begged to avail himself of that opportunity of making a few remarks on the extent of crime in this country, its enormous cost, and the necessity of some means being adopted to cheek its further increase. Various modes of prison discipline had been adopted, but still the great problem remained to be solved, as to what was the most effectual means of preventing the increase of crime. Crime kept increasing, notwithstanding all the improvements in prison discipline; and of course its cost kept increasing. All persons admitted the connexion between Ignorance, poverty, and crime. According to the returns which had been laid on the table of the House, there were in the united kingdom 3,500,000 paupers, and 200,000 criminals—that was so say, one in seven or eight of the population was a pauper, and one in 133 was a criminal. The committals had increased, since 1836, in England, 44 per cent; in Scotland, 68 per cent. and in Ireland 61 per cent. There must be a cause for this. He believed that not much short of 2,000,000 l a year were spent in punishing crime; but they made very few efforts for the prevention of crime. Heavy taxation produced poverty, and poverty led to crime. It seemed to be generally imagined that there were no other means of checking the evil, but of making more workhouses for more poverty, and more cells for more crime. But what were the chief causes of poverty, crime, and disease? Judges, magistrates, physicians, chaplains of gaols, and inspectors of prisons, all concurred in the opinion that two-thirds of the poverty, nine-tenths of the crime, and half the diseases, were produced by drunkenness—that this vice was more ruinous to the labouring classes of society than all other evils put together. In 1848 the amount of the duties on spirits, wine to- bacco, and malt, was 19,000,000 l . Here, therefore, was the great source of all the misery. The country expended at least 60,000,000 l a year in intoxicating liquors, a sum equal to the total amount of all the exports from the united kingdom. It appeared absurd that for every pound's worth of goods they exported, they drank half a gallon of spirits. In great towns, every poor man's dwelling was encircled with ginshops and beerhouses, from which he could hardly escape. This was the great source of the evil; and till they struck at this great source of crime, all their efforts at improving prison discipline, and the enormous sums they spent for that purpose, would be unavailing. No person could say that intoxicating drinks were necessary for the sustenance of life: indeed they were positively injurious. If, then, the higher classes would only set an example, and give encouragement to temperance societies, he had no doubt the best effects would follow, and that a great expenditure of money on account of their criminals would be saved to the country.

said, that having been a visiting magistrate of the county which he represented, he wished to make a few observations on this subject. Prior to 1844, in that county considerable alarm was excited by the continual and rapid increase in the number of prisoners, and it was thought it must in some way he connected with the crowded state of the then house of correction, and the imperfect state of the prison discipline. A prison on the separate system was then built, constructed for 274 prisoners, and was opened in April, 1845. The old prison was left for the female prisoners. The effect of that system had been such, that the number of prisoners was reduced, and now, in the new prison, not only could they accommodate the women, but could receive 100 Government convicts. The governor of the gaol, who was at first adverse to the separate system, now acknowledged its efficacy. He admitted the necessity of a punitive system, and the separate system was so. The hon. Member for Lambeth laid great stress upon hard labour. It was not incompatible with that system; and, acting on the principle of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that those prisoners who would not work should not eat, there was a crank machine in the prison he spoke of, which showed the number of revolutions made in their labour, and until a certain number was produced. they had nothing to eat. Undoubtedly, for reformation a certain period of confinement was necessary; but even for short periods, if the separate system could not effect that end, it prevented contamination. There were many persons interested in this question who were anxious for inquiry; and he should, therefore, move, as an Amendment, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the system of prison discipline. Whether such a Committtee could, at that period of the Session, enter into a satisfactory inquiry was another question, but he thought it desirable that such an inquiry should be made.

Amendment proposed—

"To leave out from the word 'inquire,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'into the system of Prison Discipline at present applied to Prisoners in confinement in England.' "

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question."

said, that with reference to the case of the gaol mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire, he could state that it was a notorious fact that before the alteration took place, and the separate system was adopted, the discipline of the old gaol was exceedingly bad. He believed that many of the borough gaols were in a very improper state, and he should therefore give his support to an inquiry into this subject.

said, his principal objection to the plan of the hon. Member for Lambeth was this. He knew of no system of spade husbandry which could be adopted which would have the effect of dissociating criminals in the gaols. There was nothing so prolific of crime in this country as the present unsatisfactory state of prison discipline; and it was scarcely possible to conceive the number of pickpockets, robbers, and burglars who were turned out of the gaols in London. The separate system had been objected to on the ground of expense. Now, he found that the average expense in six prisons, for which returns had been made, was 37 l . 12 s . per head under the associated system, whilst under the separate system the expense was only 24 l . As., thus showing the cost of the old system to exceed the other by 50 per cent. Under the associated system the prisoners became more and more degraded; whilst under the separate system a restraint was placed upon their actions, and they were prevented from contaminating others. He was quite convinced that the separate system, if judiciously carried out, would prove more economical and more reformatory of the criminal than the old or associated system. The hon. Member concluded by expressing his determination to support the Amendment.

