The Sun.
London, England, 1818-03-18 00:00:00

REFORM AND RETRENCHMENT.

Mr. LAMBTON presented a petition from the inhabitants
of Newcastle-upon-Tyne against Sinecures, Extravagant
Pensions, and in favour of Parliamentary Reform.—Ordered
to lie on the Table.

Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a petition from Rochdale
for a Reform in Parliament, and the Impeachment of his
Majesty's Ministers.—Ordered to lie on the Table, and to be
printed.

Sir F. BURDETT presented petitions from certain inhabi-
tants of St. Matthew's, Bethnal-green, Ashton-under-Line,
and about 20 other ,places, in favour of Parliamentary Re-
form.—Ordered to lie on the Table.
On the motion of 'Mr. Alderman ATKINS, the House re-
solved into a Committee, to take into consideration the Peti-
tions against Mock Auctions, when certain Resolutions were
agreed to.
The House resumed.

Mr. 1.1"1-TELT6Nsaid, he rose to give notice of a mo-
tion, but be first wished to learn from the Noble Lord oppo-
site (Lord Palmerston), whether, as' was reported, the circu-
lar to which he had on .a former night alluded to, respecting
the Pensions of the Widows of Officers, had been suppressed
or not? On his answer would depend whether he should pro-
ceed to give his notice.

Lord i'ALMERSTON. answered, that the order had not
been circulated, as the subject to which it.referred was yet
under consideration.

Mr. LYTTELTON replied, that under such circumstances,
it was his intention, on Thursday, the 2d of April next, to
move an Address to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent on
that subject.

Sir F.BURDETT gave notice, that soon after the holidays
he would move that the petition of Scholes, lately presented,
should be referred to a Commiittee.

VISITING STATE PRISONS.
Lord FOLKESTONE rose, pursuant to his notice,
to submit to the House a motion for leave to bring
in a Bill•rela'ive to the Act of 31 Geo. 111. on
the subject of the power of Magistrates to visit
Common or County Gaols. He was surprised
that any opposition was to be made to his u►o-
tion. At least he thought be might he allowed
to bring in the Bill. If it was found that the ob-
jections to it could not he removed in the progress
of the Bi surely, it would be time enough
to reject it. He referred to the late case tried at
the Assizes for the county of Berks, in which he
was concerned, where the verdict of the Jury was
in favour of the Gaoler, who had refused to allow
him to visit the Gaol, as a Magistrate. In al-
luding to this case he could not refrain from men-
tioning that an extreme partiality was manifested
against him by tl►e Judge. With whatever cause
he went into a Court of Justice, lie was now con•
vinced that if the case were ever so strong in his
favour, it he was opposed to his Majes'y's Mi-
nisters, he had no chance of success. The sum-
ming up of the evidence, in the case lie alluded
to, was such that the Judge did not mention in
it one case or argument against the Gaoler. He
was aware that the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman opposite was in possession of *a copy
of the summing up of the Judge, so that there
would be an opportunity of sliming whether he
(Lord, F.) was wrong. The indictment was laid
on the Act 31 George 111. entitled " Au Act
for the—better •regulating of Gaols and other
places of confinement." The preamble of the Act
contained a passage which was by no means equi-
vocal, the words being " and for preventing all
abuses as well in common gaols," &c., which
skewed that common and county gaols were in
contemplation of the Act. The 15th clause,
which referred to the gaoler's fees, mentioned
hint as a Sheriff's officer. The I ith clause too
was to the same effect. The whole• question on
which the case turned was, whether the -Act in
question referred to common and county gaols.
He submitted, that from the passages which be
had mentioned, it was clear these common and
county gaols were within the purview of the Act.
—But at the very most it was doubtful whether
common and county gaols were not included ,in
the operation of it.- The Act of 24 Geo. 11. was
quite sufficient to authorise Magistrates to visit
houses of correction ; so that if houses of cor-
rection alone were the objects of the Act 31 Geo.
111. that Act was mere surplusage. In the trial
of his case, it was attempted to be proved that
the usage was, in cases of treason, that visita-
tion did not extend to prisoner's committed for
that offence. The ground for this was the words
in the warrant '' safe and close custody." But
he denied that these'words had any such mean-
ing. Dalton and Bacon's Abridgment proved
that these words might be inserted in a warrant
for a committal for any other offence as well as
treason. He also quoted the authority of Lord

