ABOLITION OF TRANSPORTATION.

Speech of Sir William Molesworth, in The HOUSE of Commons, June ,3rd, on the second reading of the Punishment offenders' Bill.

Sir William Molesworth : There are two questions for the consideration of the house : first, whether transportation should or should not be discontinued ; secondly, supposing it should be discontinued, what punishment should be substituted in its stead ? With regard to the propriety of discontinuing transportation I entertain the strongest opinion.
For I undertake to prove that in every shape and under every form transportation is a bad punishment, I undertake to prove this position with regard to the assignment system, which was the original punishment of our penal colonies ; with regard to the road parties and chain-gangs of New South Wales; with regard to the probation system of Van Diemen's Land, and with regard to the penal system of Norfolk Island and Port Arthur.
I will show that all attempts to improve transportation have been signal failures, and that it cannot be rendered a good punishment. Therefore, it appears to me that the government are acting with wisdom and judgment in determining at once to abolish transportation, and to substitute in its stead a scheme of punishment more in accordance with the feelings and knowledge of the age. I must trespass somewhat upon the patience of the house. I hope I may be pardoned for so doing, in consideration of the circumstance that I was chairman of the committee appointed by the house to inquire into the efficacy of transportation as a punishment, and into its moral effects on the state of society in the penal colonies. The committee sat during the sessions 1837 and 1838.....

In that report the committee approved of the intention of the government to discontinue the assignment system. Now did the government act rightly in discontinuing the assignment system? The assignment system was the main and characteristic feature of the old punishment of transportation. By many persons it was considered (perhaps not unjustly) as the best portion of that system. When it was discontinued transportation became an ordinary punishment, similar to that of the galleys, of the hulks, dockyards, and gaols, of this country, with this important exception, that it was administered at the distance of some twelve or fourteen thousand miles, in a place where it was impossible to obtain efficient superintendence and inspection, and where everything was left to the discretion of all but irresponsible subordinates.....

They were, generally speaking, better fed than agricultural labourers in this country ; but, as the committee remarked, " The condition of each convict mainly depended upon the character and temper of the settler to whom he was assigned. On this account Sir George Arthur, late Governor of Van Diemen's Land, likened the convict to a slave, and described him as deprived of liberty, exposed to all the caprice of the family to whose service he might happen to be assigned, and subject to the most summary laws." Sir R. Bourke, a governor of New South Wales, stated, " that the result of the system of assignment was to render the condition of the convicts so placed extremely unequal, depending upon a variety of circumstances over which the government could not possibly exercise any control." And the committee reported, as the result of their inquiries, '* that the condition of an assigned convict was a mere lottery, that it might and did range between the extremes of comfort and misery," and they quoted the words of a Chief Justice of Australia, "That it frequently happened that lesser offenders against the law came to be punished with disproportionate severity, while greater criminals escaped with comparative impunity." I have only been speaking of the assignment of convict men ; now, with regard to the assignment of convict women. On this subject I beg the House to bear in mind a most important fact, namely, that all experience with regard to transportation proves that if convict men are permitted in any degree to meet and associate together, convict women in almost equal numbers must be transported likewise, to become their companions, or the most degrading and disgusting vices will be common. If, therefore, any form of the assignment system be re-established, women must be assigned as well as men. Now what is the description given by the committee of the assignment of women ? The committee report that " In respectable families the condition of assigned convict women was much the same as that of women servants in this country ; their general conduct was as bad us anything could be, the tendency of assignment was to render them still more profligate, all of them were, with scarcely an exception, drunken and abandoned prostitutes, and even if any of them were inclined to be well conducted, they were exposed to inevitable temptations." The committee observe, that it is easy to imagine what must frequently be the consequence of placing the children of settlers under the charge of such persons. " Many respectable settlers were unwilling to receive convict women as assigned servants ; in many instances they preferred employing convict men in the domestic services which were only performed by women in this country. A considerable portion, therefore, of the female convicts were assigned to the lower description of settlers, by whom they were not uncommonly employed as public prostitutes." In confirmation of these statements I may observe that Sir John Franklin, late Governor of Van Diemen's Land, bus stated in a despatch to the Colonial Office, that he perfectly concurred with the committee in everything they had alleged respecting the assignment of female convicts. For these reasons, and because (us the committee state) " the practice of assigning convicts to settlers has this inherent defect as a punishment, namely, that it is as uncertain as the diversity of temper, character, and occupation, amongst human beings could render it, the committee unanimously approved of the abolition of the assignment system. It is now said that the colonists of New South Wales wish for the re-establishment of the assignment system. Is this true ? Mr. Gladstone, in a despatch dated April, 1846, desired the Governor of New South Wales to ascertain the opinion of the inhabitants with regard to the renewal of transportation....
" The committee then state they will "submit" to a renewal of transportation on certain conditions, first, on condition that no system of road parties, chain gangs, probation gangs, nor "any conceivable modification of it by which convicts are to be aggregated in masses," shall be introduced into the colony. For the committee state that in consequence of that system the " worst days of Sodom and Gomorrah were not so bad as the present days of Van Diemen's Land. That such, indeed, would be the necessary result of any large aggregations of vicious men, debarred from access to female society, might have been inferred a prior. And the wonder is, how it could have ever entered into the contemplation of its benevolent authors that large masses of human beings, composed principally of the very dregs of society, and for the most part debased by crime previous to their deportation, could be thus aggregated and reformed " I may be permitted to state that the transportation committee in 1838, and myself in 1840, both pointed out what would be the consequences of establishing the gang system ; but our predictions were unheeded.

