The constitution which this Bill proposed | in Ireland where the boards of guardians to suspend, provided that there should be had been superseded, and paid officers apone general assembly of the whole country, pointed. The noble Lord was understood and two legislative assemblies, elected by as supporting his Motion on the necessity the two different provinces. It appeared of examining the operation of the clause that both provinces were not equally fit for of the Act which gave this power of apthis election of a legislative assembly; and, pointing paid guardians; the administratherefore, it was impossible to have the tion of the law being extremely difficult in general assembly, if there were to be but Ireland, where the system had been introone legislative assembly elected; but the duced for the first time. Bill went on the basis of unlimited confidence in the Governor as to giving a legislative council to either province, as he might deem expedient, the council to be appointed or elected as he thought fit, or, if he wished, some might be appointed and some elected.

The EARL of LINCOLN said, that the first clause repealed the provisions of the Act which gave two legislative assemblies. Did the Attorney General say, that under that clause there would be a general assembly?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL stated, that the constitution which was to be suspended, provided for a House of Lords (the general assembly), and two Houses of Commons (the legislative assemblies); the latter to be elected by the two different provinces of New Zealand. The general assembly was to be composed of members of the legislative assemblies, elected for that purpose by the legislative assemblies; and therefore, as long as there were not two legislative assemblies, there could not be a general assembly according to the constitution of 1846.

House went into Committee pro formá, and resumed. Committee to sit again. House adjourned at Six o'Clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS,
Thursday, February 10, 1848.

MINUTES.] Took the Oaths.-Viscount Beresford.

Sat first.-Earl of Harrowby, after the Death of his Fa

ther.

PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Earl Fitzhardinge, from Free Electors, and Inhabitants of the City and County of Bristol, and from the Unitarian Congregation of Oldbury, near Birmingham, for the Removal of Jewish Disabili

ties.- From Archdeacon and Clergy of the Deanery of

Dorset, against the Admission of Jews into Parliament.

From Dean and Chapter of the Diocese of Ardfert, for

Alteration of Law respecting Poor Rates (Ireland).-By

Earl Fitzwilliam, from the St. Andrew's and Quebec Railroad Company, praying that a Loan may be Granted by Government for the Purposes of the said Work. By

the Earl of Clare, from the Chamber of Commerce of Limerick, against Alteration of the Navigation Laws,

IRISH POOR LAWS. EARL FITZWILLIAM, according to notice, moved for a return of all the unions

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE had no objection to granting the return. He entirely agreed with the noble Earl that the extent to which it had been necessary to call into operation this part of the Act, required watching with particular attention. There had been no undue disposition on the part of the Commissioners to exercise this power; it had been principally applied in two cases-that of very large unions, and where the guardians themselves had desired to be relieved of their duties, from a conviction that strangers would discharge them more efficiently, as being less liable to charges of partiality. The Commissioners had received instructions to use the utmost caution in the selection of the paid officers, and he had no doubt those instructions had been carried out. He bore testimony to the readiness with which the Irish proprietors, with some exceptions, had seconded the endeavours of the Government to provide employment for the people, by applying for loans for the improvement of the land under the Act of last year. applied for was 2,460,000l.; of these 896 applications, amounting to 1,068,250l., had been sanctioned by the Government. The noble Marquess concluded by expressing his conviction that the Poor Law Commissioners would use their utmost efforts to bring back the practice in relation to the relief of the poor to a system more consistent with the genius and spirit of the constitution. He had not the slightest hesitation in agreeing to the production of the papers.

The amount

LORD MONTEAGLE said, that no part of the Irish Poor Law had undergone more discussion than the question whether the rate should be levied upon the electoral divisions or unions; and, if paid functionaries wholly unconnected with the localities superseded the unpaid guardians, they might introduce a different mode of rating. He agreed with the Government that, although it was desirable that the poor-law should be administered by local guardians, it was impossible to dispense

with the power of superseding them and appointing paid guardians; but he wished to know whether the paid guardians were to exercise any additional powers?