Coke in 13u1strode's Reports to this effect. He
coticluded,by moving for " Leave to bring in a
Bill to remove doubts whether 'Magiatrates •have
the•poWerto visit Gaols, nor liei4 P‘'ilitentiary
Honses'Or Houses of Correction."
The ATTORNEy-GENERAt -said, that the Noble
Lord had thought fit in his speech to introduce an
imputation-agsiost a Most: respectable Judicial
Ck.aracter, in a way that was certainly new in that
_House, and which could not be allotted to pass
-without sante animadversion. %Mt had sailers
from the Noble Lard amounted to no less than a
charge ofpartialitysagainst the Judge before whom
the case of the - Noble.. Lord and the gaoler of
Reading gaol had been tried. A charge of this
kind implied all that 'Was most base and revolting..
It amounted to no less than this., that a man sworn
to adtninister the law with jiistice and impar-
tiality, had lent himself, for some purpose of poli-
tical or private enmity, to be partial and unjust
in his judicial character. He was stair' iced that
the Noble Lord should have introduced such a
charge on this occasion. He had ity,his posses-
sion an account of all that had taken place on
the trial in question : and fee must say, that there
could not be a more patient and laborious erten.
tion than that which the Learned Judge alluded to
bad bestowed on the able and ingenious, but falla-
cious speech of the Counsel. for'the-Noble Lot d,
as well as to the evidence which was brought for-
ward on the part of the. Noble Lord, some of
which evidence, he must say, was of the mt,St ex-
traordinary kind.—(Hear !)—At the sante time
the same attention was bestowed on the caie of
the defendant—an attention which the Judge was
bound to skew, whether the individual had been
arraigned at the instance of the Noble Lord, or of
any other person whatever ; but if there was any
one case in which more titan another the Judge
Was bound to attend to the case of a defendant--
if ever there was a defendant who haft a sarong
claim upon the attention of the Bench, it was
the defendant in the case alluded to, who
had been twice condemned and punkhed by
the Noble Lord before he was put upon his trial,
—(Loud cries of hear, bear, hear !)—SuCh was
the case of this defendant. And when the
Noble Lord came and made a charge of par-
tiality against the Judge, let him not be too
sure that his own conduct towards this man had
been fair or just.—(Hear, hear!)—What could the
Noble Lord say for his own conduct when he and
the other Magistrates voted this man guilty, and
punished him as guilty without trial?-'1 he si-
tuation of this man, in respect to the offence of
which be was accused, was one of singular hard-
ship : on the one han:l he was pressed by a party
of the Magistrates, on the other hand he was re-
strained by the positive orders of the She, iff. And
' yet thiS man, thus situated—thus punished while
yet untried—this man, with respect to whosechas
• racter lie would put it to the Noble Lord, or any
other Magistrate of the Cotinty of Becks, to say
whether any one had ever held his situation and
perforMed its duties in a way that more.drserved
the approbation of his superiors, the respect of
his equals, and the gratitude of the persons under
his charge,—this man was put upon his trial at
