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which this Bill proposed | in Ireland where the boards of guardians to suspend, provided that there should be had been superseded, and paid officers apone general assembly of the whole country, pointed.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 The EARL of LINCOLN said, that the first clause repealed the provisions of the Act which gave two legislative assemblies.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, MINUTES.] Took the Oaths.-Viscount Beresford. ther. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Earl Fitzhardinge, from Free tol, and from the Unitarian Congregation of Oldbury, 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. The amount applied for was 2,460,000l.; of these 896 applications, amounting to 1,068,2501., 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. 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 The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE said, they would stand upon the same footing as the other guardians. Motion agreed to. House adjourned. with the power of superseding them and | necessary to bring in a new Bill for the appointing paid guardians; but he wished amendment of the County Courts Act, in to know whether the paid guardians were order to provide for a revision of the fees to exercise any additional powers? 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 HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, February 10, 1848. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1° Public Health. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By a great many hon. Members, from an immense number of places, for and against the Jewish Disabilities Bill.-By Mr. Burroughes, from Nor wich 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 to be in a position to announce to the House the alterations which were proposed. 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 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, 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 -By Mr. M'Gregor, from Glasgow, and Mr. Fox Maule, from Perth, for Reduction of Duty on Tea.-By Mr. the Excise Laws; and for Revision of the Sugar Duties. Lushington, from Parish of St. Paul, Covent Garden, for Moffatt, from Sligo, respecting the Bonding of British Ireland, for Encouragement to Schools in Connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland).-By Mr. -By Mr. Hume, from East and West Somerton, and Wincanton, for Alteration of Law respecting Mendicancy. the Naval and Military Expenditure.-By Mr. Fagan, 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 tion of Poor Law (Ireland).—By Mr. Waddington, from Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in SwitPoor Law Officers of several places, for a Superannua-zerland, unofficially, because his GovernHume, from Arbroath, for Alteration of Law respecting Prisons (Scotland).-By Lord Courtenay, from Guardians of the Kingsbridge Union, for a Union Settlement.-By Sir H. F. Davie, from North Berwick, and Mr. Hume, from Montrose, for Alteration of the Law of Settlement, and Parochial Assessment. from Clogheen Union Poor Law Guardians, for Altera tion Fund. By Sir H. F. Davie, from Dunbar, and Mr. 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 ment 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 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 severe to the magistrates. These regulations peremptorily separated both the convict and the untried prisoner from all society with a fellow prisoner. All prisoners were peremptorily excluded from holding communication with any friend or relation outside the gaol except under a supervision which he would presently decribe, or by letter, which letter must come open, or might be opened by the gaoler. Was this tolerable, as applied to unconvicted prisoners? Letters from husband, wife, parent, child, brother, friend-letters of the most private character-a letter of affectionate sympathy-written in communion of sorrow and suffering-every stream of social and kindred intercourse stopped back, unless with the permission and the privity of the gaoler, thus made the official confidant even between husband and wife! It would be said that this was necessary in order to prevent improper communications with accomplices out of doors; but he would take leave to say that an unconvicted man had no accomplices. You had no right to assume, or act as if you assumed, that he had an accomplice. The whole principle of their common persons committed for trial-a power and a practice inconsistent with every principle of general justice, and with the whole spirit of the criminal jurisprudence of England. It would be urged, no doubt, that this power was highly important as affording the means of preventing contamination, and that it was very convenient with a view to uniformity of gaol discipline. Both these propositions he wished to meet openly and in front. And on these two principles he would rest the whole of his argument; neither of which, he ventured to believe, could be impugned. First, we had no right, upon the pretext or for the sake of any supposed benefit whatsoever, to impose, without their consent, the highly penal condition of separate confinement upon those whom the law held free from all crime or blame until duly and lawfully convicted of the same; and, secondly, any uniformity of discipline in the treatment of criminals and of those whom the law held to be innocent, was of itself at variance with all principles of good discipline, and had a direct tendency to break down that barrier which should be ever and above all respected 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 sider that to be very objectionable and persons; but let the House mark what contaminating matter to be allowed to power the regulations of these gaols gave reach the accused. It would be said that the very irksomeness of idleness." There were much stronger statements in the evidence of Mr. W. Merry, who was one of the principal authorities concerned in giving effect to the system in the construction of Reading gaol, and who said, in his examination before the Lords' Committee on the execution of criminal law, "I believe there is not a man who would not escape from a separate cell, and go upon the treadmill if he had the opportunity." The chaplain of Aylesbury gaol-a most worthy, and excellent, and attentive officer-had given him (Lord Nugent) the same opinion, that the