206 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE Majm. Do you not think that this arrangement would be satisfactory to the public in James Palmer, general; namely, that the grand jury should allow a certain salary to the keeper, ^ > and that the rents which he at present receives for rooms, and that the fees should ( 27 May.) go so far pro tanto towards the repairs of the prison, supposing fees to exist ?— Certainly, my own opinion goes against allowing any rents of rooms to be paid. On the supposition that fees are to continue, do not you think that arrangement would be satisfactory to the public ?— I do. Would you recommend the abolition of fees and rent in all prisons, where there are debtors of all kinds, namely, rich and poor were confined ?— I would, provided there was a classification of them. What classification would you have for debtors ?— The poor from the rich, and the riotous and disorderly from the peaceably disposed. Can you give any satisfactory reason why a man of substance who chose to remain in prison for debt, should not pay for his lodging; or does not a very dif- ferent reason apply to that man, from that which applies to a poor man, who is necessarily confined for debt, who is without the means of paying rent?— I think a man who pays for lodging becomes less a subject of discipline, which is necessary in all gaols; I think discipline is increased by not allowing any man privileges in proportion to his means. Do not you think it is possible to save the public the expense of some, by subjec- ting those who have the means, to pay a rent for their lodgings ?— I think it would be a principle of justice to the public, but at the same time I think it would be injurious to the well being of the gaol, so far as the public are willing to sacrifice the discipline of the gaol to the benefit of receiving that help towards the support of the gaol, of course you must take the evil with it. What reason can you give for assuming that such wealthy prisoners who can afford to pay for rent, are not as amenable to the regulations of the gaol as a poor prisoner; what valid reason is there for excluding the one from the general regula- tions of the prison ?— I think a man naturally claims a privilege in consequence of his paying for a thing, which he would not do if that thing was given to him according to his good conduct, under the regulations of a good governor to a gaol; and in point of fact, it has been practised within the last three months, at Kilmain- ham gaol, where debtors are confined; for in consequence of the last Act of Parliament, the court of King's Bench did order the gaoler to charge no longer for the rent of rooms, and so far from an evil, I rather think that there is better order established there. Do not you think as much injury arises to the general morality of prisoners under each circumstances, from enabling them to live rent free in a place which they select for their residence, as would arise to the discipline of the prison from exempting them from just payments ?— I do not think so, and my reason is this, that where the gaoler receives payment for certain accommodation from the debtor, I think he is unavoidably influenced to grant indigencies to that debtor, for his prompt and ready payment, which he would have no motive for giving to the debtor who paid him nothing. Will that answer apply under the proposed regulation of rents, which should be applied not to the use of the gaoler, but to the general service of the public ?— I think it would considerably lessen the difficulties. Would it not entirely remove them ?— I think it would not entirely remove them, inasmuch as I think payment naturally gives to the person an idea that he has a claim to something that the poorer debtor has not a claim to. Is not that a principal recognized in all gaols for the confinement of debtors ?— It has been hitherto, but I think it has been most mischievous. Is there not a distinction between prisoners who have money and those who have not ?— I think that distinction would rest in the breast of the local inspector and the keeper, the debtor being liable to removal, in case of misconduct, to worse apartments. Would you leave it in the breast of a local inspector, whether a man, who could afford himself a dinner of the best description, with wines of the best description, should have that dinner or not, if he can afford it, if he is only confined for debt ?— Certainly not. The Committee want to know, whether there is any reasonable objection to making those wealthy debtors contribute to the expense of lodging, the gaoler having no interest whatever in the money which is received?— I apprehend not much, upon consideration; but discipline would, in a slight degree, be injured by payment. Do