the instance 'of the Noble Lord ; and because he
was acquitted the Bench was accused of partiality.
There was no partiality. If he were to venture to
.find fault with any thing in the conduct of the
Learned Judge, it would be that he had not stated
the law against the Noble Lord and the prosecutions
as it ought to have been stated.—(Het!)—Frotn
the statement made to the House by theMoble Lord
it was made to appear as if the question to be de-
cided by the trial was, whether Magistrates had
a right to enter jails for the purpose of visiting.
That was not the question. The Noble Lord was
not refused access to visit the jail, and lie was
expressly told by the defendant that he might
visit the jail as often as he pleased. But the
Noble Lord's object was very different—his ob.
jest was not to visit the jails, but to comMunicate
with State Prisoners. Though the Act of the
31st Geo. 111. was badly constructed, there was
no doubt that it gave Magistrates the power to
visit jails. But though be admitted this, he
denied that the man in question ought have been
convicted. The jails are the property of the
King by the Common Law, and recognized
as such by the Statures. In the reign of 'Ed-
ward 111. an Act was passed to restore the
Common Law ; and another Act of Henry
VII. on the same subject, both of which Acts
recognised the jails as being the King's, awl that
the Sheriff shotsid appoint the keepers. Yet, -best
cause, forsooth, MagistrateS may visit jails, they
are to have communications as often as 'they
pleasc, and in such manner as they please, with
any of the prisoners--debtors, felons, or traitors.
To what consequences would this right of com-
munication lead ? It would beat down all the pre.
cautions which the law had provided for the safe
custody of State Prisoners. He denied in toto the
exposition given by the Noble Lord of the words
" site and close." • .in the year 1796 there was
a committal by the Court of King's Bench for
'Treason, and the warrant rait—" That the Pri-
soner should be kept safe and close as to the
Treason wherewith he was 'charged, and safe as to
all other charges." But even.on the Noble Lord's
own statement, the Act allowed the Magistrates
to visit the gaols, but not to visit the prisoners.
If the Act gave an authority to visit State Pli-
soners, then be would think it his duty instantly
to move that it be repealed. When the Noble
Lord moved for leave to bring in a Bill to remove
doubts, the real object was to give a right to Ma-
gistrates to visit prisoners, to destroy the super.
intending power of the Sheriff, and the pre-
rogative of the Crown. As to the previous
Statutes referred to by the, Noble Lord,
the 14th George 11., &c. related solely to the
power of Magistrates to repair or build gaols.—
If the intention of the Bill moved for was to re-
move doubts as to the right. of Magistrates to visit
gaols, it was unnecessary, for there was no doubt
on the subject. •If the intention was to go one
step further, it was going beyond tiwttavv, and
(king that which would be most prejudical to the
Stare ; therefore it must be opposed. With • re-
spect to the case of the defendant in the action in
which the Noble Lord was concerned, he would
ask the NOble Lord whether the defendant had
not offered to allow the Noble Lord to visit the

