The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-22 00:00:00

prisoner had been refused the right of petitioning the
House, which ho apprehended was a breach of the pri-
vileges of the House, for by the Bill of Rights Blackstone
and all the legal writers which the country had pro-
duced held it to be the inherent, inalienable right of every
Englishman, no matter in what situation he might find
himself, to lay his grievances before the House of Com-
mons. Now the same right had been denied to Mr. E.
Jones by the visiting magistrates, and he could not help
feeling that the refusal involved a point of deep and
serious importance to the House. He had, therefore,
brought the case forward. Had it been earlier in the
session he should have moved for a Committee of Inquiry,
but it was too late to do that now, and he should con-
tent himself by giving notice that at the very earliest
period next session he should move the appointment of
such a Committee. Ernest Jones was the only
political offender of the year 1848 who received
no remission of his sentence whatever, but the
Government made him endure his term of imprison-
ment up to the very last day. He had brought forward
the case because he thought it one of gross injustice,
and not because he agreed with the political views and
and opinions of the petitioner. Having said so much,
and apologizing to the House for having detained the
House so long, he begged to sit down moving the mo-
tion of which he had given notice.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS rose to second the motion. He
considered it a disgrace to the country to imprison a
man and treat him as a common felon merely
for words spoken, and he fully the impalloblethised
with the sentiments expressed by
Lord who had introduced this subject. The treatment
of Mr. Ernest Jones was most oppressive and most un-
just, but it was not to be attributed to the visiting ma-
gistrates, because the form of treatment was pre-
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 during 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 ea. 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, he blamed the law which imposed such
I an unpleasant duty upon them, which he thought was
alike a disgrace to the Legislature and the age 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 ot 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 by refusing him
the use of writing materials. Such an exercise ot 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 Hun:, 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. The 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 Shakapere, 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
acted 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 to 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 hour eloquence as correct as if
taken from Blair'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 at 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, he
hoped they would, in answer to the present appeal, give
an assurance that the proceedings would, for the future,
be conducted with more prudence and moderation.
Mr. BOUVERIE rose for the purpose of bringing
back the discussion to the real point before the House.
That was the recent treatment of Mr. Jones, and not the
broad question of prison discipline. Now with
regard to the formal motion, ho had to state
that there were 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-
ing magistrates, and afterwards they were ap-
proved of by the Secretary of State for the
Home Department. Now the rules efhich regu-
lated Mr. E. Jones's treatment were framed and esta-
blished in that way, and the visiting magistrates had nu
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, except the judge made an order that
the prisoner should be treated as if he had been guilty of
misdemeenour 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 some Hon. Gentlemen, that they thought a poli-
tical prisoner was 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 had merely changed the place of their resi-
dence, where would be the punishment of the incarce-
ration?
Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON contended that none of
the main allegations brought forward by Lord Dudley
Stuart had been answered by the Hon. Member for Kit-
marnocte whose reply was wholly unsatisfactory.
Ernest Jones was simply a victim of the excitement
which prevailed at the period when he was consigned
to prison ; and 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. WILLOUGHBY considered that Ernest Jones
bad been treated harshly and oppressively, and he was
astor:i,hod that the visiting justices should have allowed
an educated man to undergo such severe punishment
and submit to such degrading labour, when he was not
sentenced to hard labour.
Sir DE LACY EVANS hoped the Government would
consent to produce the papers to which the motion of
the Noble Lord referred.

Mr. HENLEY thought the papers before the House
showed that Ernest Jones had been hardly treated, and
had not had the benefit of those indulgences which a
person in his position might have received. He was
disposed to think that the complaints of this gentleman
required some further inquiry.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob-
served that it was impossible to carry the motion into
effect, as no such returns existed, there being ne distinc-
tion made by the law between political and other per-
sons found guilty of misdemeanour.
After some further observations from Mr. Christopher,
Mr. Bright, Mr. W.
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 hereater 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 at six o'clock.
PETITIONS.

Mr. M. ELLICE presented a petition from Leicester
in favour of the retention cf 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. H. HERBERT presented a petition from cer-
tain ft.ur millers in Ireland, complaining of the free im-
portation of flour.