said, the present was a striking instance of the inconvenience arising from a long interval in the adjournment of a debate. They were now discussing a Motion made six weeks ago; and, under such circumstances, he did not think the debate could be carried on in a satisfactory manner. He thought it was impossible to advert to the subject of prison discipline without congratulating themselves on the very great and progressive improvement which had taken place of late years. Very great praise was due to the right hon. Gentlemen now Secretary for the Home Department, and also to the right hon. Gentleman his predecessor. But there was something still more entitled to praise; he meant the system of inspection and of frequent returns to that House, which was such that, even if a Secretary of State should be less attentive to that branch of his duty than the two right hon. Gentlemen, he would find it impossible to neglect or fail altogether in the performance of this duty. The present state of prison discipline was not altogether satisfactory; the want of a good classification of prisoners was in particular greatly felt, and was producing serious evils. Some apparently well-grounded complaints had been made of the great and unexpected expense which the construction of the new prisons had caused; but if they wished to classify and separate prisoners, they must go to greater expense in building prisons. He considered that many trivial matters were introduced into the reports of the prison inspectors, which, when printed, were a mere waste of the money of the country and the time of that House. As an instance he might allege the report of the prison of Kingston upon Hull, laid before the House in 1840, when the Marquess of Normanby was Secretary of State. In that report it was stated that the prisoners were in the habit of receiving letters from their friends without. Now that might be a fact of importance to make known, and possibly to deal with; but the report in question went on also to insert precise copies of the letters referred to, carefully preserving all their faults of spelling and inaccuracies of language. These letters were all of the most trivial character. Thus, for example, one begins as follows: "Friend, this comes with my respects to you; I send you a pound of tobacco, and I hope you will enjoy yourself." But it was not merely prose; effusions in verse also, or at least in rhyme, thus received by prisoners, were thought worthy the deliberate attention of the Legislature! Here are some of the lines:—

"My dear soldier lad,

For you I'm very sad,

But pray do you no more desert,

For if you do you'll break my heart."

He (Lord Mahon) acknowledged most readily that in the reports of later years there was less of trivial matter introduced, but still there was no little room for further improvement in that respect. He felt the more hound to advert to this topic as being himself a member of the Printing Committee. The Printing Committee of that House had no discretion relative to the printing of these prison reports, which depended upon the Secretary of State. He would suggest that they might he in future much abridged by the omission of points of no importance, so that in future hon. Members might not be deterred from the perusal of such voluminous documents. It appeared to him that the hon. Member for Lambeth had overlooked the practical difficulties in the way of self-supporting prisons; and he would vote against his Motion if that hon. Member called for a division. To the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire he felt more favourably disposed, believing that such an inquiry might be a very useful one. But he doubted whether it would be desirable to appoint a Committee at this late period of the Session. Such an inquiry must necessarily be a protracted one, and to enter upon it now would be to commence it when Members were leaving town, when a prorogation would shortly take place, and when the inquiry must be almost immediately postponed. He recommended his hon. Friend, therefore, not to press his Amendment at present, and to bring it before the House at the opening of the next Session.

regarded the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth as in reality an attack upon the separate system of imprisonment which had been adopted in the English prisons. In his own county, two years ago, the visiting justices of the West Riding reported that the change to the separate system had been attended by a great improvement in the character of the prisoners, and that it was not necessary to punish them so often. The diminished percentage of recommit-tals under the separate system had also been most satisfactory. The report of the visiting justices for the past year confirmed the statement in the former report, that the separate system had led to a most remarkable decrease of prison punishment. Unless some better system could be pointed out, he strongly advocated the carrying out of the separate system throughout the kingdom. It was true that the prisons had caused an immense expenditure, and that the county rates for the last six or seven years had been enormously increased; but they had been increased by the necessity of building those prisons, because, unless the necessary accommodation were provided, the separate system could not be carried out. But the increase incurred during the last three or four years would not go on for all time, but was in its nature temporary. He felt bound to bear his testimony to the judicious conduct of the Secretaries of State during the last ten years upon subjects connected with prison discipline. He believed that they had been walking in the right direction, and if the magistrates would not grudge the money spent in building these prisons, and in adopting a good system, he believed they would go on decreasing crime. But if they sent boys or young persons to prison, and did not keep them separate, they would come out of prison worse than they went in. He trusted that the Home Secretary would not yield any thing in respect of the separate system, and that he would meet the Motion by a direct negative. He would recommend the Government to take up this question early next Session, because it would be absurd to appoint a Committee in July to go into such a subject. Here would be ample food for the best Committee they could form, and their inquiry must last some weeks, if they were to produce a report worth reading.

said, that the borough justices of Leicester had found a great percentage of recommittals among the persons imprisoned in the borough gaol, and a very small proportion in the case of the same class of offenders when they were committed to the county gaol, where the separate system was in force. The eon-sequence was, that the borough justices were about to introduce the separate system into the borough gaol of Leicester.

