The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-04 00:00:00

OF POUR-HATES.

Lord ER OUG HAM had two petitions to present
respecting most unjust and cruel imprisonment
two paupers, not for the mere non-payment o
poor-rates, but for the non-payment of charges in•
the Magistrates' office. Thomas Lukin and Ann Ward were
sentenced by the " insane Magistrates of Leicester for non-
payment of poor-rates—the one pauper in the amount of
4s. 4d., and the other in the amount of 3s. iid. Some
humane person paid the amount of rate due by Ann Ward, but
those " insane Magistrates" committed her for the costs, in the
amount of 205., which was four times the amount of her debt.
When, being evidently unable to pay these smaller sums, they
were plainly unable to pay the larger sum of 20s. They had
stated their utter inability tit pay the ss. and the 35., and when
having thus shown their inability they wore, against all law
and reason, sent to prison tor a month with hard
labour, a punishment which could be inflicted on no man in
this country without a man had committed some crime of so
infamous a character as to take it out of the common class
of misdemeanours. This was the first time that ever he had
heard that debt was to be treated by the laws of England as
a crime. Ile was aware that there was an Act, the Act of the
18th George 111. c. 10, by which a power was given to
magistrates to commit anvone to prison for one month
for the nos payment of the costs which had been awarded
to an it jured party. But in this case all such power
had been exceeded; and when these men declared their
poverty—when they had stat,d their inabiiit3 to pay the
ss. 4d in the first iustance, they had, in the exercise of their
power committed them to prison. Those magistrates might
have acted discretely, they might have acted legally, nay,
he would even go to fir as to allow that, deep
ys the sarcasm might appear, they might even have
as ted humanely. Of their conduct in the mere committal he
would not complain, but there was one thing of which he
did complain, one thing which he would confide not to their
Lordships, but to his noble Friend on the Woolsack, and that
was the committal without a hearing. He understood
that those Magistrates were highly reaps ctable
it dividuals, but he would tell them—he would tell any man—
he would tall every man, that no respectability, however great
could place any man, be he lawman or I e be layman, as to lif
him above the law. He must do his Right Hon. Friend the
Secretary of the Home Department the justice
to say, that as soon as the matter was men-
tioned to him, he immediately relieved these men
from their imprisonment. But he thought that something
more than this was required, and he would leave it tohis Noble
Friend on the woolsack to say whether such men as those were
fit to be left in the administration of justice in this country.
Lard LYNDHURST said that if, after inquiry, he found
the conduct of these magistrates was such as it had been repre-
sinted, that he should feel it his duty to remove them from the
Commission of the Peace.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that inquiry ought also to
be made o see if there was not some remedy for the injustice
they had suffered, and if not, the sooner the law was altered
the better.
Lord LYNDHURST said that, in a case of injustice by a
magistrate, the injured party was entitled to remedy by an
action.