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE said, they would stand upon the same footing as the other guardians. Motion agreed to. House adjourned.

necessary to bring in a new Bill for the amendment of the County Courts Act, in order to provide for a revision of the fees in County Courts. By the present Act the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in conjunction with the Treasury, had the power of revising and altering the fees. A gentleman had, for some time past, been engaged in obtaining information as to the fees demanded in those courts throughout the country; and, when his report was laid before the Government, they would be able to determine what alteration was necessary. He hoped soon to be in a position to announce to the from an immense number of places, for and against the House the alterations which were pro

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Thursday, February 10, 1848.

MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1° Public Health.

PETITIONS PRESENTED. By a great many hon. Members,

Jewish Disabilities Bill.-By Mr. Burroughes, from Norwich Operative Protestant Association, complaining of the Conduct of the Roman Catholic Clergy (Ireland); and from Westmoreland, against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.-By Mr. Anstey, from several places, in favour

of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.-By Sir H. F. Davie, from Dunbar, and Mr. Hume, from Brechin, for Alteration of Law respecting Sites for Churches (Scotland).By Mr. Pinney, from Tiverton, and Mr. Scholefield,

posed.

SWITZERLAND.

Sir H. VERNEY wished to ask the

noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether the decree of the Cantonal Government of Vaud of the 24th of NoVember, 1847, would affect British sub

from Birmingham, for Inquiry respecting the Rajah of Sattara.-By Mr. M'Gregor, from Glasgow, and Sir R.jects in that canton; and whether the Peel, from Inhabitants of the Island of St. Vincent, for

Consideration of the West India Colonies.-From Attor

neys of Somerton, Langport, and Martock (Somerset), for Repeal of Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.-By Mr. H. F. Davie, from North Berwick, for Inquiry respecting

the Excise Laws; and for Revision of the Sugar Duties.
-By Mr. M'Gregor, from Glasgow, and Mr. Fox Maule,
from Perth, for Reduction of Duty on Tea.-By Mr.
Lushington, from Parish of St. Paul, Covent Garden, for
Repeal of the Window Tax.-By Mr. Hume, from Bre-
chin, for Repeal of the Banking (Scotland) Act.—By Mr.

Moffatt, from Sligo, respecting the Bonding of British
Spirits.-By Mr. G. Hamilton, from several places in

Ireland, for Encouragement to Schools in Connexion
with the Church Education Society (Ireland).-By Mr.
H. Berkeley, from Inhabitants of Bristol, for Sanitary
Regulations, and for Discontinuing Interment in Towns,

-By Mr. Hume, from East and West Somerton, and

Winterton (Norfolk), for Alteration of Law regulating Leases. By Mr. Du Pre, from Buckingham, for Alteration of the Lunatic Asylums Act.-By Mr. Pinney, from

Wincanton, for Alteration of Law respecting Mendicancy.

-By Mr. E. Bunbury, from Bury St. Edmund's, and Mr. Cobden, from several places, for Retrenchment of the Naval and Military Expenditure.-By Mr. Fagan,

from Clogheen Union Poor Law Guardians, for Altera

tion of Poor Law (Ireland).—By Mr. Waddington, from Poor Law Officers of several places, for a SuperannuaHume, from Arbroath, for Alteration of Law respecting Prisons (Scotland).-By Lord Courtenay, from Guardians of the Kingsbridge Union, for a Union Settlement.-By

tion Fund. By Sir H. F. Davie, from Dunbar, and Mr.

Sir H. F. Davie, from North Berwick, and Mr. Hume, from Montrose, for Alteration of the Law of Settlement, and Parochial Assessment.

COUNTY COURTS.

DR. BOWRING asked the right hon. Home Secretary whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill for the reform of the County Courts, and especially with a view to diminish the expenses of proceedings in those courts ?

