The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-26 00:00:00

to be useless to the others. In summer they worked
.from six in the morning until six in the evening. They
:ad but a pint of nruel and half a pound of bread for
breakfast ;on Sunday they had five ounces of meat. In
winter they had to rise at half-past -six in the morning,
..nd to work during the day without fire or anything to
mitigate their sufferings. How different had these poor
people been treated from the Hunts and the Burdetts,
when they were confined for political offences.—(Hear,
hear.) The next in order was that of George Henry
Smith, who complained that he had been ill all the time
he had been in prison—so much so, that he had taken
twenty-three bottles of medicine, besides pills and
powders, and had had both blisters and plasters applied
to him, and that upon his release he was called upon to
enter into secuilties for his good behaviour to the
:i.mount of 7001. Was it not nonsense to call
these poor men, when they were called upon
for such heavy bail ? Why, they could not ask
more for Sir F. Burdett. Gre!! died in prison from
the hard work upon the tre: o ill hurting his back.
Loyal stated that he had been induced by his solicitor to
plead guilty on a promise of pardon. His case was a
!lard one ; he was a sober, industrious man, who had
been led away by the evil disposed leaders of the Char-
tists, and was one of those who were wounded before
lie Westgate ' • he suffered much from his wound, but
he was sentenced to transportation for life, which sen-
tence was afterwards commuted to five years' imprison-
ment in ,the Penitentiary. A petition had been pre-
se ted in his favour signed by the late and the present
Mayor of Newport and 150 clergymen, gentlemen, and
inerchants, but it yet had had no effect. There were
other cases ; these were all that were connected with
Houses of Correction, but these were not the only places
here hardship was inflicted. Many complaints were
made of the discipline of the gaol of Manchester, while
some of those who had been in the Castle at Lancaster
spoke of the governor as a father and a gentleman.
—(A laugh.) While so many were complained against
it was his duty, as it was his pleasure, to bear such
testimony to one who had exercised humanity.
-Arr. F. O'Connor was not put to hard labour, neither was
-Jr. O'Brien ; they were only under the same restrain
_!nit other political offenders were placed under in for-
pier times. The question was, whether this treatment
aught to be inflicted upon persons guilty of political of-
_f,,nces—whether they ought to be treated worse than
felOns. Felons were not asked at the termination of their
imprisonment to enter into sureties to keep the peace,
but political offenders were ! Now that he asserted
was treatment which political offenders ought not to be
,1113jected tp. He wanted to know what was to be
by keepirr, these individuals in prison. He
maintained that the public opinion was against the
,loption of such a course. The cruelties that had
inflicted upon these parties, who had been guilty
•f no crime, was unworthy of a great country like
England. These individuals had no moral stain upon
them ; on the contrary, the parties whose petitions
he had presented would be considered by the people as
•uartyrs. He would venture to say that the House knew
-nothing at all of human nature if they thought they
-ould prevent the people entertaining certain opinions
y persecution.—(Hear, hear.) This, perhaps, was the
1-ist opportunity, that House would have of receiving a
wsign
ed ‘by so many of their fellow-cotmtrymen;
was, therefore, for them to say how far they would
receive the petition and comply with its prayer. He
gusted that he had done what he conceived to be his

uty without giving offence to any one, or prejudicing
:c cause of th petitioners. He now desired to leave it
the hands of the House, hoping. and trusting that the
-pinions which Hon. Members might express, and the
.rte they might come to in the present case, would cause
40y and satisfaction to thousands throughout the coun-,
ry. He would therelOid begleave to move that an hum-
madips4 bz‘firese-iitCd to her Majesty praying that she,
A.laciously phuscd to take into her merciful considers-
on. the cases of all the prisoners at present confined for
,olitical offences in England and Wales.
Mr. LEADER seconded the motion.
Mr. FOX 31A ULE, who spoke with his back to the
- porters' gallery, and frequently in a most indistinct
•,nc of voice, so as to be quite inaudible at times, said
::at in rising to address himself to the House on the

