison had been specially constituted? He trusted he put these questions in no unfriendly spirit to the Government, who, he acknowledged, had great difficulties to contend with. But, looking carefully over all these difficulties, there was only one of two things which must be done in dealing with this subject. Either the Government must distinctly avow, in the face of the country, that, whether from the want of funds or otherwise, this great experiment must be abandoned; or, on the other hand, that it should he carried out in its perfection, and (so to speak) in its purity. There was one other point to be noticed, namely, with regard to that part of the change which made the second part of the probationary discipline consist in sending the men to the public works of Portland, Bermuda, or elsewhere; he had studied that alteration with the greatest care; and he was convinced that it was an entire departure from the system previously laid down, which must infallibly prove fatal to its success; because if they aimed at leading the convicts back again

1321
to the paths of virtue, and at teaching them self-respect, they would most assuredly undo all they had done, if, as soon as they set them free from their separate cells, they put them to work in gangs upon the public works, subject to the necessary severity of such an arrangement, and placed in association together. He knew that one answer to this objection was, that at Portland the work was so managed as to relax its severity, and not to degrade the convicts by exposing them to the public gaze, and to hold out to them some degree of reward for their diligent labour; but it was obvious that an arrangement of that nature did not divest the sentence of these criminals of its penal character, and if penal, it was necessarily degrading, and if degrading, it must destroy their self-respect. Sir W. Denison was against this plan; he said, in a despatch to the Home Government, "that to return a man into the labour gangs after he had undergone the preparatory course of moral training, was, in point of fact, to neutralise most of the good effects of the system." The labour must be penal, and surely ought to precede that separate confinement which was intended to soften the heart. He understood that, from what we had done at the Pentonville Prison, America had been induced in some measure to imitate our example in this important experiment; and he confessed that he should be sorely grieved at heart if we, who had set others in our track in this great improvement, should carelessly or negligently retrograde from the noble work and the high standard which we had set up for ourselves, and should relinquish in a fruitless despair what he believed might be made most valuable and beneficial for the most suffering and degraded part of our population. But he should repeat, that he feared the system originally established at Pentonville Prison had been departed from to an extent which seriously endangered the success of the whole experiment. The question he had to ask Her Majesty's Ministers was, how far they bad carried out, or intended to carry out, alterations in the fundamental principles of the administration of the Pentonville Prison? He should be glad to receive from them any explanation they might be able to offer upon the points to which he had just directed their attention.
EARL GREYsaid, he rose to answer what was rather more in the nature of a speech than a question which had been addressed to their Lordships by the right rev. Prelate who had just concluded. He
1322
should endeavour in his reply to confine himself within as narrow limits as possible, there being really no practical question now brought before their Lordships. It was certainly quite true that Pentonville Prison was now upon a somewhat different footing from what it was when it was merely an experimental institution. In the first instance, when Pentonville Prison was established, it was intended to try the effect of the separate confinement of criminals, with the view of ascertaining whether that ought to be the system generally adopted or not. Now, while this prison was experimental, no doubt it was quite right, in order that the experiment should be fairly tried, that the criminals who should be subjected to it should be chosen out. But it must be obvious to their Lordships, that, in order to make it tell on the criminal jurisprudence of the county, if the experiment should prove successful, this species of punishment should not be applied to a few selected criminals, but made to tell on the whole body of the criminals of the country. The system of Pentonville had ceased to be an experiment, and therefore it had ceased to be applied to a few culled and selected specimens of the criminal population. But it ceased to be an experiment only because it was considered so eminently successful that now the policy of the Government, and he might fairly say, after the discussion which had taken place in both Houses, the policy approved by Parliament, was, that, as far as possible, every criminal sentenced to transportation should pass a period, more or less, of separate confinement. Of course, therefore, if they now looked at Pentonville Prison, they would find that some of the criminals confined there had been repeatedly convicted, and some of them, perhaps, had returned from transportation; but be must observe that these were precisely the class of criminals whom it was most desirable to subject to separate confinement. What we aimed at was to prevent the contamination of the minds of others, and also to produce in their own minds a salutary effect. Now it was clear, from all our practical experience of the effect of this species of punishment, that no part of their sentence was so much dreaded by the prisoners as the separate confinement. Their Lordships knew very well that the convicts dreaded that kind of punishment, and they knew more—it was proved by experience that the punishment was so severe, that though a person confined in

1323
