§ Mr. Humecalled the attention of the House to the petition which he had presented yesterday, from Henry Vincent, and others, confined in Monmouth gaol, relative to the treatment which they had experienced since the time of their committal. It was important that the rule with respect to persons committed for political offences should be properly understood. It appeared that these persons, after a trial of ten hours on ten counts, had been convicted on one count, and a question was put to the judge as to the manner in which they should be imprisoned. The learned judge said that no severity would be used, except what was necessary to secure their persons. But it now turned out that they were deprived of the use of fire, of pens, ink, and paper, and of the use of books. There ought to be some understood rules for the regulation of prisons, and he wished to hear what remedy was likely to be applied under the circumstances.
§ The Attorney-Generalsaid, his own feeling was, that no unnecessary severity would be applied in any such cases, and he believed he expressed the feelings of the Government when he said so. An application had been made by Mr. Stephens for the use of pen, ink, and paper, and he had requested that no unnecessary severity should be used, and that he should not be subject to such privations. He believed, in the present instance, there was not the smallest pretence for saying that anything had been done contrary to the sentence.
Mr. O'Connellprotested against the doctrine, that because a man was imprisoned he was to be subject to particular regulations. Imprisonment meant nothing more than the restraining a man from. going abroad. It did not mean any species of torture. It was torture to keep a literary person from the use of pens, ink, and paper—it was torture to keep him. from books. Whenever a wealthy man was committed to prison every luxury was afforded him. There ought to be some legal definition of what should amount to imprisonment, and it ought not to be left to the caprice or mistake of magistrates to say how much it should be heightened. He hoped the Attorney-general and the 583 Government would take the subject into consideration, and do something definite upon it. If no one else did he would endeavour to do so next Session; but in the meantime these persons were suffering this infliction superadded to the imprisonment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he was quite certain the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, would give relief in all cases in which it could properly be called for. He knew that in the case of Vincent, an appeal had been made to the noble Lord to allow the free use of books, and the order had been made, provided the books were not of an objectionable character. In any case properly made out, his noble Friend would doubtless grant all the relief consistent with the due administration of the law, and the effectual enforcement of the sentences awarded by courts of justice.
§ Mr. Sanfordthought, that these cases ought to be always left to special applications. He certainly admitted that the discipline of a prison should not be solely at the option of any magistrates. Nor was it. For the prisons were under the controul of visiting magistrates, who were entirely guided by the regulations agreed on, firstly by the magistrates in Quarter Sessions, and afterwards sanctioned by the judges of Assize.
§ Mr. Warburtonsaid, he was glad it would be understood that the Home-office would grant relief in all proper cases. That these prisoners should be without fire in winter was monstrous; indeed, it was enough to kill persons who had been accustomed to comfortable living. Besides, this unjust severity had the effect of exciting the sympathy of the public in the prisoners favour, instead of, as would otherwise be perhaps the case, creating public concurrence in the justice of the sentence.
§ Mr. Humeexpressed his readiness to leave the case in the hands of the Secretary for the Home Department.
§ Sir F. Burdettconsidered it quite unconstitutional that men should be subjected to greater inflictions than the sentence of the law specified. It was no justification in such a case, to say that the regulations had been made by magistrates. This injustice, like many others in this country, had arisen out of a departure from the old constitutional practice of leaving the regulation of prison 584 discipline to the sheriffs, who were generally gentlemen of distinction, thoroughly responsible, and very exact in conforming to their rules. He thought, that wherever it was found that there had been such a departure from the terms of the judge's sentence, it. should be interfered in, and the injustice prevented, for a monstrous thing it was, that it should depend solely on the circumstance of a man's being sent to this or to that prison, with what severity, or with what mildness he should be treated.
§ The Attorney-Generalsaid, the Judges were in the habit of inquiring what was the discipline of the prison—and in the case of the Rev. Mr. Stephens, the learned Judge, Mr. Justice Patteson, a most humane and excellent judge, having found that the prison to which he had first sent Mr. Stephens, had regulations too harsh for a gentleman of education, altered his direction, and sent Mr. Stephens to the gaol of Chester, where he would be allowed the use of pens, paper, books, and other conveniences.
§ Subject dropped.