The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-02 00:00:00

tions of a common felon. During the whole period
of his imprisonment he was kept in separate
confinement, on the silent system, and so far was
this cruel absurdity carried, that Mr. JONES avers
that " he was severely reprimanded for even reading
the Bible to hinise?f, though in a scarcely auuiole
voice ;" that he was compelled to pick oakum, and
that this felon labour was " only remitted in consi-
deration of a weekly payment of money."
Now, before we enter farther into this horrid detail,
we would pause to inquire by whose authority the
sentence of the Court was thus changed ; we would
ask the Home secretary if he authorises. the Tuthill-
fields gaoler to improve upon the sentence of her
MAJESTY'S Chief Justice, and to tamper thus with
the judgment of our courts of law ? If the statement
of Mr. JoNEB be correct, nothing can be clearer than
that he has been dealt with contrary to all law and
justice—indeed the illegality of these acts is only
equalled by their cruelty and inhumanity. But to
continue his detail :
" Ile was made to wear the same dress and parti co-
loured cap as culpt its guilty of the most heinous offences,
and marched about the prison in the saute files with
common felons, suhjectd toconvict discipitue so rigorous
as to make au involuntary swile, turuitig, the hesu to the
right or lett, folding the lama a punishable ujence !
obliged to eat, uns‘ hoiesome and iuuigtsaule tow, not
allowed a fork to eat ant), &c."
These cruel barbarities should be put an end to.
It is quite bad enough to leflict such cruelties on the
burglar or the murderer, but to inflict them on a
mere political offender, to whom no moral turpitude
attaches, who, in the enthusiastic excitement of a
moment, may perhaps oVeratep the limits prescribed
by the law, is a disgrace to the advanced civilization
of the age.

Mr. JONES further complains that during the severe
cold of the winter months he was allowed no more
clothing than he had in the height of summer ; that
the fog and damp of his narrow cell was so great that
he could brush the wet off his bed-clothes, that this
treatment brought on tic-douleureux and rheumatism
so severe that be was almost deprived of the use of his
limbs ; that while labouring under di4ease he was com•
pelled to rise at a quarter put six in the morning, and
even through snow or rain, walk through two yards
and dress in the open air. We cannot be surprised,
when he tells us that this treatment "reduced him so
much that be lost sixteen pounds of his weight in
seven weeks." We are rather astonished that he has
survived to tell his tale of horror, and we have no
hesitation in Baying that had Mr. JONES sunk under-
such cruel and illegal usage, every party connected
with it ought to have been indicted, as we think they
would be liable to an indictment for homicide.

The following detail, which we give in the words
of Mr. JONES, is a fit climax to the preceding. He
says :

I• Oa the 19th of March, 1849, finding his health fin-
able to bear the treatment inflicted, and feelin,,,, convinced
such treatment was not intended by the Court, he asked
permission to write to the judge who sentenced him, for
the purpose of inquiring whether his treatment was in
accordance with the sentence passed; but the permission
was ref wied. He was threatened with additional seve-
rities of en 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 convicts' cells. He
then applied to see the prison rules, but even
this was denied him. He then desired to see his
solicitor, or to write to him, hut was refused. He then
asked leave to petition the House of Commons, 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 the
visiting justices themselves. He then applied to the
board to know under what clause of what Act he
was prevented writing to the judge who sentenced him.
and from petitioning Parliament. The board refused
even to answer his questions. Hs was further told that
he would not be admitted to see the visiting justices at
their weekly board day, though the Act and the prispu
rules alike specify such to be the right of prisoners.
The Governor thus arrogated the right to himself of
admitting a prisoner to see the magistrates or not at his
pleasure. lie was further told that it, in his quarterly in-
terviews with his wile he alluded at all to his treatment
in prison he would immediately be Jo, ced from her pre-
sence, though the Act gives no such power."
It is unnecessary to go farther into tbis hideous
detail of cruelty and illegality to excite the disgust
and indignation of every honest man in the commu-
nity. We are disposed to ask, can such cruelties
and horrors as these be inflicted in free-thinking, free-
speaking England on a British citizen for the mere
enunciation of apolitical opinion ? Are the atrocities
of the Bastille or the Inquisition to be enacted in
Tuthill- fields Prison with impunity ? We shall hope
not. We emphatically call fur a stringent inquiry
into this case, as well as into the whole system of
discipline in this English Bastille.

We have been informed that persons charged with an
offence, and remanded to this prison, are f, equently dealt
with as if they were already convicts. This clearly
contravenes the well-known wholesome principle of
British law, that every man should be looked upon
as innocent until he be really convicted. The au-
thorities of Tothill-fields would seem to reverse the
principle.

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.