maximum, if that maximum may at any time be repealed by the majority of the parishioners? How will the compassion and charity which the Poor-Laws have set to sleep be awakened, when such a remedy is at hand as the repeal of the maximum by a vote of the parish? Will ardent and amiable men form themselves into voluntary associations to meet any sudden exigency of famine and epidemic disease, when this sleepy and sluggish method of overcoming the evil can be had recourse to? As soon as it becomes really impossible to increase the poor fund by law-when there is but little, and there can be no more, that little will be administered with the utmost caution; claims will be minutely inspected; idle manhood will not receive the scraps and crumbs which belong to failing old age; distress will make the poor provident and cautious; and all the good expected from the abolition of the Poor-Laws will begin to appear. But these expectations will be entirely frustrated, and every advantage of Mr. Scarlett's bill destroyed by this fatal facility of eluding and repealing it.

66

The danger of insurrection is a circumstance worthy of the most serious consideration in discussing the propriety of a maximum. Mr. Scarlett's bill is an infallible receipt for tumult and agitation, whenever corn is a little dearer than common. Repeal the maximum," will be the clamour in every village; and woe be to those members of the village vestry who should oppose the measure. Whether it was really a year of scarcity, and whether it was a proper season for expanding the bounty of the law, would be a question constantly and fiercely agitated between the farmers and the poor. If the maximum is to be quietly submitted to, its repeal must be rendered impossible but to the Legislature. "Burn your ships, Mr. Scarlett. You are doing a wise and a necessary thing; don't be afraid of yourself. Respect your own nest. Don't let clause A repeal clause B. Be stout. Take care that the Rat Lawyers on the Treasury Bench do not take the oysters out of your Bill, and leave you the shell. Do not yield one particle of the wisdom and philosophy of your measure to the country gentlemen of the earth.

We object to a maximum which is not rendered a decreasing maximum. If definite sums were fixed for each village, which they could not exceed, that sum would in a very few years become a minimum, and an established claim. If 80s. were the sum allotted for a particular hamlet, the poor would very soon come to imagine that they were entitled to that precise sum, and the farmers that they were compelled to give it. Any maximum established should be a decreasing, but a very slowly decreasing, maximum,—perhaps it should not decrease at a greater rate than ten shillings per cent. per annum.

It may be doubtful, also, whether the first bill should aim at repealing more than 20 per cent. of the present amount of the Poor-rates. This would be effected in forty years. Long before that time the good or bad effects of the measure would be fairly estimated; if it be wise that it should proceed, let posterity do the rest. It is by no means necessary to destroy in one moment, upon paper, a payment which cannot, without violating every principle of justice, and every consideration of safety and humanity, be extinguished in less

than two centuries.

It is important for Mr. Scarlett to consider whether he will make the oper ation of his bill immediate, or interpose two or three years between its enactment and first operation.

We entirely object to the following clause, the whole of which ought to be expunged :

"And be it further enacted, that it shall not be lawful for any Churchwarden, Overseer, or Guardian of the Poor, or any other person having authority to administer relief to the Poor, to allow or give, or for any Justice of the Peace to order, any relief to any person

whatsoever, who shall be married after the passing of this Act, for himself, herself, or any part of his or her family, unless such poor person shall be actually, at the time of asking such relief, by reason of age, sickness, or bodily infirmity, unable to obtain a livelihood, and to support his or her family by work: Provided always, that nothing in this clause contained shall be construed so as to authorise the granting relief, or making any order for relief, in cases where the same was not lawful before the passing of this Act.'

Nothing in the whole bill will occasion so much abuse and misrepresentation as this clause. It is upon this that the Radicals will first fasten. It will, of course, be explained into a prohibition of marriage to the poor; and will, in fact, create a marked distinction between two classes of paupers, and become a rallying point for insurrection. In fact, it is wholly unnecessary. As the funds for the relief of pauperism decrease under the operation of a diminishing maximum, the first to whom relief is refused will be the young and the strong; in other words, the most absurd and extravagant consequences of the present Poor-Laws will be the first cured.

Such, then, is our conception of the bill which ought to be brought into Parliament a maximum regulated by the greatest amount of Poor-rates ever paid, and annually diminishing at the rate of ten shillings per cent. till they are reduced 20 per cent. of their present value; with such a preamble to the bill as will make it fair and consistent for any future Parliament to continue the reduction. If Mr. Scarlett will bring in a short and simple bill to this effect, and not mingle with it any other parochial improvements, and will persevere in such a bill for two or three years, we believe he will carry it; and we are certain he will confer, by such a measure, a lasting benefit upon his country-and upon none more than upon its labouring poor.

