HC Deb 08 February 1822 vol 6 cc151-9
Mr. Alderman Wood

rose to present a Petition from Thomas Hunt, the son of Mr. Henry Hunt, at present a prisoner in Ilchester gaol. The petitioner complained, that he had been prevented from visiting his father. The alderman said, he understood, that Mr. Hunt had been placed in a very extraordinary situation: he had been precluded from all intercourse even with his solicitor or his son. Mr. Hunt had likewise been very ill, and was prevented from obtaining medical aid so early as the necessity of the case required; the medical gentleman who attended the prison living at the distance of five miles. There were some rules made for the regulation of the prison under an act of parliament. It was necessary, before those rules could be enforced, that they should be signed by two or three judges. The rules bad been in existence for several years; but whether it was that they were considered too severe, or from any other reason, he could not say, but the judges had never signed them until some time since, during the last session of parliament. It certainly appeared very extraordinary, that rules, which had not been signed for so many years, should all at once be signed and put in practice. The petitioner set forth, that his father was debarred from all intercourse with his family, and his medical attendant. The House might be aware, that Mr. Hunt had made an application to the court of King's Bench, and that the court had made an order, that Mr. Hunt should see his solicitor and his surgeon; but beyond that, he was to receive no indulgence. He had not seen the rules, but he understood they were very severe. Mr. Hunt was placed at an iron grating, and was allowed to see his friends only once for a short time in the 24 hours. It ought to be remembered, that, in consequence of a petition of Mr. Hunt, the House had ordered a commission to investigate the circumstances of which Mr. Hunt complained, and that that commission found it necessary to discharge the gaoler, whom an hon. member had declared to be immaculate. He expected that the hon. member to whom he alluded would acknowledge that he had been deceived when he spoke so loud in the praise of that man. When the evidence which was given before the commission should be in the hands of members, he should feel it his duty to bring the whole question under the consideration of the House. The evidence would show that the former gaoler had been guilty of foul and criminal offences. He trusted that the House would not suffer Mr. Hunt, who, according to the declaration of the judge who sentenced him, was not to be held in solitary confinement, to be treated in the cruel manner of which he complained.

The Solicitor-General

said, that the individual whose petition was before the House had made an application to the Court of King's-Bench, complaining that his father was not allowed to have intercourse with his solicitor, or with his medical adviser. The moment this communication was made to the court, the judges me, to determine upon what course of proceeding it would be necessary to pursue. The result of their deliberation was, the issuing of an order, the object of which was, to cause an investigation into the circumstances which formed the subject of complaint. That investigation was pending, and the moment the evidence arrived, it would form the subject of consideration with the court of King's-Bench; and if it should appear that there had been any improper conduct on the part of the gaoler, or any other individual connected with the gaol, the court would doubtless correct it.

Sir E. Burdett

said, that the subject before the House was one of the most important that could occupy its attention. What the Solicitor-general had stated with respect to the proceedings of the court of King's Bench was all very well; but there still existed a question for the consideration of parliament. Surely the individual was not to be confined in the manner stated, until he could obtain an order from the court of King's-Bench. The sentence which had been passed upon Mr. Hunt was, under all the circumstances of the case, most disgraceful. That sentence was calculated to bring the judicial character into disrepute. It was a sentence more severe than any that bad been delivered since the infamous time of the Stuarts. If such sentences as that which was pronounced upon Mr. Hunt frequently occurred, the character of our judges would be brought into the disrepute which lord Clarendon described it to have been in at the period to which he alluded, and which that great writer stated to have resulted from the infliction of punishments disproportionate to the offences. The sentence pronounced upon Mr. Hunt seemed not to have been applied to the offence, but to the individual. It was not an act of justice, but of vengeance. It was a paving off of old scores. They had got an individual who had offended them in their grasp, and they could not let slip the opportunity of wreaking their vengeance on him. The sentence of Mr. Hunt was dreadful. For his own part he would as soon be dead as suffer three years imprisonment. The health of Mr. Hunt must be affected by his long imprisonment, which was still further aggravated by a species of torture which was even worse than another species, because all the sufferings of the victim were hidden from the eyes of the public. It was impossible for him to avoid expressing his abhorrence of the treatment of Mr. Hunt. The judge who presided at his trial seemed to think that he ought to have been acquitted. He was, indeed, acquitted on all the counts but one; and his conviction upon that one, turned on a point of law, rather than any thing else. How could Mr. Hunt know that the meeting at which he presided was an illegal assembly? No violence took place upon that occasion; and, as far as Mr. Hunt was concerned, no man could have conducted himself with mere prudence, discretion or merit. The judge, in summing up the evidence, bad said as much; and if Mr. Hunt had not had the misfortune to be tried by a jury—for it was a misfortune upon that occasion—if it had depended on the judge for his acquittal or conviction, the former would certainly have occurred. However, he was only convicted of that which he did not know to be a crime. All the individuals who attended the meeting thought they were acting legally; and so did Mr. Hunt. Whether the meeting itself was prudent or not, was another question. All the individuals who attended it, with their wives and children, supposed they were acting under the protection of the laws. Even the magistrates, who afterwards accused Mr. Hunt, sanctioned the legality of the meeting by their opinion. It would be recollected, that a meeting which had been proposed to take place was abandoned upon an intimation from the magistrates that it was illegal. The meeting, for being present at which Mr. Hunt was now suffering punishment, was then announced, and no intimation of its illegality having been given by the magistrates, it accordingly took place. The people met, as it were, under the sanction of the magistrates: who, it was evident, did not at the time think the meeting was illegal, and could not afterwards prove it to be so. Be that as it might, Mr. Hunt was only convicted of having caused so large a number of persons to assemble as was calculated to excite alarm in the minds of other persons. Under those circumstances, the slightest possible punishment should have been inflicted. But when the heavy sentence under which Mr. Hunt was suffering was passed, and that gentleman had, during his confinement, effected the public service of bringing to light a public grievance, by exposing the cruel and disgraceful conduct of his gaoler—a task which would appear the more difficult, when it was considered that that individual (the gaoler) veiled his improper proceedings under circumstances which imposed upon the magistrates of the county—it was quite scandalous to allow a gaoler, or magistrate, to aggravate the severity of his punishment. With respect to the rules which had been referred to, he conceived they were intended only for the regulation of the prison, and that Mr. Hunt did not come within the scope of their application. During the course of last session, Mr. Hunt had complained of certain proceedings which had been instituted against him for selling roasted corn. Upon that occasion, the law officers of the Crown had declared that they did not mean to sue him for the fine which was imposed upon him: but it seemed they had since done so. That circumstance had nothing to do with the question then before the House; but it was important, as showing the quo animo with which government regarded that individual. He had no connexion with Mr. Hunt; but he stood before the House as an aggrieved person, and in that character he knew him. He could not know the feelings with which some persons might regard him; but if he were objectionable to any, that circumstance should only render them more cautious not to suffer him to be unjustly treated, lest his case should hereafter be made a precedent.

