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

LOVETT AND COLLINS.

Mr. T. DU NCOMBE then rose to make the following
raor.ion that " Whereas, in the month of June last, two
respectable respectable working men, named William Lo-
,,•ett and John Collins, were convicted of publishing a se-
c'jtious libel, and for the said offence were sentenced to
ono year's imprisonment in Warwick gaol; and whereas a
fare number of persons have since been convicted of
offences of a similar character, and the greatest portion of
those persons, contrary to custom, are, as well
as the above-mentioned William Lovett and John
Collies, placed on the criminal side of the gaols
to which they have been respectively sent, and
are there treated after the manner of persons convicted
of the most heinous and detestable crimes ; it is the opinion
this House that such mode of carrying out sentences of
Arorisonment for political offences, being as uncalled for
as unprecedented, ought to be discontinued; and
that no greater restraint should be imposed or
rtegradation inflicted upon this class of offenders
t'oan their safe custody requires and long us4ge sanctions."
The grievances that had been complained of by many pe-
titioners relating to the treatment of persons convicted of
potiocat eausse.s .ae‘ee, evuel. inhuman, and unprecedented.
pia 1.:..ad many well authenticated eases to establish this
nronosition, and when he had laid the facts before the House
no hoped they would agree to the resolution he intended
propose. Before adverting, however, to the statements
co„iloctod with the parties now suffering punishment for
• offences, ho would briefly call the attention of the
1-lou-,e to cases of a similar character, that had recurred in
:.',:rmer times. He would not, however, go further back than
179:2, during which year a vory great toitmLer of political
pracutions were instituted. The Honourable Member then
• the cases of Ridgway and Symonds, in 1792 ; that cf
cif clic Rev. William Winter,
s ass attorney, in 1793;
I,3tzoul. whn, during the !male he was in pr:scm, wrote his
ijistcry of and was allowed to get married ; the
case ,fitr. Iteillead Yorke ; of Mr. Gilbert Wakefield ; of
.3,7. Lt od ; and William Crabber% who carried on his Re- '
gi;ter while in Newgate ; and of Messrs. J. and Leigh Hunt.
it these parties were convicted of political offences, either
by publishing libels, or uttering treasonable and seditious
speuehes, but they were none of them subjected to any
restraint, while undergoinct the different periods
of imprisonment to which they were sentenced, than was
atimlurely necessary to the security of their persons. In
Maj ir Cartwright and others were convicted of ac-
• practices in assembling to elect persons as mem-
of a National Convention ;but they were all ire-

o.oed on the debtor side of Warwick gaol. Subse-
vele ly Henry Hunt was convicted of a eon piracy and an
ntormpt to subvert the Government, are] was imprisoned
;es lichester gaol, where he experienced rather harsher
treatment than previous political offenders had been sub-
jected to, and for which he afterwards obtained redress
eeainst the gualer. The first time that this rule of
sle,:inguishing political offences from ordinary midernea-
sesrs in the mode of treatment of the parties convicted
was 'eroken through was in the case of Lovett and Col-
Fes. Now in every word of the libel fur the publi-
eltior of which Lovett and Colas were found guilty,
he ( Mr. Duneon.be) entirely concurred. The words
Ist. That this Conventioa (Mr. Lovett was score-
ter,7 to the National Convention) is of opisCen tint a
trenton, flagrant. and unjust outrage has been made upon
:es,:)ple of Birmingham by a blood-thirsty and uncon-
force from London acting under the authority
..:2n who, when out of office, sanctioned and took part
in tire meetings of the people ; and cow, when they share
ie the public plunder, seek to keep the people in social
r;;seery and political degradation. 2. That the people of
P.ii,niegi.am are the best judges of their own right to meet
Coe Bull-ring or elsewhere; have their own fedings to
cneetit ; and arc the best judges of their own power and
re. •irces to obtain justice. 3. That the summary and
eee.eie arrest of Dr. Taylor, our respected colleague,
another convincing proof of the absence of all jur-
es,e, iu Kagland, and clearly shows that there is no accurity
fife, libsrty, or property, till the people have some con-
over Ole laws they are called upon to ohey " Singe the
7i7;.'''-:oitien of these remarks on the metropolitan police, an
iseesiry with regard to the conduct of the police upon that
eceasion had been instituted by a Committee of the Toren
f, swell of Birmingham, Mr. Joseph Sturge being Chair-
Tile result of the inquiry was expressed in the very
rse, used by Mr. Lovett himself. They declsied that
it we proved that a brutal and bloody attack bad b; en
.31We upon the people of Birmingham, and it was their
_Onion that if the police had not at.acked the people, no
rider ever would have occurred, and they considered
tem &he riot was incited by the London police. The
::ernitteo of the Corporation of liirmingliam stated that it
ttos practice of the police to assail men with blocs who
e,e.' here been easily apprebewded. Why not, after
tf-i
,iresecut• Mr. Joseph Sturge ?—(Cheers.) This
uguage quite as strong as that used by Mr. Lovett.
