Star.
London, England, 1822-02-26 00:00:00

that statue

mind the
conformity
declaration

Si4mow
on the 9th
jea:coLGloucester. _ . copy Oat
every county jail in England. The Hon. Gentleman
then read the letter, as ftrllowi:
Sta.-1 have just discovered, in consequence of complaints
made on the subject of the management of Gloucester jail, that
It appears there has been a practice of opening letters from Gs-
lons confined by the jailer, wander a notion that he had a right to•
do so. I think itancessary to repeat the opinion expressed le
my letter of the 12th July last, that the law will not warrant
such a practice. " SI Dtl OUT IV •
—That being the law, declared so by their statutes,
and repeated in the letter which he had read, be
hoped and trusted the House would support it. The
practice was a violation of the Bill of Rights. The
Magistrates pretended to the pOwer of making rules
aad regulations for the prison, under the authority
of the 32d George 11. cap. 28. But he apprehended
that that Act did not confer on the Magistrates any
such authority. The Hon. Member then read some
clauses of the Act, which related to communication
with poor debtors, &c. He contended it included all
prisoners, felons as well as debtors. The spirit of
the Act throughout was humane in the extreme. It
I:hewed that the object in the contemplation of Part
Lament was to alleviate, and not to exasperate the
sufferings of the unfot tunate prisoners. But it might
be contended that the practice of opening letters had
been sanctioned by the rules of the prison. He would
shew that the letters were broken open before those
rules on which so much stress would be laid were
drawn up. He would not use any harsh expressions
when he should say, that rules so oppressive had not
been put into practice in any other jail in the king-
dom. Such oppressive regulations had not been reo-
sorted to by the Semersetshire Magistrates, even to-
wards Mr. Hunt. The Magistrates of Somersetshire
did not presume to u.e such practices towards that
individual, who, whatever the Attorney-General
might say of him, had, by his conduct and by the
inquiry, of which he was the chief author, rendered
the most permanent service to the cause of humanity.
He doubted whether, under the 32d of George 11.
the Magistrates could enact any such rules as they
pretended. For that opinion he had an authority
which in that House was entitled to the greatest pos-
sible repect : he had the authority of a sound lawyer
and politician—he meant the late Sir Samuel Ro-
milly, who gave an opinion on the subject when, in
1812, he presented a petition to that House from a
person confined in Lancaster Jail. He, on that oc-
casion, stated that the County Jail had belonged to
the High Sheriff of the County, and that the Magis-
trates had no right to interfere with him in the ma-
nagement of it. They should not presume to meddle
with the prisoners, the care of whom belonged of
right to the County Sheriff, and for whose comfort and
safe custody he was bound to provide. That was the
opinion of Sir Samuel Romilly, and by that opinion
he (Mr. James) felt that he was warranted in saying
that the opening and intercepting of those letters were
contrary to law. But if, after all, it should be the
opinion that the 32d Geo. IL gave to the Magistrates
the power of establishing those objectionable and
odious regulations, the sooner such an Act was re-
pealed the better. Having said so much on the il-
legality of the practice, he would trouble the House
with a few observations on it, as a breach of the pri-
vilege of Parliament. So far as he was personally
concerned in the question, hi. intention was, if he
had sought for protection at all, it should be in a
Court of Law, where he had no doubt of obtaining
a verdict before an impartial Judge and Jury: that
would be the mode which he would adopt for his
own satisfaction; but when he had been informed
that the cause of complaint was a breach of Parlia-
mentary privilege, he at once determined to bring it
under the consideration of that House, the Members
whereof it so much affected. In bringing forward
that question, he felt that he was doing his duty as
a Member of that House, ant in defending their pri-
vileges he was doing more thin that—he was en-
deavouring to alleviate the sufferings of the poor
unhappy prisoners—(Hear, hear).—He concluded by
moving the following Resolution
a That it is the opinion of this House, that any person
breaking open, detaining, or suppressing any letter or letters ad-
dressed to any, or by any Member of this House, is guilty of a
direct breach of the privileges of this house."
On the question being put from the Chair, there
was a pause of a few seconds before any Member
rose; at the end of that time Mr. PEEL and Lord
STANLEY rose together, but the former gave way.
Lord STANLEY said he felt regret at occupying
the attention of the House before the Right Honour-
able Gentleman (Mr. Peel), who was so much more
competent to speak on this subject • however, he
would trespass on their notice only for a very short
time. The Honourable Member who brought for-
ward this motion put the opening of a letter address-
ed to him as a breach of the privileges of the House.
Now he confessed it did not strike him in that light.
If it were so, it was rather strange that it had not
been so viewed on a former occasion. It was no later
than June last that a petition was presented, com-
plaining of a similar act on the part of a Magistrate
of the County of Lancaster, but it was not considered
as a breach of privilege. Now, among the Regula-
tions drawn up for the better government of Lancas-
ter Jail, and sanctioned by the authorities he had
mentioned, was this one : •
a That the Keeper of the Jail do examine all letters written
by, or addressed to, prisoners confined on the Crown side, and
not suffer any improper matter to be thus conveyed to or from
the prisoner; that he do shew such letters to the visiting Ma-
gistrates; that in case of a letter coming addressed to such pri.
goner, the jailer do send for him, and read to him the unexcep-
tionable: parts ; and In the case of his (the prisoner's) sending a
latter containing exceptionable passages, the prisoner be sent for,
and informed that the letter must be sent without those pas-
sages: but that ill letters from prisoners preparing for trial, to
their Solicitor' or Attornies be seat off without delay, any ex-
ceptiostable passages being ;Edited."