Mr. Bathurst

said, that the magistrates had the power of making regulations for their several gaols, and when they were certified by the judges they became the law for the government of those gaols. He complained of the mode in which the hon. baronet had impugned the sentence passed upon Mr. Hunt. If that sentence was improper, it should have been made the subject of regular discussion; but the hon. baronet had thought fit now for the first time, and in an indirect manner, to load it with unqualified reprobation. The individual alluded to had himself sought out the quarter, where he would find redress; he had appealed to the court of King's-Bench, that very Court which the hon. members opposite were now holding up to obloquy. But they ought to remember that at the period when the crime, of which that sentence was the punishment, was committed, this country was in a state similar to that of Ireland at the present moment. The state of the manufacturing districts made it necessary to let the country know the strength of the law. The offence was most serious, and the judges had done their duty fearlessly. Nay, it appeared that the country would support the law; for according to the hon. baronet, Mr. Hunt had been acquitted by the judge, but condemned by the jury.

Mr. Bennet

wished to know who those magistrates or judges were, who had made the order complained of. He was confident there were no gaol-rules which would authorize a gaoler to act as the gaoler of Mr. Hunt had acted. What! prevent him from seeing his solicitor, or his son? Gracious God! he should have thought it impossible that any men, having the feelings of fathers, could have proposed such an order. They were told that the court of King's-Bench would consider the matter; but, the question was, by what right the orders complained of were originally made? He would take it upon him to say, that no law had ever been passed which would authorize such orders. It could not be pretended that the measures which had been adopted were necessary for the security of Mr. Hunt. If he meditated escape from confinement, it was not necessary that he should consult his solicitor, his surgeon, or his son, upon the means of putting his design into execution. Upon the same pretence, he might have been placed in irons. He viewed the affair with suspicion, and could not help thinking that the treatment which Mr. Hunt was experiencing was intended as a punishment for the investigation which he had caused, the guilt which he had detected, and the mismanagement which he had exposed. Looking at Mr. Hunt as an individual, oppressed by an iniquitous judgment, he had desired to take the decision of the House upon his case; but he had abstained from doing so, because he knew that no person connected, as Mr. Hunt had been, with the disturbances which had arisen sonic time back, would obtain justice in that House. Had he known any House of Commons that was willing to have afforded redress, he and many others would have been anxious, in the first instance, to have come forward upon the subject. The persuasion that no such house existed, had deterred him from publicly stating his opinion; but in private he had always avowed his detestation of that sentence of iniquity and folly pronounced by the court of King's-Bench—of iniquity, because the punishment far exceeded any offence imputed; of folly, because it converted an object of perhaps just reprehension into a public martyr.