regarded the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth as a proposition for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into some plan of prison discipline of his own and of his friends. With regard to Reading gaol, the visiting magistrates were desirous of the most rigid and searching inquiry into the management and expenditure of that gaol. He had been favoured by a visiting magistrate, who took an active share in the discipline of that gaol (Mr. Merry), with a return showing the effect of the prison discipline there. The return gave a comparative view of the state of crime in Berks, as shown by the number and gross expense of prosecutions at assizes and sessions during the four years before and the four years after the establishment of religious instruction as the basis of corrective discipline. During what Mr. Merry called the "treadmill period," from 1841 to 1844, the prisoners for trial were 736, and the expenses of prosecution 9,527 l . During the period of religious instruction, from 1845 to 1848, the prisoners for trial were 655, and the expenses of prosecution amounted to 8,257 l . Thus the reduction of expense in the latter period had been 1,270 l ., and the diminution in the number of prisoners 81. To this saving of 1,270 l . Mr. Merry claimed to add what must have been the cost of prison maintenance before and after trial of 81 more prisoners at an average of six months each, and which made a financial saving of 2,201 l . The expenditure for Reading and Abingdon gaols during the same period, had been, from 1841 to 1844, 14,986 l .; from 1845 to 1848, 16,148 l . The increase in the latter period was to be deducted from the above decrease, viz., 1,162 l ., leaving a financial saving of 1,036 l ., or an average reduction per annum of 260 l . In the above calculations Mr. Merry had observed a strictly comparative view, and no Treasury allowance had been taken into account. The hon. Member for Lambeth would, therefore, see that there were two sides to this question, which was for that reason a proper subject for inquiry. It was the desire of the gentlemen connected with the gaols of Berkshire and the neighbouring counties, that an inquiry should take place, and that if a better mode could be suggested, it should be substituted for that now in practice. But he did not wish to see a system that had worked well, and which he believed to be far superior to any other yet tried for the reformation of prisoners, run down by public meetings, such as that which the hon. Member for Lambeth had attended, upon statements which were not to he altogether taken for granted, although they might be worthy of inquiry. A Committee to inquire into the general subject, would be a much more extended Motion, and it would not preclude the hon. Member for Lambeth from giving evidence before the Committee to prove that this plan would be more advantageous and less expensive than any yet adopted. But at least let both sides of the question be examined into. He was decidedly of opinion that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Leicestershire was the best mode of meeting this question, unless the hon. Member for Lambeth would follow the more advisable course of withdrawing his Motion, and allowing it to stand over for consideration until next Session, when the Government would probably not be disinclined to institute such an inquiry themselves, which would, no doubt, be fairly conducted, and would give satisfaction to his (Mr. Palmer's) brother magistrates and constituents.

said, that as he had already addressed the House at some length in answer to the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth, and as he had stated the grounds on which he thought that it would be inexpedient to appoint a Committee in the terms proposed, he would not enter at large into the general question, but would confine himself chiefly to the Amendment which had been moved, and to some observations upon one or two remarks which had fallen from hon. Members in the course of the discussion. He could not but express the gratification which he felt at the testimony which had been borne to the value and advantage of the separate system of imprisonment, which had now stood the test of several years' experience, since its first introduction in Pentonville prison, on the recommendation of his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, at that time Secretary of State for the Home Department. It was very gratifying to find that so many Gentlemen who had had practical experience of the working of that system, spoke so highly of its value. He would therefore only say of it, that it was a system which, though not perfect, and requiring very careful supervision, combined more effectually than any other the two important principles of deterring from crime, and reforming offenders. Great alarm had been excited about the supposed expense of the prisons constructed under the new system; and since he last addressed the House on this subject, he had obtained the comparative cost of building prisons under the old and new systems, from which he found that the expenditure was less under the new system than the old. For example, York Castle, which had been referred to, was erected many years ago, and was built at an expense of 1,200 l . per cell. Mill bank Penitentiary was built at au expense of 500 l . per cell, and Maidstone Gaol and Westminster House of Correction at a cost of 300 l . per cell; but these were all built previously to the introduction of the separate system of imprisonment. Reading Gaol, of which so much had been said, cost only 200 l . per cell; and prisons had been built at Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, and one was now building in Hampshire, the average cost of which was from 140 l . to 150 l . per cell. He thought, therefore, it might be fairly said that the expense of building prisons was smaller under the new than under the old system. A comparison had been made by the worthy Alderman between the expenses of six prisons under the old, and six prisons under the new system, and there was a difference of 50 per cent in favour of the new. With regard to the Amendment, he considered that an inquiry into the system now adopted in the different prisons of England and Wales, which, he thought, was not so uniform as it ought to be, was a very fair subject for Parliamentary investigation. At the same time he thought that it would be desirable to postpone such an investigation at present, as the House had already commenced morning sittings, and a few weeks would terminate the Session of Parliament. In the next Session he should have no sort of objection to such an inquiry, and he thought it would be of very great advantage. At present he hoped that the House would negative the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth, and not accede to the appointment of a Committee during the present Session.