Cemmittee went to say that it was a matter of deep
e that the Magistrates should have deemed the ser-
of these men (the London police) matter for corn-
7e.eentary notice, and that such a proceeding oo the part
Magistrates, was altogether uncalled' fur and un-
Hear, hear.) At all events, then, there
7.,eT two opinions upon this subject—(Cheers)—and he
sse-:...,1 ask, were Mr. Lovett and Mr. Collins to suff,r
degradation in Warwick gaol for having expressed
epieiou with regard to the conduct of the ,
•, in which a great part of the people through-
put she country concurred ?—( Cheers ) Mr. Joseph
fituret and the Town Council of Birmingham ought to have
lseee eent to Warwick gaol just as well as Mr. Lovett and
Or. Collins. What did he find boldly assorted in the
;supers of the day? The following strong remarks ap-
veared in one of the paily papers on June 24th last :
I.Ve call public attention to a police case, which appears
eoner the head of Worship-street this day. In the course
'!1(' last six months we have bean compelled t• make
eadversions en the illegal, tyrannical, and intolerable
r' et of the new police force, and every fresh occurrence
27;1r:firms us in the belief to which that ecnduct has
e;. I rise, that the metropolitan police is the greatest
tbat ever afflicted a free people."—( Hear, hear.)
Thk .-as pretty strong language ; it appeared iu The Sun
Tle,Vi'Jpaper of the 24th of June, and had tie uovernmeist
dared to prosecute The S.
'an for the: publication ? No.
is•ituted Tire San newspaper
Any prosecution were u
eteuld be supported by two-thirds of the people of this
emetry.—(Cheers.) But to go back to the case of
Lovettand Collins : representetions were made b
treoli to the itlagistrates of the county of Warwick'
ru'n • privations and hardships those persons were
ees in Warwick gaol, but they were told that
tile source whence any relief could be ob.
!niece was the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
mete. From time to time applications Were made to the
cretary of State, who referred the complaint:. to the
vi;iti.s. Magistrates, and tire visiting Magistrates sent
them beck again to the Secretary of State; and so,
iietw:.-n one and the other, no progress was made
rolieliorating the treatment of these men until i
nearly one half of the period of their imprisonment
e:;pired. Mach improvement in that treatment
tdtirnately tank place, but they ware still kept on the re-
leive side of the gaol, and were subjected to various other
:harsh and degrading regulations, that could never be justi-
titb to political offenders, who, in the opinion
gment of society, had committed no moral offence, '
4,;•. 2th oT this month the term of imprisonment to

7,1-; -

which Mr. Lovett and Mr. Collies were sentenced would ex- 1
,iire; and he believed that it was the desire of certain ind;_ !
viduals that these injured men should assume a better and
fatter appearance when hey came out of gaol than they had
tome during their confinement there. The consequence
was, that every day for the last ten days they had been
]laving port-wine negus—( Laughter)—in order, no doubt, I
when they came before the public that they should appear
in good condition.—( Laughter ) The Hon. Gentleman
here read a letter, dated 22d June last, which Mr. Lovett
had addressed to a friend, describing the nature of the
) treatment he had experienced since hi; incarceration In
Warwick gaol, and the effect it had produced on Lie mind
and health. " You can form (said the writer to his friend)
1 but a very imperfect idea of the feeling and tone of mind
which the restraint and monotony of the discipline of a
prison entail on those persons who have been used to
activity and the exercise of the body, to cheerful conver-
sation, and to all the varieties of political and literary ex-
citement. I posses; very little descriptive powers, but I
will endeavour briefly to describe the melancholy routine
in which 1 have passed the greater number cf days I have
been here, varied only by exchanging the loneliness of my
cell for scenes of vice and crime, where I have been com-
pelled to mix with persons of the worst description. In the
midst of such circumstances you may easily suppose that
! even books begin at last to lose their attractions. At half-
, past five in the morning the prison bell rings; at six in
the morning you arc expected to have your bed rolled up
1 and your room cleaned. Formerly we were obliged to go
' instantly down to the yard to answer cur names when the
roll was called, but that has lately been dispensed with.
