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

asit it was passed. The King had no more power
• en violate .the provisions of an Act of Parliament
than any other p non in the kiirgd,.m ; and to pre-1
vent Magistrates from entering prisons whenever they
thougl.t proper, was a gross violation of the law of
;he lend. A jail was not the property of the King,
nniess the wood and bricks of which it was built, and
the ground on' which it stood. might be his property;
the jail itself was not ; it WAS under the custody of
the Sheriff of the County. The Noble Lord here
recited various part- of the Acts of 141111 Edward 111.
and 30th Richard 11. to skew hoW and when they
were t ilci a from tie power Of the King, and reunited
to the ..ustody of the Sheriff. The Act of 9th
Henry 11. was to the same effect; and.,,it was the
more remarkable, As the Sheriff was ntSt then, as
now, a person appointed by the: Crown, but was
elected by the Freeholders as .the servant of the
county. He referred to various similar and subse-
quent laws, and cAttewled, that under none r f them,
hilt more particularly since the Act of 1791,,had the
Secretary of State any right to interfere with the
treatment of presons detaiti-d in county prisons, the
Sheriff being in all cases answerable fur the body of
the prisoner ; therefore this act of the Secroary of
State was an extension of the law, and an absurder
proceeding could not possibly be. For, supposing
the jailer refused obedience, what power had the
Secretary of State, except under the Suspension of
the Habeas Corpus Act, to punish him, unless he
imprisoned him in his own jail (liter, hear)? On
the whole, in his opinion, Ilse letter of the Secretary
was an illegal mandate ; for if Ministers had such a
prerogative, it was done away by the 3lst of the
King. He hoped the House would consider this
subject to be worthy of Ike most grave and serious
consideration. The Justices were appointed to see
that no abuses were carried on in prisons; and it was
a curious thing, that when a system of espiaaag: was
patronised by Ministers—(Near, luar)—they should
total re to prevent the person; appointed by the
Crown and Parliament from ascet taming whether
abuses existed or not. It must be supposed that the
Magistrates .were not fit persons to be entrusted with
the charge of visiting such prisons ; but it they were
not lit to do their duly, why were they left
.in the
commission of the. peace;, Stk.upjusultable a. pro-
ceeding was serious to the:prisoners ; but it was.
much More serious to the public, as it was absolutely
. dispensing with the Bill of Rights. He should make
no farther observations at present, but should only
Move for Copies of Instructions sent by the Secretary
of State for tile
,Home Department to all Jailers and
other persons, in whose custody persons were detain..
ed, suspected of conspiring against his Majesty's
Government; Arid ails of all, correspondence between
any Magistrates and the Secretary of State respecting
ins:ructions ..r the treatment of prisoners, &c.
The A i TOKNEY-GENERAL observed, that
the Noble Lib -Li !. of stated a proposition that be was
not inclined v. iy, namely, that the Crown bad no
power to dispe- se with the laws. But. the Noble
Lord, in use c..urse of his speech, had observed to the
effect, as he believed, chat the Secretary of State had
introduced a new practice at a peculiar time, just
when persons had been taken up who were :hewn in-
nocent by a verdict of a Jury. (Lord Folkston said
he bad not used those precise words). He would,
however, contend, that the Secretary of State had
not done any thing more than had uniformly been
done towards persons who had been taken up on sus-
picion of High Treason, and who were always corn.
nutted to close custody: From the earliest times
-such persons were denied all access to by orders from
Government, though constant and repeated applica-
tions hid been made to visit them. Proofs of this

would be found in a vast variety of instances in the
Reports of the State Trials, previous to, and since
, the Revolution; and this right had been maintained
' • by Judges who were as great friends to the Constitu-
tion as the Noble Lord, or any other man. Chief
Justice Pratt, in particular, in the case of Lyon, re-
fussed an application made to the whole Court at Bar.
A Rule was only granted tor the admission of his
wile, and it was intimaters, that if the prisoner wished
for any other indulgence, he must apply elseavhere.
The Privy Council and the' Secretary of State have
had the power, from the earliest time, to grant or
refuse permission to visit State Prisoners. The She-
riff was undoubtedly the person rho was responsible
for the safety of the prisoner, apd he admitted that
no other person bad a right to he keeper of a County
Jail but the Sheriff; but that would not decide the
question whether those who commit persons to their
custody charged with offences against the State had
not a fight to the regulations respecting such priso-
Der* ? He would say, in contradiction to the opinion
*of the Noble Lord, that every jail in the kingdom
was the King's jail, although a subject may have the
custody of the jail. Previous to the Act of 1791, an
' objection never was taken, and there was never less
indulgence :s to access. The management of such
parsons charged with crimes against the State was
always deemed to be a prerogative of the Crown.
Respecting perjury, the Noble Lotd was virrroo in
saymg that the prerogative of pardoning was taken
sway by any Act. He denied it. It was the conse-
queuce only that was taken away, because the Act
said that no person should be admitted to give his
evidence on oath without obtaining a reversal of''
judgment. Thus the power of pardoning was not in-
terfered with, and the•object of the Act was for ano-
ther and quite a different purpose. Bat let it be re-
collected what the object of the Act of 1791 princi-
p illy was. It was with respect to jails used as peni-
tentiary houses, that the people might be set to work,
and that the interference of the Magistrates might
cause them to be kept in a state of employment. But
it the Act authorised Magistrates to go into the .pri-
sons at any time and bold converse with the /pities-
seri, certainly it authorised any thing. Magistrates
might go to the prisons and inquire and report, but
it was not necessary that they should have private
communications with the prisoners; And he was quite
sure the present question never was in contemplation
when the present Act was passed. Therefore, unless
it could be said that au more'precaution ought to be
taken with .regard to such prisoners than towards
others, there could be no just grounds of complaint
for pursuing a course that bad been adopted since the
earliest times. Unless it were for the purpose of ar-
guing on the question, the Noble Lord had no right
~ -argue that any persons had been wrongfully taken
if
i and he (the AttorrierGeneral) had a right, for
(IA ikake of auguing tho case, to suppose that wine
4.