—The whole of the Regulations, of which this was
one, were sanctioned by Mr. Justice Bayley and Mr.
Justice Park, and, if he was not mistaken, the one he
had read was in the handwriting of Mr. Justice Bay-
ley himself; but without vouching for this as a fact,
he could state, that it received the sanction of both
Judges, and that after the most mature considera-
tion. As to the jailer's opening a letter addressed
•to a Member of Parliament by a prisoner, he could
not say what the opinion'of the House might be, but
his own opinion was, that, under the circuinsuutees,


. .
•
• llooltembero
pr • ions ; first,
fran ed by him was'an
a it was a breach of the
Now, if he applied him•
self to ;disprove both these propositions, he trusted
that he should be considered to meet the question
fairly. He certainly had heard with much surprise,
upon a former occasion, the doctrine laid down by
the Hon. and Learned lember forWinchelsea upon
this subject ; and he thought that the Honourable
and Learned Member himself, upon consideration,
would be 'ready to allow that he had taken too wide
a ground. The Noble Lord who spoke last had put
the House in possession of the facts of the present
case, as far as regarded the rules and regulations,
complained of. Those regulations had been sanc-
tioned by Mr. Justice Park and 'Mr. Justice 13ayley.
In the first place, he thought there was strong prot
gumption in favour of the legality of the act, in the
fact of the Judges having signed the rules which
authorised it. And that, too, not without considera-
tion ; for he understood that they altered some of
them, and that the one which gave the power of
opening letters, was in the hand-writing of Mr. Jus-
tice Bayley. He therefore conceived, notwithstand-
ing the authority of the Hon. Member for Carlisle,
that nothing illegal had been committed. The Hon.
Member had appealed to the Act of George 11. which
bore no reference to the present case, and at'the same
time neglected to notice a more recent Act passed in
the3lst of Geo. 111. under which these regulations had
been made. The former Act applied to debtors only,
The Hon. Member had read to the House the title
and preamble of that Act, and he would follow his
example by stating the contents of the preamble to
the other. It was an Act for regulating Jails and
other places of confinement. The preamble set forth,
that for the better government of such places, 'rules
and regulations, and bye-laws, should be made, by
persons authorised so to do, in the Act of George IL
And who' were those persons? The. Magistrates.—
And upon that Act the Judges had undoubtedly
signed the rules of which the Honourable Mem-
ber complained. With such signatures affixed to the
orders for enforcing those rules, he felt, indeed, that
it would be nasting the time, and abusing the in-
dulgence of the House, to dwell any longer upon
the question of their illegality. He then came to
the consideration, whether or not a breach of the
privileges of Parliament had been committed.—
For the sake of argument, he must get the Honourable
Member to concede,, that the rule which authorised
the act of opening the letters of prisoners was legally
made. And he would contend, that if it was founded
in law, there was nothing which could exempt a
Member of Parliament from sharing its common
operation. The only privilege which a Member of
Parliament possessed was that of franking his letters,
but they were as liable to be opened by the authority
of the law as those of any other individual in the
State. The Act contained no clause which exempted
a Member of Parliament from its operation, and it
had hitherto been suffered to apply to all parties
without distinction. The Hon. Member had alluded
to the letter of Lord Sidmouth to the Keeper of
Gloucester Jail. That letter was written in conse-
quence of a complaint made to the House of Lords
