The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-07-14 00:00:00

ie Bill was read the third time and

moving the second reading
.1, 'expressed the hope that it
ly of their lordships the sort of
_—n exposed elsewhere. It was
id time and ordered to be committed.
of Nt'Auwicx moved for Mr. Dundas's report
ence taken on the investigation held at firming-
'hg the riots of the 15th of July, 1839 ; aad also
Mr. Al 'ton (magistrate) to Lord J. Russell,
with the answer --

Weaver Churches B

it had t

returned thereto.
.rom the Marquis of Normanby,
*motion,) the Duke of Wellington,
he motion was agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—THURSDAY.
SF, in answer to the question of an hon.
ed, that in the charges in the home ac.
t India Company, there were items for
to the amount, last year, of £50,000, and
He could not give any details now,
vould come when they would be

SHINGTON having made inquiry on the subject,
stated that the trustees for the pay-
ize money had delayed the payment
that he expected interest would be

C:Hol3Rousv

n the delayed instalment ; and that the delay arose
uence of doubt as to whom certain jewels belonged.
inuz observed that he had a notice on the books for
next, for the appointment of a select committee to
ito the operation that the corn laws had upon wages ;
e believed that it would be impossible for him to
at committee this session, he begged to withdraw

E asked the president of the board of trade whe-
re that, in consequence of the extravagant
grown sugar from Cuba and the Brazils
:o the port of London for consumption,
differential duty ? The object of the
elude slave-grown sugar, but that ob-
lefeated.

I Wa3
HERE answered that he had reason to believe,
3vir days, orders had been given for the impor-
-11 quantity of foreign sugar ; he could not say

he had alluded to slave-grown sugar;
ign sugars, not slave-grown, that might

)II CU ERE added that he was not able to say where
me from; he had heard that there was a pros-
mall quantity of foreign sugar being admitted,
iditional duty.

re resolved into committee on the

ical duties and_yevenues. which the several
id amendments proposed were discussed in a desul-

bate on the poor-law commission bill, the
the day were disposed of, and the house ad-

HOUSE OF LORDS.---FainAY.
hips bill went through a committee, Lord
witting the propriety of Lord CoLc HESTER'S
the custom of piling timber on the decks of

on took place between Lord WEsTmEATH
dANBIr on a proclamation of the Lord Lieu-
Ld on the subject of " the teetotallers' pledge."
)rd Lieutenant approved of the objects of the

e conversation led to no result.
R.DEEN, in a speech full of conciliatory expres-
tvv for the present his bill on the Scotch church

cipal corporations (Ireland) bill was discussed in
details on the bringing up of the report. The

istice bill passed through Coro-

hancery bill was read a second time, when

OUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY.
r the meeting of the House of Commons, the
❑nounced that it was not intended to proceed
ition against the late return for the borough of

ave notice, that on Monday he should move
ngers in the gallery nor the reporters be ex-
ions, except on special motion for that

OPE gave notice, that early in the next session
a a bill to relieve dissenters from payment of

fain Polhill, Mr. LABOUCIIERE stated
mild be shortly brought forward in the
"e believe it will be introduced ou Mon-

order of the day for going' into committee of

PAY
Ir. 'WALLACE called the attention of the house to the
Lngs of the Scotch judges, the periods whereon he con-
ied ought to be lengthened by two calendar months in
11 year. He made a very long speech, but did not con-

