The Sun.
London, England, 1822-02-26 00:00:00

1 ,7)

SUN.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1822.

the minds of the people. On these grounds he
should support the prayer of the Petition.
The Petition was then read,.and laid on the
table..

Viscount 111ELvILLE presented a petition from
certain Land-owners of the county of 11Tigtonn,
praying for AgriCultural relief. Read, and laid
on the table. ; :

Mr. SCOTT, from the Chamber of the City of London, pre,
vented Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditure of the Or.
phans' Fund. Laid on the table.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
MISCELLANEOUS.

A person from the Bank presented Accounts of the Balance
of Cash in the hands of the Bank of England.—Ordered to be
ririnted.
Mr. SCOTT (from the office of the Chamberlain of the City
of London) presented an Account of the Orphans' Fund, and
other Accounts.—Ordered to be printed.•
Sir W. GUISE presented two Petitions from the distressed.
Agriculturists of two towns in the county of Gloucester, pray-
ing the House to take their 'rase into consideration.—Ordered
to lie on the table- •
Mr. GOOCH presented a Petition from certain Occupiers
of Land in the county of Sussex, praying the imposition of
Protecting Duties on imported Gram.—Ordered to lie on the
table.

Lord ALTHORPE presented a Petition from Lieut. John
Crouch, of the Royal Navy, setting forth that the petitioner
after serving his country for many years, and receiving se-
vere hurts in fighting with its enemies, had rendered important
services to his country in -other ways.' He had saved not less
than 20,000,0001. in property of British merchants. He had
supplied important corrections to the charts now in use, and
had produced various useful and important inventions. Ile
prayed to have his case taken into consideration, and begged to
cite to the House two instances in which pecuniary remunera-
tion had been given to those who had exerted themselves to
supply nautical improvements. The one was the case of a
Lieut. Popham, who had received 50001. for his services ; and
a ropemaker, in the Haymarket, had been voted the suns of
60,0001. for discovering an improved way of making cables.
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.
FOREIGN COMMERCE.
Mr. WALLACE was aware that it was not customary to
bring forward business of importance so early in the day, but
as he could anticipate no objection to the motion he lad to
make, he would forthwith proceed to submit it to the House.
He rose to move for the re-appointment of the Committee,
which sat last Session on the Foreign Trade of the Country.
He had, on a former occasion, so fully explained the objects
to be pursued by the Committee, that to enlarge on the subject'
now was wholly unnecessary. Measures were already in ope-
ration, which lie hoped would relieve British Commerce, and
aided by such other regulations as might be deemed eligible,
would. he trusted, make this country the great emporium of
commerce. lie was anxious that the harbour duties on foreign
merchant ships shouldsbe removed. He had stated on a former
occasion, what he considered would be the effect of those
duties. The opinion which he had then expressed was con-
finned by all the intelligence which he had since received. In
consequence of the high duties which attached to their ap.
proaching our coast, unless in imminent danger, many vessels
had kept the sea in bad weather, and much property and many
valuable lives had been lost. The Committee had been en-
gaged in inquiries on this subject when their labours were
interrupted by the prorogation of Parliament. He now wished
for the ssivival of the Committee, with a view to the resunip-
lioniof that inquiry. Many other matters would come before
them, but that was one of such immediate importance, that he
mentioned it as one of the first objects that would claim their
attention. He moved for the appointment of a Committee, to
take into consideration the means of improving and maintain-
ing our foreign trade.
The motion was agreed to,_ and a Committee forthwith ap-
pointed, (for the Names of Which, see the article under the
head of "-Parliamentary Proceedings.")

CIVIL 141`8T.'
Mr. LENNARD postponed the motion, of which he had
given notice, on the subject of the Civil List, till after the Easter
recess.

FUNERAL OF THE LATE QUEEN.
Mr. BENNETT postponed the motion of which he had
given notice respecting the occurrences which took place on
the day of the Queen's Funeral, from the sth to the 6th of next
month.

Sir R. HERON gave notice that he would; on an early day,
move for leave to bring in a Bill to do away with the necessi-
ty for renewing offices and commissions after a demise of the
Crown. He also gave notice that shortly after the Easter re-
cess, he would movefor leave to bring in a Bill to alter the Law
of Settlement, with a view of making a better provision for
labourers.

