from its bed. They were not even allowed to receive a pint of beer from a friendly visitor, without permission from this humane doctor and his colleague, the equally humane gaoler. All this was contrary to the provisions of an act of parliament. Bad as was the old law for governing prisons, it was not half so severe as this wanton practice. It would be in vain to preach up the reformation of prison discipline, if torture and oppression could be inflicted with impunity. By the evidence it would be seen, that a considerable manufacture had been carried on in this gaol, and that Mr. Hunt offered to prove that the gaoler derived great profits from it. The commissioners refused to enter into that head of inquiry, and left it for the consideration of the county. Independent of the cruelty inflicted, enough appeared to show that the gaol was utterly without classification. The women were, it was true, separated from the men, for purposes of morality; but they were always locked up by male turnkeys, to whose visits they, at all hours, must have been consequently exposed. There was, in fact, an utter disregard of every thing like prison discipline in this gaol; and yet it had been held out as a model of perfection to the whole kingdom.-There was another singular thing apparent in these transactions. The turnkeys, or persons under the gaoler, instead of being selected from men who deserved reward for their good conduct, were taken from the worst characters in the gaol. So said the commissioners. One of them was a man who had been three times confined for different offences, and who was a remarkably bad character. Such were the persons intrusted with the gaoler's confidence. It was his duty to repeat, that the principal allegations of Mr. Hunt's petition were sustained by the evidence before the commissioners. A more important subject than the present could not possibly be brought under the consideration of parliament. The commissioners reported the particulars of the gross and scandalous conduct of the late gaoler, and expressed their sentiments of indignation thereat. There could, indeed, be but one opinion among all who heard him; it was not necessary, therefore, that he should more particularly advert to this part of the report. But he would just notice the case of Mary Cuer, which the commissioners described as "one of extraordinary cruelty. With a young infant at her VOL. VII.

breast, this young woman was, during a period of severe frost and snow, locked up in a solitary cell from Thursday till Sunday. She had had a quarrel with another female prisoner, who, with her infant, was also subjected to the same punishment. It appears by the evidence of Mary Cuer, that for the two first days there was no fire in her cell that she suffered severely from cold, and that during the whole of the four days' confinement she was provided only with bread and cold water in a bucket, without the use of any lesser vessel to drink it out of, and she was not allowed the opportunity of laying out, for the benefit of her child, the money granted by the parish for its maintenance, nor even of warming a part of her own allowance of bread and water for its support; and her own milk having, under these privations, failed entirely, no mitigation to the sufferings of the infant could be derived from that source." [Cries of hear.] He did think that this was a case of iniquitous cruelty exceeding any thing he had ever heard of. He knew of no form of language, of no felicity of expression, which could be more emphatic or more affecting than this simple and unlaboured statement of a mother, with a famishing infant at her breast, shut up in a prison at Christmas

in that inclement season when the snow and frost without, increased the bodily sufferings of those who were immured within; and denied even the sustenance of water, excepting in a bucket-[Hear, hear.] -as if it were necessary that cold water shouldbe conveyed to her in a manner which might most aggravate her other sufferings ! Good God! could the torments of hell itself exceed the misery endured by this unhappy woman? Was it possible for the human mind to conceive a picture of greater agony, than a helpless mother, thus excluded from all relief, from all sympathy even, with an infant starving at her breast, and her ears for ever pierced with the unavailing cries of her offspring for its food? Could any ingenuity produce a more deplorable or afflicting case? And did facts like this lay no ground for the proposition he was about to submit to the House? Why, he was prepared to say, that if Mr. Hunt had done no more than bring to light such enormous cruelties as these, and thereby become the cause of preventing such scenes from ever occurring again in our gaols, he might reasonably claim some consideration from a body professing, to a certain degree at C

mouth;

Tore from cold wintry limbs the tatter'd weed;

Ev'n robb'd them of the last comforts, sleep;
The free-born Briton to the dungeon chain'd:
Or, as the lust of cruelty prevail'd,
At pleasure mark'd him with inglorious
stripes"-

if, for the exertions which a House of Com mons at that period made in such a cause, it had received this memorable eulogy, what ought to be the praise bestowed on Mr. Hunt? What was his desert, who had brought to light such a monster as this execrable gaoler? [Hear.] Let gentle men consider how Mr. Hunt was situated when he rendered his country this great service. He was under the lock and key of the same relentless torturer, and even his life was in danger; for under the same roof with such a gaoler, no man's life could be safe. It appeared, however, that the visiting magistrates had offered to compromise matters with this disgraced character, after Mr. Hunt had succeeded in making known these enormities. Was it not too much that these gentlemen should think of leaving Mr. Hunt in the power of this man, after such exposures had been made? He would confess, that to him it appeared almost providential and miraculous, that the other unfortunate beings, broken down in mind and spirit as they must have been, should have had the energy to establish charges of so atrocious a nature against a gaoler under whose control they were. It was highly important, in order to show the extent of Mr. Hunt's sufferings, to read