believed there was scarcely a gaoler of long standing with whom he had not communicated respecting the efficacy of prison discipline, and they almost all doubted the beneficial result of imprisonment in reforming criminals at all. His own opinion was, that they could not reform prisoners by the adoption of any system of prison discipline. He agreed that prisons were, in many respects, improved, but they were too often making palaces of them; and he believed that the tendency of a mawkish sympathy for and attention to criminals, rather tended to encourage than to check crime. The best plan was, to enable these persons to take care of themselves, and prevent them from ever coming upon the calendar of crime. If Parliament and the Government would not take measures to send boys and girls abroad as emigrants at the public expense, they must be prepared to incur the cost of sending them abroad as criminals, and at a greater waste of money. There was a third course, one far better and far more economical, much the cheapest and best of all—that of educating them. It had now become, as he thought, perfectly evident that the duty of the Legislature was to educate the youth of this country, with their own consent and that of their parents, if possible, but to educate them at all events. If they hoped to prevent crime, education must be made compulsory. It had at length become but too manifest that youthful prisoners were not improved by prison discipline—at least not improved to the extent that was necessary for the prevention of crime. He knew that the hon. Member for Lambeth had given much attention to the subject which had that day been brought under their notice; but, though he had given much time to it, and though on the present occasion he was not likely to accomplish all that he might desire, yet when there was a prospect that the matter would be taken up by the Government itself, or at all events supported by them, in the first week of the ensuing Session, he hoped that the hon. Member would not now think it necessary to press the question any further. In the course of the next Session they might hope for a deliberate and careful inquiry; he should therefore advise his hon. Friend for the present to withdraw his Motion, and immediately after the appointment of the Committee he would find to be the fitting time to consider what should be the course of inquiry to be pursued. Although he felt very strongly the necessity of compulsory education, yet he would by no means interfere with the religious feelings of any class of the community; he would allow all sects and denominations to educate their children in their own opinions; but where parents, or the religious community to which those parents belonged, neglected to provide for the education of children, then he should make a compulsory rate upon the parish or district, and compel the education of children—anything rather than be obliged to maintain them as prisoners—anything rather than having children left at large till they committed some crime. Such a proceeding, no doubt, might be regarded as an interference with the liberty of the subject, but it would be only somewhat restricting his liberty for the benefit of the subject himself.

agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose that they ought, if possible, to stop the current of crime at its source; but still, though they might labour in that direction, and it certainly was the right direction, it would not settle the question. He had had some experience of the separate system both in Warwickshire and in Staffordshire, the result of which was very much in favour of that system; it had, however, undergone much discussion in both those counties. In Warwickshire, the philosophical part of the question was considered, while in Staffordshire the economical portion chiefly occupied attention, the whole undergoing a very sharp scrutiny. It appeared to him that the main objection to the plan of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth consisted in this, that it was a new nostrum, and rather of an anomalous kind; and he was sure the House must admit this, that the subject was one with which any statesman must find it extremely difficult to deal satisfactorily; he therefore considered it was their duty to persevere in that course which at present seemed to work well. Every one must feel that transportation was resorted to from necessity, and not from choice. He was certainly not prepared to defend the plan in use, or any plan of transportation; but when any discussion arose on the subject, the question was naturally put, if we do not transport, what are we to do? The necessity, however, did not strike him so forcibly as it did the minds of other people, for the principle was vicious, and he never could be brought to think that God rendered anything necessary which was in principle vicious. He believed that a very great number of criminals were created by an erroneous classification of offenders, and that much was called crime that could not properly be so designated. Another part of the subject which appeared to him of no trifling importance, was the way of dealing with crime, and the plan of our national institutions with reference to crime. He thought, if those institutions were fairly considered, if crime were fairly classified, it would be found that one-half those who were called criminals ought really to be otherwise described; and that much which was called crime ought to be characterised as misfortune. Again, he thought that our institutions demanded reform, and if reformed as they ought to be, Parkhurst would soon become another Mettrai. Parkhurst, as at present administered, was more like a military seminary than anything else; and again he would repeat his earnest hope that something like an efficient reform might be introduced in the course of next Session. He felt himself fully justified in asserting that in the present state of things there was no essential difference, so far as education was concerned, between a national school, a national workhouse, and a national gaol. The want of education, crime, misfortune, and punishment, were all mixed up together; virtue was degraded, and crime was dignified; virtuous misfortune was, by a false classification, mingled with the grossest offences. He hoped that, sooner or later, they might be able to get rid of the punishment of transportation; and, at all events, he hoped that they would not sit down under the self-condemnatory practice, that that which was vicious in principle must nevertheless be submitted to. Looking, then, at all the circumstances of the penal system in this country, he should certainly vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth.

stated, that in the Liverpool borough prison boys and girls between the ages of eight and thirteen years were sent into confinement as often as eight or ten times in the course of the year. In Liverpool, he regretted to say, that there were great numbers of children who had no visible means of subsistence, who never could get a meal till they committed a crime, and when they were discharged they then never lost a moment in committing a fresh crime. Such children, if interrogated, at once answered that they had no means of livelihood, and that they committed the crime for which they were sent to prison with the sole purpose of obtaining food and shelter. He hoped. then, that in the next Session of Parliament this subject would obtain from the Legislature a full and fair consideration. The punishment of offenders was much more expensive than the education of children could possibly prove; and he had no doubt that if they obtained a Committee, the Home Secretary would be able to give them much useful information. He hoped, under all the circumstances, and considering the late period of the Session, that the hon. Member for Lambeth would for the present withdraw his Motion.