the end of that Act came the regulation that Petitions, might be
sent free of postage, being open at the ends, and not exceeding
six ounces in weight. If this should happen by any means
to get abroad, the publicity it would gain would be very ser-
viceable.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ofFered a few
observations, which we 6 inaudible in the gallery, and the con-
versation terminated.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS, AND PARLIAMEN-
TARY REFORM.
Sir T. ACLAND presented a Petition from the Gentry,
Clergy, and Freeholders of the County of DeVon, praying for
relief from Agricultural' Distress, and also for relief by Par.
liamentary Reform. Though the distress was great, the Peti-
tioners did not claim relief by protecting or prohibitory duties,
as they were of opinion that the'distress sprang from causes
to which such remedies would not apply. They considered
them to be in part the effect of taxation, and they were there-
fbre of opinion that it was necessary to diininish the public
establishments—to adopt a -system of severe economy with
respect to what remained, awl to pare down with an, unsparing
hand all the salaries, from the highest Officers in the State
down to the lowest. It was his duty to state, that the meeting
at which this Petition had been voted was unanimous on these
points; but there was another clause on which a difference of
opinion existed, that which expressed a hope that relief would
.be afforded by that House going into an inquiry int& the pre-
sent state of the representation, with a view of effecting a
timely and salutary Reform in Parliament. He (Sir T. Ac-
land) agreed with the Petitioners that a system of severe eco-
nomy ought to be adopted, but on that part of their Petition
where they called for a timely and salutary Reform in Parlia-
ment, he would now say, ache had the honour of saying to the
Petitioners at the meeting, he differed from .those who favoured
that call. On this subject it was his opinion he should best do
his duty to his constituents by acting on his own judgment. The
Petition was not framed exactly in the usual way. Instead
of praying the House to accord that which they. desired, they
confidently relied that the House would afford the relief they
craved. He however hoped, when he stated that he was pre-
sent.at the meeting, and knew the intentions of the Petition-
ers, that any little informality of this sort would not prevent
the House from receiving the Petition.
Lord °REAVES said, it came within his knowledge that
when it was known that the Petition called for a Reform in
Parliament, a great number of respectable men, of high rank
and consideration in the county, desired to withdraw their
names from it. He did not believe. that on that subject the
sentiments of three-fourths of the county of Devon were ex-
pressed in the Petition.
Mr. NEW MAN stated many to have been disposed to sign
the Petition, and to call for a Reform in Parliament, who had
been preventing from doing so by inability. to bear the charge
of the travelling expences. This might account for its not
being more numerously. signed. At the meeting a very large
majority had been in favour of a Reform in Parliament.
Lord EBRINGTON thought the Noble Lord could not im-
pugn the numbers and respectability of the meeting, and he
could not deny that that part of the Petition which related to
Reform in Parliament had been carried by a very great ma.
jority. To prove what were the feelings of the people in
Devon generally, he would remind the Noble Lord that a
meeting had been held last year on the subject of Parlia-
mentary Reform, and a Petition voted, which, in the course of
ten days. received the signatures of 4,000 Freeholders—a
greater number, he believed, than had ever united in one cause
in that country. •
Lord GREAVES and Lord EBRING TON severally explained.
The Petition was ordered to be printed.
ILCHESTER JAIL.
Mr. Alderman WOOD wished shortly to call the attention
of the House to the case of two persons who' had died in Il-
chester Jail : but, in the first-place, he thought it necessary to
call for the) proceedings before the Coroner's Inquest which
had been held on their bodies. He moved an Address to his
Majesty, praying that he would be pleased to direct that acopy
of the notes taken on the Ifith, 19th, and 20th January, at the
Inquest held on the bodies of James Bryan and Honey
wood, before Upham, Esq. Coroner for the county, should
be laid before the HOuse.
Mr. PEEL made a few remarks on the difficulty of comply-
ing. with the motion, and on the attendant expence ; and, after
a few words from Mr. Bennett, Mr. Alderman t 1 ood withdrew
his motion till to-morrow.
IRISH TITHES.
Mr. BROUGHAM wished to ask his Hon'. Friend, Mr.
Mine, if he would postpone his motion on, th,e subject of
Tithes till after the Laster recess. He begged:ter-suggest that
it was desirable that the greater part of those Members Of 'the
House who were in the profession of the law should' be present
when the subject came on, and these must leave town to go
on the Circuits in the course of next week: Be therefore
thought it would be better for the question itself that the
subject should stand over for the present, for the reason he
had• given, and also for the purpose of affording time to
his Majesty's . Government to conic to some decision on the
subject.

Sir.
HUM; consented to put off his motion till the 16th of
April. •

fir .r. NEWPORT remarked, that than this, there was no
question connected with Ireland of more vital importance.—
1.1; was sure that nothing would be more soothing to the peo-
ple of that country than to know that that subject was under
the consideration of Government. For 44 years, within his
knowledge, this had' been the leading cause of all the evils that
had been known in Ireland. '

tier. GOULBURN said, the attention of the Irish Govern-
ment had been directed to this subject. But in the present state
of that country, the Right Honourable Baronet must be aware
that if the Government had been longer there than it had yet
been, there were other matters which would have demanded its
immediate care. •

Sir J. NEWPORT imputed no blame or dereliction of duty
but he gave it as his opinion that the consideration of the sub.
ject would prove highly beneficial.
POOR LAWS.

