§ Lord John Russellsaid, with regard, to the question which had been put yesterday on the subject of the persons who were confined in the Penitentiary, he thought it would be best to ask for a report from the Commissioners of that prison, with respect to the whole of the circumstances of the respective cases. He could not refer to this subject without returning his thanks to the hon. Gentleman who had put the question to him, for his having had the courtesy to give him notice of his intention to make the inquiry, and also for his having propounded the question in such a manner as to show that his object was only to obtain information, and not to criminate any parties. The practice of bringing forward questions of this description, casting imputations on Ministers of the Crown, taking care that it was without notice—
§ Viscount Sandonrose to order. I wish to know whether it is in order to allude to what has taken place in another House. I rise to ask whether it be in order, there being no question before the House, to refer to such matters, there being no person in this House who is connected with the subject, and to take this opportunity of making reflections on the course of conduct pursued in another House.
§ The Speakersaid: The question is, whether the rule is, that there should be no reference, in debates in this House, to the particular proceedings in the other House. Undoubtedly, as a general rule, it is not expedient, nor is it within the rules of this House to make allusion to what takes place elsewhere.
§ Lord John Russellfor the purpose of bringing myself in order with respect to a motion being before the House, I may be permitted to move for a paper. I move, therefore, for a copy of a letter directed 205 to the Commissioners of the Penitentiary with respect to these cases. In before addressing the House I did not state anything but what occurred with reference to the question. I said, that the hon. Gentleman who put that question—and I repeat it—had acted in conformity with what I think is due both with respect to the duties of public men regarding public affairs, and also in conformity with what is due as regards the courtesy usually shown by one private individual to another. The hon. Gentleman gave me due notice of what he meant to propose, and when he did so propose it, it was as a question, and as seeking for information, and without making reflections upon any one. And that I say was a reputable and discreet course of conduct, and a course different from that which has been adopted by others. I do hope that I am not to be placed in this situation—that I am not to be allowed in this House to state what I think is due to my own position and character as a Minister of the Crown, relating to the administration of justice—and that I am not to give a notice with regard to attacks made on me in any other place respecting that conduct. I do not believe, that any party, whether in opposition or whether in support of the Ministry, has ever pursued that course. I am sure it was not the course which was taken when I was in opposition to the Government with regard to the administration of justice, nor was it usual then to make a question relating to such a subject a matter on which to raise arguments on party politics. I do not mean to enter into the question which was put to me by the hon. Gentleman, further than to repeat that I will take care that there shall be a report of the circumstances relating to these cases laid on the table of this House, made by very respectable persons, who hold the situation of Commissioners of the Penitentiary and of inspectors of prisons, and I shall then be satisfied with the judgment of this House on the details of the case. The noble Lord concluded by moving for a copy of a letter written by direction of the Secretary of State to the Commissioners of the Penitentiary.
§ The paper was ordered.