Sir G. GREY replied, that it was not

letter of remonstrance and advice addressed by Sir S. Canning to the Government of Switzerland, endeavouring to dissuade it from arbitrary and tyrannical proceedings towards those who differed from it in religious matters, had been attended with success?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: In reply to the first question of my hon. Friend, I have to state, that I am not aware that any British subjects have been affected by that decree; and it would be a matter for consideration to determine whether, supposing British subjects had been affected by the decree, that fact would give the British Government any right to interfere in regard to an internal law passed by the Government of that canton. It is true that representations have been made by Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Switzerland, unofficially, because his Government did not consider that they were entitled to make any authoritative representation. I am not, however, in a condition to state that those representations have been attended with the effect that could be wished.

PRISON DISCIPLINE-THE SEPARATE
SYSTEM.

LORD NUGENT rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Act of 2nd and 3rd Victoria, c. 56, as gave power to magistrates, under the sanction and approval of the Home Secretary, to inflict separate imprisonment in gaols upon

persons committed for trial-a power and to the magistrates. These regulations a practice inconsistent with every principle peremptorily separated both the convict of general justice, and with the whole and the untried prisoner from all society spirit of the criminal jurisprudence of with a fellow prisoner. All prisoners England. It would be urged, no doubt, were peremptorily excluded from holding that this power was highly important as communication with any friend or relation affording the means of preventing con- outside the gaol except under a severe tamination, and that it was very conve- supervision which he would presently denient with a view to uniformity of gaol cribe, or by letter, which letter must come discipline. Both these propositions he open, or might be opened by the gaoler. wished to meet openly and in front. And Was this tolerable, as applied to unconon these two principles he would rest the victed prisoners? Letters from husband, whole of his argument; neither of which, wife, parent, child, brother, friend-letters he ventured to believe, could be impugned. of the most private character-a letter of First, we had no right, upon the pretext affectionate sympathy-written in commuor for the sake of any supposed benefit nion of sorrow and suffering every stream whatsoever, to impose, without their con- of social and kindred intercourse stopped sent, the highly penal condition of sepa- back, unless with the permission and the rate confinement upon those whom the law privity of the gaoler, thus made the offiheld free from all crime or blame until cial confidant even between husband and duly and lawfully convicted of the same; wife! It would be said that this was and, secondly, any uniformity of discipline necessary in order to prevent improper in the treatment of criminals and of communications with accomplices out of those whom the law held to be innocent, doors; but he would take leave to say that was of itself at variance with all princi- an unconvicted man had no accomplices. ples of good discipline, and had a di-You had no right to assume, or act as if rect tendency to break down that barrier you assumed, that he had an accomplice. which should be ever and above all re- The whole principle of their common spected the barrier that separated in pub-law, as a thousand times over declared by lic opinion, and ought to separate in treat- their judges from the bench, and by all ment, the guilty from those whom we were their commentators on their common law only justified in holding in detention, and were against them; and no considerawhom, until found guilty in due course of tions of convenience or police could justify law, the spirit of our common law and the so grievous a wound on the happiness and rules of natural justice accounted innocent. the rights of an unconvicted man. This By the Act in question power was given to provision, too, was absolutely futile. The magistrates at quarter-sessions to draw up untried were allowed to hold confidential a code of regulations for the government communication with their legal advisers, of their gaols, to be submitted to the in order to prepare for their defence; and Home Secretary; which regulations, after thus an obvious channel was open, through having received his approval, acquired which any communication might take the force of law, and were carried into place with persons outside the gaol. So effect accordingly. In all prisons con- that this appeared to be a tyranny without structed within the last few years with a a purpose, and absolutely inoperative for view to give effect to the separate system any useful object, as opposed to those who (not including Pentonville, of course, be- might wish to baffle it. But suppose that cause it was appropriated only to the recep- friends or relations outside the gaol should tion of convicts), the separate system was wish to suggest to a prisoner means for applied equally to the convicted and the conducting his own defence, where no atuntried. Now, in his (Lord Nugent's) torney should be employed; and suppose opinion, this experiment of reformatory that defence should be founded upon some discipline (for an experiment only it still alleged misconduct or irregularity on the was, and requiring the most constant and part of the committing magistrate; this cautious attention in its application in letter would be opened by the gaoler, and order to prevent abuse, and, even without carried by him to the visiting magistrates, abuse, irremediable mischief), gave promise among whom might be the committing of the establishment of a good and whole-justice himself, who would doubtless consome system, as applicable to convicted persons; but let the House mark what power the regulations of these gaols gave

sider that to be very objectionable and contaminating matter to be allowed to reach the accused. It would be said that