Sir 'l'. LETHBRIDGE begged to put a question to the
Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Scarlett). He wished to
know if the lion. and Learned Gentleman intended to intro-
duce any new Bill on the subject of the Poor Laws ?
SCARLETT could not answer the question till he saw
whether or not the Noble Lord meant to persevere in his plan
for lending 4,000,0001. or any considerable sum to the Over-
seers of parishes.—(Hear, hear !)—lf he did, he (Jr. Scarlett)
saw no hope of ameliorating the Poor Laws.—(Hear, hear !)
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.
Mr. JAMES rose, pursuant to a notice which he had given,
to bring under the consideration of the House a subject on
which some conversation had taken place a few evenings ago ;
a rule established in certain places, which went to violate the
security hitherto extended to confidential communications by
letter. He had complained, in his place, of letters from him
to an individual now confined in Lancaster jail, and suffering
a most cruel sentence of two years imprisonment for attending
a Reform Meeting, having been opened. These had been
broken open by the jailor as well as those written by the indi-
vidual (the prisoner) to him (Mr. James). In one instance,
the letter written by his Correspondent had been wholly with-
held, and only a copy of it sent to him. Petitions and public
documents, the transmission of which could excite no just sus-
picion, had shared the same fate. This was a practice which
be thought the House ought not to sanction. Let them only
reflect to what abuses it might lead. If letters were thus in-
tercepted, the greatest cruelty might be exercised, the greatest
oppression carried on ; nay, torture even might be inflicted,
and yet the fact might be concealed from every human being.
It was enough that personsin confinement were eta off from
unrestricted communications with their friends, but the practice
of preventing them from writing to Members of Parliament on
the subject of their sufferings ought never to be countenanced.
He should perhaps be told. that there were visiting Magistrates
to whom any complaint might be made: But this did not
satisfy hini2 knowing as he did, that in some of those prisons
where visiting Magistrates superintended, the greatest cruelties
had been inflicted, and Gentlemen had been found in that
House ready at all times to rise, and not only to vindicate,, but
even to eulogise • the parties with whom they originated, pro-
bably in ignorance of their real character. He considered this
inquisitorial and legal practice to 'have 'originated with cer-
tain Lancashire Magistrates known to be unfriendly to Reform,
who had authorised the opening of letters in order to detect
any thing that might be said on that subject in letters ad-
dressed to prisoners. It appeared that the Magistrates had
had some doubts as to the legality of their proceedings in this
instance, and they had in consequence taken the opinion of
Counsel on the subject. But even this was not enough for
them, and they in con Sequence applied themselves to form a
new code for the jail, by which all prisoners of a particular
class were liable to have their letters opened. It was fit that
they should see how the law stood on this subject. By the

~t '

