Sir John Parnell, chancellor of the Irish exchequer, Mr. Pitt and Lord Melville of the English ministry, were anxious to establish the panopticon system in their respective countries. The design was not formally abandoned until 1813, when the erection of the Millbank Penitentiary, extinguished the scheme of Bentham. He had written political articles offensive to the court: George III. had attempted to refute his opinions, and cherished towards him the antipathy of a rival. A contract was formed with Bentham, to erect and conduct his panopticon: he had received possession of a spot of land assigned for the purpose, and nothing was wanting but the royal signature to his official appointment. His hopes were finally crushed by the obstinacy of the inexorable king.[55]
FOOTNOTES:
[51] Quarterly Review, vol. ii. p. 322.
[52] As a congregational dissenter, he was liable to a fine of £500, for not taking the sacramental test. It is some credit to human nature, that he was not interrupted or punished in his career of charity.
[53] Eden's Discourse on Banishment.
[54] Quarterly Review, 1822.
[55] Dr. Bowring's account, received from Bentham in 1824. In 1813, Jeremy Bentham, on account of penitentiary, £23,578.—Par. Pap.
SECTION III
Whatever advantages were supposed to pertain to a system of domestic punishment, it was opposed by formidable difficulties. To Bentham's system it was objected, that it required a supervision practically unattainable. The enthusiasm, ability, and integrity of the projector, it was alleged, would be probably confined to himself; and although the better plan, while under his eye, it would prove of all the most dangerous and inefficient, when directed by the unskilful and corrupt.[56] Nor did it prevent the return of the offender to society, and thus a relapse into crime.