The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-15 00:00:00

leave the case in his hands, and he would take care that
due inquiries would be made into the matter. If the'
words attributed to the Magistrate were correct, they
were certainly very imprudent, but with rsgard to the
numb4r of days the party had been in confinement, that
was certainty more the fault of the law than anything
else ; and if proper precautions were not taken, the

guilty would frequently escape.
Sir E. WILMOT said, in addition to that fault of
the law, there was another great absurdity which re-
quired annendment—namely, that distinction which
made the cutting of a stick a felony, and taking away
any quantity of timber previously cut merely a misde-
meanour. He thought that absurd distinction should

be done away with.
Toe ATTORNEY-GENERAL was rather sur-
priscd at the statements of the Hon. Member for War-
wick, who had entirely misapprehended the question,
because it will lust the very reverse.—(Hear, hear, and
a laugh.) Ike Ceding to law, parties under examination
might be remanded for a reasonable time, but if the
time was unreasonable, the Magistrate was liable to an
action, and damages might be recovered.
Mr. ALSTON had applied to the Magistrate for an
explanation, in order that it might be stated by himself,
or his Hon. Colleague, in that House, and his answer
was that he had no farther information to give. He
could not. see, therefore, what steps the Hon. Gentle-
man, the Under Secretary for the Treasury, could take
in the matter. _ _

Mr. F. MAULE said, if the Magistrate, in answer
o his application, stated that he had no answer to give
hem, he must take the consequences.

Mr. T. DU NCOMBE feared if they relied on the
Hon. Under Secretary, they would be relying on a
broken reed. These parties had already made applica-
tion to the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
m •nt, and the petition stated that thay came before
the House because the Secretary of State had taken no

notice of their application. It appeared from the
statement of the lion. and Learned Attorney-General
that the fault was not altogether in the law, but in the
Rev. Mr. Mountain, the reverend administrator of the
law. The individual who had petitioned the House had
offered bail to appear when called upon, but Mr. Moun-
tain sent him to the House of Correction, observing
" there are facts enough to transport you." That
might be considered clerical chat, but it appeared to
him (Mr. Duncombe) to be a gross act of op-
pre.osion towards that individual. He would not
say any thing about Christian charity, because
when he brought before the House the case
of that victim of Clerical oppression, John Thorogood,
it did not seem to excite much attention. Real jus-
tice would never be done to the poor man until they
had Stipendiary Magistrates throughout the country.
If the Committee was appointed it would be shown that
unpaid Magistrates, and particularly the Clerical ones,
did not do their duty.
Lord G. SOMERSET said it was clear, from the
speech of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, that the ob-
ject of the motion was to inculpate the Magistracy of
the country.—(Cries of " No, no.") He objected to
the motion, because it was in effect calling upon the
House of Commons to revise the sentence o the Judge
and Jury. He thought the Under Secretary of the
Home Department had undertaken a rather difficult

job, by the course he proposed to pursue, but thinking
that course far preferable to the motion of the Hon.
Member for Leicester, if they came to a division, he
should divide with him. i t„b respect to the observa-
tions that had been made Mtative to the Magistrate in

this case, he would only say that he believed, taking
the whole of England, that the people had more eon-
filenee in the Magistrates that were not paid than in
the Stipendiary ones.

Mr. AGLIONBY—If the Hon. Member for Lei-
cester divided the House on this subject, he wo'sld vote
for his motion, grounding that vote upon the statements
contained in the petition. The time was come when the
unpaid magistracy should be put an end to.—(Hear,
hear). At least it was a fit subject for inquiry, whe-
ther persons should be treated as felons before convic-
tion, and whether the administratio❑ of the law could
not be rendered more just and effective.—(Hear, hear.)
He trusted that, at all events, his Hon. Friend would
divide the House on his motion.—(Hear, hear).
Mr. EASTHOPE disclaimed any intention to
speak disrespectfully of Magistrate or Judge—he had
carefully avoided it—and he had applied to the Magis-
trate in this case for explanation, which, if it had proved
satisfactory, he would not have brought the petition
forward.—( Hear, hear). Was it proper that, because
a boy or two had mistaken and misstated what a man
h'd said, he should be brought up in handcuffs, and re-
fused bail, and dragged to prison ?—(Hear, hear). If

it were the temper✓ot the house to accede to the sug-
gestion
of the Under-Secretary, he would withdraw his
tntion—(Hear, hear)—and trusted that, ultimately,
the poor man might obtain justice.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ALSTON was glad the motion had been with-
drawn, for the complainant meant to move for a new
trial.—(Hear, hear.)

Motion withdrawn.
On the motion of Mr. HU NIE, returns were ordered
of the persons who had been indicted for high treason
in Canada since 1838. The Hon. Member postponed
his notices for other returns regarding Canada.
Mr. V. SMITH said he hoped the Hon. Member
did not moan to put a series of such notices on the
paper, as attacks on Lord Seaton.