But it must be acknowledged that I there are some persons in that colony, the demoralized and base offering of the old convict system, who see in the renewal of the assignment system a mode of obtaining cheap labour, and thus of acquiring wealth. Possessed of numerous flocks, unable to hire shepherds, they wish for convict slaves, careless of the moral consequences to themselves and to posterity. Their object is wealth, and they calculate upon our ignorance to afford them the means of obtaining it under the plea of reforming our criminals. Hideous and execrable cupidity, insulting to our understandings ! Nothing, I trust, will ever induce the government or the legislature to disregard the recommendations of the transportation committee,: and re-establish the assignment system. The transportation committee likewise recommend that transportation should cease to New South Wales and the settled districts of Van Diemen's Land, and Accordingly the noble lord the member for the city of London, discontinued it. I regret that the noble lord did not go one step further, and abolish transportation entirely. In 1810, I took the liberty of bringing this subject under the consideration of the house. I endeavoured to prove that transportation could not be made a good punishment, that all attempts to improve it would be signal failures, and that it would ultimately be abandoned after a worse than useless expenditure of public money...

Lord Stanley established in Van Diemen's Land what is termed the system of probation gangs. It was intended to be an improvement on the existing system of road parties and chain gangs. That system had been emphatically condemned by the transportation committee, who had taken much pains to prove that it could not be converted into a good punishment. Lord Stanley, however, determined to try the experiment, and the result has more than justified the assertions of the committee. I will describe the main features of the probation system and its consequences. According to the regulations of Lord Stanley, convicts transported for life or for very grave offences were first to be sent to Norfolk Island ; having remained there a certain period of time, they were to be transferred to Van Diemen's Land. To this colony all other transported convicts were to be sent directly. Both of these classes of convicts were to be employed in the probation gangs for a period of lune, which depended partly upon the original sentence of the convict, partly upon his subsequent conduct in the gang....
Lord Stanley was succeeded by Mr. Gladstone, who, in February, 1846, repeated the complaint of Lord Stanley, and peremptorily ordered a detailed report of the state of the colony to be sent to him. He directed Sir E. Wilmot to apply for that purpose to the Bishop of Tasmania, to the Roman Catholic Bishop, to all the clergymen of the colony. Before these reports could reach this country petitions and letters had arrived from the colony, giving a fearful description of the results of the convict system in Van Diemen's Land. Some of them are printed amongst the papers of the house. I will refer first to a petition signed by 1700 free inhabitants of Van Diemen's Land, in which they all allege that- "They were in a state of continual, dread and anxiety for themselves and their families, owing to the number of convicts by whom they were surrounded, they had no security for life or property ; the moral condition of the colony was daily becoming worse and I worse ; no regulations could counteract the evils of the enormous mass of criminals that were poured upon their shores ; and if the present mysery of transportation continued, they must abandon a colony which would become unfit for any man to inhabit who regarded the highest interest of himself and his children." They state likewise, " that there was yet a more fearful evil produced by the present system of transportation." With regard to this subject I must refer to a letter from Mr. Pitcairn, a respectable solicitor in Van Die men's Land, and another from the Rev. Dr. Fry, chaplain of St. George's Church, Hobart Town. Both letters describe the hideous moral consequences of the assemblage of convicts in gangs in the colony. Dr. Fry says, addressing the Secretary of State for the Colonies :—"Having had occasion, about six months since to visit the large convict station of the coal mines, and the adjacent stations, I was struck with horror at the representations of the chaplain, and other accounts, which I believe the Bishop will submit to you. It is fearful to think of the scenes represented, and they are such as cannot be written. The aspect of the men indicated the dreadful habit to which they were addicted, and inquiry was met with silent reluctance, as if the condition of the men was too dreadful to speak of." He goes on to say, " Communications with various persons, religious instructors, and probation men themselves, confirm me in the conviction of the great prevalence of the evil, and the contagion and corruption among the men, which I am convinced exists even in the Penitentiary in Hobart Town. When the men are locked in (to use a phrase common and undisputed), the place is worse than hell." He adds, " I am convinced that in this country no care or vigilance in the government will prevent abuses and calamitous negligence in some or other of the gangs. The stations are remote and unobserved. It is the interest of the superintendents to conceal and overlook shocking offences. In most cases the officers of the gangs will be more anxious to have money, in order to leave so revolting a service, or to live without trouble, than to detect crime, and to watch the secret and private habits of men." Mr. Pitcairn stated in his letter that two men in one of the gangs had lately been hanged for a rape on a convict boy—that a particular disease had been caused among the convicts by the crimes alluded to by Mr. Fry, and that a colonial surgeon, Dr. Motherwell, now in this country, had had three hundred cases of it under his care. Sir E. Wilmot, in consequence of these statements, caused a surgical examination to be made of the convicts, and it was found that at the station of the coal mines, where about 550 convicts were assembled, no less than 20 men were suffering from disease produced by unnatural crime. At Impression Bay there were likewise 20 cases of similar diseases among 400 convicts. At the other stations the amount of disease was less, but at the majority of the stations the surgeons reported that there were appearances of unnatural offences having been committed. Unnatural crimes seem likewise to have prevailed