subject was first agitated in this country, the opinions of Mr. Howard and of Mr. Justice Blackstone were fully delivered; to the former of whom the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Wilberforce) has undoubtedly alluded. Certainly no men were better able to form a correct judgment upon this important subject. But, so far was Mr. Howard from approving of solitary confinement as a punishment, that he distinctly expressed his abhorrence of it. I have heard him again and again say that such punishment was too severe for human reason to endure: I have heard him say that he had more than once seen instances of its melancholy effects, by the derangement and madness, in its most hideous forms, of the unfortunate prisoners upon whom it was inflicted. It is indeed much to be lamented that this punishment is ever sanctioned by the name of Howard. I have seen a fellow-creature sentenced to solitary confinement for two years. I hope that the exercise of such power will soon be terminated: and that the different persons who are intrusted with the administration of the justice, of the country will reflect upon the words of the immortal Howard :—“ Solitary imprisonment is too severe for mankind to endure." Sir, I shall give my hearty concurrence to this motion.

Mr. Wilberforce rose to explain. He said he was sorry to be misunderstood. What he observed with respect to solitary imprisonment, was that it might be a punishment usefully and judiciously applied, and in this opinion he was borne out by Mr. Howard, whom he distinctly remembered to have heard say, that solitary confinement used as a medicine to the mind, gave an opportunity to the penitent of reflecting upon his misconduct, and of reforming the base passions of his heart.

Sir Samuel Romilly rose to speak in reply. He said as there seemed to be but one opinion in the house as to the principle of the subject under discussion, he should not occupy much more of the time of the house. But I am the more inclined, said he, to trespass, for a short time, on its attention, because I am

anxious to remove an unfavourable impression which seems to possess the minds of some gentlemen as to the occasion of this subject being brought forward at so late a period of the session. I did hope the house would have acquitted me of any disposition to take it by surprise, after the course of conduct which I have pursued upon this subject. The house may recollect that I made a motion similar to this much earlier in the present session, and that I stated that it was not my intention then to press the house to a decision upon it, but that I was only desirous of putting his Majesty's ministers in possession of what I had in contemplation to do, and if they wished to consider the subject before the house was called on to decide upon it, I would withdraw my motion and move it again on a future day. It has since been put off from time to time for the convenience of the ministers, or because other matters thought to be more important have occupied the attention of the house. Under these circumstances, I certainly cannot accede to the proposal of again withdrawing my motion until the next session, for the purpose of having the subject then referred to a committee. In the first place, I cannot see what a committee is to do; is the committee to inquire into the effects of the Penitentiary Houses where they have been tried? What necessity can there be for this inquiry, when it appears to be the unanimous opinion of the house that they would be attended with good effects?

It is said that improvements might possibly be made in the plan of Penitentiary Houses, and that in a committee, a great deal of information might be collected on the subject: and a learned gentleman has said, that by this mode of proceeding, we shall gain time in furthering our object; but with a plan so matured, and stated to us with such details as that which we have before us, ought we to lay it aside, because there is a chance of improvements being made upon it, till a committee shall have considered the subject, and examined all the different ideas which may be suggested to them, and have made a report upon them. The present plan was the result of long and mature consideration.

It had been suggested and considered for several years before the bill was passed. It was the work of men who had devoted great part of their lives to the subject, and after they had advanced so far as to get their plan embodied in an act of parliament, we are now desired in a future session of parliament to begin again, and to send the subject for consideration to a committee: the committee after mature reflection, and much time spent, may make their report; they may recommend a plan which may appear to them more perfect than this, in the course of some years we may perhaps hope to have another act passed, and when that act has remained unexecuted as this has done, we shall be just where we now are, and some member may hereafter be requiring the house as I now am, to desire the execution of the law they have made; and this course is recommended to us as the means of gaining time. I cannot but think that it would occasion a great loss of time. If the address is carried, and effectual steps are taken for erecting the Penitentiary Houses, still there will be time enough before they are completed to pass any acts in the course of the next sessions, which may be thought to improve the system. But my learned friend, the Solicitor General, has suggested that the committee might inquire into the state of our jails, and the improvements to be made in them, and that both objects may be accomplished at the same time. I cannot but think that by pursuing these different objects at the same time, we are likely not to accomplish either of them, and that after a great deal of time has been occupied, the matter will, from our attempting too much at once, be likely to fall again into neglect, and to be forgotten, as has happened before. Notwithstanding what has been said of the state of the prisoners on board the hulks, I am still convinced that the evils which attend that species of punishment, far surpass any advantages that may be supposed to result from them; where prisoners of all descrip tions are confined together, and where, as is now the case, boys of 15 or 16, are compelled to be the companions of the most depraved and profligate of mankind, it is impossible that the worst consequences should not follow to the unhappy wretches

