Page images

offences not bailable, and who do not want the county allowance. And yet no grinding philosopher contends, that all suspected persons should be put in the mill—but only those who are too poor to find bail, or buy provisions.

If there are, according to the doctrines of the millers, to be two punishments, the first for being suspected of committing the offence, and the second for committing it, there should be two trials as well as two punishments. Is the man really suspected, or do his accusers only pretend to suspect him? Are the suspecting of better character than the suspected ? Is it a light suspicion which may be atoned for by grinding a peck a day? Is it a bushel case? or is it one deeply criminal, which requires the flour to be ground fine enough for French rulls? But we must put an end to such absurdities.

It is very untruly stated, that a prisoner, before trial, not compelled to work, and kept upon a plain diet, merely sufficient to maintain him in health, is better off than he was previous to his accusation; and it is asked, with a triumphant leer, whether the situation of any man ought to be improved, merely because he has become an object of suspicion to his fellow creatures ? This happy and fortunate man, however, is separated from his wife and family ; his liberty is taken away; he is confined within four walls ; he has the reflection that his family are existing upon a precarious parish support, that his little trade and property are wasting, that his character has become infamous, that he has incurred ruin by the malice of others, or by his own crimes, that in a few weeks he is to forfeit his life, or be banished from everything he loves upon earth. This is the improved situation, and the redundant happiness which requires the penal circumvolutions of the Justices' mill to cut off so unjust a balance of gratification, and bring him a little nearer to what he was before imprisonment and accusation. It would be just as reasonable to say, that an idle man in a fever is better off than a healthy man who is well and earns his bread. He may be better off if you look to the idleness alone, though that is doubtful; but is he better off if all the aches, agonies, disturbances, deliriums, and the nearness to death are added to the lot ?

Mr. Headlam's panacea for all prisoners before trial is the treadmill : we beg his pardon-for all poor prisoners ; but a man who is about to be tried for his life, often wants all his leisure time to reflect upon his defence. The exertions of every man within the walls of a prison are necessarily crippled and impaired. What can a prisoner answer who is taken hot and reeking from the tread-mill, and asked what he has to say in his defence ? his answer naturally is—“I have been grinding corn instead of thinking of my defence, and have never been allowed the proper leisure to think of protecting my character and my life.” This is a very strong feature of cruelty and tyranny in the mill. We ought to be sure that every man has had the fullest leisure to prepare for his defence, that his mind and body have not been harassed by vexatious and compulsory employment. The public purchase, at a great price, legal accuracy, and legal talent, to accuse a . man who has not, perhaps, one shilling to spend upon his defence. It is atrocious cruelty not to leave him full leisure to write his scarcely

legible letters to his witnesses, and to use all the melancholy and feeble means which suspected poverty can employ for its defence against the long and heavy arm of power.

A prisoner, upon the system recommended by Mr. Headlam, is committed, perhaps at the end of August, and brought to trial the March following ; and, after all, the bill is either thrown out by the grand jury, or the prisoner is fully acquitted ; and it has been found, we believe, by actual returns, that, of committed prisoners, about a half are actually acquitted, or their accusations dismissed by the grand jury. This


be very true, say the advocates of this system, but we know that many men who are acquitted are guilty. They escape through some mistaken lenity of the law, or some corruption of evidence; and as they have not had their deserved punishment after trial, we are not sorry they had it before. The English law says, better many guilty escape, than that one innocent man perish; but the humane notions of the mill are bottomed upon the principle that all had better be punished lest any escape. They evince a total mistrust in the jurisprudence of the country, and say the results of trial are so uncertain, that it is better to punish all the prisoners before they come into Court. Mr. Headlam forgets that general rules are not beneficial in each individual instance, but beneficial upon the whole ; that they are preserved because they do much more good than harm, though in some particular instances they do more harm than good ; yet no respectable man violates them on that account, but holds them sacred for the great balance of advantage they confer upon mankind. It is one of the greatest crimes, for instance, to take away the life of a man; yet there are many men whose death would be a good to society, rather than an evil. Every good man respects the property of others; yet to take from a worthless miser, and to give it to a virtuous man in distress, would be an advantage. Sensible men are never staggered when they see the exception. They know the importance of the rule, and protect it most eagerly at the very moment when it is doing more harm than good. The plain rule of justice is, that no man should be punished till he is found guilty ; but because Mr. Headlam occasionally sees a bad man acquitted under this rule, and sent out unpunished upon the world, he forgets all the general good and safety of the principle, is debauched by the exception, and applauds and advocates a system of prison discipline which renders injustice certain, in order to prevent it from being occasional.

