The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-16 00:00:00

PRISONS' BILL.

Theßeport of thePrisons' Bill having been brought up,
Mr. G RE E N E took the opportunity of impressing on
the House the necessity of sonic general rule re-
garded the imprisonment of debtors.
Mr. II AWES expressed a hope that the time would
come when imprisonment for debt would be entirely
abolished. He threw out the suggestion, in the hope
the Government would take up the subject, and he
trusted the time was not far distant when they would
not have any parties in prison for debt except in cases
of fraud.

Mr. F. MALT LE said the question was one which
required to be treated with great delicacy. The object
of the present Bill was merely to relieve debtors from
the stringency of certain rules at present in force in
prisons.

Lord G. SOMERSET said there was another
point to which the attention of the Government ought
to be directed—he meant the exceedingly anomalous
position in which the gaolers of county prisons
were placed. They were the servants of the High
Sheriff, whereas the rules and regulations for the ma-
nagement of the gaols were made by the County
Magistrates. The inconvenience of such an arrange-
ment ongl,t to be done away with.
Mr. W AKLEY hoped the Government would be
disposed to go a step further, and take the regulations
of gaols altogether out of the hands of the Justices of the
Peace. His opinion was that they of all others were
the most incompetent for the conduct of such business.
The Government should appoint some responsible
persons who would be paid for the discharge
of their duty, and nt.t act in the factious spirit
in which the Magistrates too frequently acted
with regard to certain prisoners. Until those re-
gulations were taken out of tho hands of the
Magistrates, the country would never be satisfied.
He wished to know whether the Noble Lord had made
any regulations with respect to prisoners committed un-
der the Coroner's warrant, because a short time since
he had occasion to have a female prisoner from Clerk-
enwell to give evidence before him, and upon that pri-
soner being sent back, the officer refused to receive her,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that some time
since an Order in Council had been issued, by
which Newgate was the prison to which the
Coroner was authorized to send persons committed
by him. That Order in Council, however, did not ex-
tend to any other prison.
The Report was then received, and the Bill ordered
to be read a third time on the 29th of April.
Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from John
Joseph Stockdaie, praying that if the mistaken dis-
pleasure of the House (as the petitioner and himself,
Mr. Duncombe said, termed it) was to be continued,the
whole weight of it might fall on him, and Mr. Howard
might be discharged.
Sir R. H. INGLIS then said be had intended to move
that all the parties in custody be discharged, but thought
it would be more convenient for the House that he
shoaid move the discharge of each separately. He
begged to move that the order for the attendance of
Mr. Sheriff Evans be discharged.
Lord J. RUSSELL seconded the motion, which was
agreed to.

Sir 8.. INGLIS then moved the discharge of Mr.
Howard, jun., he having acted in the action under the
direction of his father.
Lord J. RUSSELL seconded the motion. He
thought it was very proper now that he should be dis-
charged.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the
reasoned words used in the resolution ; they were
wholly unnecessary, and were liable to misconstruction ;
they had better be omitted.
Sir R. INGLIS had no objection, and the motion
WAS put that Thomas Howard the younger be forth-
with discharged.—Agreed to.
Tho HON. BARONET then moved that J. G. J.
Pearce be forthwith discharged, without payment of fees.
Mr. WARBURTON Lad no great objection to the
motion, but ho did not see how the privileges of the
House had been vindicated if those persons were to be
dismissed without even petitioning, merely because an
Act of Parliament had been passed to prevent a re-
petltion of the offence in future.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it appeared
to him that the House might now consider that those
persons had been sufficiently punished.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL agreed to the motion.
Mr. Howard, junior, and Mr. Pearce were inferior in-
struments, and the imprisonment which they had suf-
fered was sufficient. But he did not adn4 that they
were to be discharged on account of the passing of the
Act of Parliament.
The motion was agreed to.

