The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-12 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY

PRISON DISCIPLINE.

" Such was the treatment to which your petitioner
was subjected during two years and one week, the entire
period for which he was sentenced; and petitioner begs
to remind your Hon. House that the sentence of the
judge, as delivered in court, was simply this:—' The
sentence of the Court is, that you be imprisoned during
two years on the first count, and one week on the
second,' coupled with the assurances previously stated;
and petitioner begs further to observe that the same
treatment would naturally be far more injurious to the
health of a man in his station of life than to that of a
man long inured to hardships and privations; whereas
petitioner can prove that prisoners convicted on infinitely
more serious charges were treated in a far more lenient

manner.
" Your petitioner now solicits the attention of your
Hon. House to the treatment he experienced when en-
deavouring to obtain some alleviation of his sufferings.
On the 19th of March, 1849, petitioner, finding his
health unable to bear the treatment inflicted, and feeling
convinced such treatment was not intended by the Court
asked permission to write to the judge who sentenced
him, for the purpose of inquiring whether his treatment
was in accordance with the sentenced passed; but the
permission was refused. Petitioner was then threatened
with additional severities of an aggravated character, if
he did not cease complaining of his sufferings; he was
even told he would be set to scrub the floors of the con-
victs' cells. Petitioner then applied for leave to see the
prison rules, but even this was denied him. Petitioner
then desired to see his solicitor, or to write to him, but
was refused. Petitioner then asked leave to petition
your Hon. House, which was prohibited by the visiting
justices, although he stated, as one reason among many
adduced for so doing, that he had several serious charges
to make against them (the visiting justices) themselves
Petitioner then applied to the board to know under what
clause, of what Act, he was prevented writing, for the
purpose named, to the judge who !sentenced him, and
from petitioning Parliament. The board refused even
to answer his questions. Petitioner was further told
that he should not be admitted to see the visiting
justices at their weekly board day, though the
Act and the prison rules alike specify such
to be the right of prisoners. Petitioner
had never abused that right, and had previously to such
refusal (during a period of ten months) applied only
four times to see the magistrates. The governor thus
arrogated the right to himself of admitting a prisoner
to see the magistrates or not, at his pleasure. Petitioner
was further told if, in his quarterly interviews with his
wife, ho alluded at all to his treatment in prison, he
would immediately be forced from her presence, though
the Act gives no such power. Petitioner wins desirous of
acquainting some Members of your Hon. House with the
treatment he experienced, and accordingly, in his quar-
terly letter, directed his wife to write to Mr. Wakley,
Mr. G. Thompson, and Mr. F. O'Connor, requesting
them to come and see him at the quarterly period of
seeing visitors. The prisoner was warned to desist,
since it would, he was told, be highly injurious to him
to see those gentlemen; every obstacle was thrown in
the way of the interview, and, as petitioner persisted,
the governor, with his own hand, added a paragraph
to petitioner's letter, warning his wife not to write to
those gentlemen, under peril of being herself- forbidden
to see her husband at the periods prescribed by law.
Petitioner's wife, alarmed at the communication, obeyed
the governor's injunction, and petitioner had the greatest
difficulty in acquainting the gentlemen named with his
desire for an interview. Petitioner failed in obtaining
attention to his case, owing to the impossibility of again
conveying information as to his treatment, and that
treatment now beeame more severe than ever. Peti-
tioner was told, if in his quarterly letters he alluded to
his treatment those letters would be suppressed.
"The weekly payment of money being seven days in
arrear, petitioner was ordered forthwith to resume
oakum-picking, though his health rendered him unequal
to the labour, and his eyesight was seriously injured by
the glare of the whitewashed cell. Petitioner then said
that, since, on his oath, he believed his treatment to be
contrary to his sentence; since he was prohibited from
writing to his judge to ask if such was the case; since
he was prevented from petitioning Parliament, acquaint-
ing his solicitor, friends, or relatives, appealing to the
magistrates, or even alluding to his treatment in his
usual letters; and since his health was rapidly sinking
under the infliction, he, on his part, refused to perform
forced labour, but at the same time expressed his willing-
ness to pick oakum forthwith, upon his being allowed to
write to his judge or to petition your Hon. House.
Petitioner here begs to observe, that in not one instance
during the entire period of his imprisonment did he
knowingly break one single rule of the prison; and in
the case alluded to he believed his treatment to be con-
trary to his sentence, but even then resisted it only be-
cause the common right of every prisoner was denied
him,
?and both the laws of the country and rules of the
prison were set aside by the authorities. Petitioner was
hpelirt ypotuoun: on the 3d day of May, 1849, ordered by the
governor to be locked up in a refractory cell on bread and
wthiethoguotvebr°n°okr4. reOpiniedinquiring
lon'gfoars hlocwhoolosne.g Ia
in at my pleasure, and I take you cut at my
pleasure. Petitioner was then seized by the neck and
ankles, and forced towards
h the door of the ward, where
he was kept duringert
though
dahys in a refractory call, by
Except by orderi
that no prisoner shall beoulgockehde
Majesty's justices of the peace.
the governor's order,
Aufct expressly provides
bread and water, a refractory cell on
oto or more (1)
the
surgeon's hands for several weeks
somewhat recovering (the infirmary books after
Petitionerw that,l wl
show,
bs
wn b y
and on
the nature of the medicines administered, that peti-
tioner's illness must have been severe) he was again sent
fvr eiz days to a solitary cell OA bread and water, with-