PRICE SEV2NPENCp

statute of the 9th Queen Ann, cap: 7, it was enacted thae no
person or persons should wilfully or --knowinkly opt tie ivOil
hold, delay, or suppress any letter before it should be given its
the-person to whom it had been addressed, except by an ex-
press warrant given under the hand of one of the principal 4e:
crttaries of State. • He. would next refer to the opinion givth
by a Noble Lord, late Secretary of State ' for the Home,De-
partment. In consequence 'of a practice which had obtainedt
he sent a letter to the keeper of Gloucester, dated Nov. fr,
1314, which letter was sent as a'circular to every county jail in
the kingdom, and ran thus i—
" Sin—l have just discovered, in consequenee of complaints
made on the subject of the management of Gloucester Gaol,
that it appears there has been a practice of opening letters from
felons confined by the gaoler,under a notion that he had a 'right
to do so, I think it necessary, to repeat the opinion expressed
my letter of the 12th July last, that thelaw will not warrant
such a practice. " SIDMOUTILs'
Such being the law, then, according to the opinion al'. 'the
Noble Lord, that no letter from a felon Could be opened-rill
the law was repealed, he apprehended there was no
.power 'to
set it aside. Were this done,-it would be a violation of one' of
the articles in the Bill of Rights, which declares that " the law
of the land cannot be suspended or dispensed with without the
authority of Parliament.' He understood the practice in quest
tion was to be justified under an Act passed the reign of
George the Second. By the Act of the 82d George the Second,
cap. 28. it was enacted, in order to correct oppressions.aild
exactions from debtors, that had occurred on the part of
certain gaolers, that proper rules and regulations should' tis
framed in conformity with an Act passe some time before
for the relief of distressed debtors. This Act had been fran,-
ed in the spirit of humanity, and had not been intended to
furnish the means of aggravating the suff2rings of those
who were confined. But letters had been broken open in the
had
of Lancaster before the rules professed to be acted upon
had been framed. He thought he did not speak too strongly
on this subject, when he described such conduct to be scan-
dalously illegal. Even Mr. Hunt, though the Attorney'-Ge-
heral stated him to be all but 'guilty of high treason—Mr.
Hunt, persecuted as he was for the great exertions he had made
in the cause of humanity, had not had this grievance to Corn--
plain of: and was that to be 'introduced into the jail of Lan-
caster, from which he had been exempted ? He knew not what
would be the decision of the House on the subject. After what
they had lately seen, he should not be surprised to find some
Hon. Member rise there, to declare that such a practice was
necessary, to preserve the lives and property of the people or
this country. From reference to an opinion expressed by Sir
S. Romilly, on presenting a petition in 1812, with respect to
the treatment of persons in confinement, he argued that the
jailer or Magiitrates- had no right thus to aggravate the 'suffer.,
ings of persons in that unfortunate situation. lie was of
mon the Act of the 32d of Gee. 11., did not give any such
powers, and if it did, the sooner they were taken away the bet-
ter. He now called upon the House to decide whether the
practice to which he had directed their attention was or was rut
a breach of privilege. He had no pretensions to say what
were or what were not their privileges, and for the break-
ing 'open of his letters he should have been disposed to have
brought an action in a Court of law, confident of gaining
a verdict from an impartial Judge and Jury • but when he
heard other Members of greater importance dian himself de-
clare it to be a breach of their privileges, he immediately gave
notice of his present motion, convinced that in thus vindicating
them, he vindicated the privileges of the people. He moved
the following resolution-:—" That it is the opinion of this
House that any person breaking open, detaining, or suppres-
sing a letter addressed by any prisoner or other person to a
Member of this House is guilty of a breach of the privileges of
this House."
Lord STANLEY did not see on what ground the motion of
the lion. Gentleman for declaring the opening of a letter from
a prisoner to a Member of Parliament a breach of their pri-
vileges, could be sustained. A similar question had been started
last year, and referred. to a Committee of Privileges, and he
had never heard that they felt it incumbent upon them to Wu.
the subject forward. That the practice complained of wO'uld-,
under some circumstances, amount to a breach of moral justice
between man and man, no one could deny ; but there were Ihnith
to the privileges due to letters, and when he found that the opi-
nions of Gentlemen of the profession of the law, of Magistrates,
and even of the Judges ofthe land, were strongly in favour of the
practice complained of in a case like that most particularly' re--
ferred to, he could not think that there were sufficient grounds