among the female convicts. The despatch upon this subject from Sir Eardley Wilmot to Lord Stanley has not been published. But Mr. Gladstone refers to it in his last public despatch to Sir Eardley Wilmot, and expresses his surprise at the negligence of that officer, because, after " the most horrible and revolting accounts of the state of morale among a portion of the female convicts" which Sir Eardley Wilmot had transmitted to Lord Stanley, "he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had never followed up that statement, either by a detail of remedial measures, or by tendering suggestions of that character for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government." In confirmation of these statements I may refer to an address to the Bishop of Tasmania, which has lately been laid before the house. That address is signed by the archdeacon and twenty-four clergymen of Van Diemen's Land, a very large portion of the clergy of that diocese. They state that they are convinced that in the gangs of convicts throughout the diocese unnatural crimes are committed to a dreadful extent, and they earnestly implore that the probation system may be discontinued. I will say no more on this subject. I predicted that any system similar to that of the probation gangs would prove a failure in the penal colonies. That system has failed, and for the following reasons. It was impossible to obtain efficient superintendence over such gangs , it was impracticable to provide proper employment for them , there was no sufficient demand for the labour of the pass-holder and ticket-of-leave-men ; the labour market was overstocked, the industrious, respectable, and free emigrated , the convict population acquired the preponderance, congregated together in gangs, all of one sex, without separation and superintendence, the consequences were such as I need not repeat. Transportation to Van Diemen's Land is now discontinued, and I trust to God, forever.

Now, with regard to Norfolk Island :—Three systems of punishment have of late years, been successively employed in Norfolk Island. They may be described as the cruel, the indulgent, and the lax. The cruel system existed previous to the report of the transportation committee , the indulgent system was the offspring of the noble lord, the member for the city of London , and the lax belonged to Lord Stanley. First, with regard to the cruel system. Under it, according to the report of the transportation committee, the condition of the convict in Norfolk Island was one of unmitigated wretchedness. The Chief Justice of Australia stated that "suffering was carried to such an extent as to render death desirable, and to induce many prisoners to seek it under the most appalling aspects." He quoted cases in which the convicts at Norfolk Island had committed crime in order to be executed, and he declared that "he would prefer death, under any form, rather than such a state of endurance as that of a convict at Norfolk Island " What were the moral consequences of such a system? The Rev.R. Stiles, in a report to Lord Glenelg, stated that " blasphemy, rage, mutual hatred, and the unrestrained indulgence of unnatural lust were the things with which a short residence in the prison wards of Norfolk Island must necessarily familiarise the convict." In consequence of the cruel system, attempts at mutiny have not been uncommon in Norfolk Island. In 1831 a mutiny took place which was nearly successful. In the struggle nine convicts were killed. Twenty-nine were subsequently condemned to death, and eleven executed. This was the cruel system. For the cruel system the noble lord the member tor the city of London substituted the indulgent one, under Captain Maconochie, who was its author. According to that system the convicts were in the first instance to undergo positive punishment for a certain period of time. At the expiration of that period they were to be associated together in parties of six or eight individuals. Each individual was to be held responsible not only for his own conduct but for the conduct of his associates. If the conduct of the convict was good, he obtained a certain number of marks of good conduct. In proportion as the convict obtained a greater and greater number of these marks he was entitled to greater and greater indulgences. First, he was to be rendered independent of his associates ; secondly, he might obtain a ticket of leave; and ultimately he might procure his pardon. I will, not deny that in a proper place, and under proper superintendence, some good might not result from some modification of this system ; but in Norfolk Island, and under Captain Maconochie, it was certain to prove a failure. I presumed to make this statement to the noble lord in 1840, and I think the noble lord soon discovered that I was in the right ; for in a despatch, dated November, 1840, the noble lord authorised Sir George Gipps, the Governor of New South Wales, to supersede Captain Maconochie. The noble lord's reasons for so doing were certain statements contained in a despatch of Sir George Gipps, in which Sir George stated that Captain Maconochie had disregarded all the instructions given to him, and within a few weeks after his arrival in Norfolk Island had abolished all distincitions between the two classes of convicts in Norfolk Island ; he had extended equally to all a system of extreme indulgence, and held out hopes to them, almost indiscriminately, of being speedily restored to freedom ; he had entirely overlooked the instructions—that a fixed period of imprisonment should in the first instance be alloted for the punishment of the crime for which the prisoner had been convicted; and he had disregarded equally the effects which so great a change of discipline at Norfolk Island was calculated to produce on the large convict population, of New South Wales. Sir George Gipps likewise stated, that no attention whatever had been paid by Captain Maconochie to his communications, but on the contrary, within a few days after the receipt of them, the whole convict population of the island had been, on the occasion of her Majesty's birthday, regaled with punch, and entertained with the performance of a play. Captain Maconochie was not, however, superseded, and he was allowed to continue his experiment for a period of nearly four years. About the end of this period, in March, 1843, Sir George Gipps thought it necessary to pay a visit of inspection to Norfolk Island. His despatch of April seems to me to contain a temperate and impartial account of the result of Captain Maconochie's experiment. I will state the substance of it. Though