The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-11 00:00:00

sere us great and intolerable as Isal ever been suffered in
this country. Was not the punishment enorincus, and_ its
infliction more severe, than the law permitted ? The case
of Mr. Roberts had been treated with great levity be
this Hen. Under-Secretary, who stated he was now free.
But why was he free ? Because he had broken a Hood-
vessel. But did that effect the case against the Govere-
nt ? Had he not already suffered far more than that
sentence passed upon him ? Ile had. He had suff red as
much as was suffered by the political outcasts of Siberia,
and it eas the duty of tise House to inquire into his case,
and redress his wrongs. It was important the Huse
should bear in mind the statements of his petition. He
(Mr. D'lsraeli) did not question the sentence, bu: the
manner in w hich it had been carried oat..—( Hear, hear.)
He did not approve of the conduct of Mr. Roberts, but
there was a questiser which would be asked throughout
England, and it was this—were the same crimes which
were rewarded in Ireland to be punished in this country?
Tile Hon. Member had before seen the triumphs of Mi-
nisters over the liberties of the people, but he hoped that
in the present instance they would be successfully resisted.
Mr. WARBURTON was willing to give the Govern-
ment credit for the suppression of the disturbances which
had lately agitated the country. The result justified the
course which the Government pursued, for in every case
which had come before juries a verdict was found
against the prisoners.—( Hear, hear, hear. ) That
showed that the feeling of the country was with
the Government, so far, at least.—( Hear, hear.)
But it was manifest, in his opinion, that the bounds of jus-
tice had been overstepped in the punishment of offenders,
and hence it was that public feeling now ran in their
favour. The lion. Member proceeded to show how much
more severely political offenders were now treated in pri-
sons than they had been in former times. Ile would
give as an instance the case of Mr. Cobbett, who, so far
front having been refused the use of paper, which was
denied to prisoners at the present day, actually conducted
his newspaper during his imprisonment. There was a
material change also in the diet and other comforts of pri-
slaters. The Hen. Gentleman having referred to individual
cases of severity protested against such harshness, which
was calculated to make cne's blood boil.—( Hear, hear.)
Such a course of proceeding only served to defeat the pur-
pose for which it was intended, and enlisted public sym-
pathy in favour of prisoners. Such a course was not con
sistent with the policy which hadin former times been pur-
sued by the Whig party, who used on all occasions to put
themselves forward as the friends of the oppressed. Not-
withstanding the present severity of the law, he believed
that Ministers might, if so disposed, have effectually in-
terfered in mitigating the punishment of offenders, and he
thought that they had not done their duty on that head.
—( Hear.) The Magistrates, also, might have acted with
more leniency than they had done. They might, for in-
stance, by the Prisons Regulation Act have removed pri-
soners from one ward to another, and in other ways miti-
gated the harshness of their sentence. It was only neces-
sary that the Government should interfere, and they would
certainly influence the Magistrates. The Hon. Gentleman
concluded by advising his Hon. Friend the Member for
Finsbury to withdraw his motion if the Government would
now give any pledge to interfere for the purpose of miti-
gating the punishment of the parties, but if they were not
disposed to give such a pledge he should certainly feel it
his duty to divide in favour of the motion.
Mr. WARD did not think that, as the law now stood,

the Government was responsible. He thought that some
change should be introduced in the law, and if the Go-
vernment did not give any pledge on that subject, he
should like his Hon. Friend the Member for Bridport to
divide in favour of the motion.
Mr. BRUGES said that the statements contained in
the petitions of Potts, Carrier, and Roberts, imprisoned
fur political offences in the gaol of Wilts were, in very many
particulars, incorrect, and the charges contained in them of
ill-usage on the part of the Magistrates, had no founda-
tion in fact. He therefore thought it would be well for
Honourable Members, before they presented petitions, to
ascertain that they were founded on facts.—
( Hear, hear.) It was his firm belief that
Mrs. Roberts, though represented as one of the petitioners,
knew nothing of the petition—( Hear, hear)—but if she
did sign it as had been represented, that she did so without
any knowledge of the contents of the petition. An in-
dividual named Carrier, had said at a public meeting,
" these is such a thing as lucifer matches_the people
know how to use them. Talk of physical force ! You
may have more physical force for a penny, than is to be
found among a whole regimeet of soldiers." Yet it was
said those were mere political offences and ought
not to be punished too severely.—( Hear, bear, hear.)
He could only state that property to the amount of 3,000/.
had been destroyed in the neighbourhood in which that
speech was delivered a short time afterwards, and that the
loyal and peaceable well-disposed inhabitants were kept in
the greatest terror and alarm.—( Hear, hear.) In his opi-
nion punishment ought to regulated by the extent of cri-
minality, and the dangerous consequences of the crime
committed.--( Hear, hear.)
