The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-23 00:00:00

scribed by law, and they had no alternative but
to see that the regulations providing for
such harsh treatment were put in force. He
was one of the visiting magistrates daring a portion of
the period when Mr. E. Jones was in prison, and he was
happy to say that while he attended the prison not a
single request which Mr. E. Jones made was refused.
The visiting justices were placed in a position of great
difficulty. They were often supposed to be acting
very tyranically, when, in point of fact, they were
only conscientiously carrying out the duties im-
posed upon them by law. One of the prison regula-
tions provided that if a prisoner in Mr. E. Jones's si-
tuation could pay ss. a week, he was exempt from the
degrading occupation of picking oakum, and while he
was a visiting justice Mr. Jones's friends regularly paid
the weekly sum. Uufortunately, however, the two
other prisoners, Sharp and Williams, were unable
to do so, and they were therefore sent amongst thieves,
and felons, and pickpockets to pick oakum, but they re-
fused to perform the degrading labour, and the result
was they were put into solitary confinement, where they
died of cholera. He did not, however, blame the visiting
justices in this, ho blamed the law which imposed ouch
an unpleasant duty upon them, which he thought was
alike a disgrace to the Legislature and the ago in which
they lived. He expressed his regret that the Noble
Lord had brought forward the question at so late a
period of the session. He was most anxious for inquiry,
and if the inquiry were ultimately had he believed the
visiting justices would be entirely acquitted of any inten-
tional harshness or injustice towards Mr. Ernest Jones.
Mr. W. J. FOX said the Hon. Member for Lambeth
had made an excuse for himself and his brother magis-
trates at the expense of the rules and regulations
established by law. If that were so, the case
of the Noble Lord was strengthened and
the necessity for legislation became the more important.
But three or four of the most important points con-
tained in Mr. E. Jones's petitions were points upon
which the magistrates had an option ; but the Hon.
Member for Lambeth had made no reference
to them. He had said nothing about the de-
nial of permission to send a petition to the
House. Now nothing could be more important to the
subjects of these realms than the right of petition. It
was one of the safeguards of their liberties, and no power
whatever ought to be enforced to prevent or interfere
with it. These visiting magistrates had no right to pu-
nish the intellect of a prisoner, as they had attempted
to do in the case of Mr. Ernest Jones lay refusing him
the use of writing materials. Such an exercise of au-
thority was opposed to the corrective system of the
country, and he hoped something would be done
to prevent such an abuse of powers in future.
Leigh Hunt, Montgomery, Daniel Whittle Harvey, and
other eminent journalists, were once imprisoned for po-
litical offences, but they were not treated like Ernest
Jones. They were allowed to supply their respective
papers with leading articles, and ultimately they be-
came as they were now, ornaments to society.
But that was under a Tory Government, who treated
their political culprits with more humanity than the
Whigs. Tine governor of the gaol refused to allow
Mr. E. Jones the use of a list of books which he
had before him, and which included Shakspere, the
works of Sir Walter Scott, and the novels of Mr.
Disraeli. Now, nothing could be more absurd
than such a refusal as that, and he hoped, when next this
question came before the House, measures would be
taken to prevent a recurrence of the evils they had heard
so much of to-day.
Colonel THOMPSON said he was glad in having an
opportunity of stating that, in his view, the persons al-
luded to were responsible for having by their own mis-
conduct lost or seriously damaged a great cause.—
(Hear.) He, however, thought the Government had
sated with extreme impolicy in making martyrs of men
of whose political principles they did not approve. He
knew well to what extent the effect produced by such
prosecutions was felt in that House. The tendency of
the course pursued by the Government would be
to bring these men into the House of Commons ;
they had already seen one of them, and would
yet see more returned as Members of Parliament.
He was ready 0 enter into a policy of assurance that
Henry Vincent. one of the body, would be elected for
the next Parliament, so certain was he of his being re-
turned.—(Laughter.) He hoped he would take his
seat in the House, if it were only for the
remarkable fact that he could pour out
by the hoar eloquence as correct as if
taken from Blter's lectures.—(Laughter.) How he got
so wonderful a Faculty was best known to him who gave
it, but this, at any rate, was certain, that he was origi-
nally a journeyman printer, and first made his appear-
ance in public it an election at Hull.—(Hear, hear.) He
did not think it was policy to institute such prosecutions,
and though not disposed to blame the Government, be
hoped they world, in answer to the present appeal, give
an assurance that the proceedings would, for the future,
be conducted with more prudence and moderation.
Mr. BOUVFRIE rose for the purpose of bringing
back the discussion to the real point before the House.
That was the rs cent treatment of Mr. Jones, and not the
broad question of prison discipline. Now with
regard to the formal motion, he had to state
that there wire no rules or regulations that re-
lated to political prisoners. The law recognised no
distinction of that sort. The law made rules and regu-
lations for the treatment of persons convicted of misde-
meanour. The
Act of Parliament imposed the duty of
preparing those rules and regulations upon the visit-
, mg magistrates, and afterwards they were op-
proved of i'y the Secretary of State for the
t Home Department. Now the rules which rep-
lated Mr. E. Janes
'a treatment were framed and esta-
blished in that WAY,
and the visiting magistrates had no
alternative but to see that they were fully and pro-
perly enforced. There was no legal distinction
between political and ordinary offences of felony,
and, of course, there was no difference in their
treatment, ea-'3ept the judge made an order that
the prisoner should be treated as if he had been guilty of
misdemeanour of the first class. The Judge who tried
Mr. E. Jones made no such order, and therefore when
he reached the prison he was dealt with in the same
manner as other offenders. It would seem, from what had
fallen from soots Hon.Geatlemen, that they thought a poli-
tiCal prisoner as entitled to all the indulgences and com-
forts that they enjoyed before going to prison. Well, but if
that ought to be so, of what use was it to send our of-
fenders to prison at all? Why did they send them there
but to punish them, and if they were to treat them just as
though they kW merely changed the place of their resi-
dence, where would be the punishment of the incarce-
ration?
Mr. GEOIiGE THOMPSON contended that none of
the main alle;ations brought forward by Lord Dudley
Stuart had been answered by the Hon. Member for lid-
marnoch, eshose reply was wholly unsatisfactory.
Ernest Jones was simply a victim of the excitement
which prevailed at the period when he was consigned
to prison ; sod he hoped that if the present discussion
had no good effect, in regard to the complaints of that
gentleman, it would draw the attention of Members to
the necessity of drawing some distinction between the
punishment awarded for political offences and offences
of a different character.
Sir H. WII,LOUGHBY considered that Ernest Jones
bad been treated harshly end oppressively, and he was
astonished that the visiting justices should have allowed
an educated pan to undergo such severe punishment
and submit to such degrading labour, when he was not
sentenced to bard labour.
Sir DE LA OY EVANS hoped the Government would
consent to prcduce the papers to which the motion of
the Noble Lord referred.
Mr. HENLEY thought the papers before the House
showed that brnest Jones had been hardly treated, and
had not had tie benefit of those indulgences which a
person in his position might have received. He was
disposed to th nk that the complaints of this gentlemen
required some further inquiry.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob-
served that is was impossible to carry the motion into
effect, as no Sseh returns existed, there being no distinc-
tion made by the law between political and other per-
sons found guiltY of misdemeanour.
After somefurther observations from Mr. Christopher,
Mr. Bright. gr. W. Williams, and other Hon. Members,
Lord DUDLEY STUART withdrew his motion
on the understanding that a return should be presented
with regard to a certain number of prisoners whom he
should hereafter select.
The report on Ways and Means was then brought up
and agreed to.
The House then adjourned until Six o'clock.