agreed in the remarks of the hon. Member for Montrose, as to the necessity of giving the children of this country a good education; but the question of making that education compulsory was a very delicate and difficult one. This question of prison discipline had been too long delayed; and he therefore trusted that the Government would faithfully redeem the pledge which they had now made, of instituting a full inquiry into it early next Session.

said, that instead of going into the many topics that had been broached in the course of the present discussion, he should confine himself to that which formed the real question before them. He begged, in the first place, to remind the House, that the question was not how they could best deter persons from the commission of crime, but how they could improve what was called prison discipline; or, rather, if they ought to consider the appointment of a Committee to inquire into that subject. All prisons ought to he considered as existing for the benefit of all prisoners, and the matter which that day should engage the attention of the House, was the subject of inquiry for the Committee. It was also, he hoped, not to be forgotten that the hon. Member for Lambeth had made this proposition as long as six weeks ago, and now it was proposed that he should, being near the close of the Session, withdraw it. There was, however, this satisfactory circumstance connected with the subject, that a Committee was to be appointed early in the next Session of Parliament. As to the Motion and Amendment before them, he could not help saying that of the two he preferred the terms of the Motion; and he must be allowed to add, that he thought the hon. Member for Lambeth well entitled to thanks for the trouble that he had taken, and the manner in which he had brought forward the subject of prison discipline. He repeated that he preferred the Motion to the Amendment. In the Motion there was a distinct and intelligible proposition, while the Amendment appeared to him far too general. If any one were to ask what was our present system of prison discipline, the answer must necessarily be that we had no general system. We had the separate system and the treadmill system, and others, but we had no general system. On the whole, he believed that the separate system was the best that had yet been brought into practice; but he had nevertheless always looked on the separate system with much doubt, and often thought that it must undergo great change. He had always said, and would now repeat, that all who were open to temptation ought to be instructed and disciplined in habits of self-reliance, and that prisoners sent forth from confinement ought, if possible, to be qualified for a new intercourse with the world. If the hon. Member for Lambeth pressed for a division, he should certainly vote with him; but he put it to the hon. Gentleman, whether he had not already achieved enough—in fact, achieved his object—and whether he thought it worth while to call for a division, rather than reserve the further discussion of the question for a new Session of Parliament.

explained, that when he gave his assent to inquiry in the terms proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leicestershire, he did not contemplate that the inquiry should be only into one system; on the contrary, his intention was, that it should apply, not to the system in one gaol only, but in all the gaols in England and Wales, and not one should be excluded from the investigation.

expressed his willingness to withdraw his Amendment, but remarked that the same reasons which had been urged upon him to do so, equally applied to the Motion itself, to which he hoped the House would not give its sanction.