for assuming that a breach of privilege had been committed.
One of she rules ordered that the Keeper of the Jail should
examine all correspondence carried on by prisoners on the
Crown side, and not forward any letter which contained ina-
proper matter without shelving it to the Chaplain or one of the
Visiting Magistrates. When the letter was submitted to the
proper persons, if the letter came to a prisoner, he was sent
for, and the unexceptionable parts were read' to him ; if the
letter was written by a prisoner, he was told' what were the
exceptionable parts, and had the liberty of re-writing that
which was not offensive. This rule was ordered by Mr. Jqs-
tice Bayley, and he believed was in the hand-writing of,that
Learned Judge himself; and the whole of the code was saric-
tioned by Mr. Justice Bayley and Mr. Justice Park. There-
fore, upon a general view of the question, whether the Jailer
was justified in opening the Hon. Member's letter or not, he
firmly believed that it was his duty to do so, and that he would
not have done his duty if he had not examined its contents.
Whether the mere fact of the frank of a Member of Parliathent
went to alter the operation of the prison rules, was a question
which others might be more able to determine ; but for his ow.n
part he certainly did not think it did. How was it possible;
he L •uld ask, for Members always to know what their franks
contained ? It might be that they. because the means of con-
veying matter the most improper in its nature and dangerous
in its consequences. Upon the Hon. Member's own sheering,
he thought there was nothing in the present case which called
for the interference of the House.

Mr. PEEL had understood the Honourable Member to 6-
tablish his case upon two propositions ; first, that for any one
to open a letter franked by him was an illegal act, and Seedritl;
ly, that it was a breach of the privileges of Parliament. how
if he applied himself to disprove both these propositions; he
. trusted that he should be considered to meet the questionfairly.
He certainly had heard with much surprize, upon a former
occasion, the doctrine laid down by the Honourable and
Learned ,Member for Winchelsea upon this subject; and lie
thought that the Honourable and Learned :Member himself,
upon consideration, would be ready to allow that lie hadlaken
too wide a ground. The Noble Lord who spoke last had put
the House in possession of the facts of the present case, as far
as regarded the rules and regulations complained of. Thog
. regulations had been sanctioned by' Mr. Justice Park
and Mr. Justice Bayley. In the first place, he thought there
was strong presumption in favour of the legality of the act, in
the fact of the Judges having signed the rules which authorised
it. And that, too, not without consideration; for he under-
stood that they altered some of them, and that the one which
gave the power of opening letters was in the handwriting of
Mr. Justice Bayley. He therefore conceived, notwithstandinE
the authority of the Honourable Member for Carlisle, that no-
thing illegal had been committed. The Honourable Member
had appealed to the Act of George 11. which bore no reference
to the present case, and at the same time neglected to notice a
more recent Act passed in the 31st of George 111. under which
these regulations bad been made. The former Act applied-to
debtors only. The Honourable Member had read to the HOUse
the title and preamble of that Act, and he would 1.01104 his
example by stating the contents of the' preamble'to the other.
It was an Act for regulating jails and other places of confine-
ment. The preamble set forth, that for the better government
of such places, rules and regulations, and bye-laws should be
made by persons authorized- so to do in the Act of. George 11.
And who were those persons ? the Magistrates. And upon
that Act the Judges had undoubtedly signed the rules of which
the Hon. Member complained. With such signatureaffixe.d to
the utders for enforcing those rules, he felt, indeed, that it
would be wasting the time, and abuing the indulgence of the
House, to dwell. any longer upon the
.question of their ille-
gality. Ile then came to the consideration whether or not a
breach of the privileges of Parliament had been committed.—
For the sake of argument, he must get the Honourable Mein*,
ber to concede, that the rule which authorized the Act of open.:
ing the letters of prisoners was legally made. And he
would contend, that if it was founded in law, there was nothiik
Which could exempt a Member of Parliament from sharing its.
common operation. The only privilege which a Member of
Parliament possessed was that of franking his letters ; but
they were as liable to be opened by the authority of the law
as those of any other individual in the state. The Act .con-
tamed no clause which exempted a Member of Parliament
from its operation, and it had hitherto been suffered to anply,
to all parties without distinction. The -flonourable .Member
had alluded to the letter of Lord Sidiricuth to the Keeper of
Gloucester' Jail. ,That letter was written in consequence of a