object whiti had been brought forward by the Hon.
•"ienteman who had just sat down, he must express his
tfrom the charge which had been made against that
Louse of having treated with levity a petition relative to
oe national charter which had been presented to it
:.Imt, time ago. He (Mr. F. Maule) could bear testi-
ony that no signs of levity or frivolity were shown by
House on that remarkable occasion, when the largest
etition u4it4l had been for a long period presented to the
House, was introduced by the then Member for Binning-
in a manner which he (Mr. F. Maule) was sure
..iltstined the approbation of all parties in the House,
• 4iethar adverse or not to the prayer of the petition.
•-n the present occasion no disposition was ex-
'oiled generally to raceive the petition with any
7, 'icy. It was the petition of the working classes
. '•-• that country, a body of whom, he might say,
whatever might be the causes which in-
aenced them on certain occasions, had, during some

:,..fmths past of severe privation, conducted themselves
in a manner ihich insured to them the respect of the
iN-Aintry at large, even though many of them made de-
. ands for political privileges of so exorbitant a nature
rondo-NI it impossible to grant them. With regard to
•. !iat his lion. Friend had stated, relative to that House
..ti.:rftfaig with her Majesty in the exercise of the pre-
,. ,gative of mercy, he (Mr. F. Malik) thought the case
s _Tested by his Hon. Friend was by no means suited to
'he present question (as we understood). He
, ~Ir. F. Manic) was not one of those to whom it seemed
ri.,ht that that House should interfere with the Crown in
exercise of any of its prerogatives. He admitted at
.ce that it was right that the representatives of the
.eoploshould address the Crown on any subject they
- ought it to be their duty to their constituents so
) do. But he much questioned the expediency of the
ruse interfering with the Crown in the exercise of the
• •erOgative of mercy; if they did so, it should be under
-e most urgent circumstances. In his opinion, the pre-
: gative of mercy was established in the Crown as an in-
.ent right, for the purpose of extending it to all cases
here its doing so was called for, as in cases of doubtful
v relicts, &c. It was for that House to watch that the
rerogative of mercy should not be exercised for any bad
• improper purpose, But if that House took upon it-
: 'Sr to address the Crown on the exercise of the prero-

tive of mercy, especially under such circumstances as
present, he feared that circumstances would arise, in
• ich parties would be encouraged to enter into the corn-
: ission of offences, such as those which were called po-
`ical, from a hope that a course similar to that now
{opted would be pursued in their behalf. He, there-
f, re, doubted the prudence of the course now taken by
Hon. Friend. With respect to the details entered
to by the Hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. F. Maule) was not
!pared to meet them—some of them, at least, which
• _re quite new to him. But this he could say, art in
matter whatever had any sentence of the law been
Acted with any great degree of severity. With re-
• ,ect to the meetings which those parties to whom the
I...sent motion referred had held, he (Mr. F. Maule) saw
, ,se meetings first begin in a constitutional manner, and
• dually assume that unconstitutional appearance which
• last led to the interference of Government to sup-
•ess assemblies where good order ought to have pre-
iled instead of seditious practices, which called forth
immediate interference of the law and the autho-

-ies. With respect to the open violation of the law
ich had been committed, they all knew that political