. -
Mr. WARBURTON then brought forward the
case of these individuals whom he said had been sen-
tenced to imprisonment for having published a seditious
libel, an offence which he would not excuse, but which
he thought had been sufficiently expiated by the con-
finement they had already ensured.—(Hear.) The
treatment of persons sentenced for libel to imprison-
nEnt, was altogether different from what it used to be,
before the passini, of three recent Acts. Formerly it
was considered sufficient to secure the safe detention of

the person, and there was no severity of discipline.--
(Hear, hear.) This had been the case with Sir Francis
Burdett, who, when imprisoned for a seditious libel,
resided in the Marshal's apartments, in the Queen's
Bench, living if not sumptuously, at least comfortably.
So with Mr. Gilbert Wakefield—so with Mr. Hunt—so
with Mr. Cobbett.—(Hear, hear.) Nay, even when
Robert Taylor was convicted of blasphemy, he was treated
with much more leniency than Lovett and Collins, who,
it appeared, had with difficulty obtained from the
humanity of the Magistrates some slight relaxations—
who had actually been prevented from wearing their
shoes on the cold brick floor—(Hear)—who had been
confined for fifteen or sixteen hours a day during the
winter months, without fire or candle—( Hear)—who
had been debarred from such necessaries as meat or
tea—(Hear)—who were prevented from facilities of
correspondence, and who were not allowed to see their
friends above once a quarter.—(Hear, hear.) They
had been allowed to have fire and such books as were
approved by the Chaplain. Now with regard to the
particular regulations under which these restrictions
had taken place. They grew out of three Acts of
Parliament regulating all the prisons of that country.
Those Acts provided certain regulations for certain
offences. Misdemeanours, where the party had not
been convicted, and where the party had, were
very differently treated, and so with respect
to crimes of a higher nature ; and out of those
regulations had arisen all that he now complained of.
Why, he would ask, should men who had been guilty
of sedition be subjected to the same indignities as the
common felon, which had been the case with respect to
thee:, two unfortunate men ? They had been stripped
naked on entering the prison, because the regulations of
the prison required it, and had been subject to the most
undeserved indignities. The Hon. Baronet opposite
(Sir E. Wilmot) who, to his honour, had taken the
case of these unfortunate men into his consideration,
has stated in his letter to tho Home Secretary that
their condition was heart-rending in the extreme, and
such as no person convicted of seditious libels should be
subject to. All this had been caused by the regula-
t ens adopted in the Acts of that House, every Member
of which, he was sure, wouid do all in their power to re-
pair the errors they had committed in adopting fleets).
He was sure it never was the intention of the House to
inflict the punishment he had described on that class of
offenders. lie was glad to find that the Under Secre-
tary for the Home Department intended to remedy the
evil in the Prisons Bill that stood for a Committee that
night ; ant he trusted also that, !coking to the treatment
these unfortunate individuals had received, that her
Mesiesty's Government would remit the three months
that remained still of their incarceration. The Hon.
Gentleman concluded by moving that there be added
to the correspondence on the table on this subject the let-
ter addressedto the Hon. Member for Warwick to Lord
J. Russell.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOU RD seconded the motion.
He hail had the honour of knowing many persons who
had been convicted of offences similar to those that had
been committed by Mr. Collins and Mr. Lovett.
Among them were men who bad rendered the best ser-
vices to society—among them were Mr. Leigh Hunt,
Mr. John hunt, Mr. Cobbett,arnd o N
nld o
r.Wt
mfo
icnoterhortttsr
of whom, instead of being deprived a
ere
allowed a degree of splendouru
bete had his books and his music' andtevem.other.A l r CoJcom-
fort, and even Mr. Astell, who was convictedy
of pur-
loinieg Exchequer bills, and who was undere sentence of
death for man) years, had the State apartments in New-
gate, where he entertained large parties. With respect
to Mr. Winterbottom, lie was convicted of preachingn
two sermons on the French Revolution, that gentleman,
so far from being debarred the Company of a wife, was
actually allowed to marry when he was in prison. Look-
ing at all these things, he could not but think that it w.ls
a most unworth; thing on the part of the Government
to attempt to prosecute, as had been the case here,
persons convicted of political offences. With
respect to the unfortunate young man, Vincent,
who had been convicted of sedition at Monmouth,
he understood that he had been transmitted from the
prison there to the Penitentiary here ; he hoped
such was not the case, bee;:use from all' that he had
seen of that young man, his firm belief was that he
might be reclaimed from the dangerous associations
with which he had hitherto been connected. The
Hon. and Learned Member concluded by seconding
the motion.