Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:15:22.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

THE MAKING OF THE PENITENTIARY ACT, 1775–1779

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 1999

SIMON DEVEREAUX
Affiliation:
Green College, University of British Columbia

Abstract

This article examines the series of legislative measures, beginning in 1776, which culminated in the passage of the Penitentiary Act of 1779. It argues that, although the Penitentiary Act is of considerable long-term significance in the history of English criminal justice and penal practices, the act passed in 1779 was in fact a somewhat modest affair by comparison with the scheme originally envisioned by its principal architects. The act embodied a decisive retreat from an original ambition to replace transportation with imprisonment at hard labour as the principal punishment next to death in late eighteenth-century England. This modification arose from a pragmatic appreciation of the limitations imposed, first, by a persistent preference amongst most legislators for transportation of the worst classes of offenders not actually put to death and, secondly, by the reluctance of local authorities to have such a preference imposed upon them to the detriment of local control of punishment and of the finances which paid for it. Attention is also drawn to how the course of events was shaped by the interaction of the act's main architects, William Eden and Sir William Blackstone, with both government and non-ministerial MPs such as Sir Charles Bunbury.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 1999 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to John Beattie, David Lieberman, Randall McGowen, and Greg T. Smith, Chris Spearin for reading and commenting on an earlier version of this article. It was also presented to the Vancouver British Studies Seminar in September 1997, and I would like to thank John Craig and the other members for their helpful questions and comments. Scholarship support was provided by the Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Foundation and by Green College, University of British Columbia.