Sir George Gipps's arrival was unexpected, he found that good order everywhere prevailed, and that the demeanour of the prisoners was respectful and quiet. He describes two classes of convicts at Norfolk Island ; first, the new hands or experimental prisoners, who had been sent there for the express purpose of being subjected to Captain Maconochie's peculiar system of discipline ; secondly, the old hands, or doubly-convicted convicts, who had been re-transported from the Australian colonies. Sir George Gipps stated that the mortality amongst the experimental prisoners had been unusually large, even for convicts ; in three years one-ninth of them had perished ; their general appearance was inferior to that of the old hands ; with regard to their moral improvement it was difficult for Sir George Gipps to speak with any degree of certainty : gambling was prevalent amongst them, they had become familiarised with unnatural crime — that crime was likewise on the increase among them ; and, strange to say, it was far more common among Captain Maconochie's experimental prisoners than the old hands. According to different estimates, from one-eighth to one-twentieth of them were addicted to it, and the consequences were loathsome diseases. Sir George Gipps likewise reported, that in fact Captain Maconochie's original system had never been put in practice ; that Captain Maconochie, from his peculiar dispositions and habits of thought, was unable to bring it into effect ; that the only portion of that system which had been tried—that of the mutual responsibility of the convicts, had—(according to Captain Maconochie's own acknowledgment) proved a failure ; and, lastly, that notwithstanding Captain Maconochie's aversion to the infliction of positive punishment, he had at length been obliged to have recourse to the lash and the chain. It is but fair to add that Sir George Gipps expressed unqualified approbation of Captain Maconochie's management of the old hands ; and from the tenor of his dispatch, it is evident that he was not inclined to deprive Captain Maconochie of that management. It is but fair likewise to Captain Maconochie's successor to state, that competent authorities have considered that the dreadful results to which I shall now refer were the necessary consequences of what they considered to be the erroneous notions of Captain. Maconochie with regard to convict discipline. Meanwhile Lord Stanley superseded Captain Maconochie. Lord Stanley determined to place Norfolk Island under the jurisdiction of Van Diemen's Land, and he appointed Major Childs superintendent of that island, with detailed instructions, it is said, as to his conduct. Under that gentleman commenced, what I have termed the lax system. He arrived in Norfolk Island in February 1844, and for two years nothing seems to have been known of his conduct, either in this country or in Van Diemen's Land, except from his own account. About the expiration of that period strange rumours, with record to Norfolk Island, reached this country, and probably Van Diemen's Land. For in 1846, Mr. Stewart, an experienced magistrate of the convict department of Van Diemen's Land, was sent to investigate the state of Norfolk Island. Here is his report on the subject. It is simply a description of a hell on earth—no discipline—unbridled and unnatural lust—insolence and insubordination without parallel in the universe. In order to form a notion of this dwelling place of fiends, the whole of the report should be read by honorable members. I will merely select an extract or two from it : —Here is a description of some hundred convicts at work at a crank-mill:—"A more disorderly, riotous, and unseemly exhibition, I never witnessed ; the men are engaged in one incessant alternation of shouting, whistling, yelling, hooting, screeching, &c, of the loudest description, and the use of the most offensive and disgusting language ; they can see through the windows all the passers by, and these, especially officers (as the commandant's office is immediately contiguous), are greeted either by excessive shouting and cheering, or by hooting and yelling ad abatum. Not any attempt appears to be made to subdue this unseemly indulgence; indeed the practice appears established, and excused as the manner in which the men incite each other to exertion. This is the explanation Major Childs afforded me." Here is the description of the arrival of a party of convicts from England :—" On landing the prisoners, those intended for removal to Cascade station were, for protection, placed during the day time in one of the wards ; the ward was entered by a body of twenty or thirty convicts, the lock having been picked, and the work of plunder, of ordinary occurrence, I may say, almost invariable on such occasions, commenced. Knocking down the men and rifling them had begun, when assistance arrived in time to check it; but, strange to say, not one of the offenders was secured or even identified, though the barrack stands in a square enclosed by walls, and two watchmen are stationed at the gates." On the occasion of the landing of another party of convicts, the men were ordered to bathe, and were marched to the seaside for that purpose, escorted by constables. A considerable number of men from the settlement rushed upon them, seized their clothes, and plundered them, notwithstanding the efforts of the constabulary. Here is an account of a visit which Mr. Stuart paid unexpectedly to the sleeping wards of the convicts : —" On the doors being opened, men were scrambling into their own beds from others, in a hurried manner, concealment being evidently their object. It was very evident that the wardsmen, not being liable to supervision, nor having any external support, did not exercise any authority, and were mere passive speclutors of irregularity, which prevails here to an enormous amount. How can anything else be expected ? Here are 800 men immured from six o'clock in the evening until sunrise on the following morning, variously by hundreds, sixties, forties, thirties, &c, without lights, without visitation by the officers, or the check that even liability to these would produce. It is my painful duty (he says) to state that I am informed, and of the truth of the information I entertain no doubt, that atrocities of the most shocking, odious character, are there perpetrated, and that unnatural crime is indulged in to excess ; that the young have no chance of escaping from abuse, and that even forcible violation is resorted to. To resist can hardly be expected in a situation so utterly removed from, and lamentably destitute of, protection.