We have to wait some time before we can get a tiro, for
we are not allowed to have either flint or steel. We
then retire and sit in our dark cell to read or wile away the
time." That was written on the 221 of June. Since
then it appeared that Mr. Lovett had seen a statement
with respect to his sleeping with Collins ; on the 24th he
wrote a letter stating that that the reprenentation was not
quite correct. It was true that Collins and himself did
sleep together in the first instance ; but Lovett being ra-
ther a restless and sleepless man, Collins preferred sleep-
ing with the other inmate of their cell. And here Mr.
Lovett made a statement, which demanded the serious at-
tention of the House ; for, if correct, it was too
1 atrocious to be endured. Mr. Lovett stated that
Collins had had four different persons to sleep with
him since he had been in prison : the first was con-
victed of rape, two others were imprisoned for assaults,
and his present bed-fellow was convicted of passing bad
money. Fortunately, said Mr. Lovett, lie and Collins had
escaped catching the itch ; but their fellow political offen-
der, Edward Brown, was not so fortunate, and he was
obliged to undergo the itch bath.—(The Hon. Gentleman
then read a letter written by Collins to his wife, describing
the injurious effect his confinement bad produced upon his
health, and more especially the very serious encroachments
it had made on the less robust constitution of his fellow-
prisoner, Lovett.) This, then, was the hard treatment
which these two men had experienced for a political offence
which had never been considered in the estimation of so-
ciety to cast a stigma on the moral characters of those who
were convicted of it. What would have been said by
the present Government if any among those whose cases
he had referred to in the commencement of his speech
had been subjected to similar treatment by the Tories
of former days ? But he wished it was only Mr. Lovett
and Mr. Collins that had been so treated. If gen-
tlemen would take the trouble to read die petitions that
bad been presented to the House, he might refer them to
Fisherton Gaol, Ilchcster Gaol, York Castle, Oakham Gaol,
and Wakefield House of Correction. Mr. Roberts, an at-
torney of Bath, had been recently discharged from Fisher-
ton Gaol, and had returned to Bath, having been released
by the Secretary of State. A person, who was a member
of the town council of Bath, had written to him ( Mr.
Duncombe) on the subject, and very naturally asked why
Carrier and Potts were not equally released. The ground
for liberating Roberts must equally apply to the cases of
Carrier and Potts, for all throe were tried at the same
assizes for the same offence, and the Judge said, when
sentencing them, that he saw no difference in their
degrees of guilt. He, however, made a distinction In
the punishment, for Potts being a poor man,—( Hear,
hear,)—ta as sentenced not only to imprisonment but to hard
labour. Mr. Carrier, he believed, could not boast of the
same high connections in life as Mr. Roberts could do, who
he ( Mr. Duncombe) understood was a near connection
of Chief Justice Tindal. But, notwithstanding, neither
Carrier nor Potts could claim any high connections, it
equally behoved the House of Commons to take care that
justice sheuld be done to their case. In Ilchester gaol
there were two persons confined for political offences,
named Bartlett and Baldwin ; and: if they passed Oakham
gaol they would find three individuals, Vincent, Shellard,
and Edwards. They were convicted at Monmouth, and
sent to Monmouth gaol. They remained there some time,
and were then sent to the Penitentiary. Notice was taken
of the removal, in consequence of a discussion upon the
subject in the House of Commons, in the course of which
it was contended that their removal was illegal, and that
the Government had no right to send them to the Peni-
tentiary. Since then they had been removed to Oakham,
and their petition deserved the attention of the House.
After having been imprisoned for nearly nine months on one
charge, on account of an offence committed in June, Mr.