from two persons confined in Gloucester Jail, one of
whom was a debtor, and the other confined for a
misdemeanour, which complaint was referred to the
Law Officers of the Crown. His belief was, that the
word " felons" occurred in the letter by mistake. His
Lordship meant to have written " debtors and fines."
He had referred to the opinions of the Law Officers,
and there he found the words " debtors and fines."—
He had also mentioned the circumstance to Lord
Sidmouth himself, and his Lordship concurred in the
supposition, that the mistake had either been made
by himself or by the clerk in copying his letter. The
case which led to the Report of 1735, was one with
the Post Office. And in a case where a letter had
been put into the Post-office and then opened, un-
doubtedly there was a breach of privilege. But that
was no case in point to the question before the House.
Before the letter was put in the post, the Magistrates,
upon the authority of the law, demanded that certain
regulations should be complied with. But in the case
of 1735, the Resolution expressly declared that a
gross breach of privilege had been committed, by
opening a letter, addressed to a Memberof Parliament,
at the Post-office. The Hon. Member had stated, that
in defending the privileges of the House upon this
occasion, he was defending the liberties of the people.
He (Mr. Peel) trusted that no Member of that House
would ever claim privileges which were not, in fact,
the privileges of the People—(Near, hear).—The
Right Hon. Gentleman, after again enforcing the
position that Members of Parliament had no exemp-
tion from the regulations in question, founded as they
were upon the law of the land, concluded by moving
the previous question.

Mr. G. KENNET could not agree to the doctrine
laid down, that a body of Magistrates and two Judges
had the power of legislating and making fresh laws
for the government of prisons. All they could do by
the Act was to regulate the laws aiready made, such
as appointing the time of labour, managing the diet,
rand ordering arrangements of that nature. If they
had the power attributed tolliem try'.the Right Hon.
Gentleman, they had the power' of changing five
years simple imprisonment to five years solitary con-
finement. He thought none of the Law Authorities
would boldly state that they had such power. The
Circular of Lord Sidmouth applied to fines as well
as debtors, and the opinion of the Law Officers at
that period expressly said that the law could not ap-
ply to fines. In this case the Judges had sanctioned
a rule by which fines and felons were equally sub-
mitted to it. He begged to offer his thanks to, the
Right Honourable Gentleman, for moving the pre-
vious question rather than putting a negative upon
the proposition of his Hon. Friend. The plevions
question only meant that they would say nothing
about the merits of the case at the present time.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not mean to
say that Judges and Magistrates had the power of
' making new laws, but they could, undoubtedly make
regulations for the internal police or management of
jails. In the present case it would have been a•dere-
liction of duty on the part of the jailer, if he had,
not .opened the letter of the lion. Member fey Car-
, lisle, tn the case of the Gloucester jaile4 he took

After ocaninentinge t 1 enacting clauses at not do his dot;
tote, the Hon. ikffeliWl&d lr.sve to re- alt • kissed by and to
to House ohs slocussuipx. was entirely in the CrOwn e
!sky witlibis own opinion. assd which was a Mr. /TEL had .-unisipesteod
tion of tlscLiw. He allusiid IA the letter of establish his case upon two pr
idmouth, the late Semitary of State, written for any one to open,* letter fr
Dth of November, 1814, to the keeper of the illegal act ; and secondly, that
iilaucester. A copy of that letter was sent to privileges of Parliament. Noi
- t• t t