A terrorism is sternly and resolutely maintained to revenge not merely exposure, but even complaint ; and threats of murder, too likely to be carried into effect, from the violent, desperate characters here associated, are made more alarming by the general practice of carrying knives. Now, only one statement more with regard to Norfolk Island. In consequence of some observations which had fallen from Mr. Stewart, Major Childs hastily determined to adopt a more rigorous system ; yet with extraordinary negligence he took no precautions against an outbreak. He ordered that the knives and cooking utensils of the convicts should be secretly removed by night. The next morning the convicts discovered the treachery (for treachery it was) that had been practised upon them. They immediately broke open the building which contained their property ; they attacked the officers and the police, and in the most brutal manner murdered one overseer and three convict constables.

And had not a small body of troops arrived a few days afterwards from Van Diemen's Land, in all probability the convicts would have overcome the civil officers and the military, and slaughtered every one of them, Mr. Latrobe confirms the accuracy of Mr. Stewart's report with regard to Norfolk Island, and encloses another report from Mr. Price, the present commandant at Norfolk Island. In that report, Mr. Price gives a fuller explanation of the causes which led to the outbreak. The explanation is a horrible one, but I feel it my painful, duty to make the house understand the question. Mr. Price writes to the following effect:—"In the removal of the cooking utensils from the prisoners I cannot see a sufficient reason for the murderous outbreak of July last, except in what I gathered from the lips of some of the murderers prior to their deaths. Horrible though it be, I consider that I am bound to make known to you what I learnt from them shortly before their execution. Many of these wretched beings acknowledged to me that for years, indeed, almost from their first conviction, they had been given to unnatural practices, declaring that the crime prevailed to a great extent both in Van Diemen's Land and in this island ; and from one I learnt that those who pandered to their passions were paid in tobacco, extra provisions, fancy articles made for them, and any indulgences they could obtain to induce them to yield to their brutal desires. That by their being deprived of their cooking utensils, they would have been unable to prepare the food they might surreptitiously obtain for the objects of their lusts, and that this aroused their savage and ferocious passions to a pitch of madness. This is the tale of a man about to die. The relation of these abominable practices came from men who knew they must in a few days be numbered with the dead ; and I have no reason to doubt the disgusting and horrible confession." " The address of another to myself, on entering the cell, was to this effect :—For as you value your soul, separate, both here and at Van Diemen's Land, as much as possible my class of people, We are nearly all given to unnatural practices. I have witnessed scenes that you would not believe were I to recount them. No check can be given to it but by separating the men as much as possible ; and I beseech you to use your best endeavours to let the men sleep in the cells." And with regard to the outbreak, Mr. Price states that it " would not have taken place to the extent it did, had Major Childs, with the military at his disposal, adopted such measures as the furious conduct of the convicts rendered imperatively necessary." From the information which I acquired as chairman of the transportation committee, I ventured seven years ago to predict what would be the consequences of continuing any portion of that system of punishment. My predictions were disregarded, and being disregarded, I hoped they would prove erroneous. It was with horror, therefore, that I found in the papers laid this session upon the table of the house that every one of these predictions had been fulfilled to the letter. I have always objected to transportation on the grounds that on account of the distance from this country at which that punishment is administered, the people of this country and their representatives in Parliament can seldom or never have any knowledge of the manner in which it is administered. Consequently, the authorities both at home and in the colonies who are entrusted with its administration are virtually irresponsible. The home authorities are, rarely, if ever, cited before the tribunal of public opinion, however negligent their conduct may be. They can likewise exercise but little control over the conduct of their subordinates at the antipodes. They are obliged to trust almost entirely to the discretion of these subordinates. Frequent inspection is impossible. The most lamentable abuses may be concealed for years, and when discovered, a year is frequently required to apply a remedy—the ordinary consequences of official irresponsibility, negligence, and neglect. Of such negligence and neglect the history of transportation under Lord Stanley is a striking instance — of negligence on the part of a secretary of state for the colonies—of neglect on the part of a governor of a penal colony—and of worse than negligence or neglect on the part of a functionary entrusted with a most important office. For two years Major Childs had the uncontrolled charge of nearly two thousand convicts ; if those convicts had been in England, Major Childs could not have retained that office for more than as many weeks. At the end of two years Sir Eardley Wilmot thought proper to make some enquiries as to how matters were going on under his subordinate in Norfolk Island ; and when he at last discovered that nothing could be worse, he dismissed Major Childs. Again, for three whole years Sir Eardley Wilmot neglected to inform Lord Stanley of the state of Van Diemen's Land. At the expiration of those three years Lord Stanley awoke as it were from a trance—began to wonder how his new system of punishment was going on, and why he had heard nothing on the subject. The result of his enquiries induced his successor, Mr. Gladstone, immediately to dismiss Sir Eardley Wilmot. In saying this I do not refer to the charges which have been brought against the private character of Sir Eardley Wilmot, for those charges have not been substantiated ; but I refer to the charges contained in the despatches of Lord Stanley and Mr. Gladstone of negligence and inattention. As for Lord Stanlev, he was as guilty of negligence and as deserving of being dismissed as either of his subordinates.

