Star.
London, England, 1817-06-19 00:00:00

had been taken tio hot:such as were ri;:htfully appre-1
I !tended —( Hear, ilex% hair.)—ln his huinblnopinion, I
la more chi sigerou, construction never could be put on.
!any Art than was endeavoured to be put on this Sta._
Ilute ; and it was singular that this was the fiat time
such an objection had been taken. During the dif-
ferent periods since 1791, in which the Habeas Cor-
pus Act was suspended, and persons committed un-
der it, constant applications were made to visit them,
and orders as to who should or should not he admit-
ited were always given by the Secretary of State. He
would contend that the right to order the manner in
which such prisoners should be kept, was a preroga-
tive of the Crown, which had been constantly exer-
.cised by the Privy Council and the Secretary of State
ever since.the passing of the Act of 1791, without
any objection being made. The question in short
was, whether the importance and necessity of keeping
State Prisoners is close custody was to be done away,
by giving a power to visit them by persons who
night wish to converse with them. He did not un-
der.tand the difference made by the Noble Lord be-
tween the Tower, as the King's prison, and other
jails. When the Act for suspending the Habeas
Corpus had given the Secretary of State the power of
confining a prisoner in any jail or the kingdom, it
made that jail a State prison. There was. therefore,
nothing in the law, which prohibited the Secretary of
State from doing that which had been done at all
times, and, therefore, there was no ground mode out
for laying before the House hit instructions and ctn.,
respondence. He should consequently oppose the
motion, as what the Secretary of State bad done he'
had been fully warranted in doing.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY would say for him-
sell, that he had never heard doctrines of law more
novel than those wl:ich bad fallen from his Lear.
ned Friend, die Attorney-General—(Hear, hear.)—
It was ofilittle importance to iaquire what the power
of the Crown was in this respect before the Act of
1791. What were the powers enjoyed by the Secre-
tary of State and the Privy Council before the Act,
of 1791, was a subject of inquiry, which it was not
now necessai y to enter or, ; and therefore he would
not at present foLow his Learned Frieed through,
that part of the subject. But the question was, whe-1
ther, after the Act of 1791, the Secretary of Sta.e
should be conedered as entitled to give nirections
that Magistrates were not to be allowed :o sisit any
of the prisoners in the gaols within their jurisdiction.
The questi in was one of the greatest importance
which had ever come under discussion before any
tribunal in this country, namely, whether the intro-
gative of the Crown could be taken away by Act of
Parliament, otherwise than by express words ? It had
been contended by the Learned Attorney•Gerierat,
that the prerogative could in no case be taken away
but by express words. But though this might be
true with respect to some subjects, it did not apply to
the present case. It applied to the case of certain.
civil rights, debts due to the Crown, which 'Could
not be affected by statutes of limitation. The right
to recover debts could not, in like manner, he ob-
served, be taken away by the Bankrupt Laws.
But t was rt ever before held, that in acts of general
regulation the prerogative of the Crowd could not be
taken away, except by express words—(Hear, hear.)
—lt had been expressly decided, that the power of
the Crown could, in matters of general regulation,
be taken away by Act of Parlianient, though the
same were not stated in express worda--(diesay.).-oin
the well known case of Magdalen College. in Lord
Chief Justice Coke's Reports, the question was, whe.
tber the power of the Crown was affected by the re.
straining statute respecting Colleges and Ecclesiasti-
cal Bodies I Magdalen College had made a grant to
Queen Elizabeth, and it was held by all the Judges
coat the Crown was precluded under that statute frum
receiving the grant; because this was not a question
merely with regard to property, but was a matter of
general regulation—(Hear, hear)—and all theJadges
were unanimously of this opinion. 1 thought be
might say that there was not only no decision, but
that there was even totdictum in any books of law
that die Crown was not bound by a law of general
regulation, though .the name of the King were not
even mentioned in that law, and though it were nut
stated that the prerogative was in so tar abridged.—
The Act of 1791, expressly authorised any Justice of
Peace, on his own suggestion, to visit all the gaols
within the county; and here the Secretary of State
issued orders, that if he came to particular parts of
the prison, he should not have access to them. Since
the Bill of Rights, it had not been usual to advocate
directly the odious doctrine that the Crown had the
right of dispensing with statutes ; but what was. this
doctrine of his Learned Friend in effect, but claiming
a power to dispense with the law ? He would ask
those who maintained that a Magistrate could dis-
charge his duty under the Act of 1791, without hav-
ing any communication with the prisoners—it he was
not permitted to see the prisoners—if he could nut
speak to them—it he could not examine the dungeons
in which they were confined—it he could not inquire
into the state of their health—bow could he possibly
ascertain the state of the gaols and report concerning
them. It was impossible to exercise the duties en-
joined by the Act, but by seeing and conversing with
the prisoner. The Act was expressly made on ac-
count of the abuses in prisons, and the misconduct of
gaolers; and he was afraid that the House would
always be obliged to have a strict eye on prisons, as
places where power was more likely to be abused
than any where else. The Act expressly said, that
the Magistrate might visit them whenever he pleased:
and now came tue Secretary of State, and said he
should not. His Learned Friend said, such a power
to any Magistrate, never could be in the contempla-
tion of the Legislature at the time of passing the
Act—(Hear, hear);—brit that had nothing to do with
the question. It was not what was in their contempla-
tion, but what they had actually done—(Hear, hear).
And he should be astonished indeed it any other
Gentleman in the protessicn should follow the At-
torney General, and say that the Crown was not
bound by an Act passed for the general regulation of
prisons. hie called upon them to produce any deci-
sion of any Court, any dictum of any text writer, or
any authority in support of such dOctrine. But they
could not. *ibis would, in taetibe placing the Crown
above the whole Legislature. (Hear, hear.) Because
it was saying, no matter what regulatioes the Legis-
lature may adopt for the sake of humanity and jus-
tice, we will take care with respect to certain priso-
ners that teey shall nut beottit by such regulations.
This was a doctrine, however, which ought to Curate

