MR. FEARGUS O'CONNOR. (Hansard, 2 June 1840)

§ Mr. Sergeant Talfourd
then said that he would not detain the House a moment. He had not the slightest desire to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown. He would not say a word as to the justice of the sentence, and he at once withdrew a great portion of the petition. But it contained statements of personal indignities and degradations which in truth were, in principle, the same as the infliction of torture; and he did not know that they differed very much from it in reality. For he could well believe that any gentleman of the station in life of Mr. O'Connor, having been a Member of that House, would rather suffer some acute bodily torture than be compelled to perform the disgusting and degrading occupations which were required of him. His motion, therefore, would be for an address to her Majesty to cause Mr. O'Connor to be removed from the prison of York Castle to the Court of Queen's Bench prison, or to some other prison of which the regulations did not impose on the gaoler the necessity of inflicting such punishments as those of York Castle.

§ Mr. Brotherton
took that occasion of presenting a petition from his constituents, complaining of the treatment of Mr. Feargus O'Connor.

§ Mr. Fox Maule
had no hesitation in stating that, when the sentence of Mr. O'Connor was carried into effect, his noble Friend was not in the slightest degree aware of the indignities to which it was stated that Mr. O'Connor had been subjected. If the allegations in the petition were true, the treatment of Mr. O'Connor had been not only cruel, but such as had never been contemplated when the sentence was passed. Upon this subject, however, it would be more satisfactory to read to the House some communications which had taken place between his noble Friend the Secretary of State and the visiting justices of York Castle. The first was addressed to Mr. Hague, and was as follows:— Whitehall, May 25, 1840. Sir—I am directed by the Marquess of Normanby to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22d instant, requesting instructions as to the admission of visitors to Mr. Feargus O'Connor, a prisoner in York Castle. It appears to Lord Normanby that, in some cases of misdemeanour, it would be proper to give a discretionary power to magistrates (under the sanction of the Secretary of State) to alter or relax the existing gaol regulations, under special circumstances—with reference to the health, the station, the habits, or other particulars in the individual case—so that the punishment, affixed to the offence may not in some instances be disproportionately severe, and may not exceed the measure intended by the judge. In the case of Mr. Feargus O'Connor, Lord Normanby is of opinion that you might not improperly allow his professional agent or medical adviser to visit him, and occasionally relations; but so as not to allow such relaxation of the general regulation to interfere with the good order and discipline of the gaol. Lord Normanby thinks that the rules should not be relaxed for the purpose of affording facilities to Mr. Feargus O'Connor for the composition or issuing of political writings intended for publication. Regulations of a personal description, such as those relating to dress, &c. (which, though convenient in the common run of cases, might in some cases be looked upon as personal indignities) might, in the opinion of Lord Normanby, be properly dispensed with in the present case. I am, sir, your obedient servant, S. M. PHILLIPS. B. Hague, Esq., York Castle. He next referred to a memorial from Huddersfield, which was as follows:— Whitehall, 27th May, 1840. Gentlemen—I am directed by the Mar- 910 quess of Normanby to transmit to you the enclosed copy of a memorial from the inhabitants of Huddersfield, respecting Mr. Feargus O'Connor; and I am to request you to peruse the same, and acquaint me, for his Lordship's information, whether Mr. O'Connor has been imprisoned, as stated in the memorial, in a felon's cell, or subjected to the same rules as felons with regard to diet and discipline, or in any other particular; and whether he has been labouring under severe indisposition, and has applied for any medical assistance or advice, which has been refused. Lord Normanby will be glad to have a copy of all the regulations of York Castle relating to misdemeanants and felons; and also to be furnished with the particulars of the treatment of Mr. O'Connor with respect to diet, place of confinement, and all other circumstances; and his Lordship further requests to know whether Mr. O'Connor has made any, and what, complaint of any part of his treatment, and whether anything, and what, has been done upon such complaint. I am, gentlemen, your obedient humble servant, S. M. PHILLIPPS. Visiting Justices of York Castle. The next was of the same date:— Whitehall, 27th May, 1840. Gentlemen—Since my letter to you of this day's date, a statement has been presented to the Marquess of-Normanby by Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, from Mr. Feargus O'Connor, relative to the treatment alleged to have been received by him in York Castle. It states, among other particulars, that Mr. O'Connor has been associated with felons. Lord Normanby must suppose that this part of the statement is erroneous, as it is expressly enacted by law, that misdemeanants and felons are to be formed into two separate classes. Lord Normanby desires me to observe, that there ought to be nothing of degradation or personal indignity in the treatment of Mr. O'Connor, nor anything which may operate with unusual and disproportionate severity, with reference to his state of health or his former habits of life. I am, Gentlemen, your obedient humble servant, S. M. PHILLIPPS. Visiting Magistrates, York Castle.' The next was the answer of Mr. Hague, the visiting justice, which was very short, perhaps shorter than it ought to be. It was as follows:— York Castle, May 28, 1840. My Lord—I beg to inform your Lordship that Mr. Feargus O'Connor arrived at York Castle on Tuesday, May 19, at ten o'clock at night, and on the following day was asked by the chairman of the visiting magistrates, in the presence of the gaoler, whether he wished 911 to be in a separate ward, in conformity with sec. 13 of the statute 5 Geo. 4th.., chap. 85; when he expressed his desire to be placed in the ward