HC Deb 20 January 1832 vol 9 cc649-51
Mr. William Brougham

presented a Petition from two individuals, father and son, of the names of Stephen and Leonard England, now in confinement in the Fleet Prison, under an order from the Court of Chancery, for having committed a Contempt of one of the Orders of that Court. This was one of those cases arising out of contempts in the Court of Chancery, which was not reached by the late Statute, 1st William 4th. The petitioners stated, that they entered into certain lands situated at Hoo, in Kent, under an idea that by so doing they should raise the question as to their right to the said lands. The property had previously become the subject of a suit in the Court of Chancery, and an injunction had issued in February, 1830, to restrain them from committing waste or trespassing upon the land. Shortly afterwards, however, the petitioners acting, as they alleged, under the advice of a solicitor, again entered upon the land, and proceeded to perform some labour on a wall which belonged to the estate. An application was then made to the Court for their committal for a breach of the injunction, and on the 10th of March, 1830, they were committed to the Fleet Prison for contempt of Court. In November, 1830, Lord Henley made his report to the Lord Chancellor, under the provisions of the Act 1st William 4th, and it was as follows: 'There are two poor illiterate day labourers committed for a breach of an injunction, having, as they state, acted under the advice of the so licitor in the cause. Having been between eight and nine months in prison I beg to submit to your Lordship, that however great their offence might have been, they have fully expiated it, and I humbly suggest that they may be forthwith liberated.' Upon this Report, application was made for their release, and the payment of their costs out of the Suitors' Fund, under the Act introduced by the late Solicitor-General (Sir Edward Sugden) for the relief of persons in prison for Contempt of the Court of Chancery. This, however, was found to be impracticable, as the Act did not extend to cases of this description. This application had been made to the late Lord Chancellor: upon the present Chancellor coming into office a motion had been made to release the prisoners, so far as respected their contempt, leaving them in prison for the costs only, from which it was hoped they might be freed by the provisions of the Insolvent Act, but the Lord Chancellor had decided, after much consideration, that he had no power to make such an order, and that he could not set them at liberty without the consent of the plaintiff or until his costs were paid; and these persons were, therefore, kept in prison because he would not consent to abandon his costs. The petition further stated, that the father was in a most infirm state of health; under these circumstances, he had presented the petition, with an intention to found some further measures on the subject.

Mr. Paget

expressed a strong hope that the House would take a summary method of relieving these poor men. It was disgraceful to the country to have such instances of cruelty brought before them, as those inflicted by the operations of the Court of Chancery for contempts of that Court. If the elaborate process of passing a Bill through the two Houses of Legislature was necessary for their liberation, he hoped the Standing Orders would be suspended, so as to allow such a Bill to be passed in the shortest possible time.

Mr. William Brougham

begged leave to assure the House, that nothing could have given more satisfaction to the Lord Chancellor than to have ordered the release of these two unfortunate men, but in the present state of the law he found it impossible to do so, unless the costs were previously paid. He should, for his part, therefore, be most happy to adopt the suggestion of the lion. Member, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, and he trusted the House would consent to postpone the Standing Orders in order to allow a Bill to pass for the liberation of these men without delay. There was no other mode which the House could adopt to afford them relief, unless some hon. Member were to defray the costs for which they were detained.

Mr. Hunt

said, that the enactments of the proposed Anatomy Bill, would bring the body of the elder petitioner under its operation, in case he died in prison in debt, which was represented as likely to happen, in which case the keeper of the prison and the son would be authorized to sell his body. This was what the hon. member for Brid-port, who brought in that Bill, called equal justice; this was the sort of treatment the poor were to receive under the provisions of that Bill, which, however, he trusted the House would never sanction.

Petition to lie on the Table, and be printed.