fences meant something more than the word Implied.
- 'dative to the punishment, out of three hundred and
enty-nine convictions, there remained only thirty-
. incl for punishment ; of those, nine were sentenced
transportation, having b4n found guilty of high
,anon ; one was sentenced to transportation for ten
are ; and of all the persons who had been found
zilty and sentenced to death, not one suffered the ex-
, wee penalty of the law. The prayer of the petition
• leded to addressing the Crown for a free pardon for
..4'rest, Williams, and Jones. He should be deceiving
V.) House and those individuals if he attempted
hold out any hope of a free pardon being ex-
eided to them. He could hold out no such hope, either
an individual or a member of the Government
5...; for the otheit.part of the prayer of the petition, that
• AS matter for the consideration of the House. He
fisted, therefore, that his Hon. Friend, instead of per-
. , ens'. g in endeavouring to obtain an address to the
.eewn, would give that House an opportunity of
~enseing the principles of the Charter and embodying
, principles, if the House agreed to them, in a Bill.
ith reference to the whole question he trusted that his
‘.l in. Friend, having brought it fully before the House,
..I having awakened the attention of the Government to
t .h,ituation of those individuals who were now in prison,
..v.:Aild not press his motion to a division, because he
t !ought he could neither improve the condition in which
I was placed himself by the statements he had made, or
1-In,t of the parties. With respect to the statement that had
* -en made by his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury,
it Mr. O'Connor and Mr. O'Brien had not been put to
rd labour, he must remind him that the sentences, if
vt...v were different, had been passed by the Judges, and
t' at it was only in those instances where the Judges had
dered hard labour to be inflicted that it was adopted.
conclusion he must say that he deeply regretted the
ti. 'aimstances in which these several parties were placed,
e, of this he was certain, that the door to the Royal
money was no more shut against them than it was to
• -y; other subject of the Crown ; he therefore trusted
t et his Bon. Friend would withdraw the motion.
Mr. O'CONNELL said if his Friend the lion. Member
i. • Finsbury divided the House he should certainly vote
h him, as he thought this was a case in which the
It use should press upon the Government to discharge
t..,i5e parties. It was a case in short in which the opinion
4, the House ought to be in favour of mercy-. The Hon.
C ntleman who had spoken last had adverted to the
4. .duct of the working classes, and had passed a high
egium upon them. He had stated however that they
I ti been punished to deter others from committing
Filar offences. Now, what was the case ? Why
,e was no Chartism in the country.—(Hear, hear.)
lie thought therefore tbat the House ought to extend
0 awn of mercy, in order that it might be said that
I re were no political offenders imprisoned in the country.
- (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had adverted
to England and Scotland, but he had forgotten Ire-
: ed. He (Mr. O'Connell) thanked God there were no
• itical offenders in the prisons of that country.
wy therefore did not want mercy there. All that they
:ed foe was justice.—(Hear, hear.) In conclusion he
t ited the House would take the subject-matter of the
Won into consideration.
LEADER could nejt allow a subject of such
mortanee to the maintenance of peace among the com-
/ unity to pass without making some few observations.
.ere was a feeling among the working classes that
!re was one law for the rich and another for the poor.
1.. must confess that his own opinion was of late there
• been a great exhibition of partiality with respect to
. treatment of parties who had committed offences, and
several meetings whiel he had attended lately the
arse which had been adoptedl with respect to Lord
Iligan and the Earl of Waldegrave, had been coal-
rith that which had been adopted with respect to