Pentonville appeared to have a greater command of comforts, and to live better, than many of those who were honestly working for their subsistence in the world, yet that when separate confinement was endured day after day for a lengthened period, neither mind nor body could bear it beyond a given time. It was the deliberate opinion of Sir Benjamin Brodie and Dr. Ferguson, that without the most minute and careful attention it was not safe to inflict this kind of punishment for any lengthened period. Some time since, in consequence of a temporary deficiency in the means of transport, some men were kept as much as twenty months in separate confinement in Wakefield and elsewhere, and the results were such as did not encourage a repetition of the example: these men were broken down in health and strength to a degree which was not intended either by the Government or by Parliament. But as, under the system at present pursued, all men who were sent to Pentonville would have to undergo this kind of punishment, it followed that for serious offences there must be something more. The right rev. Prelate said that when the system of solitary confinement was first adopted, it was intended to follow that punishment up by simple exile. This was perfectly possible when it was an experiment only upon selected men. But when that system became general, their Lordships must see that something more was necessary to be done. It could not be allowed that a man who had been sentenced to be transported for life, having committed manslaughter under circumstances which made it differ in an almost imperceptible degree from wilful murder, and which might have been committed under circumstances of great aggravation—it could not be permitted that such a man should be landed free in a colony, whore he might earn higher wages than at home, after having gone through twelve or fourteen months of solitary confinement. These persons were consequently sent to some place where they were obliged to labour for the benefit of the public. Some of these were employed at Portland, and some at the hulks, where the same regulations were enforced with respect to discipline as at Portland; and the utmost efforts were made everywhere to give the stimulus of hope to good conduct, combined with the apprehension of severity in case of misconduct. At the same time he must repeat what he had stated the other evening, that a floating prison was always
1324
a bad one; but their Lordships would perceive that changes in this respect could only he gradual; and it was the intention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to get rid as speedily as possible of the hulks, and every exertion was making for that purpose. Every practicable arrangement was made for the employment of convicts at Bermuda, at Gibraltar, and Dartmoor; and it was his earnest hope that before many years had elapsed there would be no more floating prisons. But then the right rev. Prelate said that the proper order of punishment was reversed, and that separate confinement should follow rather than pro-code the system of associated labour on public works; and in support of that opinion the right rev. Prelate quoted the opinion of Sir W. Denison. He (Earl Grey) must, however, remark, that these observations were written in 1847, before Sir W. Denison had enjoyed an opportunity of seeing the results of the system pursued at Pentonville, since no convict had at that time been sent out who had been subjected to the separate system of confinement. And there was this evidence in favour of the system now in use, that the very intelligent and able officers in charge at Portland, Dartmoor, and other places where the men were employed in associated labour, had stated that it would be impossible to enforce the system of discipline there unless the prisoners had previously gone through the punishment of separate confinement. It was well known that the keystone of the system of discipline at Portland and Gibraltar was the apprehension of the convict, in case of infraction of the regulations on his part, of being returned to separate confinement; and though it was true that the labour performed on the public works was severe, it was found much more tolerable than the mental suffering endured in solitary confinement. The right rev. Prelate said that labour could not be penal, unless it was also degrading. But he (Earl Grey) contended that, although only degrading so far as it was a punishment, the labour which the convicts performed at Portland was highly penal—so severe, indeed, that men worked extremely hard to shorten their term of punishment. He had this proof, also, of the advantage of the system which was pursued, that, taking the whole number of convicts sent out, there was a greater proportion of men who behaved well of those who had gone through the two preparatory stages of punishment,

1325
than of those who had gone through one stage only. One other observation he would make, with reference to the last remark of the right rev. Prelate, who said that the system pursued at Pentonville had been altered by allowing a certain proportion, though confined to their separate cells at night, to perform, associated together, some of the prison labour. He quite concurred with the right rev. Prelate in thinking that it would be ill-judged economy to break down a system of discipline for the sake of the petty savings which might be gained from the employment of convict labour; though at the same time it was an object to keep down the expenditure, if only with a view to be enabled to proceed with further improvements. But with regard to this particular charge, he believed it was useful, as a matter of discipline. This treatment was applied to only a very small portion of the prisoners, and was given as a reward for good conduct, and only at the last period of the stage of imprisonment at Pentonville, preparatory to their removal to undergo a course of labour on the public works at Portland. It was stated by the very able officers in charge of the prison, that they found the alteration answer extremely well.