with two prisoners under sentence for three months. On the following morning (May 20) the surgeon ordered Mr. O'Connor tea and sugar twice a day, and animal food once a day, which had been regularly complied with. Mr. O'Connor has worn his usual dress, and has not been required to perform any menial offices in his own sleeping cell, or in the ward which he occupies, except making his own bed, which is now dispensed with. Any menial office which he has done, he would not permit others to do for him. "I have the honour to be, my Lord, Your Lordship's obedient, humble servant, BARNARD HAGUE, Chairman of the Visiting Magistrates. To her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department. This distinctly contradicted the statement of Mr. O'Connor, that he was made to perform menial offices in the cell of a digusting and degrading character. The next was from Mr. Hague also:— York Castle, May 28, 1840. My Lord—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's letter of yesterday's date, and I beg to refer your Lordship to our letters of this day's date, written previous to the receipt of your last letters, in which you will receive an answer to the queries respecting the diet and discipline observed towards Mr. Feargus O'Connor, with the directions of the surgeon who attends daily. Mr. O'Connor has not made any application for other medical advice, and therefore no refusal can or has been given. Mr. O'Connor has expressed to us his satisfaction with the treatment he has received, and is much better in health than when he arrived at York Castle. Being the only misdemeanant, he would have been in solitary confinement, had not two of the most respectable of the prisoners been placed in the day ward by the desire of Mr. O'Connor himself, as stated in our letter of this morning. I have the honour to be, Your Lordship's most obedient servant, BARNARD HAGUE, Chairman of the Visiting Magistrates of York Castle. The next and last with which he should now trouble the House, was the answer to the foregoing letter of Mr. Hague:— Whitehall, May 30, 1840. Sir—I am directed by the Marquess of Normanby to acknowledge the receipt of your three letters of the 28th instant, respecting Mr. Feargus O'Connor. 912 In reply to the inquiry what exceptions are to be made in Mr. O'Connor's favour, Lord Normanby refers you to the general instructions before given, especially to that contained in my letter of the 27th; namely, that there ought to be nothing of degradation or personal indignity in the treatment of Mr. O'Connor, or anything which might operate with unusual and disproportionate severity with reference to his state of health, or his former habits of life. Lord Normanby trusts that this general rule will be more useful for the guidance of the magistrates than any enumeration of minute particulars; but, if you wish for directions on any specific point to which you think this general rule does not apply, his Lordship requests you to inform him. It appears to Lord Normanby that if Mr. O'Connor wishes to provide himself with more convenient and suitable bed or bedding, this should be allowed; and that instead of a common prisoner's cell, he should have assigned to him as convenient a room as can be provided on that side of the prison where he is to be lawfully confined. Lord Normanby is of opinion also, that Mr. O'Connor should be allowed to see his relations and friends occasionally, and oftener than the general regulation would allow, but not so as to interfere with the good order of the prison. Lord Normanby cannot give his approval to the two rules which you have transmitted for his signature, because they do not appear to have been approved by the magistrates assembled at a special court of gaol sessions, which is indispensably necessary. I am, Sir, Your obedient humble servant, S. M. PHILLIPPS. Barnard Hague, Esq. York Castle. It fully appeared from these letters, that it was the desire of his noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that no indignity or degradation should be shown to Mr. O'Connor during his confinement in York Castle; and further, that his sentence should be carried out in a way befitting his former habits of life. He was aware that Mr. O'Connor was an invalid, but there was a discrepancy between what Mr. Connor stated, or rather what was stated in the petition, that he did apply for medical advice, and was refused, and the statement of the magistrates; that, on the contrary, he did not ask for medical advice, and consequently that it could not have been refused. How far the last instructions of his noble Friend, the Secretary of State had been carried into effect, he could not say, but with respect to the petition which he held in his 913 hand, he would refer it to the visiting justices of York Castle, because he thought that they should have an opportunity of vindicating their character, and give a specific answer to each allegation, because without meaning to impute any impropriety to the petitioners, he could not believe that the allegations were well founded, but that some unintentional exaggeration of facts must have taken place, and he would be most happy, on receiving the explanation of the visiting justices, to lay it before the House.

§ Mr. Wakley
had received a letter from Mr. Feargus O'Connor, dated 31st May; but after the statement of the hon. Gentleman, he thought that he should best consult that Gentleman's interest by not then reading it. It was said, that changes were in progress, and as it would be better to know what was actually done, he would move the adjournment of the debate till Thursday week.

§ Sir R. Inglis
hoped that whatever alteration was made in the discipline at York Castle, it would be made without any distinction of the previous rank of the prisoner.

§ Sir R. Peel
was sorry to hear the noble Lord say, that there was an objection to remove prisoners from one gaol to another on account of the expense, because, if that notion was entertained, the consequence must be, that prisoners must generally be removed to the Penitentiary, which as he thought, was not a good place for prisoners of this sort. He did not like to enter upon the discussion, but he thought that it was an error in sending Vincent to the Penitentiary. He hoped, therefore, that the Crown would not abandon the right to remove prisoners from one gaol to another.