said, he, should be ungrateful, and undeserving of the compliments and kind expressions which had been used towards him if he did not withdraw his Motion, provided it should appear to be the general opinion of the House that he should do so. But he could not ask for any hint upon that subject until he had replaced this question upon the foundation from which it had been inconsiderately attempted to be removed. He should have thought that the question was large enough in itself without having imported into it two other great subjects, such as that broached by the hon. Member for Salford—the intemperance of the people leading to crime—and the second, introduced by the hon. Member for Montrose, relating to the education of youth. When those questions came properly before the House, he should take a part in the discussion of them; and when the hon. and learned Attorney General brought forward his Bill with respect to the punishment of juvenile offenders, he (Mr. O. Pearson) would not shrink from the unpopularity—should that be the result—of declaring his assent to the principles which had been shadowed forth by the hon. Member for Montrose. He had not originated this question for the purpose of casting a stigma on the separate system except as it was administered at Reading; there were, it appeared, other modifications of the same system, as, for example, that mentioned by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, in which hard labour was conjoined with separation. What he asked was, which of these systems should have the preference? The hon. Member for Berkshire had read a paper for the purpose evidently of showing that there had been a diminution of committals at Reading since the separate system began there. But if he referred to the returns made by the chaplain, the Rev. Mr. Field, the committals for 1840 to 1844 inclusive, were successively—905, 937, 920, 898, and 1,154. He knew very well that some unaccountable difference always existed as to the returns for that gaol, for the chaplain did not agree with the governor, and the governor differed from the inspector. The separate system was introduced in 1845, and the returns made to him by the governor expressly for reference in the House, gave the yearly committals successively as 672, 811, 1,002, and 1,200. The separate system at Reading included separation by night and by day, excluded all hard labour except one hour's work at a crank-wheel, which employed ten men, although it could not furnish work for more than two. There was nothing compulsory in the gaol except what they called corrective education. The felons rose at six o'clock, cleaned out their cell, went to chapel, and then had nothing more to attend to except the books, which were supplied to them in successive lots with light work for their recreation. They had so much good food that the magistrates said they were "ready to burst," and all the crime committed in the gaol consisted of disposing in an improper way of their surplus food. That was the system with which he had determined to wage war. The separate system, if carried on with liberality, was an injustice to the ratepayer and the community at large; but if administered with severity and parsimony, it was fatal to the body and mind of the victim subjected to it. He said, they had no right to inflict a sentence by law upon a person which would incapacitate him to earn his livelihood when he left the prison. He was told that in the gaol of Leicester hard labour was enforced in combination with the separate system, and the amount and quality of the food was made dependent on the labour done. That was part of the system which he advocated; for he maintained that, in order to produce any good effect on the criminals, it was necessary to influence them towards industry by the like motives which animated those who were at liberty. His Motion was, that it should be referred to a Committee to inquire whether any system could be found at once punitive, self-supporting, and reformatory. The Reading system, at all events, had not the characteristic of being self-supporting, for with a salaried trades' teacher, the whole produce of 100 prisoners was 6 l . 2 s . 8 d . Yet they had a salaried trades' teacher, dressed in uniform, and maintained in style by the establishment, to teach the criminals what? Why, the young man blushed to tell him—he taught the criminals knitting—knitting to the stalwart navigators! The light crank-wheel labour, the chaplain said, had been never refused, except in two cases, and one of these was a London thief, who said hard work would unfit his hand for his profession when he went out again. That was the system against which he fought, and that was the model prison, which he should continue to call the prison-palace. The original cost of that house was 47,000 l .; it cost 2,000 l . or 3,000 l . more, and but for his interference would have cost 700 l . in addition, this year, for another airing yard. The model airing yard was a radiating court, where each might walk without seeing his fellows. Above was an awning, which might be drawn in case the sun or the rain was unpleasant, so that the "winds of heaven might not visit their cheeks too roughly." But, more than that, Colonel Jebb, the prison inspector, having found out by laborious calculations that about 2 per cent of the prisoners were persons with whom the air that reached them did not agree—he had to remedy the slightest interference with their comfort—proposed introducing into the cells cocks to the hot and cold air-pipes, so that the prisoner might he able to help himself to his taste. He contended that such a system as this unfitted those subjected to it for the inclemencies of an English climate, and trained them to habits of indolence and self-indulgence. The names of Howard, Romilly, and Paley, had been quoted in its favour, but he believed quoted by mistake. At least Mr. Howard, in his last work, which had been already quoted, inserted a draft of a bill for a system compelling entire seclusion by night, and between the hours of labour, but enjoining such labour as required the prisoners engaging in it to be brought together. He contended that the system he proposed was really that contemplated by Howard, and that it might be rendered at once punitive, industrial, reformatory, and self-supporting; and he should be prepared to prove in Committee, upon the testimony of twenty practical agriculturists, farming from 500 to 2,000 acres of land, that the labour of 500 prisoners upon 1,000 acres of land would not only supply the prisoners but all the officers of the gaol with food, and render a surplus money production of which the lowest estimate was 1,500 l . ayear, and the highest 4,000 l . a year. Such a system, he asserted, whilst it was deterrent and self-supporting, would enable the criminal to face society again with the prospect of honestly gaining his own living. The land might be bought for 40 l . an acre, and a wall built as secure as that round Millbank, for half the cost per prisoner, as the cost of Reading gaol. After what had passed, it was not now his intention to divide; but during the first week in the next Session, he should again introduce the question in its present form; and on that occasion he hoped he should not be met with an amendment which did not grapple with the question. Before sitting down, he begged to state, that during the recess it was his intention to visit the principal cities and towns in the kingdom, in order that this question might be thoroughly discussed in the country, and that he might return to the House with his loins girded up for the contest.

Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

said, the House had decided by a considerable majority, that they intended to abrogate the privilege which Members had hitherto had of being exempt from arrest for debt. This privilege had not been given for the benefit of individual Members, but to remove the possibility of the decisions of the House being influenced by the arrest of those who might have demands against them. His view was, that, if they were prepared to abandon the privilege, it would be better to leave Members of Parliament, as regarded payment of their debts, precisely upon the same footing as other members of the community. At the time when the privilege was conceded, it was in the power of any individual by affidavit to arrest any Member of Parliament, and thus prevent him from discharging his duties in that House upon any particular occasion, when his vote or presence might be necessary for the public service. But great alterations had since been made in the law. As no person could be arrested on mesne process, there was no longer the same necessity for exempting Members of Parliament. The privilege was not conferred by any existing statute. The House by its own authority might remove the freedom from arrest, and there was this inconvenience resulting from passing an Act on the subject, that it was made exclusively applicable to Members of the House of Commons, and they could not afterwards make any alteration in it without the consent of the other House of Parliament. He suggested, therefore, that the best course would be to allow Members of Parliament to stand in the position of other members of the community, and not introduce a separate measure.

remarked, that he thought the definition of property was very imperfect in the Bill, and calculated to cause much doubt.

wished to know in what position West India property would stand. Property which but a few months ago was exceedingly valuable, would not now realise one shilling.