There

this was supposing an extreme and most | separate system are induced to work from improbable exercise of the power in ques- the very irksomeness of idleness." tion: he trusted and believed it was. But were much stronger statements in the evithe law of England professed to protect dence of Mr. W. Merry, who was one of the subject against any supposable in- the principal authorities concerned in givjustice. This secret inquest into the means ing effect to the system in the construction adopted by a prisoner or his friends for his of Reading gaol, and who said, in his exdefence was in conflict with the whole spirit amination before the Lords' Committee of our jurisprudence; and it was the glo- on the execution of criminal law, "I berious boast of our law-let them not make lieve there is not a man who would not it a vainglorious one-that it left no wrong escape from a separate cell, and go upon without a remedy. Prisoners were permit- the treadmill if he had the opportunity." ted to receive visits once or twice a week, The chaplain of Aylesbury gaol-a most but not oftener, unless under special per- worthy, and excellent, and attentive offimission from the visiting magistrates; and cer-had given him (Lord Nugent) the even then these visits from husband, wife, same opinion, that the punishment was or dearest friend, must be held in the pres- thus made much heavier upon the untried ence of that eternal confidant, the gaoler, than it was upon the convicted, because or one of his wardens, and with gratings employment could not be found for the keeping the prisoner and the visitor some former. The Rev. John Field, nearly eight or ten feet apart, as in a lazar- twenty years chaplain of Reading gaolhouse. Now, besides all the rest that a person of very high authority upon this was intolerable in this, it was a penal con- subject, but who, he must in fairness addition manifestly most unequal in its ope- mit, had, in a correspondence which that ration as between the poor man and the gentleman had done him the honour and rich. He would come to this presently. kindness to hold with him, declared that Meanwhile he would content himself with he differed entirely from him upon the saying, that, as applied to any pris- question of the application of this sysoner before trial, this was a punishment tem to untried prisoners-said, in his most inflicted upon the untried, which the spirit valuable bookof our laws did not sanction, nor would "As a general rule, I assert with confidence, public opinion sanction it, if the secrets that when secluded, prisoners prefer the hardest of the prison-house were known out of and, under other circumstances, the most irksome doors, as it was the object of his Motion labour, to idleness which is constrained." to make them known to the House. But Now, to unconvicted prisoners, idleness he (Lord Nugent) would now refer to some was constrained; and thus their punishof the highest and most respected authori- ment was rendered more severe and their ties upon the subject of separate confine- condition more penal than that of the conment; and every one of them would be found victed. Mr. Matthew Davenport Hill, the to describe and recommend it as being re-recorder of Birmingham, gave the same formatory punishment, but punishment of a opinion; it would be found in the report to very high degree. Take up the first report which reference had been already made. on Pentonville prison. Sir J. Graham, in He thought the system might heighten the his letter, treated this system as "through-effect of punishment, but that the great out probationary, to prepare criminals for use of separate confinement was as one transportation," and as a measure "for regulating punishment." This discipline, in fact, differed from what was applied to convicts only in this remarkable respect, that convicts were sentenced to hard labour, which could not practically be supplied to the unconvicted; and hard labour was described by all these authorities, not as an additional punishment, but as a relief from the horrors of separate confinement. Colonel Jebb, Surveyor General of Prisons, in his report last year, spoke of the effects of separate imprisonment, but treated it only with reference to punishment; and he said, "Persons under the

stage of reformatory discipline. But the report abounded with evidence to the same effect. In the second report it was stated that the prisoner, especially during the first few months, was strongly impressed with a due sense of his penal condition; that separate confinement compelled him. to reflect, day after day, on the privations he was suffering as the punishment of crime; and this "punishment" was to be inflicted on men who had never been convicted. It went on, speaking of this separate system-"It is sufficiently severe as a legal punishment in itself." In another part of the report it would be found that