who are subjected to this punishment, as well as to the commu nity. With respect to solitary confinement, I entirely concur in what has been said of it by the member for Yorkshire. I have always thought that complete solitude, and without occupation of any kind, was much too severe a punishment to be inflicted for any offence. Indeed one cannot but be shocked, when one reflects upon the levity with which such punishments have of late years been inflicted in this country, without any considerations of the effect which it might have upon the temper or disposition of the unhappy creatures who were doomed to endure it: I have myself known instances some few years ago, of persons who for the offence of uttering seditious words, have, at courts of quarter sessions, been sentenced to two years of solitary imprisonment. It has been justly observed, that those are the best punishments which inflict the least suffering upon the convict, but inspire the most terror in others. The punishment of solitary imprisonment just reverses this rule, and no uneducated and unreflecting individual can conceive before hand all the horror of that new mode of existence, by which he is suddenly cut off from all the rest of mankind, and left in a state of total silence and seclusion; in many instances it is said to have produced despair and madness; it is a punishment too easily abused to be safely left to the discretion of justices of the peace. Solitary confinement as a mode of compelling the most hardened and daring offenders to submit to the rules and discipline of their prisons, may, upon occasion, and for very short periods, be advantageously resorted to; but to make solitude itself a punishment, accompanied with idleness, and that for uncertain and indefinite periods of time, cannot in my opinion, under any circumstances be justified. The house will, I hope, not think that I am trespassing improperly on their patience, if I take this opportunity to mention, that lately persons have been authorized by law in this country, to inflict solitary imprisonment as a punishment, where a very slight, or perhaps no offence at all, may have been committed. An act of parliament has very recently passed through this and the other house of parliament as a private bill,

·

t

and without the attention of any of the members being called to it in any one of its stages, the Lambeth Poor-bill, by which power is given to any one churchwarden or overseer of the poor, to punish any of the paupers who may be maintained in the workhouse, for the offence of profane cursing or swearing, or for using abusive language, or disobeying the reasonable commands of any person put in authority over them, or any other misbehaviour, with corporal punishment, or with confinement in the workhouse, which being itself in a great degree a place of confinement, must necessarily be solitary imprisonment, for any time not exceeding 48 hours. After the bill had passed, the injustice which it had done was called into notice, and a right honourable friend of mine (Mr. Sheridan,) gave notice of a motion on the subject, which from probably not knowing how after the bill had passed, the evil could in this session be remedied, he has as I understand abandoned. The fact however, sir, is, that however unjust this may be, it is not the first time that the legislature has been guilty of such injustice.

Many acts have passed of late years, by which this species of penal law has been enacted for individual parishes, varying, indeed, in their circumstances according to the fancy of the person who has drawn the bill, but all in the same spirit. In some the power of imprisonment, or corporal punishment, is given to parishofficers; in some to guardians of the poor; in some to the keepers of workhouses. In some of those bills, the power of solitary imprisonment is given in express terms, in some the term of imprisonment is defined, in others it is unlimited. In the act for the parish of Hampstead, the 39 and 40th of the King, power is given to the master or mistress of the workhouse to punish any person there maintained, who shall be guilty of profane swearing, or of using any abusive or improper language, with solitary confinement, and that for an unlimited period, and without any other control than that it is to be subject to the approbation of the guardians of the poor. If this were confined to the offence of swearing, the enormous severity of it could not fail to strike every