The House resumed et
Six o'clock.
PETITIONS.

Mr. M. ELLICE presented a petition from Leicester
in favour of the retention of the Crystal Palace.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON presented a petition signed
by 1,600 clergymen of the Irish branch of the United
Church of England and Ireland, in support of the Church
Educational Society of Ireland.
Mr. IL HERBERT presented a petition from cer-
tain flour millers in Ireland, complaining of the fres im-
portation of flour.
THE GERMAN CONFEDERATION.
Mr. ANSTEY said he wished to put a question to the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to the
annexation of the two Germanic States to the German Con-
federation, which would be a violation of the Treaty of
Vienna. Re had understood that the Noble Lord had trans-
mitted a protest to the Courts of Berlin and Vienna on this
subject. He wished to know whether that was correct, and
whether as answer had been received from those Courts ups
the subject?
Lord PALMERSTON said no formal answer had been re-
ceived. When the Diet was constituted, her Majesty's Minis-
ter, in c.osjunction with France, delivered a protest against
any such annexation without the consent of the other powers.
He had not received any answer to that, but he had re-
ceived iriermation from the British Minister at Frankfort,
stating tiat a communication had been made on the 17th of
the present month, the particulars of which he would learn
in a few days.
CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.
Mr. ADDERLEY then rose to ask the Noble Lord, the
First Lord of the Treasury, " Whether the draft constitu-
tion now about to be sent out to the Cape is to be sent out
complete in all details, and according to any scheme laid
before the House in papers already presented to it ; if not,
whether he will lay it before the House before this session
closes ; whether it contains anything relating to a change
of the seat of government at the Cape, or a separation of
the eastern and western provinces of South Africa ;
.whether it will have to pass through the usual several
stages in legislation in the CRuncil, or merely be submitted
to their acceptance or rejection by one vote; whether it
may be discussed and altered in the Legislative Council ;
whether it must be referred home for final sanction; whe-
ther it is to be postponed till after the conclusion of the
Kafir war."
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the draft of the constitut:on
referred to had been sent out to the Cape complete as to the
details. It was not according to a particular scheme, but
founded on various suggestions from different sources. He
did not think it would be laid before the House in the
present session. With regard to the separation of the east-
ern and western provinces, and the change of the seat of
government, that would depend upon the exercise of the
Royal prerogative, upon which the Governor would receive
indatttious fonz tinao to time The diet would we to