We presume there are very few persons who will imagine such a measure to be deficient in vigour. That the Poor-Laws should be stopped in their fatal encroachment upon property, and unhappy multiplication of the human species, -and not only this, but that the evil should be put in a state of diminution, would be an improvement of our condition almost beyond hope. The tendency of fears and objections will all lie the other way; and a bill of this nature will not be accused of inertness, but of rashness, cruelty, and innovation. We cannot now enter into the question of the Poor-Laws, of all others that which has undergone the most frequent and earnest discussion. Our whole reasoning is founded upon the assumption that no system of laws was ever so completely calculated to destroy industry, foresight, and economy in the poor; to extinguish compassion in the rich; and, by destroying the balance between the demand for, and the supply of, labour, to spread a degraded population over a ruined land. Not to attempt the cure of this evil would be criminal indolence. Not to cure it gradually and compassionately would be very wicked. To Mr. Scarlett belongs the real merit of introducing the bill. He will forgive us the freedom, perhaps the severity, of some of our remarks. We are sometimes not quite so smooth as we ought to be; but we hold Mr. Scarlett in very high honour and estimation. He is the greatest advocate perhaps of his time; and without the slightest symptom of tail or whiskers-decorations, it is reported, now as characteristic of the English Bar as wigs and gowns in days of old-he has never carried his soul to the Treasury, and said, What will you give me for this?-he has never sold the warm feelings and honourable motives of his youth and manhood for an annual sum of money and an office, —he has never taken a price for public liberty and public happiness,—he has never touched the political Aceldama, and signed the devil's bond for cursing to-morrow what he has blest to-day. Living in the midst of men who have disgraced it, he has cast honour upon his honourable profession; and has sought dignity, not from the Ermine and the Mace, but from a straight path and a spotless life.

PRISONS. (E. REVIEW, February, 1822.)

1. The Third Report of the Committee of the Society for the Improvement of Prison Discipline, and for the Reformation of Juvenile Offenders. London. 1821.

2. Remarks upon Prison Discipline, &c. &c., in a Letter addressed to the Lord Lieutenant and Magistrates of the County of Essex. By C. C. WESTERN, Esq., M.P. London.

1821.

THERE never was a Society calculated, upon the whole, to do more good than the Society for the Improvement of Prison Discipline; and, hitherto, it has been conducted with equal energy and prudence. If now, or hereafter, therefore, we make any criticisms on their proceedings, these must not be ascribed to any deficiency of good will or respect. We may differ from the Society in the means-our ends, we are proud to say, are the same.

In the improvement of prisons, they consider the small number of recommitments as the great test of amelioration. Upon this subject we have ventured to differ from them in a late Number; and we see no reason to alter our opinion. It is a mistake, and a very serious and fundamental mistake, to suppose that the principal object in jails is the reformation of the offender. The principal object undoubtedly is, to prevent the repetition of the offence by the punishment of the offender; and, therefore, it is quite possible to conceive that the offender himself may be so kindly, gently, and agreeably led to reformation, by the efforts of good and amiable persons, that the effect of the punishment may be destroyed, at the same time that the punished may be improved. A prison may lose its terror and discredit, though the prisoner may return from it a better scholar, a better artificer, and a better man. The real and only test, in short, of a good prison system is, the diminution of offences by the terror of the punishment. If it can be shown that, in proportion as attention and expense have been employed upon the improvement of prisons, the number of commitments has been diminished, this indeed would be a convincing proof that such care and attention were well employed. But the very reverse is the case; the number of commitments within these last ten years having nearly doubled all over England.

The following are stated to be the committals in Norfolk county gaol. From 1796 to 1815, the number averaged about 80.

In Staffordshire, the commitments have gradually increased from 195 in 1815 to 443 in 1820-though the gaol has been built since Howard's time, at an expense of £30,000.-(Report, p. 67.) In Wiltshire, in a prison which has cost the county £40,000, the commitments have increased from 207 in 1817 to 504 in 1821. Within this period, to the eternal scandal and disgrace of our laws, 378 persons have been committed for game offences-constituting a sixth part of all the persons committed; so much for what our old friend, Mr. Justice Best, would term the unspeakable advantages of country gentle. men residing upon their own property!

When the committee was appointed in the county of Essex, in the year 1818, to take into consideration the state of the gaols and houses of correction, they found that the number of prisoners annually committed had increased, within the ten preceding years, from 5.9 to 1,993; and there is little doubt (adds Mr. Western) of this proportion being a tolerable specimen of the

whole kingdom. We are far from attributing this increase solely to the imperfection of prison discipline. Increase of population, new statutes, the extension of the breed of pheasants, landed and mercantile distress, are very operative causes. But the increase of commitments is a stronger proof against the present state of prison discipline, than the decrease of recommitments in its favour. We may possibly have made some progress in the art of teaching him who has done wrong to do so no more; but there is no proof that we have learnt the more important art of deterring those from doing wrong, who are doubting whether they shall do it or not, and who, of course, will be principally guided in their decision by the sufferings of those who have previously yielded to temptation.

There are some assertions in the report of the Society, to which we can hardly give credit,-not that we have the slightest suspicion of any intentional misrepresentation, but that we believe there must be some unintentional

error.

"The Ladies' Committees visiting Newgate and the Borough Compter, have continued to devote themselves to the improvement of the female prisoners, in a spirit worthy of their enlightened zeal and Christian charity. The beneficial effects of their exertions have been evinced by the progressive decrease in the number of female prisoners recommitted, which has diminished, since the visits of the ladies to Newgate, no less than 40 per cent."

