The Sun.
London, England, 1822-02-09 00:00:00

MR. HUNT.

Mr. Alderman WOOD held in his hand a Petition. whose
signature, he hoped, would not make a prejudicial impres-
sion on the minds of the House. It was from an individual
named Hint, son to the perion of that name now confined
in Bebe-ter Gaol. He complained of being restricted from
seeing his father, who bad lately been treated as a felon,
and prevented from seeing either his solicitor or his medi4l
attendant. This was said to be in conformity to the rules and
regulations of the prison. But he (Mr. Alderman Wopd) un-
derstood that these rules had only beet► lately signed by the.
Judges and put into force, notwithstanding that they had
been drawn up and agreed to by the Magistrates three years
ago. He hail not himself looked at these rules, hat be was--
informed that they were very severe. The petition. however,
would inform tie House more fully upon the subject. The
petitioner complained that he was only allowed to see his
father for a short time, and that through an iron grating.
He did not see who hail the right of inflicting this sort of pu-
nishment upon the prisoner, for the Judges expressly stated
in sentencing him, that lie was not to be placed in solitary
confinement. '

The SOLICITOR GENERAL begged to inform the House,
that an application had been made to the Court of. King's.
Bench upon the subject of the complaints set forth in this
petition. 4n immediate investigation bad been ordered, and

as soon as the necessary, atidavits could be -procured, the
question would-be decided by the Court.
- Mr. DICKENSON said a few words which were inaudible
in the gallery.
Sir F. BURDETT spoke in strong terms against the sen-
tence by which Mr. Hunt had been consigned to these hard-
ships:and sofferings. That sentence was as disgraceful a one
as any sentence that had ever been passed since the worst
times of the Stuart 4. • It Was like one of those had laws and
judgmeots of which Clarendon speaks as bringing doWn punish;
meat upon the person, not upon the crime. It was a sentence
of vengeance and not of justice. What could be more dread-
ful than an imprisonment fur three years ? They had better
at once take a man's life. And if it was to be accompanied
by the sufferings of whiCht he petition complained; they might
as well have other species of torture. The Hon. Bart. lite')
went ilrrongh what he considered to he Mr. Hunt's meritari-
, clis conduct at Manchester, and stated that it was his mis'fors
tone to have been judged by a Jury; for that-the Judge would
have acquitted him upon his trial. How. such-a sentence
could hare been acceded to by that Judge afterwards he was
at a loss to conceive. But it was scandalous that its severity
should be alloWed to lie aggravated by a Gaoler or Magistrate.
Thernles of the prison could only be made applicable to felons.
Bat the whole business showed the Auo animu with which the
individual was persecuted. He begged to be understood its
only regarding Mr. Hunt as an aggrieved man ; and it should
be borne:in mind, Chat whatever was inflicted illegally "Upon
Mr. Hunt, might he inflicted illegally upon any other man.
,Mr. BA THURST said, it was rather curious that this sen-
tence, which was so disgraceful in the eyes of the Hon. garo-
net, had wholly escaped his notice for the first two years of its
bring carried into effect. If he considered it to be of such a
nature as he had deicribed, why had he not brought the sub-
ject befori the House. But when be heard our Judges coin•
pared to those of the time of Charles, he was astonished. Ile
—di,! have expected it from nobody hut the Hon. Baronet ;
and infted, ke could hardly hate imagined that even he would
have done it. He knew that it was quite unnecessary for any
Lody to stand up in that House to defend the characters of
the Judges of the land ; but he had been
.induccd to make
these remarks by the language which fell front the Hun.
Bardnet..
'Mr. G. BENN.E'rf said he should like to know the names
of Magistrates and Judges who had made the rules by which
these severities were enforced against Mr. •Hunt.. He should
like to know the persons who bad presumed to make such
rules, and to inflict such punishment upon Hit individual con-
fined under a sentence like .Mr. Hunt's. That sentence he
would always call an iniquitous judgment. -The reason why
he had not brought it before the House was, that he'knew he
haul no chance of obtaining 'justice for the individual. When-
ever he had had an opportunity to express his opieion of the
sentence upon Mr. Hunt, he bad always declared that sen-
tence to be founded upon iniquity 'and folly. It was for a
crime Mr. Hunt had never committed. He (Mr. B.) should
be glad to see the names of
.the Magistrates and .lndges who
had closed the doors of Mr. Hunt's spell against. his son and
hi. solicitor.
Mr. DICKENSON said, the rules complained of had been.
prepared a considerable time before Mr. Hunt's imprison-
ment, but were afterwards signed by the Magistrates. They
were for some time passed over by the 'different Jmiges who
went the Circuit, but they were ultimately signed by Mr.
Baron Graham and by Mr. Justice Best..--(liear, hear 1)—
He believed the roles were selected from the best rules of
other goals. He thought, however, they bore hind upon Mr.
Hunts and be had stated his opinion to Mr. Justice Best; but
. on Mr. Hunt's complaint that " his family" had been denied
access to him, Mr. Justice Best remarked. that which was
notorious in the whole county of Somerset: namely, that the
female, forming a part of his family, was not bis wife : and
the Judge observed, that,she was not a proper person to be
admitted to the prisoner.
Sir ISAAC COFFIN said, had he known thumb-screws
were used by the gaoler, he would never have brought him-
elf to approve of the general discipline of the gaol Hear.)
Sir THOMAS LETHBRIDGE said, be had no doubt that
the indulgences granted in the first instance to Mr. Hunt
were the cause of his many complaints, and that from the
concessions had arisen all the subsequent troubles.—(Hear,
hear!)-fug to the Magistracy of the county of Somerset, they
were a body of men incapable of acting from impure or un-
wortlry motives, and were as respectable a Bench as any in
the kingdom. With respect to the preSent Petition, he could
only say that if any ulterior proceeding were proposed he
should steadily oppose it ; for he, thought it unconstitutional
in that:House to attempt to reverse the sentence of a Court
of taw.
HOBHOUSE, in answer to the observations of the
hist Speaker, said, he should be glad to be informed whether
Mi. Hunt's son was to be considered as an improper person
to bare access to his fattier ?—(Hear.)—With regard to the
female in question, he knew nothing of her, and he would
not stand up in that House to defend immoral conduct; but
he would say that exclusion from the society of this female
h
. was no part of Mr. Hunt's sentence.—(Hear, hear, ear.)—
The Hon. Baronet had attributed much of the mischiefs to
the concessions widen he said had been made to Mr. Hunt,
Was the removing of the thumb screws a concession?—
(Hear, hear, hear !)--'-or was it in the eyes of the Hon.
Baronet a mischief?—(Cheers.)—Surely the Hon. Baronet
could not have known of the existence of these practices, or
be never would hare justified such conduct. In-a list of sen-
tences for political libels, he observed a judgment- upon one
man of four years and a balf.—(Hear, hear, hear !)—This
was a sentence unknown even in the atrocious times of
Charles the First. It had been said that an improper time
was selected for the present complaint; but, in his opinion,
complaints of such a nature ought always to he brought for-
ward. He thought -Ministers would be highly culpable if
they did.not send down an order to relax sortie of the severi-
ties complained of. The sentence itself upon Mr. Hunt he
had always condereneT; and as long as he had a seat in that
Hove, or a tongue in his head, he would pronounce it to
be one of the most outrageous sentences which ever dis-
graced the Bench. The Judge who tried the case, he be-
lieved, did not expect a conviction.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the last Speaker, and
the Hon. Member fur Shrewsbury (Mr. Bennett), had made
a most unwarrantable and unprovoked attack upon the
Judges of the Court of King's Bench. If the Honourable
IVlembers in question entertained the opinion they had
expressed, why had they not brought forward a charge in
ri proper shape ?—(Hear, hear, heat !)—The proper course
would have been to make a specific charge on so grave
a subject ; and not to introduce it collaterally upon a
motto?' for bringing np a Petition. (Load cries of "thear,
head") The Honourable Member for Westminster had
selected a case of heavy punishment for political libel. He
(bar. Attorney-General) did not know the case, but lie pre-
sumed it was Carliles. That individual had been punished,
not for one libel, but for a series of libels of the most aggra-
vated.description; Alluding to the last remark of the Hon.
Member for Westminster, he begged to observe, that that

