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

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

al corporation

ration of

offence

ustice bill passed through cora-

bill was read a second time, when

USE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY.
the meeting of the House of Commons, the
jounced- that it was not intended to proceed
lo❑ against the late return for the borough of

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

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

ptain Polhill, Mr. LABOUCHERE stated
would be shortly brought forward in the
We believe it will he introduced ou Mon-

of the day for going into committee of

attention of the house to the
the periods whereon he con-

ied by two calendar months in

a very Ion;

speech, but did not con-

i.DVOCATE briefly answered him, and Mr.
nsured this irregular mode of detaining the

the orders of the day

ABE then brought on the case of William
► Collins, convicted of seditious libel, and
in Warwick gaol. Their treatment there
-aid, and contrary to all precedent. He
'ces, beginning with the year 1792, in
')f political offences had been treated
-.d permitted to see their friend?,
_ 7'_ other occupations. Lovett
contrary, had been visited with all sorts
rivations, and many annoyances during the
ns at night had been obliged to sleep in a
second place in which was occupied succes-
tiler persons, all imprisoned for disgraceful
Duncombe complained also of the treatment
,cent, and divers other prisoners in Ilchester,
:field, and other prisons. Vincent, the chart-
lie months for which he had been sentenced
,ne offence were on the point of expiring, was
for another offence, committed at an earlier
.tsoect to Mr. Feargus O'Connor, the gaol

;era ry a

e specified

unjustifiable restraints

a his paper, and from seeing his
presence of the turnkey. There
Dm the alterations introduced by
would be, what sort of rules and
under the discretionary power

The whig doctrine
against illegal meet-
-. appeared to be : witness
peers against the sedition bill in
severities now inflicted would

magistrates.

There was hardly a village in

pie titd not entertain a strong feeling about the
f these prisoners. He concluded by moving a
rporting that no greater restraint or degrada-
inflicted on prisoners confined for political
.afe custody requires and long usage

an their

KLEY seconded the motion. The usage which
—ms's now received was in his opinion no-
are • particularly where the culprit was
;e silence, which appeared to the hon.
) be a peculiarly severe infliction. The regulation
• now, with visiting justices, but
....o might be nightly questioned
on his official responsibility. Mr. Wakley went
I -et for the absence of Sir Francis Bur-
:ho had himself been imprisoned for
.ir Francis's address of August 22, 1819,
f gestrninster, contained language of the
subject of the Manchester
prtsoned, took the fresh air, and

it prison,

than torty

,t to res

not, as

Secretary of Slat

s regrt

it on the

prosecution was a harsh one, and
on the tory government; but there
natrnent of the bird when once caged.
❑t of M. Duncombe, the ministers

clime responsibility now rested on
who must not attempt in future to shift it
- lie hoped therefore that Mr. Dun-
not go to a division, but that ministers would
satisfactory declaration to the house on this im-
ect.

3TRICKLAND thought it hard that men should be
or merely attending a meeting at which violent
►ad been used. Everybody had been in that situ-
it was unreasonable to hold theauditors responsible
liscretion of the speakers. But he thought it still
Lt the sentence of the law should be aggravated by

E, said, that he would not by the intimation
tribe would forbear to divide be bribed to
what he felt to be his duty. In almost all
it usage to which Mr. buncombe had alluded
in addition to imprisonment, the infliction
uch as would ha

min to any of

- ,
behalf tne present complaint

no analogy between the animadversions
• ~ .•

rdat on the Manchester case and those of
son that Of Birmingham. At Manchester
alt by the yeomanry ; but at Birmingham

n had been restored

the London

personal injury to individuals, and with the
ation of the citizens, Lovett and Collins were

Lease, several weeks ag;o, from the imprison-
as so dreadful,.
on the simple condition of
3 recognizances for good behaviour during one
easy terms they had clicsen to refuse. With
etition of Vincent and his fellow-prisoners at
were sent up in answer to a letter from Mr.
self, requesting them to send three several
y subjects of the gaol regulations. The only
had made was, that they were not allowed
s, but were obliged to eat their food with the
spoon and their fingers. The proposed plan
cral power of gaol regulation in the Secretary
improvement upon the existing system,under
was exercised by the magistrates. The
bout the late disturbances had acted with
was a sufficient guarantee against any.
t ; and the slur which. this motion
was wholly unmerited. yhat-
incur by opposing this motion, he
se of the law as pro-

UG.
said the question was, whether the extension
tnents to political offences was not a practice
The

it until very recent times. _
•- —'s the true principle, that

itence as consisted of imprisonment was
ay of punishment, but for the purpose of
e. It the difference between the manners
were considered, the Whig Government
that of the star Chamber. The Under
had -- - •

it ; but t

ildoz.xiwoi-i-
-otsi7tdonaovtodiod ahids i
tvi iusti
yo nif,
nor the house if it did not redress these
e offences committed might have been
,vas not the penalty greater than the law
the trial and the sentence were according to the
, so ought to be the administration of the punish-
, the government would have another question to
ii‘,ll would be asked at every hustings in the
it happened that the same thing obtained
-nder the name of agitation, 'which in
-,ned under the name of sedition ? He
own friends would not withhold their support
because it was brought forward by an
They were the natural leaders of the
the labouring classes were the
' - trusted to see the union of

Ireland

&BURT°

aid, that from the rigour exercised,

!he sympathies of the public were now with the offenders,.
the effect cf 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 in stances
the prisoners confined for misdemeanours were kept upon
the separate and silent system, and thei: hair and whiskers
were snaved. 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 letter to
the visiting magistrates of one of the prisons in May last.
In former days the Whigs were always forward to denounce

heir past and their present c

Mr., WARD was

of.opinion that the phras

political

large. He concurred in that resolution as far as '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
srr.ta wsr.t t., harri lnhnursaeenrrlinplv.

serneutxu Lll LiaLu arauutax +•~av aa• _
There might be exaggerations in the petitions : it was natural
that the sufferer shoud 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 existing system. 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 they
could enjoy now ; but the comparative rigour now suffered by
them was not a difference peculiar to offenders of a political
charact

The law lately passed on the subject of prisons
would better meet the case than any vague resolution of the
nature now proposed.
Mr. HUME supported the motion, and vindicated the
Chartists, whose principles, he said, were those 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. This 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 of dealing with the general question ;
that should he 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 the 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 mesi 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 calved 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. DuNcomng, 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.