ion 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:

[Footnote 51: _Quarterly Review_, vol. ii. p. 322.]

[Footnote 52: As a congregational dissenter, he was liable to a fine of
L500, 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.]

[Footnote 53: _Eden's Discourse on Banishment._]

[Footnote 54: _Quarterly Review_, 1822.]

[Footnote 55: Dr. Bowring's account, received from Bentham in 1824. In
1813, Jeremy Bentham, on account of penitentiary, L23,578.--_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.

The large preliminary outlay required to test the scheme of Bentham,
which exceeded his first calculations, was urged against its trial, and
its complicated details wearied the attention of the county magistrates.
They preferred transportation, and cheerfully resigned the offender to
the good or ill-fortune of his colonial career.

These views were strengthened by the increasing aversion to capital
punishments. To detain a criminal for life seemed cruel to himself, and
to release him would be perilous to the community. His treatment while
in bonds, would vary with the temper of individuals entrusted with his
punishment. This, Bentham himself confessed: he observed--"different
tempers prescribe different measures of security and indulgence. Some
forget that a convict in prison is a sensitive being