)tiD V 0 C ATE briefly answered him, and Mr.
censured this irregular mode of detaining the

se from the or

of the day.
r. DirNcomßE then brought on the case of William
and John Collins, convicted of seditious libel, and
iprisoned in Warwick gaol. Their treatment there
m cruel, he said, and contrary to all precedent. He
imerous instances, beginning with the year 1792, in
)ersons convicted of political offences had been treated
vility and lenity, and permitted to see their friends,
-:ontinue their literary and other occupations. Lovett
lins, on the contrary, had been visited with all sorts
ants, privations, and many annoyances during the
d Collins at night had been obliged to sleep in a
)ed, the second place in which was occupied succes-
y four other persons, all imprisoned for disgraceful
. Mr. Duncombe complained also of the treatment
rts, Vincent, and divers other prisonem in Ilchester,
4, Wakefield, and other prisons. Vincent, the chart-
.ien the nine months for which he had been sentenced
.count of one offence were on the point of expiring, was
secuted again for another offence, committed at an earlier
te. With respect to Mr. Feargus O'Connor, the gaol
:nt vere as in the cases before specified;
, t as under some very unjustifiable restraints,
itef An carrying on his paper, and from seeing his
,s, ..cepting in the presence of the turnkey. There
itt,e to he expected from the alterations introduced by
.ew law : the question would be, what sort of rules and
nations would -be made under the discretionary power
' .I,at act in the magistrates. The whig dbctrine
J, particularly against illegal meet-
-Griy what it now appeared to be : witness
.est, of the whig peers against the sedition bill in
He believed that the severities now inflicted would
their own object. There was hardly a village in
the,people dill not entertain a strong feeling about the
of • these prisoners. He concluded by moving a
dint), purporting that no greater restraint or degrada-
night to be inflicted on prisoners confined for political
than their safe custody requires and long usage

was not so se

vented ti

offence

WAKLEY seconded the motion. The usage which
ss of prisoners now received was in his opinion no-
ess than torture; particularly where the culprit was

!lied to observe s;lence, which appeared to the hon.
ler to be a peculiarly severe infliction. The regulation
Is ought to rest, not, as now, with visiting justices, but
he Secretary of State, who might be nightly questioned
t house on his official responsibility. Mr. Wakley went
express his regret for the absence of Sir Francis Bur-
rom this debate who had himself been imprisoned for
tical offence. Sir Francis's address of August 22, 1819,
• electors of Westminster, contained language of the
highest excitement on the subject of the Manchester
ng ; but he, when imprisoned, took the fresh air, and
his levees. The prosecution was a harsh one, and
;ht some obloquy. on the tory government ; but there
io severity in the treatment of the bird when once caged.
the able atatement of M. Duncombe, the ministers
warnirg, and the entire responsibility now rested on
overnment, who must not attempt in future to shift it
the magistrates. He hoped therefore that Mr. Dun-
e wonld not 'go to a division, but that ministers would
some satisfactory declaration to the house on this im-

3ir G. STRICKLAND thought it hard that men should be
iished for merely attending a meeting at which violent
,Tuage had been used. Everybody had been in that situ-
anti it wasunreasonable to hold the auditors responsible
he indiscretion of the speakers. But he thought it still
er that the. sentence of the law should be aggravated by
ides of discipline and diet.
MAVLE, said, that he would not by the intimation
sic. Duncombe would forbear to divide be bribed to
aide from what he felt to be his duty. In almost all
es of lenient usage to which Mr. Duncombe had alluded
ad been, in addition to imprisonment, the infliction
VY fine, such as would have been total ruin to any of
nders on whose behalf the present complaint was
There was no analogy between the animadversions
Burdett on the Manchester case and those of
Collins on that of Birmingham. At Manchester
by the yeomanry; but at Birmingham
Sown had been restored by the London
personal injury to individuals, and with the
.nation of the citizens, Lovett and Collins were
r release, several weeks ago, from the imprison-
.cribed as so dreadful. on the simple condition of
-gnizances for good behaviour during one
easy terms they had chosen to refuse. With
ie petition of Vincent and his fellow-prisoners at
aey were sent up in answer to a letter from Mr.
himself, requesting them to send three several
)a any subjects of the gaol regulations. The only
they had wade was, that they were not allowed
I forks, but were obliged to eat their food with the
)oden spoon and their fingers. The proposed plan
a central power of gaol regulation in the Secretary
s no improvement upon the existing system under
power was exercised by the magistrates: The
throughout the late disturbances had acted with
which was a sufficient guarantee against any
on their part ; and the slur which this motion
upon them was wholly unmerited. What-
he might incur by opposing this motion, lie
than alter the course of the law as pro.