complaint made to the House of Lords from. two persona con- 1
tinedin Gloucester Jail, One ot whom was a debtor, and the other
confined for a misdemeanor, which complaint was referred '
to the Law Officers of the Crown. His belief was, that the '
word " felons" occurred in the letter by mistake. His Lord-
ship meant to have written " debtors and fines." He had
referred to the opinions of the Law Officers, and there he
found the words " debtors and fines." He had also Ilene
timed the circumstance to Lord Sidmouth himselt, wed hie
Lordship concurred in the supposition that the mistake had
either been made by himself- or by the clerk in copying his
letter. The case which led to the Report of 1735 was one
'with the Poet-ollice. And in a case where a letter had been
put into the Post-office• and then opened, undoubtedly there
was a breach of privilege.- But that was no case in point to
the question before the Hoose. Before the letter was put in
the post, the Magistrates, upon the authority of the law, de-
manded that certain regulations should be complied with. But
ire the case of 1735, the Resolution expressly declared. that a
gross breath of privilege had been committed, by opening a.
letter addressed to a Member of Parliament at the Post-office.—
The Hon. Member had stated, that in defending the prialleges
ef the House upon this occasion, he was defending the liberties
of the people. He (Ilie Peel) trusted that no Member of that
House would ever claim privileges which were not, in fact,
the privileges of the people.—(Hear, hear !)—The Right Hon.
Gentleman, after again enforcing the position that Members of
Therliarnent had no exemption from the regulations in question,
intended as they were upon the law of the land, concluded by
moving the previous question.
Mr. 11. G. BENNET said, that from the speech of the
Right Hon. Gentleman the House were to infer, that not only
had the Magistrates the power of carrying the law as it stood
into effect, but to make new laws of equal force—to alter the
terms of a man's imprisonment from a shorter to a longer date,
and to put him into Solitary confinement.—(Hear:)—Now he.
Ole. Bennet) would take leave to say, and it was, he was
aware, a bold assertion to controvert what rested upon such
law Authorities and Judges Of, the land, but he would say, that
Magistrates had no etch power. 'They had the power of mak-
ing rules for the discipline of ;prisons, for regulating the time ot
their working, their going to rest and getting their victuals, and
o on ; but they never had the power of changing the sentence
Of a prisoner from one to five years' confinement, or to keep
hits tbr the whole term of his imprisonment in solitary confine-
enent ; and yet to this length would the speech of the Right
Honourable Gentleman tend. But if magistrates had this
power of regulating prison discipline in every respect, for what
purpose had the labours of a Committee of that House, which
was so long sitting on this 'subject, been required ?—(1-lear !)
'The complaint in this case came from a fine and not from a
felon ; and therefore, even under the construction of the Noble
Viscount's letter, sanctioned as it was by the opinion of the
then Law Officers of the Crown, the opening of this letter by
the gaoler, even though he had an order of the Magistrates,
was an illegal opening, since it was the opening of the letter of
o fine, and not of a felon. With regard to the breach of privi-
lege, he must say, that the present was quite a clear case ; for
if any Member would take the trouble of reading the Report,
to which the House had agreed, upon the first agitation of their
'privilege, to have letters franked which they both sent and re-
oteived, he would find that the House had determined, so early
. asehe reign of Charles the Second, that the opening of any
. Member's letter was a gross breach of privilege. Before he
osat down, he could not help thanking the Right Hon. Member
fez Oxford, for meeting the motion of his Hon. Friend (Mr.
James) with the previous question ; it was better than meeting
it with a direct negative, for the decision upon it would not say
that a breach of. rivileees had not been committed, but merely
that the House did not think proper at that moment to enter
'into an examination of it.
The ATTORNEY-GEnnERAL said, that though he was
*folly prepared to admit that neither the Magistrates nor the
'(gaoler had a right to increase the punishment of any indivi-
dual beyond the degree mentioned in the sentence of the Court,
still he was also prepared to argue that they had a right to make
such regulations as they thought proper for the internal go-
vernment of the prison, liable, however, to the subsequent
econfirination or rejection of the judges of the Assize. Now a
,set of regulations having been agreed to by the Magistrates
of Lancashire, and subsequently approved by the Judges,
it became the duty of the gaoler implicitly to obey them.—
Indeed, the gaoler would have been guilty of a gross dere-
'liction of his duty, if he had obeyed the hint given him in
,the letter of the Honourable Member for Carlisle, and had
-refrained from opening the letter sent to the prisoner under
..his custody. Be would ask whether any Member would rise
- up in that House and state, that he had a rightto enter into
any gaol he might select in the kingdom, in order to hold corn.
emunication with those confined in it ? He knew that no M em-
'bee would assert that lie had such a right. Now, if Hon.
Members had not a right to communicate personally with all
'persons confined in gaol, how could they have a right to corn-
-enunicate with them in all cases by letter ? Such an argument
