Editor’s NoteEditor’s Note1777To Benjamin Hobhouse15 January 1803 (Aet 54)

Dear Sir

Herewith (but I know not as yet through what channel) you will receive two printed but unpublished Letters to Lord Pelham contain- pg 189ing a comparative view, taken by the light of experience as well as reason, of the several modes of disposing of convicts, confronted respectively with the several acknowledged ends of penal justice.

It will be truly unfortunate for the public if the insignificance of the private concern (which I wish it had been possible to keep entirely out of sight) were to deprive the subject of the benefit of that attention on your part which its importance if regarded in a purely public view could scarce fail (I think) of securing to it.

On the question of importance, a better witness could scarcely be wished for than the Atty Genl as by a letter of his² of which a copy is annexed: but the testimony would lose no small part of its force, if it were not understood that among the statements of which he speaks there are abundance which can not but be seen to reflect disgrace, in no inconsiderable degree, on the late administration, to say nothing of the present.

Among the conclusions are—that the penal Colonization system is, in every point of view, so bad—in experience as well as in principle—as to be absolutely untenable: an opinion I had heard pronounced in the most decided terms even by men of law firm friends to administration:—that the Hulks are if possible still worse: a point established not by reasoning only but by incontrovertible documents—that the penitentiary system, after trial in different States, has already been found to succeed beyond expectation: in Pennsylvania in particular striking off near 7/8ths of the first-rate crimes, besides the whole of the expence.³

I preferred addressing this to you in the country for two reasons: it would find you (I imagined) the more at leisure: and in case of any concurrence in sentiment, you might do me the favour, perhaps, to mention some other persons, to whom copies might be sent, before Parliament met, under an expectation of finding on their part a similar concurrence.

The mention made of my name in Parliamt t'other day, was neither sollicited by me nor so much as expected. It may or may not have met your eye: some Newspapers as if studiously suppressed the mention of it.⁴

pg 190With very sincere respect permit me to subscribe myself Dear Sir etc.

P.S. The parcel containing the two pamphlets in question [was] left this afternoon at the Golden Cross Charing Cross and directed for you at Cottles House near Bradford Wilts