Vincent was again indicted for an offence committed in the
January previous. This appeared to him nothing more nor
leas than a vindictive proceeding. Had it occurred during
Tory times, the .country would have rung with the in-
dignation of the public. The next case to which ha would
call their attention was that of the prisoners at Wakefield.
They had heard the petitions of Richard White and Jo-
seph Crabtree. White, an oh man, aged 62, petitioned
on the part of his sow,- one of the convicted party, who
had been originally confined in York Castle, but was re-
moved to Wakefield without his (the father's) knowledge.
From another person, however, who had been confined in
Wakefield gaol, the petitioner had heard that his son was
reduced very much in health—that he was compelled to
work on the treadmill with felons—that he had twice fallen
off the mill in a:state of exhaustion—and when the
petitioner went to the gaol, the gaoler would not allow
, him to see his son—(hear.) Now, this man was sen-
tenced to imprisonment only, not to hard labour. The
case of Joseph Crabtree was perhaps the worst of all. In
Lis petition he stated that he was locked up in his
cell from six at night until six in the morning, the
cell being a small room, eight feet by six—that while so
lucked up he was not allowed to make the slightest noise,
nor even to walk about his cell—that on being liberated in
ti.e morning he was placed among convicted misdemean-
ants, olal'gcd to hold his face in a particular position, so
that the gaoler might see it, and prevented from holding
the slightest communication, either by look or by word,
with the other prisoners. In this state he was kept until
the evening, not being allowed to stand up, or even to
look another prisoner in the face, under penalty of sub_
jecting himself to solitary confinement in a dark room for
three days, on a diet of bread and water only. The pri-
soner had been convicted of having been present at a
meeting of a seditious character at Barnsley, but in ]iii
petition he solemnly declared in the presence of God that
Ise wits riot there present—a fact which could be proved
by another prisoner, named Owen. He could have proved
this on his trial, but was told that his cane would be
loulsed upon as one of meire unimpoitance, and that
he had better take no steps of the kind. The only
other ce.se with which he would trouble the House
was that of Mr. Feargus O'Connor, which wan not
ore-fifth as Lad as the others which be had referred
to. The treatment which that gentleman received was
at first outrageous and disgraceful to the country, but
it had recently been much improved. Still it was
vs hat, as a political offender only, he ought to be not sub-
jscted to. The avowed elij, et. of it was to prevent him
Irem continuing to pelohsh his Paper. But Mr. Cobbett
Red Mr. Hunt were allowed to continue to write their
Papers under similar circumstances, and why should not
Mr. O'Connor? He was not allowed to see his friends
txcept in the presence of his gaoler, and then only across
a passage six feet wide, and through iron gratings, in order
that he might not transmit any writings to the public. He
knew that he should be told that all these things were the
acts of the visitiag Magistrates—that the Government
were not to blame—and that the amendment recently
made in the Prisons Act would set all to rights. But the
alteration in ger stion was a perfect delusion. The alte-
ration in the Prisons Act did not make tire law of the land
d,fferent from what it had been before. The Secrett.ry of
State, as had been evidenced in the case of Mr. O'Cor.-
noe, I ad before the peer to alter the regulations of tie
visiting Meg'strates, fur he had been transferred from the
felons' to the debtors' side, in consequence of the interfe-
t (-nee a the Secretary of State. The new Act still 1,-ft it
to the visiting Justices to make the regulations or the pri-
sen, and whether the prisoner was confined on the debtors'
or the feloes' side, still he would be subject to those regu-
lations. What guarantee had Parliament as to the nature
of those regulations ? If ;hey were to be anything like
n hat they now were, the only effect of the alteration would
be to leave it in the power of the Secretary of State shy
whom the regulations of the Magistrates were liable to be
revised) to treat political offenders (who might possibly be
personally offensive to him) in a manner never hitherto
contemplated by the law. Ile called, then, on this !Luse
to affirm, by resolution, the principle on which those prison
tegulations should be based—that there should be only so
much restriction an was necessary to secure the safe custody
of the person of the prisoner.—(Hear, hear.) But w hst
a ere these irersons convicted for ? For attending seditious
and illegal meetings. What was an illegal meeting?