supported with softie more authority than the mere
assertion of an Attorney General.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL said his Learned
Friend (the Attorney General) had not contended
that the Crown was not bnund by Act of Parliament,
but that the right of the Crown, as it stood before the
passing of this Act of Parliament, was not taken
away by it. if it was coetendeJ that under this Act
a Magistrate might visit State Prisoners what and
where he pleased, then during the trial ot &Ate Pri-
soners, any Magistrate might have Access to them,
and make all communication to them that he pleesed.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that all he had heard
from his Honourable and Learned Friend naposite,
had merely served to confirm him in the opinion
which he formed of this case when it first came before
the House. He would take it upon him to say, that
a more le:,ble defence than that which was how set
up in this case had never been heard within the walls
of that House—(Hear, hear). He spoke without the
slightest disrespect personalty to his Honourable and
Learned Friends. It was tee fault of the case, and
not their's ; and all their talents, karning and skill,
had been utterly unable to give even a colour of jus-
tification to it. The Learned Gentleman (the Soli-
citor-General) assumed that his Learned Friend (S r
Samuel Romilly) had admitted that before 1791
solitary confieentent made part of the Law of Eng-
land, and that as rigorous as the Crown pleased.—
Good Gon, was this the Law of England I Who
eves thought of . giving the Crown the power in all
the details of torturing prisoners in this manner ?
His Learned Friend had not thought proper to enter
into any inquiry respecting the I.aw prior to 1791,
because the Act of 1791 expressly empowered
Justices to visit prisons, and to inquire into the
abuses in them! Herr was a specific Statute call.
ing on Magistrates to visit all gaols ; and the
question was, whether in the teeth of that Statute the
King's Minister could issue an arbitrary mandate,
and say that certain prisoners should not be visit-
ed ? It was said that the purview of the Act
was the regulation of Penitentiary Houses ; and
so, in truth, it was in the first four sections.—
But in the fifth section it was expressly said .iand for
the better preventing all abuses as well in Common
Gauls as in Houses of Correction"—(llear, hear.)
And Magistrates were expressly authorised to exa-
mine into the treatment and conduct of prist.ners, at
such time or times as they might think fit, and to
report concerning the same. Now could this exami-
nation be carried on, if the right of examination
should be confined to the mere walls and earth ot the
prison ? How could they report tespecting the treat-
ment of the prisoners, by on.y looking to the walls on
the one side of the prison, and the floors below and
ceiling above them. The Act could mean but one
thing, the power to examine tae :.eeeers themselves,
and to ask them questions respecting their treatment.
The section in question could have no earthly mean-
ing, it it did not oust that power of the prerogative
winch was in this case claimed, and authorise Magis-
trates to exeminv into all prisons and inquire into all
abuse,. but in what Statute, he wou.d ask, were
State Prisoners mentioned? What book of law, what
dictum, divided State Prisoners from other prisoners ?
--(Hear, hear.) All prisoners were the King's Pri-
soners, and without his authority it was impossible
they could be committed and brought to trial. And
it was as illegal as it was a mockery ef common
sense therefore to distinguish two sorts of prisoners,
'and to say common Prisoners and State P - f.sosers—
(Hear. hear.) It had been said the Crown had a
peculiar interest in the prosecution of State Prisoners,
but was not the Crown as much interested in the
prosecution of theft, murder, and robbery, as of se-
dition. This was the first time, he believed, that two
lawyers had got up and stated what was as repugnant
to common sense as it was repugnant to all analogies
of the law, and unknown in all the'Courts of this cella-
try. It had been said there would be a great inconve-
nience if all Magistrates could go into prisons and
hold communications with State Prisoners. But he
would say, that if a Magistrate did that which was
improper, he was amenable to the proper authority—
it he abused his trust, he might be removed from the
Commission, and further steps might be taken againit
him. But then it was said it would be attended with '1
another consequence—prisoners might be examined
net only before trial, but even pending trial: and has
Learned Friends, from their experience, appeared to
consider State Trials as necessarily a thing ot wery
long endurance. But this was one. of the very worst
practices which could possibly take place. GOD tor-
bid, that when we talk of State Trials, we should
think of an exception from a proper regulation from
what had happened in the late long continued State
Trials. They had seen, when lately an signed for
high treason, a list of 240 witnesses furnished to them.
To be charged with treason was suilicient to harass
and bewilder the mind of itself ; but what could be
compared to the being kept day after thy in suspense
till the close of a bungling prosecution ? (Hear,hear.)
His Learned Friends were not to blame for this—
the preparations for the trial were beyond their de-
partment. The whole of these proceedings for trea-
son gave rise to nothing but feelings of disgust ;they
Ivilified that which was never betose considered but
with feelings of veneration. Gon forbid that we
should again, from the long continuance of these
trials, give an arbitrary power to the .Secretary of
State. merely to serve the purpmes of patty.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said there was no elle-
gatiou that the Prisoners of State had been subjected
to any improper treatment. He apprehended it was
not merely competent for the Secretary of State to
issue warrants fur the apprehension and commitment
of persons charged on oath with high treason. Every
Magistrate might commit for high treason ; and it
he committed, it could nut be otherwise, than the
person committed should be held in close mad safe
custody.. It would be a breach of duty in any Ma-
gistrate to,comme otherwise. Though the Honour.
able and Learned Gentleman seemed to philosophize
On this subject —(ellaugh).—Ttie laws at England,
from the eallieat to the latest period, had meat a dis-
tinction between the prisoners for treason, and other
offences. The law 01 1791 WAS the only peg upon
which the Honourable and Learned Genilernan could
hang an attempt at argument. Though he saw no
distinction, the law of England, which was wiser
than the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, lied
always made the distinction, and uniformly proceeded
en the distinction which had been taken. The goes-
don was, whether the Act of 1791. did make any
such alteration in the general tenout of the law as to