said, that the debtor would surrender up what property he had to his creditors, and he would then receive his discharge, and no one could remove him from his seat. But if he did not do so, then this Bill had effect; for it was solely intended and devised against those who had property, but who would not apply it to the payment of their debts.

wished to observe, that if they merely took away the privilege of protection from arrest, they would have done amply sufficient, and they need not then trouble themselves to legislate in detail upon the subject. He desired to know, if a person having property in Demerara worth 120,000 l in 1848, though it was not worth 5 l. now, tendered it at its former value, would that be deemed a sufficient security for the liabilities of the debtor?

was certainly of opinion that it would not. If the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose was adopted, it would be much more severe than the present Bill, for then every man having a judgment debt could arrest the insolvent, and hold him in prison until the judgment was satisfied.

said, that in his opinion the House was going a little too fast in legislating on the subject of their privileges, which were never yet made subject to any other control than their own. A simple resolution of the House to the effect that the privilege of freedom from arrest would only be enforced in such and such cases, would have all the effect that the present Bill was intended to produce; and this course would be attended with the advantage that the House of Commons would thereby continue to be on the same footing of equality which they now enjoyed as regarded the other House; whereas if the present Bill passed, and at any future time the House desired to revive its privilege, it would be necessary to ask the consent of the other House; and if the House of Commons was obliged to ask the consent of the House of Lords to a Bill affecting its privileges, that would be establishing a degree of inferiority between themselves and the other House. The best way was to suspend the progress of the Bill, and to pass a resolution to the effect that the House would not in future enforce its privilege of freedom from arrest in certain cases.

would put it to the hon. Member for Dartmouth, whether it was desirable that he should proceed with his Bill, after the observations which had just fallen from so high an authority upon that sub- ject as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montgomeryshire.

said, the Bill had been before the House since the beginning of the Session, and it had been sent to a Select Committee. He scarcely knew how the subject could be dealt with in the shape of a resolution. Of course it was quite competent for any hon. Member to propose a resolution for this purpose; but he was not aware that any such resolution was before the Committee.

said, the proper mode of proceeding was by resolution, and therefore he should move that the Chairman report progress.

thought that they were more likely to attain their object, and to avoid putting the privileges of the House under the trammels of the other House, by acceding to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of London.

said, that the 52nd Geo. III. applied in this case, and they could not, therefore, proceed by a resolution.

said, the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General was only another reason why further time should be allowed for consideration.

said, he should like very much, before the point was decided, to hear the opinion of the law officers of the Crown upon it.

said, that if he were bound to come to a decision on the matter without inquiry, he should be strongly inclined to bow to the high authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montgomeryshire; but, for the present, he should prefer declining to commit the House even to that high authority, more especially as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of London gave them an opportunity for further consideration on the subject.

The House resumed; Committee report progress; to sit again on Wednesday next.

, on moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that as he had received no intimation that the Bill would be opposed, it would be unnecessary for him to go at any length into its merits. He should merely state that it had come from the other House of Parliament, where it had been carefully considered; and that it had been prepared, as he understood, by one of the very highest legal authorities in the united kingdom. The object of the Bill was to remedy a great and notorious evil. He believed no one could be found to dispute that there was carried on a very large traffic and dealing in the prostitution of females. But it was much more extensive, and it was carried out in a manner that he believed few hon. Members were aware of. The Bill simply provided that any person convicted of having procured, obtained, or induced the prostitution of a female, should be punished for so doing.

Upon trial?

No. There is to be no trial; but upon conviction before a magistrate.

admitted that such was the arrangement in the Bill. But if it were objected to, it could be remedied in Committee. All he was arguing for was the principle of the measure. All he asked was, that as the Bill proposed, any person found guilty of having solicited or procured any woman, &c., for the sake of lucre or gain, should be found guilty of misdemeanor, and be subjected to imprisonment, with hard labour, for any term not exceeding two years.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

said, it was his painful duty to oppose the Bill. It consisted of only one clause, so that in affirming the principle of the measure, they should affirm it entirely. In the other House, it had had the unfavourable opinion of the law Lords; and the hon. Gentleman who moved the second reading admitted that there were serious objections to parts of it. It was a one-sided Bill, for, whilst it punished the soliciting of females, it made no provision for punishing the soliciting of men. But, above all, he found that the offence of seduction was not provided against at all by it. On the contrary, it was meant only to apply to the case of unfortunate females already seduced, and thereby cut off from all other means of obtaining a livelihood. But, again, it did not propose to punish the man or woman offending, but only the person procuring, &c. And the means by which the procu- ration was forbidden to be effected, were false pretences, false representations, and other fraudulent means. Now, the common law provided sufficiently for these offences, the only offences against which the Bill was directed. And if the magistrates did not enforce the common law, how could it be expected that they would enforce this new statute? He believed there was out of doors a great deal of morbid and unnatural excitement on the subject of the measure. When passed, the effect would be simply that, to some extent at least, that morbid taste would be gratified. But really some consideration was due to the unfortunate females to whom the Bill would apply. If the hon. Member would propose any Bill for preventing the offence of seduction, he would support it; but the less they legislated for those women who had been already seduced, the better. He should beg to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire, whether any new evidence had been laid before the House of Lords that rendered this proceeding necessary? The hon. Gentleman was aware that Bills of the same tendency had been introduced annually for many years past. But there was a great objection to increasing the number of statutes, without very sufficient cause being shown. It was said upon a former occasion, when the subject was under consideration, that there were & great many houses of bad fame in Westminster belonging to religious persons (the Dean and Chapter), who derived a considerable revenue out of them. He wished to know whether any inquiry had since been made into the condition and reputation of these houses, and whether any step had been taken by the religious proprietors to check the vice and immorality that went forward in them? He had himself suggested, and he now repeated the suggestion, that a searching inquiry into the whole System with which the Bill proposed to deal, ought to be, and it could easily be, made through the proctors of the Universities. The right rev. Prelates in the other House were all University men themselves, and they could devise and arrange the best means of setting such an investigation on foot, through the and of the proctors of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