"It appears to me that no effectual reform in prison discipline can take place so long as our county gaols remain on their present footing. What is wanted is to have houses of detention for untried prisoners, and distinct penitentiaries for criminals."

that enlightened and upright Judge, Mr. | ing on this presumption. Of the whole Baron Alderson, saidmass of the committed, each individual "You have had a right to say to you, no more business with my reformation till I have been found guilty, than you have with the reformation of his worship who committed me. His worship suspected me of crime upon what he judged sufficient evidence, and committed me accordingly for trial; he thereby did his duty; but my answer is not guilty that is the issue to be tried, and until that is tried, and the verdict pronounced, you have no right to put me under a penal and reformatory system.' It was, doubtless, a great grievance, an irremediable one, that, to secure the appearance of the ac

Oh, how warmly and deeply did he concur in opinion with that excellent Judge! There never could be a proper system of gaol discipline without that; and the two establishments ought not to be under the same roof, nor under the same government. This system of separate detention, he had said, was a punishment much more severe to the poor man than to the rich. Thus the rich man could have the sym-cused to take his trial, you must perforce pathy and companionship of his friends under the grievous calamity of loss of liberty and suspension of character. But the friends of the poor man could not spare either their time or the expenses of travelling, or of sustenance at a county town. Their time was devoted to labour. The rich man could relieve his mind in solitude by reading and writing, and communing in his own mind with what he had read before. But the health of the poor man-his mind's health required more than that; he needed communication with his friends, and from that he was entirely debarred, excepting that sort of communion which he had already described. Why did he refer to these authorities? Why, in order to show that the separate system, in the opinion of all who were the most conversant with it, was desirable only and to be recommended as a very severe and formidable reformatory punishment. He might be asked, perhaps, why, if it were reformatory, it should not be applied to those prisoners who had not been convicted as well as to those who had? The answer was plainly this—you had no right to apply a reformatory system to an untried prisoner-you had no right to pronounce him in need of reformation: in so doing you would be acting in a spirit contrary to the whole presumption of the common law, as declared by your judges and your commentators, who laid it down as a fundamental principle of that law that a man should be held to be innocent until he had been convicted of a crime. It was trifling, worse than trifling, to say, the moral probability is, that of persons committed for trial, the majority are guilty. You are not justified by one principle of criminal jurisprudence in act

imprison him, subject him to loss of liberty, suspension of character, deprivation of means of applying his industry to the maintenance and interests of his family. All this is most true, and I know is irremediable. But I do say, inasmuch as this is true and irremediable, and grievous, the more sacred was the principle, that as much freedom should be extended to the untried as was consistent with moral discipline and good order in the gaols. Now there were, no doubt, obvious cases of exception. First, there was the case of very young persons being committed for trial; for obvious reasons they should not be allowed to associate with persons under suspicion of having committed an offence. But the condition of a child was very different from that of an adult. The child had no civil rights whatever, excepting to humane treatment, and to a due attention to his moral and physical requirements. The State was in loco parentis with respect to him, and had imposed upon it the duties of his guardian the same as were imposed upon his parents or other natural guardians. There were other exceptional cases. Persons, for instance, who were committed under a charge of a certain class of offences, which he need not particularise, would be extremely improper persons to be allowed, even under suspicion, to associate with each other. Perhaps, also, per- . sons committed for a second offence ought to form an exception. But these exceptions were easily dealt with. They were cases in which a special report might be made by the committing magistrate to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who should have the power in such cases to authorise the application of the separate sys