Sir R. H. INGLIS had another resolution to move,
which, only from what had just fallen from the Noble
Lord, ho had hoped would pass wituout opposition.
The resolution was that Thomas Burton Howard be
discharged. The Noble Lord (Lord John Russell)
said that the son and clerk of that gentleman were die.
charged because they were inferior instruments. Now
that would have been a very good reason for not having
committed them. Mr. Howard had committed no
offence. The House, in agreeing to the Act of Parlia-
ment to give a summary protection, in the Courts of
Law, to persons who might be proceeded against for
publications authorised by Parliament, admitted that
Mr. Howard had a right to go to the Court of Law
before the Act, and the House declared that his doing
so was not inconsistent with the privileges of Parliament.
The Bill had passed. It said such application was not
a breach of privilege, for the last line said no change
was made with respect to the privilege of Parliament ;
therefore, if it was not to be a breach of privilege to ap-
peal to a Court of Law hereafter, it could not have
been so heretofore. If the Noble Lord would agree to
the motion he would, as in the former cases, omit the
recital. There were two circumstances he would men-
tion to induce the Noble Lord to do so ; the first was a
fact not generally known, that Mr. Howard distinctly
refused by letter to be engaged in this action, and it was
I not until Mr. Stockdale appealed to him on professional
l grounds, and stated that he would not be doing his duty
by his client if ho did not, that he engaged in these pro
ceedinga. His other reason was one which appealed
to a different class of feelings ; it was, that if they wished
(
1 to make Mr. Howard a rich, a powerful, and a trium-
-1 phaut man, they would not refuse this motion ; for did
they believe, if they refused this motion (not having pre-
vented the continuance of the action, for that clause
had been struck out of the Bill), an English Jury would
not give such damages as would make Mr. Howara a
rich man for the remainder of his life. The Hon. Gen-
-1 tleman concluded by moving that Thomas Burton
Hov,ard be forthwith discharged.

- -
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he confessed ho was
not disposed, when he came down to the Huusc, to
agree to "the motion the Hon. Bi.ronet had just made,
and certainly it ho was indisposed to agree to it before,
he was now still more strengthened in his opinion, that
the House ought not to agree to the motion. Before he
spoke he was afraid it tright be implied, if he consented
to the motion, that they considered they bad not the
privilege of committing Stockdale and Howard on
account of this action, but the Hon. Baronet had
rested his motion on the ground, that they had re-
nounced their privilege by the Act now become the
statute law of the realm. Ho totally denied that state-
ment. He took the very clause the Hon. Baronet
read, which said their privileges were not affected by
the Act. That clause proved they had a privilege,
and preserved that privilege. So convinced was he of
this, that he iglu:raid act upon it if the question should
be brought before the House on any future occasio-
With regard to any power given b that all ".
stf...ied expressly in the preamble, ythat '' 1 ' a was
more speedy protection to person:n(l-v f., was to give
üblish'ing proceed-
ings by order of that Hoe, ,
n consequence of
that more speedy prot.-,,,tion- if
an action should
be brought in the course 'of the recess, instead
of proceeding es the late ono had,
it would at
once bQ determined, but it did not, therefore,
follow that the person bringing such action,
and his attorney were not guilty of a breach of privi-
loge ; and in ease such a thing should occur, he should
at once '"tore that they may be committed, and think
hims'i'd quite as justified in doing so after the Act as
kefore.—(Cheers.) The House had no more sur-
rendered any right of that kind, than, if the Right
Hon. Baronet the Member for Warwick were to suc-
ceed in his measure for summary conviction for larceny,
it would follow that all persons had thereby surrendered
their right of sending persons guilty of larceny beforea
Jury. The one was the more speedy mode of the
two, but it left the other mode untouched. These per-
sons bad been the most forward, either for gain or
vexation, to bring these actions. They had no visible
grievence for which they sought a remedy, and lie con-
sidered that the best mode of preventing such proceed-
ings for the future would be, to show that the House
would not pass lightly over these offences. Moreover,
it should be recollected that Mr. lloward, in his own
person--not called on by Mr. Stockdale—not obliged
by professional considerations had brought action
against the officers of that House, for ana
acted in
the execution of their duty, for he did not hatinglaelienvee that
they bad been been guilty at all of any
unnecessary
to violence. The action had been broughmtp
to make a profit of the ill-directed ay
Hun. Baronet and other NI s. atilif,,l,exour
....erm.ers of that house (Cheers)—ana not on account of any real injuries whieh
he had sustained by the execution of the orders of the
House.—(Cheers.)
Mr. FRESHFIELD thought it desirable that
Howard should be discharged. He was willing to
maintain the privileges of the House, and if au action
were to be brought, after the Act which had been
passed, he should feel great hesitation in not voting for
the committal of the person bringing such action, be..