hoped the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would not deviate from the strict question by replying to the inquiry. He agreed in the propriety of considering a well-digested plan for the suppression of prostitution; but he thought that this Bill, instead of being for the protection of women, relaxed the present law, and was in favour of free trade. As he understood the law now, it was this, that if any two persons conspired, or one party employed another for the purpose mentioned in this Bill, it was an indictable offence; and if they solicited by false pretences, although unsuccessfully, it was still an offence, and they might be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both; but by this Bill the fine was taken away, and the punishment was limited to imprisonment only. He doubted whether they ought to afford to parties the means of extorting money by making false charges of this description. He must stop this homoeopathic dose for a great evil, and vote against the Bill.

said, that the object of the Bill was not to meddle with persons in a state of prostitution, but to prevent the trade in procuring. He had the authority of Mr. Baron Parke for saying that the Act of 3rd George IV. did not apply in cases where consent was given. He had hoard it stated, on good authority, that the two daughters of a noble Baron had been sent to Paris for their education; that on their return, the vessel having met with some accident, they were detained at the sea-side, where they made the acquaintance of a lady of genteel appearance, with whom they departed; and from that day to this the two girls had never been heard of.

observed, that the 9th George III cap. 31, sec. 21, enacted that any person who should, by force or fraud, take away a child from its parents, should be guilty of felony.

thanked the hon. Member for North Warwickshire for bringing in this Bill, and hoped the House would allow it to go into Committee to correct any defects.

said, that as the Bill at present stood, it certainly was a most imperfect attempt at legislation; but he thought it was capable of being improved, and he trusted the House would give it every attention for that purpose.

said, that he had many petitions from a numerous body of the clergy, in reference to this Bill, and trusted that no defects in the Bill would preclude the House from acceding to the principle.

did not think that anything that had passed in this House ought to be taken as an indication of the opinion of the House, that the enormity of the offence was not fully appreciated. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had made an appeal to him, and had said that he had formerly given valuable assistance in support of a Bill of this kind; he denied that it was a Bill of this kind; it was a Bill which he thought really adapted to meet the evil; the Bill was rejected in the other House of Parliament, and they had sent down this Bill, which was confessedly perfectly inefficient. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had said that the Bill was recommended by a high legal authority. He (Sir G. Grey) suspected that the high legal authority alluded to must have taken the Bill out of the hands of the right rev. Prelate who introduced the measure, and induced him to assent to alterations which must render it entirely nugatory. They might he supposed to assent to the proposition that some alteration of the law was desirable; but they would stultify themselves by giving support to a species of legislation which would only degrade and bring legislation into contempt. If the hon. Member could promise that he could propose amendments which would make the Bill really efficient, he should not oppose the second reading.

was willing to give that assurance.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 6: Majority 124.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

complained of the Attorney General leaving hon. Members in the lurch in not having voted against the Bill, after having stated that in voting against it, Gentlemen voted against an imperfect Bill.

stated that he approved of the principle of the Bill, but it was upon technical grounds that he did not vote at all.

said, that he did not hold himself responsible for making amendments in the Bill.

said, he certainly understood the Attorney General as making out a case against the second reading of the Bill, and therefore he was considerably astonished when he saw his hon. and learned Friend make his exit without voting. He could scarcely believe his eyes. Under those circumstances he had nothing to do but to look to his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire for some explicit declaration what he meant to do with the Bill, so as to meet the Attorney General's objections. If the Attorney General assented to the hon. Member's proposition, it was his business to vote for the second reading. In this ease his safest plan was not in medio tutissimus ibis.

moved the adjournment of the debate until the hon. Member for North Warwickshire introduced his amendments.

seconded the Motion. They would be to blame if they allowed the second reading, when the Attorney General declared there was no principle in the Bill. The Attorney General had told the House that the Bill would weaken the protection which the law at this moment gave to women. He therefore called on the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to act agreeably to his pledge.

And it being Six of the clock, the Speaker adjourned the House till To-morrow, without putting the Question.