Very different sentiments had been entertained by those
who now formed part of the Government, or who sup-
ported it at other periods, from those upon wh.eli
these individuals had been convicted. In Decem-
ise-T, 1 sio, after the Sedition Bill had passed the
House of Lords, a prerst was entered upon the
journals, whichi contained these sentiments :
for"ceFdi,rsit,lay‘..e Becausehsl.u:fting:tilearandt ,
twolii)ernevdennity
aenny.
confusion eel:4re from popular meetings, or to punish any
disturbers of the'publie. peace ;
sbteeen lawsf oun of
and a too ready acquiescence
in the suggestions of Ministers for imposing new restraints
upon the riehts and usage of the people (even if the pro-
, visions t f the Bill were in themselves neither heist' nor
unreasonable), appears to us more calculated to add
' 1
, weight to calumny, and to exasrrato discontent into
hostility, than to defeat the designs of turbulent men, or
to reclaim the al;ene•ed affections of a mistaken meltitude.
" Secondly. Beeau c the powers entrusted by this Bill to
' Migistrates are liable to great abuse, end those who dis-
°Ley them exposed to dreadful and disproportionate
punishment. on the surmise that a stranger is present in
a crowd, or on the appi:eation of a vague definition to the
1 words of a notice, or to the language of an orator, a Justice
of Peace may proclaim a meeting to be unlawful, and an
Englishman may become a felon fur continuing, even
through inadvertence, half-an-hour in a spot where no
) breach of the peace has been committed.
" Thirdly. Because the numerous assemblies alleged in
the prestruLle to be the occasion and justification of the Bill
have been confines to particular districts, but the restric-
tions and penalties thereof are generally extended to the
whole kingdom, and even to Ireland, \vberp co such prac-
tices bare eyer prevailed.
1 " Fourthly. Because this Bill, combined with the res-
trictions of the press, which have already passed, or
have been announced in this House, is obviously in,.
to re .
ion of public opinion. Large
if not stifle, the express
tended to fetter all free discussions, and . —presa,
meetings, in periods of political ferment furuish the

-means of ascertaining the designs and rneasu ing the
strength of the malcontents ; they tend to disunite anti
discredit the rash and mischinions agitators of a mistaken
multitude. and they not unfrequently SerV2 as a vent,
comparatively innoxious, of that ill-hurn.,ur and discon-
tent which, if suppressed, might sei k refuge in secret
cabals and cGuspiracies dangerous to the safety-et indivi-
duals in authority, and subversive of the I.eacc and happi-
ness of society.

" ( Signed)
" VASSAL HOI,LAND, DONA:Gid:3Ia,
ACGUSTUS FREDERICK', GROSVENOR,
THANET ERSKINE."
Similar sentiments were expressed during the last recess
by the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. He
(Mr. Duncombe) wished that with regard to these unfor-
tunate men the Noble Lord had acted upon the doctrines '
so laid down by him at Liverpool.—(llear.) He com-
plained also of the different mode of punislnnent which
was observed with regard to different effenders. While
Messrs. Lovett and Collins, and the other persons to whom
he had referred, were treated in the manner that had been
described, the Rev. Mr. Stephens, who had been convicted
of a similar offence, was actually living in the gaoler's
house, and enjoying the society of his friends.—( Hear,
hear. ) Mr. Bronterre O'Brien and Mr. M'Douall were
also treated in Chester gaol with much less severity than
was observed towards Messrs. Lovett and Collins, though
not so well as the Rev. Mr. Stephens. As an instance of
the petty severities that were inflicted sn Mr. O'Brien,
he would mention that his snuff-box was taken away from
hind.—(A laugh.) This might appear to some lion. Mem -
bets an absurd ground of complaint; but those who were
in the habit of taking snuff (as Mr. O'Brien was) would
tell them that to be prevented so doing was a source of
much annoyance and inconvenience. The sort of treat-
ment which he had described as being inflicted on these
prisoners was not sustained by public opinion. The effect
which it would have, if continued, on the minds of the
lower orders was deserving of the attention of the House.