William Lovett. What, he would ask, was Lovett's
offence ? Why he had written a political libel for which
he was punished, but in doing so he had committed no
offence that affected his moral character. What, on the
other hand, had been the conduct of Lord Waldegrave ?
Why, he had been convicted of a brutal assault on a
policeman, by which he was greatly injured, and his life
for some time despaired of. It was true that Lord Wal-
degrave was punished for this, but what was the amount
of the punishment ? Why, Lovett, who had com-
mitted no moral offence, was confined for a year
in one of the most stringent and strict goals
in the country ; while Lord Waldegrave was only
confined in one of the outer wards of the Queen's Bench,
where he could enjoy every luxury, and receive and see
his friends. The only inconvenience he was subject to, was
not being able to drive a cabriolet during the present fine
weather, or go to the Derby.—(Laughter.) The Hon.
Gentleman had said that these parties should not have
adopted the agitation they did, but that they should have
applied to their representatives in the House of Com-
mons. That was the chief complaint, and the only re-
source which they had was to agitate, in order to make
converts to their principles. What harm, he would ask,
could it do to liberate these thirty-three men? The
Chartists were not now agitating ; there was no danger
of outbreaks in Manchester or Birmingham ; and, there-
fore, what harm could result from such an act of grace
on the part of the Crown? He begged of the House not
hastily to dismiss this petition from its consideration.
Mr. GILLON denied that the petition had been re-
ceived with levity by the Members of that House. He
believed there were many who would object to go to the
whole extent of the demands made in that petition; but
it would be most unfair to suppose that the Members of
that House were indifferent to the prayers of 1,500,000
of their fellow-subjects. It appeared to him that the
people having been shown that they could not recklessly
set the law at defiance, some mitigation of the punish-
ment of these men might now take place. He thought
another reason for agreeing to the proposition of the
Hon. Member for Finsbury was, the great disproportion
of the punishment to the offence. It was a sufficient jus-
tification of the assertion that was made in many quar-
ters, that there was one measure of justice meted out to
the Peer and another to the poor man, and he could not
help referring to the case of the Earl of Waldegrave,
who was suffering a trifling imprisonment for what a
man had a short time previously been sentenced to seven
years' transportation. He trusted much to the returning
good sense of the Chartists, and even if the Hon. Mem-
ber did not press his motion to a division, he was satis-
fied that the discussion would be productive of much
good. He believed that these men were beginning to
see the folly and absurdity of their conduct, and he
hoped they would see no more of it, any more than of
the unnatural coalition that had lately taken place be-
tween the Chartists and the Tories. He should give his
cordial support to the motion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME thought the present was not the time to
discuss the conduct of the Chartists, but what they were
to take into consideration was, whether, as had been
urged by the Hon. Member who had preceded him, the
punishment of these unfortunate men had not been
greatly disproportioned to their offence. He believed
much of the severity exercised towards these men arose
from the unfounded apprehensions which then filled
men's minds, and which subsequent events had shown to
be completely unfounded. He sincerely trusted that the
Government would see the justice and expediency of re-
considering the case of these men who still remained in
confinement, and confer a boon upon the millions of that
country by restoring them to liberty.
Mr. WARBURTON complained of the severe treat-
ment to which these men had been subjected, and which
in itself formed a sufficient justification for a merciful
consideration of their case on the part of the Govern-
ment.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WAKLEY said the treatment of these men was a
sufficient ground for the interposition of the Government,
and he trusted the hint would not be lost upon them, and
that it would not be necessary to press the motion to a
division. Nothing had taken place in that country for
many years which could be put in competition with the
punishment of these men, and the Government might
very fairly exercise some leniency to them, now that
these events had passed away. He could not understand
the awful silence that prevailed on the other side of the
House—(Hear, hear)—unless it was that the Right Hon.
Baronet was taking a careful review of the circumstances
of the country, and that the confinement of political
offenders might form one of its most prominent fea-
tures. It appeared to him that a word from the Right
Hon. Baronet would be of immense service to these men,

and he hoped it would not be withheld. The Right Hon.
Baronet and the House ought to view with consideration,
and a merciful feeling of forbearance, the errors of these
men, who had been incarcerated merely for stating their

opinions in an honest and manly manner, at publicmeet-
ings.—(flear, hear.) The working classes had no re-
presentatives in that House, and that it was which
made them so restless and discontented, and justly so,
and they would be undeserving the name of men if they
were not discontented until they had representatives in
that House. They were not called upon to support the
prayer of the petition ; they were merely called on to
support the motion of his Hon. Colleague, and to that
motion no man could possibly object. It merely prayed
her Majesty to take into her merciful consideration the
case of the prisoners confined for political offences, but
it did not ask for their discharge. If the Ministers
thought the motion objectionable they mi,9-ht refrain
from voting upon it, and leave it to the decision of the
House. It was a matter worthy of their consideration,
that 1,348,000 unrepresented men had addressed that
House in favour of these men, and he trusted it would
meet with their favourable consideration.
Sir R. PEEL did not think the Hon. Gentleman had

any right to complain of his silence, for he was not,
whatever other imputations might be cast upon him,
chargeable with evading difficulties.—(Hear, hear.)
He certainly would not pursue the course of the Hon.
Member, and put so shabby a construction upon
the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. Why,
the manliness of the Hon. Member himself would repu-
diate such a construction.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member had said that the time was come when these