btr Franc

wn recol

)osed 1
Mr. DISRAEI

~..ud, the question was, whether the extension
........ents to political offences was not a practice
bout precedent until very recent times. The
. ad ever been, and it was the true principle, that
i !finch of i
the sentence as consisted of mpnsonment was
A, not by way of punishment, but for the purpose of
ty to the state. If the difference between the manners
two periods were considered, the Whig Government
usher. than that of the Star Chamber. The Under
.ary of State
.had appeared anxious to avoid a division,
idy to repel it ; but the mover would not do hii duty if
iot divide, nor the house if it did not redress these
es. The offences committed might have been
greater but was not the penalty law
? If the trial and the senteneewereaccording to. the
than the
I law, so ought to be the administration
But the government would have of the punish-
which would be asked at every hustings
to
I,—how it happened that the samye trings in. the
Y in Ireland under the name of agitation,
bo f
sedition
wh,ich in
obtained
I was punished under the name
that his own friends would not withhold thelornstUppHoret
us motion because it was brought forward
It of theirs. They were the naturacllalessaed,serws
ebolvyf thetah an
the aristocracy and the labouring
idy of the
.nation, and he trusted to see the union of
classes preserved.
Mr. WARBURTON said, that from the rigour exercised,

the sympathies of the public were now witl"the offenders,
the effect of which might probably be to induce repetitions
of the offence. He read returns from several gaols, showing
a system of discipline more or less severe. In some inAances
the prisoners confined for misdemeanours were kept upon
the separate and silent system, and their hair and whiskers
were shaved. He thought that ministers themselves were
pledged to redress the grievances of political prisoners after
the course which had been taken by government upon the
prison bill in this session, and Lord Normanby's lett& to
the visiting magistrates of one of the prisons in May last.
In former days the Whigs were always forward to denounce
all undue severity ; but there was a striking contrast between
their past and their present conduct.
Mr. WARD was of opinion that the phrase " political
offences," as employed in the proposed resolution, was too
large. He concurred in that resolution as far as it related
to seditous words, whether spoken or written ; but he could
not accede to it if this phrase were retained, which would
give indulgence to acts of violence and revolution itself. He
thought that, after so long a debate, the House ought not to
separate without coming to some decision about the classifica-
tion of prisoners confined for the different descriptions of
political offences.
Mr. LUDLOW BRUGES corrected some gross misrepresenta-
tions in the petition relating to the prisoner Roberts, which
appeared to have been got up by some person having no
proper connexion with the case. The prisoners for whom
the sympathy of the House was asked were not merely the
authors of seditious libels ; some of them were the men who
had endeavoured to raise armed mobs in the counties of
Wilts and Somerset, striking terror into the inhabitants,
suspending trade, and counselling armed insurrections and
arson. •

