§ Mr. Humepresented a petition from Richard Carlile, a prisoner in Dorchester gaol, calling the attention of the House to the circumstances of his case. The hon. member read the greater part of the petition; and from the statements contained in it, it appeared, that besides the complaints which the prisoner had before made of the length of his imprisonment, and his incompetency to pay the heavy fine imposed upon him by the court of King's-bench, he had now come forward to complain of the conduct of government in seizing his books under a writ of execution, and in retaining them still unsold in its possession. If the books had been those prohibited by law, it would have been easy to understand the principle on which the govern- 1286 ment continued in possession of them; but many of the books seized were openly sold in all the shops of the country, and ought therefore to have been exposed to immediate sale by the officer who had executed the writ against them. Among them were 250 copies of Volney's Ruins of Empires, Cobbett's Register, and other works. The petition stated, that if these works had been sold at the time of their seizure, they would have produced a sum which would have enabled the petitioner to pay his fine. If this were so, he (Mr. H.) could not conceive a case of greater hardship. As a sincere friend to religion, he had always thought that the interference of the government, and of the Vice society, with the proceedings of the petitioner, had been productive of great mischief; and he was sorry that the right hon. gentleman opposite had not long since taken measures, to put an end to the punishment which the petitioner was at present enduring. His case was indeed a hard one. He had been punished far beyond what was just. He had been kept in prison for not paying his fine, when the property, by which alone he had any chance of paying it, was withdrawn from him. The petitioner ought either to have his property restored to him, or to be liberated immediately from the prison in which he had been so long immured.
The Attorney-Generalwould not have thought it necessary to say a word upon this petition, had it not been for an unfounded allegation contained in it. The property which had been taken on the premises of the petitioner, was not at present, nor indeed had it ever been, in the hands of government. It was in the possession of the sheriffs; and if they were retaining it improperly, the petitioner had his remedy against them. Indeed, the petitioner had already brought an action against the sheriffs, in which he had obtained either mere nominal damages, or else a verdict on which it was impossible for him to found any ulterior measures. It ought to be recollected, that if the sheriffs sold the publications taken in Mr. Carlile's shop, they sold them upon their own responsibility for their contents. He was sure, that if the petitioner would point out, either to the sheriffs, or to the secondary, any books which they could sell, without running the risk of an indictment for blasphemy, those books would instantly be exposed to sale. In the mean time, it was unfair to assume, that 1287 the sheriffs had acted incorrectly. Their conduct had been sifted by the court of King's-bench, and had been pronounced to be perfectly correct. In conclusion, he repeated his denial that any of the petitioner's property was in the possession of the government.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he had entered so often into the general question connected with this petition, that he should decline saying any thing upon it on this occasion. He would merely say, that nothing was more difficult than to lay down a rule, how long an individual should be imprisoned for non-payment of a fine. To say that a prisoner, who was incompetent to pay a pecuniary fine, should be released at once, would be to offer a premium for the commission of misdemeanors. His release must, therefore, depend upon other circumstances—such as the mildness of his behaviour, his conformance to the discipline of his prison, and his general character and conduct. Now, nothing could be more violent and more improper than the conduct of Carlile; and that was the chief reason why he had not felt himself justified in interfering on his behalf. As a proof that he was not unwilling to interfere on behalf of persons in a situation similar to that of the petitioner, he would mention, that he had given orders for the release of Mary Ann Carlile, who, like her brother, was retained in prison for non-payment of her fine. Her conduct had been the reverse of that of her brother, and he had therefore recommended that she should be discharged. In order that the House might have some grounds on which to form an opinion of the conduct of Carlile, he would state, that Carlile had given him notice, that after a certain day, which he named, he should consider himself illegally detained, and should feel himself justified in murdering any governor that might be appointed to guard him. Besides this, he had corrupted many individuals, both in the prison and in the neighbourhood, and had gloried in being able to continue, as before, his daring violations of the law. If he had abstained from such representations, and had submitted patiently to the discipline of the prison, he might, perhaps, have consented to discharge the petitioner; but, when his conduct was of the most violent and intemperate description, he was bound to take it into consideration, before he consented to limit the period of his imprisonment.
§ Mr. Humerepeated his declaration, that the case of the petitioner was peculiarly hard. He was not much acquainted with the tricks and management of law; but, from what had fallen from the learned gentleman, he clearly saw, that the petitioner was not likely to have much remedy at law as against the sheriffs. He also begged the House to understand, that the petitioner did not pray to be liberated, but that the House would correct the laws which prevented him from recovering possession of his property.
§ Ordered to lie on the table.