I charge him with the consequences of his negligence and neglect, with the existence of a state of things in Norfolk Island and Van Diemen's Land so horrible and so disgusting, that if a convulsion of nature were to sweep those communities from the face of the earth, it would be a matter for rejoicing rather than for lamentation. I speak in the presence of some who were the friends and others who were the colleagues of Lord Stanley. Let them defend his conduct as Colonial Secretary if they can. I defy them to do so. I think I have succeeded in establishing my original position that transportation ought to be abolished. The question now is, what should be substituted for it? What is the best mode of dealing with offenders against the law? In dealing with such persons the only object of the legislature is to prevent crime. For this purpose, according to Mr. Bentham, and other high, authorities, the offender should be subjected to a certain amount of positive suffering, or punishment properly so called. The amount of punishment should depend upon the nature of the offence, and should be inflicted not in anger or revenge, but as a warning and example, with the view of deterring both the offender himself and all other persons from transgressing the law. The punishment should, if possible, be of such a description, or accompanied with such measures, as shall tend to improve the moral character of the offender, and to render him unwilling to commit fresh offences, so that punishment should be for an example to all men, and for the reformation of the individual offenders. To this doctrine some persons, and amongst them a noble ex Chancellor (Lord Brougham), raise objections on the following grounds : —They contend that punishment to be effectual as a means of deterring from crime should follow certainly and immediately upon the commission of an offence ; but no punishment, they say, can be either certain or immediate, therefore no punishment can have any real effect in preventing crime. In proof of this position they allege that the majority of offences, especially of those against property, pass unpunished; that a large portion of the offenders who come under the cognizance of the courts of justice have experienced the effects of punishment, and been undeterred by it ; that the majority of those who transgress the law belong to the class of habitual criminals, men bred in crime, living by crime, whose only industry is crime, and who are constantly issuing from and returning to the gaols and other places of banishment ; that the remainder are casual criminals, who, under the influence of some strong and overpowering motive, disobey the law ; that those persons, though criminal, are not necessarily depraved ones; that in many cases they might easily be reclaimed, but the effect of inflicting punishment upon them is to degrade and demoralize them, and to force them into the class of habitual criminals. Upon these grounds the noble lord and others maintain, first, that punishment has no effect in deterring from crime ; and, secondly, that it ought not to be inflicted upon offenders, but that offenders should merely be subjected to a species of educational restraint, with the view of reforming them, which restraint should continue till their reformation be effected. With regard to the first of these positions, that punishment has no effect in preventing crime, the argument is simply this—numerous crimes, it is said, are committed, many of them by persons who have experienced the effects of punishment, thence it is attempted to be inferred that few or no persons are deterred from crime by the fear of punishment. The inference is evidently an illogical one ; the only logical inference is, that some persons, and especially old offenders, are not deterred from crime by the fear of punishment, but it does not follow that ten times, or ten thousand times that number, have not in the first instance been prevented from becoming criminals by the fear of punishment. It must be borne in mind that we have only a record of cases in which the threat of punishment has been ineffectual ; there is no record, and there can be no record of the cases in which the threat has been effectual. If the number of cases in which the threat of punishment has prevented crime were ten times or ten thousand times more numerous than those of a contrary character, yet of the former we should rarely or over have any direct evidence, though of the latter we should have, in almost every instance, ample and sufficient proof. Therefore from the facts to which I have referred, no strictly logical inference can be drawn as to the efficacy or inefficacy of punishment in preventing crime. In order to determine this question, other considerations should be taken into account.

When I consider that daily experience proves that the dread of evil is one of the readiest and most potent means of determining the conduct of men, I cannot doubt that the fear of punishment tends to prevent crime. It may not have that effect to any considerable extent with habitual criminals, or with those who have been demoralized by a bad punishment, though in all probability it makes them more cautious about committing crimes, therefore induces them to commit both fewer crimes and crimes of lesser magnitude, to which lesser punishments are attached. But in my opinion, the fear of punishment chiefly influences the half vicious and the half-moral, the weak, the wavering, and the uncertain, who compose a very large class in every community, and to whom the menaces of the Legislature supply a powerful and constant motive from without to induce obedience to the laws. I feel persuaded, therefore, that no community which exists, or as yet has existed, can positive punishment be dispensed with ; but the facts which I have mentioned undoubtedly prove that in addition to positive punishment the Legislature should employ other means of combating crime. Those means must be of an educational character, I do not now speak of general education ; though I believe (as I said the other night) that in order successfully to combat crime, not only good gaols, good gaolers, and a good system of punishment are necessary, but good schools, good schoolmasters—and a good system of education, are still more necessary. I speak of education, or rather moral training, with regard to offenders, and especially with regard to persons who are likely to become offenders. I will explain what I mean I have already said that the majority of crimes are committed by habitual criminals, who form in every community a criminal caste. The children of these persons constitute the rising generation of criminals—the future population of the gaols, the penitentiaries, and the penal colonies. They are nurtured in crime, and familiarised from their earliest youth with scenes and tales of