The meaning of all preliminary imprisonment is, that the accused person should be forthcoming at the time of trial. It was never intended as a punishment. Bail is a far better invention than imprisonment, in cases where the heavy punishment of the offence would not induce the accused person to run away from any bail. Now, let us see the enormous difference this new style of punishment makes between two men whose only difference is, that one is poor and the other rich. A and B are accused of some bailable offence. A has no bail to offer, and no money to support himself in prison, and takes, therefore, his four or five months in the tread-mill. B gives bail, appears at his trial, and both are sentenced to two months' imprisonment. In this case the one suffers three times as much as the other for the same offence; but suppose A is acquitted and B found guilty, -the innocent man has then laboured in the tread-mill five months because he was poor, and the guilty man labours two months because he was rich. We are aware that there must be, even without the treadmill, a great and an inevitable difference between men (in pari delicto), some of whom can give bail, and some not ; but that difference becomes infinitely more bitter and objectionable, in proportion as detention before trial assumes the character of severe and degrading punishment.

If motion in the tread-mill was otherwise as fascinating as millers describe it to be, still the mere degradation of the punishment is enough to revolt every feeling of an untried person. It is a punishment consecrated to convicted felons—and it has every character that such punishment ought to have. An untried person feels at once, in getting into the mill, that he is put to the labour of the guilty ; that a mode of employment has been selected for him, which renders him infamous before a single fact or argument has been advanced to establish his guilt. If men are put into the tread-mill before trial, it is literally of no sort of consequence whether they are acquitted or not. Acquittal does not shelter them from punishment, for they have already been punished. It does not screen them from infamy, for they have already been treated as if they were infamous ; and the association of the tread-mill and crimes is not to be got over. The machine flings all the power of Juries into the hands of the magistrates, and makes every simple commitment niore terrible than a conviction ; for in a conviction, the magistrate considers whether the offence has been committed or not; and does not send the prisoner to jail unless he think him guilty ; but in a simple commitment, a man is not sent to jail because the magistrate is convinced of his guilt, but because he thinks a fair question may be made to a Jury whether the accused person is guilty or not. Still, however, the convicted and the suspected both go to the same mill; and he who is there upon the doubt grinds as much flour as the other whose guilt is established by a full examination of conflicting evidence.

Where is the necessity for such a violation of common sense and common justice ? Nobody asks for the idle prisoner before trial more than a very plain and moderate diet. Offer him, if you please, some labour which is less irksome and less infamous than the tread-mill-bribe him by improved diet and a share of the earnings; there will not be three men out of hundred who would refuse such an invitation and spurn at such an improvement of their condition. A little humane attention and persuasion among men, who ought upon every principle of justice to be considered as innocent, we should have thought much more consonant: to English justice and to the feelings of English magistrates than the Rack and Wheel of Cubitt.*

Prison discipline is an object of considerable importance ; but the

* It is singular enough that we use these observations in reviewing the pamphlet and system of a gentleman remarkable for the urbanity of his manners, and the mildness and humanity of his disposition.

and suppers.

common rights of mankind and the common principles of justice and humanity and liberty are of greater consequence even than prison discipline. Right and wrong, innocence and guilt, must not be confounded, that a prison-fancying Justice may bring his friend into prison and say,“ Look what a spectacle of order, silence, and decorum we have established here ! no idleness, all grinding !-we produce a penny roll every second-our prison is supposed to be the best regulated prison in England, - Cubitt is making us a new wheel of forty-felon power,-look how white the flour is, all done by untried prisoners as innocent as lambs !” If prison discipline be to supersede every other consideration, why are penniless prisoners alone to be put into the mill before trial ? If idleness in jails is so pernicious, why not put all prisoners in the tread-mill, the rich as well as those who are unable to support themselves ? Why are the debtors left out? If fixed principles are to be given up and prisons turned into a plaything for magistrates, nothing can be more unpicturesque than to see one half of the prisoners looking on, talking, gaping, and idling, while their poorer brethren are grinding for dinners