He implored those connected with the rural districts to
lend their aid on this occasion, for they might depend
upon it that there was scarcely a village or a hamlet in
which the reports of the sufferings of these prisoners did
not penetrate, and where there did not exist a strong feel-
ing that these prisoners were unjustly detained, and treated
with undue harshness. The address which he was about
to move did not in any way trench on the prerogative of
the Crown. He did not ask for a curtailment of the im-
prisonment of the parties, but only that an end might be
put to a system of treatment which, thank God, had never
been beard of in this country since the days of the Star
Chamber, and which was very little exceeded by the
worst cruelties of the Spanish inquisition.—(Cheers.) The
Hon. Member concluded by moving the address.
Mr. WA KLEY seconded the motion. He would ask
whether it was intended to restore the punishment of the
rack ? Was it the intention to restore the days of
torture, sufficient to disgrace and brutalize those who
suffered it ?—( Hear, hear.) Not one of those per-
sons could come out of their prisons without entertaining
feelings of the bitterest vengeance. He trusted it would
be proved that the complaints had been made to the
House before they were sub.nitted to the Executive
Government, for he could not believe that any Govern-
ment whatever could have heard of such continuous and
excessive cruelty inflicted upon persons convicted of no
felony, but merely of political offences. All gaols ought
to be placed under the immediate control of the Secretary
for the Home Department, and he ought to have a seat in
that House, so that he might be questioned from day to
day, whenever grievances such as those contained in the
petitions before the House took place. Contrast the
treatment of these men with that of Sir F. Burdett, whom
he had certainly expected to have seen in his place upon
such an occasion. He was convicted of a seditious libel,
was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, under a
Tory Government. He was allowed to walk out
and take the air—to hold his levees— no torture
was shown to him—indeed, his treatment after con-
viction did honour to the Tory Government of the
day. He knew not what course his Hon. Colleague in-
tended to pursue. lie had fully brought the whole cases
of torture under the notice of the Executive, and unless
that system was entirely altered, the entire blame must
rest upon the Government, and with them alone. Ile
trusted his Hon. Colleague would not divide the House,
but that the Under-Secretary for the Home Department
would assure him of a change in the system, which would
be satisfactory.
Sir G. STRICKL AND bad long intended to have
brought forward the ease of the political offenders incarce-
rated in Wakefield House of Correction, but he thought it
was better in the hands of the Hon. Member for Finsbury,
because he considered they were treated in a most shame-
fully harsh and severe manner. He considered that
their punishment was wholly illegal—that they should
be put to the hardships of diet and dress of the
worst felons—that they should be put upon tho
silent system, was, in his opinion, wholly illegal.
He was glad to see that an Act of Parliament was to be
introduced to classify such offenders as those of whom he
was speaking, and he trusted that all ability of abusing
their powers would be taken from the Magistrates, and
the power of regulating gaols, be kept in the hands of the
Home Secretary. _ _

Mr. F. Alit treE could assure the House that nothing
was further from the intention of the Government than
to press harder upon political offenders than their sentences
warranted. He would pass to the cases mentioned.
First was that of Lovett and Collins. Their case had
been fully discussed. Their first sufferings were admitted
to be hardships, and the Government had greatly amelio-
orated their condition. The Hon. Gentleman, however,
had gone out of his way to palliate the offences of which
they had been convicted. They were fairly tried by an im-
partial tribunal, yet the Hon. Member said he avowed
the very same expressions as were contained in the pia.
card upon which they had been convicted. Ile was
sorry to hear that such language was at all counten
anced by any Member of that House, especially when it
was remembered that it was issued the day after Birming-
ham had been the scene of a gross and dangerous
riot. The placard was published at Birmingham on the
sth of July, after a public meeting condemnatory of the
interference of the London Police, and caused great
excitement against that body, in consequence of which,
and speeches there and in various parts of the country,
such opposition was excited to the London Police as
caused the disturbances on the 15th. These police,
however, did not interfere, until their intervention
became absolutely n messary, when they dispersed the
crowd without any person being able to say that a single
person was injured by them. Compare this with the die- '
turbances which took place on the arrest of Sir Francis
Burdett, and how wide the difference between the two
~vents. There was no good citizen in Birmingham who
did not admit that they were largely indebted to the
police, on that occasion, fur the protection of their life
and p7operty.—(Cheeis.) Sa much for this part of the
Honourable Gentleman's case. With regard to his
ass,rtion that the police were employed as spies,
it was an assertion altogether unfounded, that
body not being employed in any way but was
just and necessary fur the prevention and detection Of
crime. It was very easy' to throw out insinuations of this
nature, but he trusted to the good sense of the people of
this country to properly appreciate them. With re bard to
the imprisonment of Lovett and Collins, that was now
drawing to a close, and but a short time since they bad
been offered a remission of their sentence, era the lowest
condition that could be offered to them, that of entering
into recogeizreces for their good behaviour for twelve
months. They had, however, by advice, or of their own
free will, rejected this offer, and therefore upon
themselves and their advisers rested the respen-
sibility of the two months' imprisonment which
would otherwise have been remitted by the Government.