Mr. Serjeant TALFOURD said, that the question was
not whether the offences were heinous or trivial, but
whether for these offences men should suffer a punishment
not warranted by law. No one complained that an offender
sentenced to hard labour was put to hard labour accordingly.
There might be exaggerations in the petitions : it was natural
that the sufferer should overstate his grievance, and that it
should be overrated by the sympathy of those around him.
In Vincent's case, however, he was persuaded that there had
been no exaggeration. The attention of government, when
properly called to that case, had indeed been sympathetically
applied ; but this redress of the grievance showed at least
that grievances did grow up under the existingsystem. Was
the proprietor of a newspaper to suffer not only the adjudged
imprisonment, but also, by the prohibition of his labours, a
total destruction of his property, which was no part of his
sentence? If the hardships complained of were rare ac-
cidents, he should not have thought it needful to interfere ;
but, regarding them as the regular and still increasing
offspring of the existing system, he must vote for a resolution
which would effectually terminate them.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, he could make no such vague
and general declaration as some gentlemen seemed to expect
from him. Was it meant that political offences were no
longer to be treated as crimes, and that therefore no political
offender was ever again to be placed on the criminal side of a
prison ? The object of the present motion seemed to be to
create some great sympathy for offenders of this class. It was
very easy to.write to the different prisoners, and so to get up
grievances. If a political prisoner was confined with other
men convicted of misdemeanours, then he complained of
being placed in such company. if he was removed to some
separate quarter, then he complained of being placed in soli-
tary confinement. Before the prison regulations in general
were brought to their present strictness, political offenders,
like offenders of other classes, had greater freedom than thay
could enjoy now ; but the comparative rigour now suffered by
them was not a ,difference peculiar to offenders of a political
character. The law lately passed on the subject of prisons
would better meet the case than any vague resolution of the
nature now proposed.
Mr. HUMS supported the motion, and vindicated the
Chartists, whose principles, he said, were thoie of the British
constitution. These men were punished because they were
poor; her Majesty's Ministers had been equally guilty a few
years ago of exciting the people, and probably, if out of office,
would be glad to do the same thing again.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that at a former period of dis-
turbance he had advised the vigorous execution of the exist-
ing law, previously to any attempt at new legislation. For
the deluded and ignorant multitude he had much compassion,
but he felt no sympathy with those who deceived them through
the press, taking care themselves to remain at a safe distance
from the tumult. Some time ago the rich man was allowed
to provide himself in prison with luxuries. This was thought
unreasonable, inasmuch as the same comforts were beyond
the reach of the poorer prisoner. For this reason the law
was altered, and the rich and the poor were alike precluded
from indulgences in prison ; and yet complaints were now
made that men of a higher class were obliged to endure pri-
vations in common with their poorer neighbours. Tbis house
was not the proper jurisdiction to try the regulations of prisons
and the conduct of gaolers. Four whole days in every week
would not suffice for the discharge of such a duty. Besides, a

resolution was not the way ofdealrng with the general question ;
that should be done by bill. It had been said that the resolution
should confine its exemption to seditious libels. That would
not reconcile him to it; for he could not forget that the class
of seditious libels included publications instructing mobs in
the use of the pike, and suggestions for the distribution of
lucifer matches among the hayricks. He felt that punish-
ment ought to carry public sympathy with it ; but he was at
a loss to discern that public sympathy went with such of-
fenders as these. On the contrary, he believed that a relaxa-
tion like that now proposed would only have the effect, should
another disturbance break out, of rousing the general indig-
nation against the House of Commons. .

Mr. AGLIONBY supported the motion. This house, he
said, was, and ought to be, the grand court of appeal.
Mr. C. BULLER took he same side. He said that the
letter for which Sir Francis Burdett was sentenced to be im-
prisoned was of the same character as that for which a similar
sentence was passed upon Mr. Feargus O'Connor; but the
practical effect of the sentence had been very, different in the
one case and in the other. This was an offence into which
poor men were the likeliest to be led, and the house would
not do well to set itself against these classes.
Captain HAMILTON said a few words in favour of the mo-
tion, and Mr. WILLIAMS followed to the same effect, re-
peating the arguments of previous speakers.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that the prosecutions of
what were now called political offences were not prosecutions
of mere libels, but of direct incitements to rebellion. He
himself, in addressiag the jury at York, on Feargus O'Con-
nor's case, had put the question upon this one issue—did he
publish with the intent of inciting the people to insurrection ?
and the jury found at once that he did.
Mr. MUNTZ said a few words, and Mr. DUNCOMBE, in a
short reply, vindicated himself from the charge of having got
up any petition by undue means ;, after which the house, on
a division, rejected the resolution by a very large majority.