The following petition of the once notorious Char-
tist leader, Ernest Jones, has been printed with the
votes :
" The humble petition of Ernest Charles Jones, of the
Middle Temple, barrister-at•law, showeth—
" That your petitioner, for a speech delivered by him
in June, 1848, was sentenced, at the July sessions of the
same year, by the then Chief Justice, to be imprisoned
for two years and one week, no other punishment being
embraced in the sentence, but receiving while in the
dock, in reply to a question asked, repeated assurances
of considerate and lenient treatment.
" Your petitioner was subsequently conveyed to Tot-
hill fields Prison, Westminster, and there, during the
entire period to which he was sentenced, kept in sepa-
rate confinement on the silent system, which was en-
forced with such rigour that he was severely repri-
manded for even reading the Bible to himself, though in
a scarcely audible voice. Your petitioner was further
compelled to pick oakum, which he did on his arrival,
and which labour was remitted only in consideration of
a weekly payment of money. He was made to wear the
same dress and parti•coloured cap as culprits guilty of
heinous offences, and marched about the prison in the
same files with common felons, subjected to convict
discipline so rigorous as to make an involuntary smile,
turning the head to the right or left, or folding the
arms, a punishable offence; supplied with indigestible
and unwholesome food, to the serious injury of his
health; not allowed a fork, being obliged to use his
fingers instead; and not furnished with sufficient under
clothing for health and cleanliness.
" During the greater part of the months of November
and December, 1848 (which were remarkably severe),
your petitioner was kept without fire, and with the same
clothing as in the height of summer, in a day cell, two
windows of which were unglazed, having merely shut-
ters, and its doors (which closed imperfectly) opening
directly on the prison yard. In neither winter during
his detention was any addition, even in the most rigorous
weather, made to the clothing be wore in summer.
Your petitioner was further forced, during the chief
period of his imprisonment, to sleep in a small night
cell, about 6ft. wide by Bft. long, in a thorough draft,
between the window and the door; the former fitting so
badly as to admit the rain, and the latter, as did also
two large gratings of about one foot square each in that
cell where he was principally confined during both win-
ters, opening directly on the outer air. Such was the
damp and fog in these cells during winter that your pe-
titioner has of mornings brushed the dew off his blanket,
and suffered from the humidity of his clothing. Your
petitioner thence became afflicted with tic-dolereux and
rheumatism, so severe as almost to deprive him of the
use of his limbs; notwithstanding this, his cell was not
changed while suffering thus, till shortly before his leav-
ing the prison, and, though afflicted during fire winter
months with the most aggravated attack of neuralgia, he
was compelled to rise at a quarter past six in the morn-
ing, and even in snow or rain to walk through two yards,
and wash and dress in the open air, under a recess in
the wall.
" Your petitioner was by this treatment reduced to a
state of health so precarious that he lost 161 b. in
weight in seven weeks, as the infirmary-books will
prove, and was unable to walk across his cell; the sur-
geon was compelled to order him into the infirmary,
where he remained nineteen weeks, at two intervals. On
leaving the infirmary the first time, no alteration being
made in his treatment, the consequence was the surgeon
was obliged to bend him back, after the lapse of a fort-
night, in a more dangerous state than before. During
part of this time, as he then asserted on his oath, and as
be still believes, his life was in imminent danger; his
wife therefore petitioned for leave that Mr. Cholmon-
deley, of No. 3, Nottingham-place, Regent's-park, who
has attended petitioner and his family for twelve years,
might be allowed to see him, but was refused. Mr.
Wskley, Member of your Hon. House, applied as such,
and in his medical capacity, to see petitioner, but was
also refused permission, by both the visiting justices and
Sir George Grey.
" Your petitioner, after leaving the infirmary a second
time, was (with the exception of obtaining, after a while,
a larger night-cell) once more subjected to the same
treatment as before, the effect of which was the ruin of
his health, and the infliction of nervous and rheumatic
complaints, from which he is still suffering severely.
and from which he believes he can never wholly
recover. Your petitioner further begs to state
that (with two exceptions) he was not allowed
to see any friend or relative more than four times
in the year, and then only in the presence of a turnkey,
and for twenty minutes each time; that after the first
three months he was not allowed to write a letter, even
to his wife, more than once a quarter, the permission of
writing oftener, after the period named, having been
withdrawn without petitioner's having given any cause,
or broken a single rule of the prison, but, on the con-
trary, having been repeatedly commended for his con-
duct; that not even during the fearful visitation of the
cholera, though petitioner made a special request to be
allowed to hear from home, was that request acceded to;
that he was during the first nineteen months of his im-
prisonment not allowed the use of pen, ink, or paper
(except for a few momenta once a quarter for the afore-
said quarterly letter); that though petitioner's wife was
so ill as to be long in danger of her life, permission was
refused her to inform her husband, or to communicate
with him, and that when petitioner was himself dan-
gerously ill, he was not able to acquaint his wife with
his condition until the time for writing his quarterly
letter had come round.

out books, having even his Bible taken away. Petitioner
was seriously ill of a bowel complaint at the time; the
cholera was then raging at its height, the infirmary being
then so full that patients were lying in the common cells,
and one died near the refractory cell in which petitioner
was locked. Two political fellow prisoners, Sharpe and
Williams, received the same sentence from the board
for the same cause, at the same time as petitioner;
they were in good health when thus sentenced, but
both died immediately after the completion of that sen-
tence, and the inquest commented on the severity of the
treatment.