punishment was thus made much heavier upon the untried than it was upon the convicted, because employment could not be found for the former. The Rev. John Field, nearly twenty years chaplain of Reading gaola person of very high authority upon this subject, but who, he must in fairness admit, had, in a correspondence which that gentleman had done him the honour and kindness to hold with him, declared that he differed entirely from him upon the question of the application of this system to untried prisoners-said, in his most valuable book this was supposing an extreme and most separate system are induced to work from improbable exercise of the power in question: he trusted and believed it was. But the law of England professed to protect the subject against any supposable injustice. This secret inquest into the means adopted by a prisoner or his friends for his defence was in conflict with the whole spirit of our jurisprudence; and it was the glorious boast of our law-let them not make it a vainglorious one-that it left no wrong without a remedy. Prisoners were permitted to receive visits once or twice a week, but not oftener, unless under special permission from the visiting magistrates; and even then these visits from husband, wife, or dearest friend, must be held in the presence of that eternal confidant, the gaoler, or one of his wardens, and with gratings keeping the prisoner and the visitor some eight or ten feet apart, as in a lazarhouse. Now, besides all the rest that was intolerable in this, it was a penal condition manifestly most unequal in its operation as between the poor man and the rich. He would come to this presently. Meanwhile he would content himself with saying, that, as applied to any prisoner before trial, this was a punishment inflicted upon the untried, which the spirit of 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 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 use of separate confinement was as one 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 that enlightened and upright Judge, Mr. | ing on this presumption. Of the whole Baron Alderson, said "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." mass of the committed, each individual had a right to say to you, "You have 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 suffiOh, how warmly and deeply did he con- cient evidence, and committed me accorcur in opinion with that excellent Judge! dingly for trial; he thereby did his duty; There never could be a proper system of but my answer is not guilty:' that gaol discipline without that; and the two is the issue to be tried, and until that is establishments ought not to be under the tried, and the verdict pronounced, you same roof, nor under the same govern- have no right to put me under a penal and ment. This system of separate detention, reformatory system." It was, doubtless, he had said, was a punishment much more a great grievance, an irremediable one, severe to the poor man than to the rich. that, to secure the appearance of the acThus the rich man could have the sym- cused to take his trial, you must perforce pathy and companionship of his friends imprison him, subject him to loss of liberunder the grievous calamity of loss of lib- ty, suspension of character, deprivation of erty and suspension of character. But the means of applying his industry to the friends of the poor man could not spare maintenance and interests of his family. either their time or the expenses of travel- All this is most true, and I know is irreling, or of sustenance at a county town. mediable. But I do say, inasmuch as this Their time was devoted to labour. The is true and irremediable, and grievous, the rich man could relieve his mind in soli- more sacred was the principle, that as tude by reading and writing, and com- much freedom should be extended to the muning in his own mind with what he untried as was consistent with moral dishad read before. But the health of cipline and good order in the gaols. Now the poor man-his mind's health re- there were, no doubt, obvious cases of quired more than that; he needed com- exception. First, there was the case of munication with his friends, and from very young persons being committed for that he was entirely debarred, excepting trial; for obvious reasons they should not that sort of communion which he had al- be allowed to associate with persons unready described. Why did he refer to der suspicion of having committed an these authorities? Why, in order to show offence. But the condition of a child that the separate system, in the opinion of was very different from that of an adult. all who were the most conversant with it, The child had no civil rights whatever, was desirable only and to be recommended excepting to humane treatment, and to as a very severe and formidable reforma- a due attention to his moral and phytory punishment. He might be asked, sical requirements. The State was in perhaps, why, if it were reformatory, it loco parentis with respect to him, and should not be applied to those prisoners had imposed upon it the duties of his who had not been convicted as well as to guardian the same as were imposed those who had? The answer was plainly upon his parents or other natural guarthis-you had no right to apply a reforma- dians. There were other exceptional cases. tory system to an untried prisoner-you Persons, for instance, who were commithad no right to pronounce him in need of ted under a charge of a certain class of reformation: in so doing you would be act- offences, which he need not particularise, ing in a spirit contrary to the whole pre- would be extremely improper persons to sumption of the common law, as declared be allowed, even under suspicion, to assoby your judges and your commentators, who ciate with each other. Perhaps, also, perlaid it down as a fundamental principle of sons committed for a second offence ought that law that a man should be held to be to form an exception. But these exceptions innocent until he had been convicted of a were easily dealt with. They were cases in crime. It was trifling, worse than trifling, which a special report might be made by to say, the moral probability is, that of the committing magistrate to the Secretary persons committed for trial, the majority of State for the Home Department, who are guilty. You are not justified by one should have the power in such cases to auprinciple of criminal jurisprudence in act-thorise the application of the separate sys |