The DUKE of RICHMONDobserved, that he had been one of the Commissioners originally appointed to superintend the Pentonville Prison; and he confessed that, at first, he had entertained serious doubts as to whether the Legislature were not permitting theory to go rather too fast, when they determined to subject young criminals to eighteen months' separate confinement previously to inflicting upon them the punishment of transportation. During the period that he held his appointment, he not unfrequently spent twelve or fourteen hours a day in the prison. He visited the cells of all the prisoners, interrogated them as to their former modes of life, and made himself master of the causes which had impelled them to wander from the paths of virtue. The result of his experience was to strengthen him in the conviction that eighteen months was too long a period of separate imprisonment. He was not practically cognisant of the new system, and had no opportunity of judging whether it had worked better or worse thon the old. The separate system was no doubt attended with many advantages; but his experience as a Commissioner had led him to the opinion that it was desirable that convicts who had undergone it
1326
should be allowed to work in associated labour before they were sent to the convict ship. The change from absolute seclusion to the huddling together which always took place in a convict ship, was too rapid a transition, and required some preliminary probation. The plan which he and his brother Commissioners had pursued was to take the prisoners into the yard in batches of sixty or seventy, and, after their masks had been removed, to address them in language of affectionate admonition, telling them that they had undergone a dreadful punishment, and that doubtless they were penitent and regenerate, but as that they would have to undergo in the convict ships and in the colonies much greater temptations than they had as yet encountered, it was only by earnest prayer and by firm determination that they could hope to be able to persevere in the good intentions they had formed, and regain their previous character and position. No doubt it was the duty of the State to punish as well as to reform; but it was no less their duty to take care that a prisoner did not leave his gaol a worse man than he had entered it. He was convinced that separate imprisonment without labour was a much heavier punishment than separate imprisonment with labour. Eighteen months' discipline he believed to be too much, but he thought nine months were hardly sufficient.
The EARL of CHICHESTER,who was scarcely audible, was understood to state, that he had considered that the selection of a few prisoners at Pentonville to discharge the domestic duties of the prison would be no interference with the system, and would be a saving of expense, and at the same time probably be beneficial to the men themselves. He thought twelve months' separate confinement was the least period that would make that due impression upon the minds of prisoners which was the object of the punishment. One great merit of the system of separate confinement was that it necessarily afforded an opportunity for self-reflection, which, combined with the means of religious instruction provided for the prisoners, had, he believed, led in a great majority of instances to deep and sincere convictions. He was of opinion that no shorter period than twelve months' separate confinement ought to be resorted to; but it now appeared that that period was to be shortened, and that in some cases the confinement was only to be continued for eight months.
EARL GREYsaid, the noble Earl was quite mistaken in supposing that it was proposed to reduce the ordinary period of separate imprisonment below twelve months. No doubt the average taken from the returns might be a great deal lower than it had been; but that was accounted for by the fact, that formerly selected prisoners only were subjected to this punishment; but now, when all prisoners sentenced to transportation were to undergo a term of separate imprisonment, it would frequently happen that from ill health prisoners might have to be removed at an early period, and the general average would, therefore, be depressed. The intention was, as far as possible, to subject every convict sentenced to transportation to twelve months' separate imprisonment.
Subject at an end.
House adjourned to Monday next.