prisoner, provided be would only converse OQ
such and such subjects ?—(Lord Folkestone sig.

nifi,edlris as•.en.t.),e—Tlren the Noble Lord's Object
was .plainly to destroy. the prerogative of the
'Crow!) the custody of the. prisoners, and to
'establish tire stew right of Magistrates to visit riot
the prisons but prisoners. He, therefore, upon
tire grerondis that the Bill was unnecessaty in -one
view, and detrimental in the other, found it his
duty to oppose this motion.
Mt. S. BOURNE said, the Noble Lord had stet-
ekthe'case, but not the whole case, for he did
not state that be had persuaded-the Magistrates
of Werks to inflict -punishment upon the defendant
before -he was tried.—(hear,, hear, hear !)—Nor
had the Noble Lord
.seated what had been done
by him and thleother.Magisirates to•prejudice the
public mind against the defenaant.during the trial.
—lt Was usual'atit the rysoltut ions:of the Quarter
Sessions should be publislred in the newspapers.
In the present case, whae.the.trial.was pending,
Ike resolutimis. against
_the defendant wet e pub-
lished and although in passing those resoletions
there was..a diV.i.sion among the Alagistrates, 13
having voted one way, and 16 the other, these
• r,s.ohttions carte published with tile names of the
13 Magistrates to then, who bad voted against
them.—(Loud cries of hear, hear, heat !)—lf the
Noble Lord made himself a party to such pro-
ceedings, might make what speeches he chose
about Liberty and the Constitution, but these
facts would be answer enough to them
all.—
(Lout! chest ins; )
Sir F. BURDETT had no doubt that whets the
Noble Lord' (Folkestone) replied, lie would be
able to explain the facts which had been stated.
If he onderstodul what mis done to the gaoler,
the whole punishmetre was suspending him from
his.office, anti t;.is lumislinteut was inflicted merely
for the purpose of irying the question as to. the
legelity of his refos.al to allow the Noble Lord to
have access to toe prisoners. As persons as learn-
ed in the law as the Hon. and Learned Gontleman
entertained different opinions on the subject, he
sew that there were grounds for doubts, and
should therefore give his vote in favour of the
Inot
... 'I he SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended that the
trial had determined that Magistrates had not the
right of holding communication with persons
committed on the charge of High Treason. Had
it not been for the statute of KiNg William, even
Counsel could not have been admitted to such pri-
soners without the leave of the Crown. It it haul
been the intent iou of the Legislature to allow such
power to Magistrates, that intention would have
been clearly expressed. But as the law stood, no
suclepower was given.
Lord FOLKESTONE had only wished to remove
the doubts which he conceives) to exist on the sub-
ject.. If the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the
Attorney-General),_ with the weight of his high
authority, told hint there was nu such doubts, he
would certainly not be foolish enough to bring iu
a Bill to remove what had no existence. As to
the charges made against hint resFecting the sus-
pension of the gaOler, and the publication of. the
Resolution of the Court of Sessions, much misre-
presentation had taken place. Oct the 10th June
hue had been to visit the gaol with other Magis-
trates, and had bean refused admittance to the
prisoners committed for, high treason. lie had
endeavoured to persuade the mast that he was
acting wrong in refusing., and haul received
this answer from hint :—" I tolite agree with
you, my Lord, I believe .1 have no right to
keep you out, but 1 ton ordered by supe-
rior powers, and must do it." On the I-Ith
.June, he (Lord F.) called again, and asked the
man whether, atter consideration, he was disposed
to.give admittance, which was again refused. He
had then preferred a complaint at the Quarter
Sessions, and moved a Resolution, in which tile
Count agreed unanimously, that Magistrates had a
tight to visit all prisoners. 'the gaoler was called
In, admonished, and told, that tie Magistrates
expected to be admitted. He begged leave to
write to the Secretary of State out the subject, but
thee Court said the Secretary of State had nothing
to do with it, and gave the man an hour to come
to.a resolution. At the expiration of that time,
he said that he would admit the Magistrates. But
on a fresh applicatiou being made, the former de-
nial was renewed. A fresh complaint was made
to the Court of Sessions, which he (Lord F.)
found. filled by unprecedented unmbers ut Maeis-
tiates, two of whom had but lately taken their
seats. 'fhe case was then proposed to the Gram!
Jury, who found a true Bill, and the gaoler hue-
nig reused to obey the order of the Court of Ses-
sions, it was the duty of that Court, in support of
its own authority and dignity, to ieflict some pu-
nishment upon him, if a temporary suspension, till •
the issue of the trial teas kili)Wll, could be called
punishment. As to the publication oldie Resolu-
tipos, it had beets carried by a majority that they.

•alsonla be printed. 1-1 e hid not voted for it : lie
'had rather opposed it, as he did not conceive the
matter of sufficient importance. With respect to
the insertion of all the names of the 'Magistrates,
that was always done at the head of the Iteso
lions passed by Courts of 'Sessions, arid was
therefore no innovation. In fact, there was no
part of those proceedings of which he was asham-
ed, or which he would not go over again.
Mr. S. Boy ENE explained.
Lott!Lts.us-rost,., with the consent of the
douse, then withdrew his Bill.
aIDiontNNIENT.

Lord CASTLE nuy‘cti:v,,itve notice, that in conse-
(pence of the Quarter Sessions which world inter-
vene during the, holidays, it was his intention to
propose that the ilonetia-ajoitrn to the 2d of April.
'There was only one tnotiOn, by a Noble Lord
whorl he did not now see in his place, whirl)

would have come ou within that.time. If he
could have some communication with that Noble
Lord, and understood he would not oppose it, he
should propose the adjournment to-morrow, if not,

the day after.
Sir R. HERON presented petitions from the cur•
tiers and tanners of Lowth. and Gainsborough
against the Leather Tax.—Laid on the table.