crime, they receive, in short, a criminal education, and learn a criminal morality, the inevitable consequence is, they become criminals; in their turn beget fresh criminals, and perpetuate the noxious breed. Now if the legislature wished to put a stop to crime at one of its chief sources, it must direct its attention to these children it should seize them, separate them from their parents, and educate them in respect and obedience to the law. This subject is one which well deserves the attention of the government. I will not further discuss it at the present moment, but will confine myself to the question now especially before the house, namely, of the best mode of dealing with convicted offenders. When I proposed to the noble lord the member for the city of London to abolish transportation, I recommended him to employ in its stead some one or more forms of the penitentiary system. And I stated that in my opinion the best form was that which was originally suggested by Mr. Bentham, as preferable to the formation of a penal colony in Botany Bay—I mean the separate system. According to that system, offenders should never be permitted to associate together ; they should be visited by persons whose duty it should be to afford them moral and religious instruction : and they should be permitted, not compelled to work. This system of punishment appears to me to be the best that has hitherto been devised for the three-fold purpose of punishing an offender, preventing his further demoralization during the period of punishment, and improving as far as possible his moral character. First, as a punishment, it appears a most formidable one to the vicious and ill-disposed ; but in proportion as the moral character of the offender improves, the suffering diminishes in intensity. Secondly, it prevents the utter demoralization of the lesser offenders and casual criminals, which is the almost inevitable result of permitting them to associate with the habitual criminals or with each other. Thirdly, it breaks through the vicious habits of the criminal, changes entirely his train of thought, affords him opportunity for reflection, brings him in contact with properly chosen instructors, and thus tends to improve his moral character ; and, lastly, under this system, arbitrary punishments are not required to preserve discipline and enforce labour ; labour becomes a source of enjoyment, and the culprit is prepared for a subsequent life of honest industry. Two objections have been raised to the separate system. One is on the score of expense. On a former occasion I attempted to prove that the separate system would not be more expensive than transportation would become when the assignment system was abolished, I will not trouble the house with repeating the calculations. I do not, however, pretend that the separate system will be a cheap punishment. I consider that all our attempts at cheap punishments have been failures, and the results have been bad and expensive punishments. And I contend, in an economical point of view, a bad punishment though it may be cheaply inflicted, is in the end more expensive than a good punishment, the immediate cost of which may be somewhat greater. For a bad punishment demoralizes the offender, and returns him to society a worse criminal than before. He continues, therefore, his career of crime, and lives by crime ; and it is evident that even leaving out of consideration the cost of the subsequent punishment of the offender, the pecuniary damage which would be done to the community by a life of crime would soon far exceed the cost of the most expensive punishment ; therefore I believe that however great may be the direct cost of a really good system of punishment, the community would ultimately be the gainer by it even in a pecuniary point of view. The other objection to the separate system is that by secluding the offender, it affects his health, tends to impair his mental energies, and thus disqualifies him for an active life at the termination of his punishment. Now I do not pretend that the separate system is a perfect punishment, or even the best possible punishment. I hope that future experience and careful observation will discover the means of greatly improving it. I only contend that it is better that any other known system of punishment. With regard to its effects on the health of the culprit, I have no doubt that a sudden change from a life of vicious and uncontrolled indulgence to the quiet restraint of a well-conducted prison, is likely to be injurious to the health of very many criminals. But then I ask, would any one propose that this transition should be gradually made ? The real question is, whether the separate system is more injurious to health than other systems of punishment. The contrary, I believe, is the fact. Experience proves that every system of punishment, every mode of inflicting pain, is injurious to the health of some of the punished. The mortality among convicts is generally greater than the average ; in Norfolk Island one-ninth of the new convicts died in the course of the year, under the indulgent system of Captain Maconochie. It may likewise be true that in certain cases the seperate system tends to impair the mental energies of the convict, and to unfit him for an active life of industry. But on the other hand, every other system of punishment tends to brutalize and demoralize the convict, and to fit him only for an active life of crime. For these reasons it appears to me that the defects of the separate system are both less in degree and less in kind than the defects of any other system of punishment. I acknowledge, however, that every effort consistent with the great end of punishment, should be made to obviate these defects ; and I believe they may be prevented by precautionary attention and proper care on the part of the medical officers who should be appointed to every penitentiary. The government has taken the separate system as the basis of its substitute for transportation, with certain additions, for the purpose of obviating the defects to which I have referred. The government proposes, in the first instance, to subject the offender to the discipline of the separate system, with the view of reforming his character, and subsequently to employ him on public works, in order to re-accustom him to the society of his fellow-beings, and thus prepare him for the active life of the world. I am much afraid that, unless the greatest possible care be taken, this association of offenders on the public works will neutralize and destroy the reformatory effects of the separate system ; however, as it is a mere adjunct of that system — an experiment which can easily be discontinued if it fail, while if it succeed, it will obviate one of the strongest objections to the separate system, I shall refrain from offering any opposition to it.