political offenders should be discharged, and that the
Crown would act well in extending its mercy towards
them. Let no man vote for the motion under the im-
pression that the object merely was to pray her Ma-
jesty to take the case of these men into her gracious
consideration. The real understanding of the motion
was—and the Hon. Member for Finsbury would not deny
it—its real object was to obtain the discharge of these
men. He should act in conformity with the prin-
ciples on which he had always actitd, namely, to
leave the matter in the, hands of the Crown.
He thought the consideration of these cases ought, con-
sistently with the Constitution, to be left with the Crown.
The functions of the House of Commons were clearly
separated by the Constitution from the prerogatives of
the Crown. He remembered a similar instance to the
present occurring when he was Secretary of State, re-
specting Mr. Hunt, then a prisoner for a political of-
fence in Echester Gaol, and then he (Sir R. Peel)
stated that he could not take upon himself to advise the
Crown to mitigate the punishment. It should be remem-
bered that this was not advice given to the Crown with
respect to punishment inflicted by the adjudication of
the criminal law, but given upon the opinion of the
House of Commons. It was, therefore, on constitutional
grounds that he was unwilling to establish a precedent
which he knew might be easily followed—(Hear, hear)—
and that he must resist the motion of the Ho-
nourable Gentleman. He (Sir Robert Peel) opposed
no obstacle whatever to the free consideration
of these cases; he thought it was the duty of the Crown
to consider them well, and to act upon the judgment
thereby formed of the justice of continuing or remitting
these punishments. On this point he gave no opinion,
but he trusted the House would not be influenced by the
desire to acquire popularity—(Hear, hear)—but would
look to the permanent interest involved in considerations
of this nature; and he trusted also that they would re-
member the painful duties which devolved upon the
Crown in the administration of criminal justice. He
thought they would be placing the Crown in an unneces-
sary and an unfair position if they persevered in claiming
for themselves that favour and those opportunities of
showing indulgence which properly belonged to the
Crown alone. He was sure that a popular assembly would
never ask for the infliction of punishment. He frnsted
he had now fairly stated his opinions on this subject, or
posing no obstacles to the cautious and merciful consi-
deration of these cases; he only wished that where favour
and lenity could be shown the grace of showing it might
belong to the Crown.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. EASTHOPE, who was very indistinctly heard,
said he could not consent to give a silent vote on the pre-
sent occasion. He agreed, as a general principle, in the
r caselaid
for d
was ' an bynowtora,tehxbecuetlpitiighohent
to
oliotihedme
Baronetsentiments
the
a npMdr ee views
sme nb te
li
itselfg favourable
h t itnot e
express
lato
general expedient
rntoissi
that the House
ofthe
from
should rule
?
penalty in cases so distinguished t the general rule ?
lie trusted he should be pardoned for
mentioning an ad-
ditional reason he had :for voting for the motion, that
some of the individuals of the constituent
had the honour to represent had presented a petition that
one of these offenders should be so • circumstanced that
he might become a candidate for the
representation
that town in Parliament.—(" Oh, oh," auhar.") He
of
(Mr. Easthope) desired that there should be
no inter-
ference with the proper and just expression of an
opinion
of that sort. He intended not himself to interpose
obstacle to the expression of that opinion, andhe any
on
sidered this as an additional reason why he should con-
sidered
the motion before the House.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
Sir DE LACY EVANS said he thought it an addi-
tional reason in favour of this motion, that the only two
Members of that House who had expressed an opinion
against it, the Hon. Under-Secretary for the Home De-
partment, and the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel),
had not addresSed themselves to the merits of
the case, but had entirely defended the course
they took on some rather fine-drawn doctrines of Consti-
tutional law.(Hear, hear.) He would again draw their
attention to the fact that this petition was signed by up-
wards of a million of their fellow-subjects, and of that
class who were not represented in that House. They (lid
not come forward praying for an extension of privileges
for themselves, but merely to solicit the alleviation of
the punishment of those misguided persons who still re-
main in the prisons of this country for political offences.
Under these circumstances, he trusted that the Govern-
ment would take a favourable view of their case.—(Hear.)
Sir B. HALL said, that being connected with the
county inwhich the outbreak had taken place a year and
a half ago, he had been .then called upon to take a re-
sponsible part as a Magistrate, from which responsibility
lie did not shrink, and he thought it his duty to come
forward and state his opinions on the present occasion.
Being intimately acquainted with that county, he must
say that he had never known it more tranquil or quiet
than it now was, notwithstanding that the working po-
pulation are looking forward to a great reduction
wages in consequence of the great stagnation of the iron
trade.--(Hear, lwar.) He thought that if ever there was
a time in which a merciful consideration should be given
to the cases of persons confined for political offences, it