Mr. Dickinson

denied, that any of the complaints of Mr. Hunt arose out of ill-treatment he received because he had occasioned the recent investigation and exposure at Ilchester. With regard to the rules of which so much had been said, it was proper to observe, that though they had existence they had no operation at the time Mr. Hunt was first sent to the gaol: they had been long prepared, but had never been signed by any of the judges. They had been postponed from assize to assize, by the different judges; and Mr. Justice Burrough and Mr. Justice Holroyd having declined to inspect them, they had very recently met with the approval and signature of Mr. Baron Graham and Mr. Justice Best. He had waited upon Mr. Justice Best with the rules, and had pointed out particularly the effect of one of them upon Mr. Hunt, who wished to be visited by what he called his family, which meant nothing else than that he wanted the company of the wife of another man, of the name of Vince, who, as was well known, had long been living with him. After the rules had been once approved by the judges, he conceived, that the magistrates of the quarter sessions had no power to alter them.

Sir I. Coffin

was merely desirous of saying, that when he formerly bore testimony to the character of the keeper of Ilchester gaol, he had not the slightest suspicion that thumb-screws were ever employed in it.

Sir T. Lethbridge

maintained, that nothing but the indulgence granted to Mr. Hunt had led to the complaints of which the House had already heard too much. If he had been treated like other prisoners charged with similar offences, all the troubles that had lately arisen would have been avoided. As to the magistracy of Somerset, they were a body of men incapable of acting from impure or unworthy motives, and were as respectable a bench as any in the kingdom. With respect to the petition, if any ulterior proceeding were proposed he should steadily oppose it; for he thought it unconstitutional for that House to attempt to reverse the sentence of a court of law.

Mr. Hothouse

said, he should be glad to be informed whether Mr. Hunt's son was to be considered as an improper person to have access to him. With regard to the female in question, he knew nothing of her, and he would not stand up in that House to defend immoral conduct; but he would say that exclusion from the society of that female was no part of Mr. Hunt's sentence. The hon. baronet had attributed much of the mischief to the concessions which had been made to Mr. Hunt. Was the removing of the thumbscrews a concession? Or was it in the eyes of the hon. baronet a mischief? Surely, the hon. baronet could not have known of the existence of these practices, or he never would have justified such conduct. In a list of sentences for political libels he observed a judgment upon one man of four years and a half. This was a sentence unknown even in the atrocious times of Charles the 1st. It had been said that an improper time was selected for the present complaint, but, in his opinion, complaints of such a nature ought to be brought forward at all times. He thought ministers would be highly culpable if they did not send down an order to relax the severities complained of. The sentence upon Mr. Hunt he had always condemned; and as long as he had a seat in that House, or a tongue in his head, he would pronounce it to be one of the most outrageous sentences which had ever disgraced the Bench. The judge who tried the case, he believed did not expect a conviction.

The Attorney General

said, that the hon. member for Shrewsbury, had made a most unwarrantable and unprovoked attack upon the judges of the court of King's Bench. If the gentlemen opposite entertained the opinion they had expressed, why had they not brought forward a specific charge. The hon. member for Westminster had selected a case of heavy punishment for political libel. He (Mr. Attorney General) did not know the case, but he presumed it was that of the "much injured." Carlile. That individual had been punished, not for one libel, but for a series of libels of the most aggravated description, The hon. member for Westminster was mistaken in supposing that Mr. Justice Bayley, who tried Mr. Hunt, did not expect a conviction. The charge of that learned judge to the jury, impartial as it was, clearly showed the opinion of the judge upon the count in the indictment on which the jury returned a verdict. Mr. Hunt had had a most impartial trial: he was tried in a county of his own selection, by a jury of his own selection, and after the trial he had complimented the judge on the impartiality he had displayed on the trial. And now that learned judge was arraigned for the sentence he had afterwards passed. To remove any doubt as to the opinion of Mr. Justice Bayley on the case itself, it would be only necessary to refer to the language of the sentence, which declared that the offence approached very nearly to the crime of high treason. Perhaps the hon. gentlemen opposite thought the Manchester meeting was legal. [Hear.] But the jury, the judges, and the majority of tile country thought otherwise. However it was unnecessary to discuss that question at the present moment. All that he complained of was, that the hon. member had not brought the subject before parliament in a proper shape. With respect to the rules of the prison, he did not profess to know any thing about them; but he knew that the moment Mr. Hunt complained to the court of King's-bench by letter, that court had made an order, for giving him redress; a circumstance which showed that Mr. Hunt himself had not that opinion of the court of King's-bench which appeared to be entertained by hon. members. It was, therefore, unfair to arraign the conduct of the judges of that court upon general censure, without reducing them to a specific charge.

Mr. Hobhouse

said, it was not Carlile's case to which he bad alluded, though he knew very well the motive of the learned member in mentioning Carlile with reference to him. The case he alluded to was, a sentence passed, not by the court of King's-bench, but by the quarter-sessions.

The Attorney General

declared, upon his honour, that he had no motive whatever in mentioning the name of Carlile, with reference to the hon. member. As the hon. member was complaining of the conduct of the court of King's-bench, and as the case of Carlile was that in which the court had passed the heaviest of its sentences, he naturally concluded that his was the case alluded to.

Ordered to lie on the table.