The next case adverted to by the Hen. Gentleman was
that of Bartlett and Baldwin. These persons were not im-
prisoned for political libel, tine form, r beine convicted of
a direct act of sedition, and all they prayed for he wee in-
formed, was to be placed on the fueling of Mr. F. O'Coir-
eor—they complained of no hardships whetever. He,
fterefnie, passed on to the case of Edwards ; arel with re-
ference to this person, and Vincent, and Shy Har!, these
persons admiled they should not have p titioned, hut fc;r
an applicatien from a Member of Parliament that thy
should do Si) on any complaint y e ight have to make.
Mr. DU N COM BE—I wrote that.—( Laughter )
Mr. F. M A UL E proceeded_ The only ,inniplaint these
persons made was the very reasonable one, that they were
Lot ;Woe ed a knife to eat their food, bit were compelled
to use a spoon for that purm.e, which, on being hemmed
of, the Goveinment immediately ordered to be reeeified.
Gl' the two former no other complaint was made ; but, with
reference to Shellard, a statement of his (MSC wins drawn
up by himself, but up to that moment had never been trans-
mitted to the Secretary of State. The next case was that
of Crabtree and Wright. The latter was sentenced to hard
labour, and it was one of the grounds of his com-
plaint that he Lad been put to hard labour, which,
being his sentence, could not be matter of complaint against
any persan whatever.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentle-
, man said he would have a Secretary of State whosepower
should extend, in these cases, all user the kingdom ; but
if such a system of centralization were adopted, he thought
the Hon. Gentleman would be the first to cry out against
it, and to agree that this power could be placed in no bet-
ter hands than that of the local Magistrates. With re.
spect to Crabtree, he would only state that his case was
now under consideration. de would now ask whether
there was any ground for the accusations of the Honour-
able Gentleman of the u inecessai y infliction of torture upon
persons who were incarcerated for political offences ? He
thought the conduct of the Government throughout was a
sufficient guarantee that they had acted with no feeling of
revenge towards any individuals, but solely with a desire
to maintain the peace and good order of society. He
could not but think that the persons who advised these
misguided men to acts of commotion and sedition were far
more worthy of condemnation than those whom they de-
luded. A Government which punished these unlawful
proceedings must be subject to sonic degree of odium, but
the Government which on this account shrunk from the
discharge of their duty would not only be unworthy of the
confidence of the House and the country, but would be
guilty of indirectly promoting those crimes which it rT3ii
their duty to restrain and punish.—( Cheers.)
Mr. D'ISRA ELI said the question was whether a great
change had not taken place in the punishment of political
offenders ?—( Cheers.) Was it denied they were treated
as felons—( Hear, hear)—and that this treatment had
been carried on on an extensive scale. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Finsbury' had shown that since the year 1792 no
political offenders had been treated as they had been by the
present Government. He would maintain that in no period
except
worst period of history had they beers so
was a constitutional maxim that the primary
punishment of these persons was the security
of the State, and even in the days of the Star ChaniLer
this had been admitted, as was instanced in the celebrated
case of Mr. Prynne, who, when imprisoned for political
otlitcpet of thelt
the
offences, revenged himself on Laud by writing forty pam-
phletslhci badevßiisihop been
Bishops.—( Laughter.) The Noble
conceded by the Star
C
lee m
thought,a ha d
Lord
that the
h
lemsa
tiite
worldr. (1 Ie
naor , hear.)
t drievi
dr .) Gentleman
c the but iti
after the speech of the Honourable Under secretary,
he would net be doing hie duty to the country gnlei,s ho
did so.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the House should not
separate until they had remedied these grievances, which !