That is, that Mrs. Fry and her friends have reclaimed forty women out of every hundred, who, but for them, would have reappeared in jails. Nobody admires and respects Mrs. Fry more than we do; but this fact is scarcely credible; and, if accurate, ought in justice to the reputation of the Society and its real interests to have been thoroughly substantiated by names and documents. The ladies certainly lay claim to no such extraordinary success in their own report quoted in the appendix; but speak with becoming modesty and moderation of the result of their labours. The enemies of all these reforms accuse the reformers of enthusiasm and exaggeration. It is of the greatest possible consequence, therefore, that their statements should be correct, and their views practical; and that all strong assertions should be supported by strong documents. The English are a calm, reflecting people; they will give time and money when they are convinced; but they love dates, names, and certificates. In the midst of the most heart-rending narratives, Bull requires the day of the month, the year of our Lord, the name of the parish, and the countersign of three or four respectable householders. After these affecting circumstances, he can no longer hold out; but gives way to the kindness of his nature-puffs, blubbers, and subscribes.

A case is stated in the Hertford house of correction, which so much more resembles the sudden conversions of the Methodist Magazine than the slow and uncertain process by which repentance is produced in real life, that we are a little surprised the Society should have inserted it.

"Two notorious poachers, as well as bad men, were committed for three months, for not paying the penalty after conviction, but who, in consequence of extreme contrition and good conduct, were, at the intercession of the clergyman of their parish, released before the expiration of their term of punishment. Upon leaving the House of Correction, they declared that they had been completely brought to their senses-spoke with gratitude of the benefit they had derived from the advice of the chaplain, and promised, upon their return to their parish, that they would go to their minister, express their thanks for his interceding for them; and moreover that they would, for the future, attend their duty regularly at Church. It is pleasing to add, that these promises have been faithfully fulfilled."-App. to Third Report,

pp. 29-30.

Such statements prove nothing, but that the clergyman who makes them is an amiable man, and probably a college tutor. Their introduction, however, in the report of a Society depending upon public opinion for success, is very detrimental.

It is not fair to state the recommitments of one prison and compare them with those of another, perhaps very differently circumstanced, -the recommitments, for instance, of a county jail, where offences are generally of serious magnitude, with those of a borough, where the most trifling faults are punished. The important thing would be to give a table of recommitments, in the same prison, for a series of years-the average of recommitments, for example, every five years in each prison for twenty years past. If the Society can obtain this, it will be a document of some importance (though of less perhaps than they would consider it to be). At present they tell us that the average of recommitment in certain prisons is per cent. in certain other prisons 5 per cent. But what were they twenty years ago in the same prison? What were they five years ago? If recommitments are to be the test, we must know whether these are becoming, in any given prison, more or less frequent, before we can determine whether that prison is better or worse governed than formerly. Recommitments will of course be more numerous where prisoners are received from large towns, and from the resorts of soldiers and sailors; because it is in these situations that we may expect the most hardened offenders. The different nature of the two soils which grow the crimes must be considered before the produce gathered into prisons can be justly compared.

The quadruple column of the state of prisons for each year is a very useful and important document; and we hope, in time, the Society will give us a general and particular table of commitments and recommitments carried back for twenty or thirty years; so that the table may contain (of Gloucester jail, for instance), Ist, the greatest number it can contain; 2dly, the greatest number it did contain at any one period in each year; 3dly, its classification ; 4thly, the greatest number committed in any given year; 5thly, four averages of five years each, taken from the twenty years preceding, and stating the greatest number of commitments; 6thly, the greatest number of recommitments in the year under view; and four averages of recommitments, made in the same manner as the average of the commitments; and then totals at the bottom of the columns. Tables so constructed would throw great light upon the nature and efficacy of imprisonment.

We wish the Society would pay a little more attention to the question of solitary imprisonment, both in darkness and in light, and to the extent to which it may be carried. Mr. Western has upon this subject some ingenious ideas.

"It appears to me, that if relieved from these impediments, and likewise from any idea of the necessity of making the labour of prisoners profitable, the detail of corrective prison discipline would not be difficult for anybody to chalk out. I would first premise that the only punishment for refractory conduct, or any misbehaviour in the gaol, should, in my opinion, be solitary confinement; and that, instead of being in a dark hole, it should be in some part of the house where they could fully see the light of day; and I am not sure that it might not be desirable in some cases, if possible, that they should see the surrounding country and moving objects at a distance, and everything that man delights in, removed at the same time from any intercourse or word or look with any human being, and quite out of the reach of being themselves seen. I consider such confinement would be a punishment very severe. and calculated to produce a far better effect than darkness. All the feelings that are good in men would be much more likely to be kept alive; the loss of liberty, and all the blessings of life which honesty will ensure, more deeply to be felt. There would not be so much danger of any delinquent sinking into that state of sullen, insensible condition, of incorrigible obstinacy, which sometimes occurs. If he does under those circumstances, we have a right to keep him out of the way of mischief, and let him there remain. But I believe such solitary confinement as I have described, with scanty fare, would very rarely fail of its effect."Western's Remarks, pp. 59, 60.

There is a good deal in this; it is well worth the trial; and we hope the Society will notice it in their next Report.