that part of the report of the commissioners, which described the state of the apartments in which he had been placed. "We had the opportunity of seeing these three wards under different circumstances of weather; and the impression left on our minds is, that they are, for the purposes to which they are intended to be applied, the most objectionable part of the gaol. It is in this part that the inconvenience of high walls is most sensibly felt: with a northern aspect and no good admission of air, all the worst effects of damp prevail in an aggravated degree; the cold evaporations of wet seasons and the heat of the summer, each generate a species of atmosphere distressing and insalubrious. When to this is added the distance from that assistance so constantly required in hospitals, we consider the ward intended for the sick peculiarly ill-suited to its purpose. When we visited Ilchester, this ward was occupied by Mr. Hunt and the adjoining refractory ward, was given up to two prisoners who attended upon him. The magistrates appeared to have made many alterations calculated to improve the Hunt; and in the general arrangement, apartments for the occupation of Mr. it did not occur to us that the gaol could have admitted (without great sacrifice) of a disposition more conducive to his comfort. So long, however, as such an exclusion of sun and air continues, the main objection to the ward cannot be considered as removed." Why, the mere exclusion of sun and air from the prison chamber of a man who was sentenced to be confined there two years and a half, was a pretty considerable grievance in itself. But if, in addition to being confined in this way, he was to be subjected to the cruelty of his inhuman gaoler, it was no great mercy not to have taken away his life at once. Of the visiting magistrates he should not say much, excepting only of the rev. Dr. Colston. However extraordinary it might seem that an individual of his profession should be so disposed, it was not less true, that Dr. Colston appeared to have been the man, who, on every possible occasion, was foremost in his endeavours to deprive a prisoner of the means by which his health might be preserved or his comforts extended. Nay, the disposition of this rev. gentleman towards Mr. Hunt was manifested even after the new gaoler had gone down to the prison. That individual, for the sake of ventilation, had left a little

door open, which led into a sort of yard near Mr. Hunt's room. But, then down came Dr. Colston, and notwithstanding that the commissioners had reported this indulgence in terms of commendation, and that every principle of common humanity and common sense required its continuance, he ordered the door to be shut up. At present, however, not only this door was again left open as before, but even the high walls which had been complained of had been lowered so as considerably to improve the ventilation of the gaol. He (sir F. B.) did mean to say, that, after Mr. Hunt had been thus subjected to the vexatious caprices of an arbitrary magistrate, and of a brutal gaoler -after he had passed twelve months of solitary confinement (and it was important to remark, that solitary confinement formed no part of his original sentence), an aggravation which was never intended to be inflicted-he had a fair claim upon the consideration of parliament. His cause was still further aggravated, by the insult contained in the observation of an hon, member, who had said, that Mr. Hunt's was a voluntary solitary confinement; because, forsooth, Mr. Hunt did not condescend to avail himself of a permission to walk in a very small room or yard, with felons and other prisoners, who had obtained "a rule" as it was termed. Mr. Hunt did not care to mingle with these unhappy men, covered as many of them were with filth and rags. The offer itself was only adding cruelty to insalt. And on the subject of the cruelty exercised towards Mr. Hunt, it was proper to state, that at first he was allowed to see some persons among his friends; then he was forbidden to see certain others of them; and at length Dr. Colston positively prohibited all visitors whatever. These severities had aggravated the original sentence of Mr. Hunt beyond all measure. Another thing not to be forgotten was, that Mr. Hunt was only one out of a number of persons who were included in the same verdict. There were Johnson, Healy, Knight, and another individual, who were all of them included; and if there was any guilt in the transaction in regard to which they were tried (though he was at a loss to conceive how any guilty intention could have existed on that occasion, and certainly none was proved against them), each of those persons was more guilty than Mr. Hunt. Mr. Hunt was an invited person only; but the