The last question is, what is to become of the offender at the expiration of his punishment ? In this country, where the labour market is so frequently overstocked, it is difficult for a liberated offender to find employment, and the consequence is, that he is sometimes almost compelled to have recourse to crime as a means of subsistence. Therefore it appears to me that a system of punishment is incomplete which does not make some provision for the future career of the culprit at the termination of his punishment. What that provision should be is a difficult question to answer. The Archbishop of Dublin, whom I consider to be the highest authority on all matters connected with this subject, proposed for this purpose that liberated offenders who should be willing to emigrate, should be furnished with the means of conveyance to those colonies where they could easily find employment. They should on no account all be sent to the same place, for that would tend to re-produce the social and moral evils of transportation. But by dispersing them—by removing them from the scenes of their original transgressions—by separating them from those who knew they had been criminals, the good feelings and industrious habits which (it is to be hoped) they would acquire in confinement, would be strengthened, and a new career would be opened to them. From the papers laid on the table of the house it appears, that the government intended to adopt this plan, with the exception that instead of the emigration being voluntary, it was to be compulsory. The more I consider this subject the more I am inclined to doubt whether this alteration would be an improvement upon the plan of the Archbishop of Dublin. Consider what would be the results of a compulsory, as compared with a voluntary, emigration of liberated offenders. If the emigration be compulsory, it becomes a punishment, liable, though in a lesser degree, to many of the objections which have been urged to transportation, and of which it would be a remnant. As a punishment, it would be a very severe one to some offenders, of little or no importance to others. With compulsory emigration the unreformed as well as the reformed, the bad as well as the good, would equally be banished. Where are they to be sent? If sent all to the same place, they would form a criminal caste, and reproduce many of the social evils of transportation. On I the other hand, it would be very difficult to disperse them. Many of the colonies—for instance, the North American ones —would be unwilling to receive them ; and I doubt whether it would be prudent or politic to force them upon Canada. They must be sent, therefore to colonies that are either too weak to complain with success, or to colonies that would be willing to receive them. But the only colonies (if any there are) that would be at all willing to receive banished offenders would be the penal colonies ; and this is very doubtful, for it appears from the papers to which I have already referred, that New South Wales would only submit to it with extreme reluctance, and on conditions very burdensome to this country. Now the penal colonies are the very last places to which liberated offenders ought to be sent, for they are the least adapted for the permanent reformation and continued good conduct of such, for in those colonies the standard of morality is at the lowest. In them there exists a numerous criminal caste, which the liberated offender would, in all probability, be compelled to join and recruit. These appear to me very solid objections against the compulsory emigration of liberated offenders. On the other hand, if the emigration be voluntary, most of the liberated offenders who would willingly emigrate would be those who have been reformed by their punishment, who would be desirous of pursuing a life of honest industry, and who would be afraid of not finding employment in this country. The liberated offenders who would not emigrate without compulsion, would generally be the unreformed, who would in all probability continue criminals, and live a life of crime, whether in this country or in the colonies. If they remain in this country they would return again and again to our gaols ; if they are sent to the colonies, they would fill the colonial gaols. Now, I contend that we ought not to shovel out our worst criminals upon the Colonies ; by so doing, we do not diminish the sum total of crime in the British dominions, we only alter its location, and lay the heaviest burden upon the weaker portions of the empire. The utmost which the legislature ought to do is to open a career for the liberated offender in any part of its dominions ; and if he be willing to accept of such an opening, it will be a strong proof of the beneficial moral effects which the punishment has had upon his character, and will hold out a fair hope of his becoming a useful citizen. I feel it, therefore, my duty to protest, in the name of the colonies, against the compulsory emigration of liberated offenders. But it appears from the speech of the right honorable baronet, the member for Devonport, that another, and in my opinion, a worse alteration in the plan of the Archbishop of Dublin is intended by the Government. Not only are liberated offenders to be compelled to emigrate to the Australian colonies, but they are to be treated in those colonies as convicts ; they are to be marked out and distinguished from the ticket-of-leave men, and they are to be subjected to the special control and supervision of the colonial authorities, who are to determine in what places they are to reside. They will constitute, therefore, a separate class—an inferior, a degraded, and a convict caste—and will bring into discredit those industrial occupations in which they will be chiefly employed. In order to palliate the moral evils which are certain to ensue, the right hon. baronet says that free emigrants are to be conveyed to the colony at the expense of this country. Now, let me ask, are equal numbers of the two sexes to be sent to the colony ? As the number of convict men many times exceeds that of convict women, is the proportion of the sexes to be made equal by the emigration of a greater number of free women ? Will respectable free emigrants, especially women, consent to be made the companions of convicts ? What will be the cost of this system of conjoined transportation and emigration ? Will it be wise to confound the two together, especially at present, when so much importance is attached to colonisation ? Again, are the ticket-of leave men to be herded together within narrow limits, so as to be more easily under the control of the Government, if so, they will form a plague-spot, a second Norfolk Island. Or are they to be dispersed over the colony ? If dispersed over the colony—over an area much greater than that of the United Kingdom—what efficient control can be exerted over them? "What use, then, in degrading them by the designation of ticket-of-leave men? None whatever. Again, will the inhabitants of New South Wales consent to this renewal of transportation? The house should bear in mind that when transportation was discontinued to New South Wales, an implied promise was given that it should not be renewed without the consent of the colonists. And consequently last year, when Mr. Gladstone wished to renew transportation, he felt it his duty to desire the Governor of New South Wales to ascertain the opinions of the colonists upon the subject. I have already stated that the committee of the Legislative Council, to whom the question was referred, reported as their opinion that the majority of the colonists were decidedly averse to the renewal of transportation in any shape, and that they would only submit to it as a choice of evils, and on conditions very burthensome to this country. To renew transportation without the consent of the colonists would be a breach of faith ; and I feel confident that I speak in the name of a majority of the inhabitants of New South Wales, when I say, that they do not, and will not consent to the plan of the government, I beg honorable members to satisfy themselves upon this subject, by reading attentively the report of the Legislative Council, and the various petitions from New South Wales with regard to the renewal of transportation.

s.m.h. 8 Oct 1847,