he conceived to be decisive on the case. As to a breach of pri-
-vilege, he was quite confident that none had been committed.
Mr. BERNAL supported the motion, on the ground that
exceptions in certain acts, allowing the letters of members to be
opened, decisively proved that in other cases they ought not to
be opened. Cases of extreme tyranny and oppression—such,
'for instance, as had been detail to the Commissioners appointed
eto inquire into Ilthester gaol—might arise in the different pri-
sons of the country ; and how were they to be remedied, if those
ewho suffered under them were deprived of all means of com-
moticating them to those who alone were capable of redress-
ning them ?—(llear !)
Sir It. WILSON was glad to hear the Attorney-General
econfess that Magistrates and Gaolers had not a right to aggra-
vate the punishment of the prisoners placed under their con-
trol. He would, however, ask the Ilonourable and Learned
Gettleman whether it was not an aggravation of punishment,
;to intercept a man's correspondence with his private friends ?
He trusted that Parliament would not allow its privileges to
'be got rid of by the _regulations of any set of Magistrates, as
;vote attempted in the present case. lie was himself no great
stickler for precedent; but he had found one so peculiarly ap-
, licahle to the matter before the House, that he trusted he
should gain by it the vote of a Right Honourable Gentleman
..odr. C. Wynn), who, though he was 'generally the first to
speak upon all questions of privilege, had, some how or
other, been miraculously silent on the present. In the first
year of William and Mary, it was resolved by the House of
-Coenmons, that the breaking open a letter sant by, or direct.
cd to, one of its Members, was a gross infringement of
-the privileges of Parliament. After such a resolution, there
-could be no doubt of a breach of privilege having. been corn-
,enitted in the present instance.—(Load cries of hear.)—When
Honourable Members read the Report of the Commisioners
upon the state of Ilchester gaol, they would discover an addi-
banal reason for not allowing the letters of prisoners to be in.
tercepted e
t for they would see that there was no longer any
great confidence to be placed either in gaolers or in Visiting
agistrat es.
nit. C. WYNN was of opinion, that neither a breach of the
;privileges of that House, nor df the law of the land, had been
-committed in tl.e present instance. The act clearly extended
sio farther than the Post-office, and the privileges of Members
• went no farther than as regarded the Post-office. When they
looked at the precedent of the resolution of 1683, it would be
well to look to the causes which led to that resolution. The
case was a complaint from the Post-master at Hull against the
governor of that place, who was in the practice of sending for
the mail-bags and opening what letters he chose. 'He believed
that the Acts which had been referred to gave the Magistrates
the power which they had exercised. Before those Acts were
'passed, the jailer himself had the power of doing anything
which he held necessary to the sate keeping of the jail, and
the safe custody of the prisoners. ' lie could then place prisoners
.in solitary confinement for refractory conduct, or for offences
against the regulations of the prison. To place that pewee in
--the hands of Magistrates better qualified to exercise it was the
.object of the Acts, and he had no doubt of their having now
-the power of ordering Solitary confinement, where circumstances
celled for it. The evils to which a removal of the power of ex,.
.amining letters wotild give rise were of the most serious cha-
racter. It might aid the escape of pt.:goners, or defeat the de-
tection of offenders connected with others already apprehended.
--Even (although it was annextreme case) topoison. might be
conveyed to criminals by letter, so as to enable them to avoid
euffering the sentences of the-law. He saw no reason whatever
why the motion of the lion. Member should receive the sup-
port of the House.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that his first opinion as to the pre-
sent case being a clear breach of the privileges of that House
was very strong. But he had waited-to hear the opinion of his
Right lion. and Learned Friend, (Mr. Wynn) who had long
been the jealous defender of the privileges of Parliament on
one side of the House, and who he hoped would now continue
to be so on the other ; and having heard all that the learning
of his Right Hon. and Learned kriend could advance against
that opinion, he did feel it very considerable, strengthened.
The privileges of that House were not to be rode over by any
. regulations which a bench of Magistrates might choose to
adopt. If so, where 'would the principle end ? Any act,
rhowever gross, however clearly in violation of' the law, if it
s'bad but the sanction of those Magistrates and two Judges, the
privileges; of Parliament must be set aside and trampled
__upon.
Another doctrine advanced was, that the privilege of Mem-
bers only extended -to the Post Office. He contended that
theelteport of 1735 was restricted to the Post Office, because it
was a case where letters /had been opened at the Post Office
which gave rise to it. If any other case had called for their
„attention, he was ceneinced that the great men on both sides of
the House, Whig and Tory, would have been unanimous M
their decision to the sane effect. He should be glad to know
what was to make it a breach of privilege for-the Post Office
alone to open letters of Members of Parliament. Members en-
joyed this
.privilge is order that their correspondence with