others had framed the resolutions, and originated the meeting. Yet, strange to say, they had been sentenced to one year's imprisonment only in Lincoln gaol; and none of these four individuals had had any reason to complain of unnecessary severity. Was it possible for the public to form any other judgment on the subject than this→→ that Mr. Hunt was, in truth, the victim of vindictive feeling? The people did think that his majesty's government had done themselves no good by their treatment of this individual. They had, in fact, by their own act and deed, elevated Mr. Hunt into the character of a martyr. They had taught the people to look up to him as their victim; and after the exposures which he had caused to be made, the people could not but feel that he had done a most important service to his country. The inquiries which Mr. Hunt's representations had led to, must, ere long, tend to produce an entirely new modification of our gaol system, and of the severities of solitary confinement. However well intentioned the late Mr. Howard might have been, his system in this respect had been productive of more mischief than any other system of imprisonment. In this day it was common to hear declamations against theories as Utopian; but he knew of none that more deserved that name than the scheme for making a prison a house of reform. It was only justice, however, to admit, that Mr. Howard only intended, that the solitude of imprisonment should relieve the guilty from the contagion and example of crime. It was his wish, that the imprisoned should be treated with the utmost humanity-that they should be visited by chaplains and magistrates that they should be expostulated with, made sen sible of their crimes, and reclaimed from the paths of wickedness to those of virtue. He never wished that, under his system, men should become imbecile, or driven to madness and despair. That humane indi vidual never desired that human beings should be shut up in places where one would not keep a dog. But the men, who, to a sentence of more than two years solitary confinement, had superadded numberless cruelties, who on the victims of such a sentence had in many instances aggravated punishment by insult, had introduced into the country a system of imprisonment totally repugnant to every feeling of humanity, every principle of justice, and every dictate of common sense. On the

grounds he had stated, he did trust that Mr. Hunt would be considered to have some claim to the favourable treatment of that House. If ministers wished that these deeds of darkness should be brought to light, and checked in their origin, they must feel that inquiry and detection were -the only means of effecting their wishes; but if, on the other hand, they thought that such detection was mischievous, they would perhaps consider, not that Mr. Hunt had any claim upon them, but that he was a fit object of further punishment. Be that as it might, the public would not come to this last conclusion. Whether, however, they would remit the smaller and by far the lighter part, of Mr. Hunt's sentence, it was now for them to judge. For his own part, it became his duty to submit to the House three propositions: 1st, that Mr. Hunt's sentence was originally more than sufficiently severe; 2nd, that that sentence had been aggravated by the abuse of the powers vested in the local authorities of his prison; and thirdly, that he possessed some claim on the public gratitude by reason of the successful exposure which he had made of the abuses existing in the prison at Ilchester. If hon. gentlemen should agree with him in all, or in any of these points, he trusted that they would not think the course which he was now about to propose, at all objectionable; namely, an address to his majesty, which would give him the opportunity of exercising that prerogative which he felt assured was most congenial to his majesty's beneficent disposition, by remitting the remaining portion of a punishment, the complete infliction of which could be attended with no public benefit. He therefore moved, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to remit the remainder of Mr. Hunt's imprisonment."

Mr. G. Dawson declared, that in the observations he was about to offer, he did not mean to defend the departure which had taken place from all principles of humanity, in the conduct of the late gaoler of the prison in question. At the same time he thought that the feelings of men might seduce their judgments. No man ever went to a dungeon where he witnessed the situation of an unhappy convict, without having his compassion highly excited. He proposed to examine into the charges of cruelty preferred on the part of Mr. Hunt. The hon. baronet had

assumed, that the sentence passed upon Mr. Hunt was too severe. did not conceive that he should be justified in opening this question, and on such a subject he could not but bow to the decision of the learned judges who passed that sentence. It did happen, however, that Mr. Hunt's own complaints included not half the grievances stated by the hon. baronet. Mr. Hunt had made no complaints about the blister on the head-the irons-the water-bucket; but had represented, that he was confined in a dark room, with a high brick wall, which shut out the sun, and that he was debarred from communication with his family. In regard to the matter of cruelty, the hon. baronet, so far as Mr. Hunt was concerned, had totally failed to establish his charge; and if he (Mr. D.) should be able to show that Mr. Hunt had himself praised the salubrity and convenience of his apartment, he did trust that that part of the question would be entirely disposed of. On the 15th of May, 1820, Mr. Hunt was sentenced to two years and a half imprisonment. When that sentence was passed he applied to Mr. Justice Bayley, to know whether his confinement was intended to be solitary? Mr. Justice Bayley replied, "Certainly not ;" and added, that if Mr. Hunt should find reason to complain of improper hardship, he might appeal to the Court. On his arrival at Ilchester, Mr. Hunt was placed in a room of the prison which the hon. baronet had been pleased to call a dungeon. It was, however, situated in the female ward of the prison, and, therefore, not very likely to be placed in the most uncomfortable situation. When Mr. Hunt first arrived, two or three beds were in this room, and did remain there for one night, in consequence of the absence of the gaoler; but on his return they were removed, and a comfortable feather bed was provided for him at the expense of the county. The persons with whom Mr. Hunt had been described as not condescending to mix were not felons, but imprisoned for misdemeanors only. For the convenience of Mr. Hunt, bells were hung; and the floor of his apartment, which before was of stone, was replaced with one of wood. This was at Mr. Hunt's own suggestion. To show that those attentions were felt and acknowledged by Mr. Hunt, he would now read a letter from that gentleman, in which he stated-" I believe no man that ever lived was more happy than I am