the offence of tre.

and had been set
but to all other
from the circum

shuttld put ou
The Act of 179
ptesettt instvlce

abuse had taco p.
_fon, a s;moe
point of 0 law, 03 which he hoped the Him* vnAdti
n-)t deci .le indirectly, so as io chanve the linisruderice.
With the grr.ttest reytet tor the irtahistrates, he was
not prepa; e.l to say, that in all yrnsiine circumstances
it would be ptoeser to allow them to 0.• what Rs
contended for. If an improp..r course had been rm.
sued as to the gaoler of Iteaclin, ga'4, it might be
brought to adjudication. As to she ii..ro2rable and
Leatnrd Gentletn:in, lie had taken as:vantage of
temporary feeling to mike an ant mpt to t iodine in
unfair impression. Never was there a more nnirtr.
ded attack; to clia:ge the Governmert with a bin.
gling prosecution—( //ear from th Optcri•ims); to la)
it to them as a thnge, that a trial had i..sted a num-
ber of days—(Hear ! front the Gpisetiion tide). He
lamented that the ti 41 had lasted so long ; he though;
it was unfortunate that of late State trials had tarn
that turn. Bin the length of them was to be attri-
buted to the extent of time during which the criminal
designs were charged to have been carried on, and
the candour of the Court and their 'patient examinap
Lion. This W4S only another instance in which the
point of the Honourable Grntleman's attack was ell_
aimed by the want of eat.d orr, so that they prod:l:rd
as little effect out of the House as the votes sherird
they did within.

