HC Deb 08 August 1832 vol 14 cc1242-3
Mr. Evelyn Denison

wished to ask a question of the Under Secretary for the Home Department, relative to the inquiry into the charges made against the gaoler and some Magistrates of the county of Nottingham. It would be recollected that the hon. Member for Preston had presented a petition against the authorities connected with the county gaol. In consequence, directions had been given by the Government to the Magistrates to institute an inquiry, which the Magistrates at first refused to enter upon. The question he now, however, had to put, was, whether the documents forwarded to Government had satisfied them that the charges were unfounded, and whether the refutation given had not been quite satisfactory? One of the charges made was, that a man had been confined for five days without water, while the fact was, that he had been confined in a yard in which there was a pump, to which he had unrestrained access. The only fact proved against the gaoler was, that he had been rather too indulgent, as he allowed this prisoner fire, which he would have to pay for himself.

Mr. Lamb

said, that the facts had been stated so clearly by the hon. Gentleman, that he had scarcely any thing to add. It was true, that the Magistrates had, at the commencement, shown some reluctance to enter upon an inquiry in which some parties might urge that they were inter- ested and into charges which he (Mr. Lamb) begged to say that he had never believed one word of. The Home-Office naturally wished the Magistrates of the county to make the inquiry, as the Home Secretary could not think of intimating any distrust of a body of men so respectable. The magistrates appointed a committee of five of their body, who were not in any way interested in the charges made, and they had taken the evidence of prisoners and others; and he had no hesitation in saying, that the statement laid before the Home department was a complete refutation of the false and slanderous charges made against the gaoler, and his only regret was, that the law did not afford any adequate redress against the originators of such a slander.