Mr. Sergeant TA LFOURD having presented a great
many petitions upon the subject under discussion, could
not refrain from offering a few observations. What was
complained of was, that where imprisonment was all that
the law had assigned, and all that the Judge had awarded,
that by some means or other that imprisonment had
been turned into something different from what had
been intended. They did not complain of punishment
according,;_ to law, but the complaint was that the punish-
ment was Eiirrted 4.,,,,,,,A tee hew.—( hear, beer.) It
might happen that in some of the petitions that had been
presented there had been great exaggeration; but the
House was bound to see that injustice was not committed,
and that moral torture was not inflicted. He thought
that a new system had sprung up which called for the
interference of that House. In the case of Mr. Cobbett
and Mr. Hunt, the treatment complained of at the present
time was unknown. At this time there were prosecutions
for libels against some of the most respectable books, leers
in London, Manchester, and other places. A prosecution
had been instituted against a man for publishing the
works of one of our greatest poets. Those prosecutions
were disgraceful to the age .in which we lived, and would
be disgraceful to the Attorney General if he did not slop
them.—( Hear, hear.) He should vote fur the amend.
meta of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, believing that
it became the House to take some steps to put an end to
this new system, which was contrary to law, humanity,
and justice.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that if any hardship had bean
inflicted, the proper way would have been to have brought
in a Bill to alter the prison discipline—( Hear, hear)—but
the object of the motion before the house appeared to him
to be to have some great sympathy excited for political
atfenders.—( Hear, hear.) It was no easy matter, when a
country was in a state of great disturbance —when the y
heard of houses being destroyed in one place __of
people marching in arms in another—mid pe:,,l
corning on all sides, asking for the protection of trop ip e,
for a mere vigorous enforcement of laws, and fur n-w
and more severe laws. It way: not an easy matter to met t
all those dangers, and to epply the law as it should be ap-
plied, without being mistaken as to the cases, so as to
(Armin the punishment of these persons who were putting
in jeopardy the persons arid property of the well-disposed
psrt of the community.—( Hear, hear.) That was no very
easy task ; but when that task had been executed, an when
nobody felt alarm airy longer, it was not very difficult to
get up complaints of one person being harshly treated
with regard to a prison dress, and another with having
diet of a particular quality, and other grievances of that
description. llce begged to observe that they had only
been treated as persons convicted of misdemeanours.
Then it had leers said they had been treated differently
:roe those who were in former times convicted of political
efFene. s, and seditious lib:ls, but he begged to state that
exciting the people to rebellion, as many ( f these prisoners
had done, could not be compared to an ordinary and se-
did not doubt that, in sonic of Oleic
a change iti our laws with regard
ctlaitsi:sou, sthlieiwolp.eralti
ioen
of
to prison disc:pline, might for a tune have borne with un-
due severity On some individuals ; hot he thought the cases
in which complaints had been made, hail been treated by his
,hieh
Collins,the Govreeratirmg
uestatoh,acdotn:nikotr.n, withan,,
Noble Friend the Secretary for the flon.c Department with
all the attention they canted. The Noble Lord then de-
r
ty Sr)lug he trusted the House
regardfended
tet
;rid
• s t reoluion of the lion. Mem-
rvii tchmelrds,na,ntdageorenecltuo&t.itile
~,guL .
her for Finsbury. It was imposstb'e to say what would be
the effect. t.f it, but it was one of those kind of resolutions
that only Made cemplaint of the general administration r f
justice, and could answer nu good purpose.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. II UM E was sorry that the Noble Lord had .t-
-tempted to justify the treatment which had been adopted
towards the Charti-t prisoners. The complaints of the peti-
tioners were that under the present Government the treat-
ment of political offences was such as it had never before been
in this country. He could not forget the agitation thru was
created throughout the country upon the Refo,m Bill, when
the whole country demanded constitutional reform. There
was not one on the Treasury Bench who were not as Cul-
pable as Potts, Carrier, and Roberts, if these unfertuneto
persons bad attended seditious or unlawful meetings. All
that those meetings had been celled for was an extension of
the suffrage, and one of the largest
petitiol s ever presented
to that. House was in favour of that ineasuie. He was sorry
that the Noble Lord had assumed the tone the House had
heard that evening, instead of looking to the causes of the
discontent that existed among the working closes. lie
hoped his Hon. Friend would divide the House upon his
motion, and he ( Mr. Hume) would cordially register his
vote against that atrocious conduct which, for the first time
in the annals of our history, lord been introduced by the
powers. lie had
present Government. °
for any new
who were ignorant and who had been
S'r R. PEEL believed he had advised the Government
to try
th'' efficacy of the existing laws before they taught
the fruit of the harvest. At the same time they
„,ocr
oemseynftoprawthayrd for
and triter::
punishments wlich those goaded on to commit
ought not to
overt acts, than he had for those who deluded others, in
order that if successful they might
be subjected to any inflections the law did not warrant;
but the question was, did the law warrant the infliction of
perienced ?—(llear.) Ii it did not, surely they had a re-
eny life gal imprison-
medY* The law would not tolerate
ought to be altered wl
ment, and if the law had been broken and they had been sub-
jected to punishment which the law slid not warrant, why
did not those who felt a sympathy for them appeal to the
Courts of Law for redress 2
parties no,c complaining lied ee_
( Hear.) And if the law
the House of Commons that
Parliament for its alterationl'
?—( Hear, hear.) In 1824,
• he ( Sir Robert Peel) had introduced a Bill which became
law, re;
elating
the discipline of prisons.—( Hear,
not submit a proposition to
hear.) It was not Magistrates or gaolers, therefore, but
was responsible for the
,
deviating from the former system. It was formerly said
the law made no distinctien between the rich and the poor,
and it wee on account of the prevalence of those feelings
that the law was altered because
men of education and
men of intelligence deserved less
sympathy, if they corn-
ei
mitted offences, than these who were their deluded ve tints.
—(Hear, hear,) But he would also contend that the
House of Commons was not the proper tribunal to appeal
to in cases of this description. He did not mean to say
the House of
C72pour,lsd t wasaice notjurisdiction
in cases et abuse, but if they onCo began mistrusting the
Executive Government, the four nights of the week on
which such questions might be brought forward, would nut
itshde i
c authoritytion of these
h which
mattersch the
State contemplate