Lord A. RADII LION said, uo one had ti-enii..d
or could deity that abuses might take place as to
stoners committed by the Secretary of State's sea:.
rant. What then was his remedy, when soch a';;;;:i
were committed ? The prisoner was depnvec!•:: tits
remedy by Habeas Corpus—by the Act v.hich was
passed. If tins power on the pert of the M.igiStretteS
was taken away, what possthle remedy et,uld
have ? He might be transferred horn jail to jai
round the kingdom. It was said no ahuse had be..n
alleged. How could any abuse be alleged, if no
communication with the prisoner were all.wed ?
The censure which the Honourable and Learnel
Gentleman (Mr. Brougham) had applied to the Stye
prem.:onions might be extended to a nerobout:iig
country, Scotland—t hese a marl had been if red tivic.:
tor one offence, and was now to be tried a third time.
He hopes!, it the mation was rejected. it would at
least operate as a V/4111111g to the House against curs•
sewing to pass a measure which gave rise to such
practices on the part of the Secretary or State.
Mr. WYNN said. that he tame into the Home
undecided upon this subject. He had thought the
explicit words of the Act were lot to be coriticulee.
bet he bad suspended an absolute judgment. lie
had heard nothing which had shaken the words of
the Act. There might be inconventencies attached
to the execution of that .law. It did not Ptft•ct the
prerogative in that direct way, whicrs could make it
necessary to introduce rpectric words into the Act,
respecting that prerogative. It it had yenerally taken
the contioul of State I'tisoners out of tn.: lands of
the Crown, it could not have been effectoal without
a distinct telerence to the prerogative, ha: au allow-
ance to the Magistrates to visit prisoners, could not
be considered as an encroachment on the petogative.
kie should therefore support the motion.
For the Motion, ,76—Against it, 85—Maj.rrity,

FRAVDCLENT VoTES..

When re-admitted into the Gallery, we found—
Sit FRANCIS BURDETT moving that a Pet--'
thin be held in his hand be b:ought up. h was trora
the same voter for the Borough of Haslemere, whose
former Petition had been rejected. It .vas framed in
aclitierent manner, and prayed no cous:dera:;:n
his particular case, but a revision of the law, in order
to prevent fraudulent practices.
Mr. BANKES objected to toe motion for hril:;;•z
up the Petition, on toe ground that the indtvi.:
acknowledged' himsdf guilty ut perjury.—(Cey
alit appeared mat the matter WU bet. :el
Court of LAW, and at would be iinpioper to briny It
before the House.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, be had no wiib
to break through the rules of the House, but the Pe-
tition appeared to contravene no rules; nor did we
Petitruner state, that. he had committed perjury. lie
stated, that a fraudulent cony f _last be
cu _ol 1114. k
to him of property, to enable him to vote ; and alter
he had voted, an attempt was made to take ilia
freehold truth him. He considered, that if he itora47
esced in that demand, he should have beer. r.Jilty
perjury. Legal proceedings had been cc
against bin'. Some perscos ni t,t contenifoLit this
WAS a breach of trust on the pal tut the
But this man asked tot no iiiterlereuce as to Or
Courts below, but humbly prayed, that the Hoeg
would take the matter into con,idciatinn, to FIVVeLt
the fraudulent criticise of the Llective Frinclases
whereby ignoittrd persons like hirn.eli might be I 4
valved in sumo, ur in th.: crime of papal.
Lord COCHRANE said, all the perjuries
bad 14144 wituesaed ILI the Court; of Law had itch,
totted from the corruptions in that House. Tae .Q
totious breach of the bribery 0.4::3, and the
tont:an:A ol the solemn u:ljuratiun id the Chest ox's
name, could not be peinlittrd to continue without a
complete derninalization of the country. He pleiged
tiine.elt to bring li‘rward a motion on the subjects
founded on sptcitic fees, which hr should have pro-
duced sooner, it private ciscumstances had act de
layed him.
Mr. LONG, before he :poke on the present cues.
tion, wished to correct a misrepresentation of %.oAt
he had said on a former night. He bad been stata
Istve.said, that what had been alleged
Mi. Reynolds was unfounded. He knew notreng e:
Mi. Reynolds. With respect to the resent pet:covet
however, he (Mr. Long) had oleerved
should be able to spew that what had toots lard r•
spouting Lis Nolde Friend (I.nrJ Lonsdalc) as to ik
clue:instances mentioned in tots l'etiti"r, Nem "*W.:
Ott I,)LAIRJALIon. lie did not see horn the r?„ put
could interfere. Toe nr4ll was now in possessieri•
the trcehold of which he spore, and which his ter
conscience, lie pretended, prevented him from
up. As to his tetilci conscience, he
tiad received a letter trim this r•
a 1 mil of a sumo et incney ; and stating, that el t •
consideration he would give op tl.e creer.•• •
lerr,;?g ) It was in COl:totqUt:llCe of h'S Wt. i•
that a Pto;et..4 tt as C;nt•n.zti:t

!non. WRs not tew 4:lo.e.t:tdn.
Ale,' before, not malt, as tt, tt.e 'rower
prisons.ll...c.ause that the Tozer,
nstasa e ot ()Ping a l(U) I tattiaza.,
Lit ta the ottlic-ry trash el
[I wit to retntdy abwc., hit in. the
it 1,43 not been g that illy
i Nl.cc. It wits, theseforr, a s;ola.i.