Hon. Member was mistaken iii supposing that r4lr. Justice
Bayley, who tried Mr. Hunt, did not expect a conviction.
The charge of that Learned Judge to the Jury, impartial as
the charge was, clearly shewed the opinion of the Judge upon
the count in the indictment on which the Juryreturned a ver-
dict. Mr. Hunt had bad a most impartial trial; he was tried
in a County of his own selection-by a Jury of his own selec-
tion, and after the trial, he himself complimented the
Judge for the impartiality he had displayed on the trial. And
nor: that Learned Judge was arraigned ;—(No, no, from the
Opposition,)—he was arraigned.—(Cries of ao, no, from the
Opposition.]—He (Mr. Attorney-General) contended, that the
Learned Judge was arraigned for the sentence which he had
afterwards passed. To remove any 'doubt which could be
raised as to the opinion of Mr. Justice Bayley on the case it.,
self, it would be Only necessary to refer to the language of
the sentence, which declared that the Judge was satisfied with
the verdict, and that thu offence approached very near to the
crime of High Treason. Perhaps the Hon. Gent. opposite
tf►ought the Manchester Meeting was legal,—(Hear!)—But
the Jury, the .ludges, and the majority of the country thoufght
otherwise. However, it was unnecessary to discuss tl►al

question at the present moment. All that he complained of
was, that the Hon. Member had not brought the subject
before Parliament in a proper shape. With respect to the
rules of the prison, he did not profess to know any thing
about them ; but be knew that the moment Mr. Hunt com-

plained to the Court of King's Beuch by letter, that Court
-bad made an order for giving' him redress; a circumstance

which sheaved that Mr.timit himself had not that opinio►►
of the Court of King's Bench which appeared to be enter-
tained by Hon. Members.. It was therefore unfair to arraign
the conduct of the Judges of that -Court upon general cen-
sure, without reducing then to a specific charge.
Mr. HOBHOUSE, in explanation, said, it was not Car-
lile's case to which he had alluded, though he knew very
well the motive of the Hon. and Learned Member in men-

tiuning.Carlile with' reference to him (Mr. H.)—(Cheers from
the Opposition.)—The case he alluded to was a sentence
passed, not by the Court of King's Bench, hut by the Quer
ter Sessions, and therefore could not be Carlile's ; as that
iudividusl was punished only bir the Court of fiing's Bench.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained: He declared,
upon .his honotir, that he had no motive whatever in men-
tioning the name of Carlile with reference to the Hon. Mem-
ber. As the Hon. Member was complaining of the conduct

of the Court of King's Bench ; and as the case of Carlile was
that in whiCh the Court had passed the heaviest of its sen-
tences, he (Mr. Attorney-General) naturally concluded that
his was the ease.alluded to.

, The Petitiou.was then brought up and read. It complained
of the denial to'the 'Petitioner and the females of his father's

family of all access to him; and that OA applying for redress,