It is a very weak argument to talk of the prisoners earning their support, and the expense to a county of maintaining prisoners before trial, as if any rational man could ever expect to gain a farthing by an expensive mill, where felons are the moving power, and justices the superintendents, or as if such a trade must not necessarily be carried on at a great loss. If it were just and proper that prisoners, before trial, should be condemned to the mill, it would be of no consequence whether the county gained or lost by the trade. But the injustice of the practice can never be defended by its economy, and the fact is that it increases expenditure while it violates principle. We are aware that by leaving out repairs, alterations, and first costs, and a number of little particulars, a very neat account, signed by a jailer, may be made up, which shall make the mill a miraculous combination of mercantile speculation and moral improvement; but we are too old for all this. We accuse nobody of intentional misrepresentation. This is quite out of the question with persons so highly respectable ; but men are constantly misled by the spirit of system, and egregiously deceive themselves—even very good and sensible men.

Mr. Headlam compares the case of a prisoner before trial, claiming support, to that of a pauper claiming relief from his parish. But it seems to us that no two cases can be more dissimilar. The prisoner was no pauper before you took him up, and deprived him of his customers, tools, and market. It is by your act and deed that he is fallen into a state of pauperism, and nothing can be more preposterous than first to make a man a pauper and then to punish him for being so. It is true that the apprehension and detention of the prisoner were necessary for the purposes of criminal justice, but the consequences arising from this necessary act cannot yet be imputed to the prisoner. He has brought it upon himself, it will be urged; but that remains to be seen, and will not be known till he is tried, and till it is known you have no right to take it for granted and to punish him as if it were proved.

[ocr errors]

There seems to be in the minds of some gentlemen a notion that when once a person is in prison it is of little consequence how he is treated afterwards. The tyranny which prevailed of putting a person in a particular dress before trial, now abolished by Act of Parliament, was justified by this train of reasoning :—The man has been rendered infamous by imprisonment. He cannot be rendered more so, dress him as you will. His character is not rendered worse by the tread-mill than it is by being sent to the place where the treadmill is at work. The substance of this way of thinking is that when a fellow-creature is in the frying-pan there is no harm in pushing him into the fire ; that a little more misery-a little more infamy-a few more links, are of no sort of consequence in a prison-life. If this monstrous style of reasoning extended to hospitals as well as prisons, there would be no harm in breaking the small bone of a man's leg, because the large one was fractured, or in peppering with small shot a person who was wounded with a cannon-ball

. The principle is because a man is very wretched there is no harm in making him a little more

The steady answer to all this is, that a man is imprisoned before trial solely for the purpose of securing his appearance at his trial, and that no punishment nor privation not clearly and candidly necessary for that purpose should be inflicted upon him. I keep you in prison because criminal justice would be defeated by your flight if I did not ; but criminal justice can go on very well without degrading you to hard and infamous labour or denying you any reasonable gratification. For these reasons the first of those acts is just; the rest are mere tyranny.

Mr. Nicoll, in his opinion, tells us that he has no doubt Parliament would amend the bill if the omission were stated to them. We, on the contrary, have no manner of doubt that Parliament would treat such a petition with the contempt it deserved. Mr. Peel is much too enlightened and sensible to give any countenance to such a great and glaring error. In this case—and we wish it were a more frequent one-the wisdom comes from within, and the error from without the walls of Parliament.

A prisoner before trial who can support himself, ought to be allowed every fair and rational enjoyment which he can purchase, not incompatible with prison discipline. He should be allowed to buy ale or wine in moderation—to use tobacco, or anything else he can pay for, within the above-mentioned limits. If he cannot support himself and declines work, then he should be supported upon a very plain, but still a plentiful diet (something better, we think, than bread and water), and all prisoners before trial should be allowed to work. By a liberal share of earnings (or rather by rewards, for there would be no earnings), and also by an improved diet, and in the hands of humane magistrates, *

All magistrates should remember that nothing is more easy to a person intrusted with power than to convince himself it is his duty to treat his fellow creatures with severity and rigour, and then to persuade himself that he is doing it very reluctantly and contrary to his real feeling.

« PreviousContinue »