their constituents and with the people at large might be free -
and unimpeded; and whether that correspondence were inter-
rupted by. a servant of the GOvernment, or of the public, in a
post-office or in a jail, it was equally a breach of theirprivilege.
The resolution alluded to. by his lion. 'and Gallant Fiend (the
Member for Southwark), was not one which referred to the Post-
office. The lion. and Learned Member then described the case ,
alluded to of the Governor of Hull, and contended, that the ge.
neral revolution then agreed to was exactly similar to that now
proposed by his lion. friends- It was no-argument against this
privilege that it was liable to abuse, because the same objec-
tion might be urged against all other privileges. Privileges
should be
.judged by their use, not" by their abuse. Many
of the privileges of that House had been abused to so
shameful an extent that the abuses .would not bear reci-
tal. A Member of the last Parliament had, by the abuse of
his privilege, reduced many parsons to penury by refusing to
pay his debts. He made over his property to a relation, and
by the assistance of this fraudulent conveyance and his privi-
lege., he kept his person, and many of his creditors went
to the prison which he so well deserved. The Honourable
and Learned Member then dwelt strongly upon the necessity
of a free intercourse by letter between Members of Parliament
and the people ; and upon that ground he contended that a
breach of privilege had been committed. He felt an habithal
veneration for the high authority by which the regulations of
this jail were sanctioned ; but when he saw a novel regulation
introduced amongst them, which was likely to be oppressive
to the subject, he must hesitate to give his assent, compara-
tively insignificant as it must be, that the act of ordering it was
perfectly legal or consistent with the principles of justice.
Mr. WILSON (of Cockermouth) supported the amend-
ment, and cited • law authorities to show the power of Magis-
trates in regulating the discipline and management of gaols.—
.He pointed out the danger of subornation of perjury being
solicited by persons about to undergo trial, if their co:respon-
dence were not subject to inspection.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY would very shortly
explain the reasons-upon which he should give his vote. He.
regarded the present motion as raising two questions, one or
law, the other of privilege. And it was to be observed, that if
any offence known to the laws had been committed, the deci-
sion of the Honse against 'the motion would not take away the
legal remedy, or lessen the punishment fbr that offence. The
Honourable and Learned Gentleman would forgive him for
doubting that the law was with him (Mr. Brougham) on this
occasion; and for doubting also whether there was enough in
this case to call for the interference of the House. As far as
he (the M arquis) had heard the question discussed, the regula-
tions of the prison alluded to were perfectly legal, and it there-
fore would not become the House to over-ride the law. The
question was, whether the House should at that moment state
its privileges so broadly as to declare that every prisoner had a
right to send'letters to every Member of Parliament, and that
every Member of Parliament had a right to send letters to
every prisoner, and that there should be no right in any one,
under any circumstances, to open the letters. If the House
was to do this, what jailer would venture to open any letter at
all for the future ?—(H ear, hear !)—How was every jailer to
know the handwriting of the Members of that House ? lie
really could see in the rules complained of, no unnecessary in-
fringement of the liberties of the subject, and as little could
he see any reason for a secret confidence between the Mem-
bers of that House and the prisoners in the different jails.—
(Cheers from the Opposition.)—He begged that he might not
be misunderstood.: He wished that House to be open to the
hearing of all complaints, of all real bona fide grievances • but
he was not prepared to lay down that the M embers of that House,
in cases of treason, and felony for instance, had the privilege
contended for by the Hon. Mover. He certainly was not pre-
pared to concede to Members of Parliament a privilege which
the law had denied them. He could not consent to make them
visiting Magistrates of all the prisons.—(Hear, hear, hear !) '
And he certainly was not aware of the good which would be
worked by an epistolary correspondence. He was not saying
that in all cases it was justifiable for jailers to open the letters
of the Members of that House ; but he would not decide the
question raised by this motion too hastily ; and he would there-
fore vote for the motion of his Right lion. Friend, because
the offence complained of, if offence it was, might be-properly
carried before the competent tribunal. It would then be seen,
whether these rules, which had been signed by two Judges,
were legal or not ; but certainly at present he was not disposed
to push the right of privilege to the extent sought by the ori-
ginal motion.
Mr. DENMAN said, the Noble Marquis had treated the
present, partly as a question of law ; but. that, he (Mr. D.)
thought was the question the least proper for the consideration
of the House. Ile wished the Noble Marquis had states' how
the case could really be brought before a Court of Law. It is
a question of privilege altogether. With respect to the doc-
trine of the Noble Lord as to secret correspondence with
Members, and as to real bona tide grievances, it must be evis
dent that where the grievance was real, was bona tide, the cor-
respondence must be secret.—(Hear, hear!)—Without such a
correspondence, how could the secrets of that horrible Bastile,
the ilchester Jail, have been discovered ? Whenever a covis
plaint had been made against the conduct of that Jailer, what
reference was made to the regulations signed by the Judges !
—(Cheers.)—and what testimony was borne to the humane
conduct of the Jailer !—(Cheers from the Opposition.)—Yet.
when inquiry had taken place, it was discovered, that never had
rules been more infringed than those very rules, and never
had conduct been . worse than that of this very Jailer. In
many cases the doctrine of the Noble Marquis would make the
person complained of the judge of his own conduct ; for he
might, of course, put the letter, complaining of that conduct,
into ti.: fire, and thus prevent all inquiry.—(Cheers.)—This
was not an argument drawn from the doctrine of the Noble
Marquis—it was the doctrine itself. He (Mr. D.) highly re-
spected the individuals who had signed the regulations in ques-
tion ; but he was sure they had never contemplated the order-
ing of any thing which would clash with the privileges of that
,' House. Sir Samuel Romilly was strongly of opinion against
the right which had been now assumed. He admitted that the
case of attempted subornation of perjury, mentioned by the
Honourable Member (Nlr. W.), was a very bad one; but the
principle, if allowed, would also deprive a prisoner of thepower
of communicating the truth, and of corresponding in confi-
dence with his legal advisers. If the present question should
be decided against the privilege, there would be an end to the
power of the House to inquire into the abuses of prisons. Had
this principle been adhered to, that infamous Bastile of Ilches-
• ter would never have been exposed ; nor would those practices
of torture and famine whieh, had been carried on there have
been abolished. He could not admit the force of the argument,
that there would be a difficulty in the Jailer undertaking
to distinguish the hand-writing of Members; for the letters
would of course go through the Post-Office, and be then au-
thenticated. He trusted the House would see the necessity,
in the present instance, of suoporting its own privileges. Pri-
vilege was thought to be the happiest thing in the worldnwhen
it accorded with the feelings of Ministers—(Cheers from the,
Opposition)—wncri it was hurled against their political oppo-
nents—(Cheers from the Opposition; echoed from the Mini-
sterial benches)—but when it was to be directed the other way,
it was thought to be a curse. He concluded by declaring his
intention to vote for the original motion.
Mr. WILSON shortly explained.
Mr. BATHURST said the Act of Parliament which had
been referred to was unqualified in its language ; not a word in
the way of exception was contained with respect to the privi-
lege of Parliament, and he therefore thought it was too much to
call upon the House to agree to the present motion. It was
not unnatural to suppose that had the reservation of privilege
been intended, a clause would have been inserted, as there al-
ways was for reserving the rights of the Crown. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman would' urely net contend that if a servant
of a•Member was to break open a letter directed to his master,
he would be guilty of a breach of privilege. The reasoning of
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman as to the consequence of the
interception would not hold good; for legal assistance was in
cases allowed to a prisoner, and his attorney (the Honour-
able Member observed) was never denied access to him.—
It could not be fairly contended, that in those cases wherein
personal communication would be denied, a correspondence by
letter should be encouraged. The general question of privi-
lege was not concerned in the present question, for the motion
involved only the particular case. Ile was decidedly of opinion
• that this was not a case which called for the interference of the
, House.

• Mr. JAMES shortly replied. His view of the question was
not at all altered, and he believed, on the authority of Sir Sa-
muel Romilly's opinion, that the practice complained of.was
illegal. The Right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Wynne) had ar-
gued that poison might be conveyed to a prisoner in a letter.—
This was very true ; so might a prisoner knock his head against
the. prison wall if he were determined to kill himself. If the
House neglected the present motion, he thought it would be
guilty of a violation of the law, and would in effect establish
two legislatures ; one consisting of King, Lords, and Com-
mons, and the other of Judges and Magistrates.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House di-
vide& when there appeared—
For the Original Motion - 60
For the Previous Question 167
Majority —lO7