Lords Sitting of 30 July 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Militia Ballots Suspension; Courts for Counties.—Read a third time:—Imprisonment for Debt Act. Amendment; Bankrupts Estates (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of Gloucester, from the Clergy of Norfolk, against the Church Discipline Bill.—By Lord Lyndhurst, from the London Dock Company, against the Inland Warehousing Bill.—By Viscount Strangford, from the Liverpool Dock Company, to the same effect.—By the Marquess of Lansdowne, from several places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
Lord Broughamsaid, that as some doubts seemed to have been entertained as to whether he should proceed with his motion on the subject of crime in Ireland, in performance of the promise he had given to their Lordships, he would now state, that upon considering the matter, after conversing with several noble Lords upon it, and finding that there were only about forty or fifty pages of the report to which his motion would refer, he should most undoubtedly on Tuesday next bring forward his motion.
The Marquess of Normanbyexpressed a hope that the noble and learned Lord would give notice of the resolutions which he meant to propose. He understood that the noble and learned Lord's motion would relate to forty or fifty pages of evidence; but it might be his duty perhaps to make some general observations on the state of the country as arising out of the proof brought before that committee. His opinion was that any general discussion on the subject at this period would be physically impossible. He had commenced reading the evidence, but had made very slow progress with it. The committee had sat forty-four days; they examined witnesses for three or four hours each day; and there was, therefore, nearly 150 hours of work; so that if any noble Lord wished to make himself master of the evidence before the discussion came on in that House, he would not only have to employ every hour of every day, but nearly every hour of every night. It was quite out of his power to do anything like justice to the evidence in so short a time, but if the noble and learned Lord chose to persist in his motion, he was quite in the hands of the House; but he was sure noble Lords must see the unfairness of taking up particular parts for discussion.
Lord Broughamintended to lay his re-
974
solutions on the table of the House on or before Friday.
The Earl of Wicklowwould repeat what he had before asserted, that the course proposed by the noble and learned Lord was unjust to all parties. It was unjust to the committee to confine the discussion to one subject, and if he had been a member of the committee, no consideration on earth should induce him to consent to have any thing less than the whole question brought before the House. Since it was the determination of the noble and learned Lord to bring on his motion, he was sorry that he had been prevented by any circumstances from laying on the table of the House the paper which he had prepared referring to the topics of his resolutions, because all the clue which he now had to search for them in the evidence was a surreptitious publication, professing to be a draught of propositions to be submitted to the committee. How that got before the public he could not conceive; he thought there must have been some very great breach of confidence, and the matter ought to be investigated. It was a most extraordinary thing that private draughts of papers brought down to a committee should be made public, no one knew how, and that before they were laid before Parliament. [Lord Hatherton.—And these papers marked "private and confidential."] They were published in the newspapers of Dublin. [Lord Brougham—Before the evidence was laid before Parliament:] Yes, certainly. He saw them first in the Dublin Evening Mail, which professed to have them exclusively, and to have been furnished with them by a private friend. He did not know who that private friend was, but he thought that the matter should be inquired into. However, it was by means of that draught alone he must endeavour to get at the facts of the evidence proposed to be discussed by the noble and learned Lord. But the more he thought of that proposition, the more convinced he was that it was unjust to the committee, who had laboured for so many months, as well as to the whole question itself.
Lord Broughamsaid, if he thought that there was anything unjust to the subject in his proposition, and above all to the noble Marquess, he should not persevere in it. There was abundance of time to read the whole evidence, with a view to that part to which he should refer. There was a

975
precedent for the course he had proposed in the evidence taken on the orders in council with respect to slavery, which occupied two or three months in taking, and yet the House went into the subject at ten days' notice.
Viscount Melbournesaid, it was quite impossible for any noble Lord to make himself master of the evidence, or of any of those parts on which the noble and learned Lord grounded his resolution, in so short a time. He felt that it was a difficult matter for any Member of the Government to speak on this point, but he should not say anything which might have the appearance of deprecating or wishing to put off a motion which might be supposed to affect the Government, or any Member of it. At the same time, if resolutions were to be proposed affecting the existing authorities in Ireland, or tending towards an alteration in the administration of justice there, it would be decidedly objectionable to entertain them, when there had not been time enough to consider the evidence on which they were grounded.
Lord Broughamsaid, his resolutions would be such as might be adopted without reading one tittle of the evidence.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, be did not see why their Lordships should be influenced by the desire of the noble Earl (Wicklow) for postponement. How did the matter stand before the public? The secret committee had been sitting for three or four months, and it was generally understood that a report was to be made. Then certain noble Lords presented a certain epitome of their own opinions; but that plan was knocked on the head. Then it was decided that the evidence merely should be reported. Then, a fortnight ago, the noble and learned Lord gave notice that he intended to call the attention of the House to the administration of justice, and his noble Friend behind him gave notice of his intention to call the attention of the House to another part of the report; and now gets up one noble Lord, and says, there is no time for considering the evidence—in that another noble Lord joins him, and very likely the matter would end for the Session. He would not say there was any manœuvring about this, but he must say that to him it had all the appearance of it. It was the same course as was taken upon the Canada question. Three months ago noble Lords opposite threatened to bring serious and grave
976
charges against the noble Earl, but the other night the noble Earl the late Governor of Canada paid all sorts of compliments to the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government for the manner in which he had managed the bill before the House; and there they were, no doubt very well satisfied as to their future proceedings. The noble and learned Lord said last night, that he did not intend to be present during the first part of the ensuing Session, and, therefore, if this motion were postponed, it would stand over to the end of that Session, and the same objection on the ground of lateness would be then applicable. He feared that postponement would have the effect of making this question be treated in the same manner as the Canada question was. But he must say, that if he had been in the situation the noble Marquess had occupied, no earthly consideration whatever should induce him to remain silent under the charges made in that report, without calling upon Parliament to investigate the matter; and he thought it was due to the character of the noble Marquess that it should be investigated without delay.
The Marquess of Normanbywas not astonished at what had fallen from the noble Marquess, because it was in strict conformity of what upon a former night he stated, that he was quite ready to come to a decision though he could not have read the evidence. When persons were about to pronounce an opinion on his conduct, he was desirous that they should first read, study, and digest the grounds on which that opinion was to be framed. He had all along stated, that as soon as their Lordships had so prepared themselves to come to a decision, the better, as far as he was concerned. He was not in the least afraid of any particular points in the details of that evidence which the noble Marquess or any other noble Lord might choose to lay before the House: but he thought there were parts of the evidence which it would be inconvenient to introduce so soon into the general discussion.
Conversation dropped.

MESSRS. LOVETT AND COLLINS—WARWICK GAOL.
The Earl of Warwickwas called upon by a sense of public duty, and in defence of the characters of certain individuals who had been implicated in charges made in a petition recently presented by the noble and learned Lord op-

977
posite (Lord Brougham), from two persons, named Lovett and Collins, who had been confined in Warwick gaol, and who stated that they had been most severely treated while there. He was sure his noble Friend opposite must have been satisfied that those persons were so treated from the very anxious manner in which he advocated their cause. But those statements appeared to him to be much overwrought at the time; and knowing the magistrates who were the visitors of the gaol, and the parties who had the conduct and management of it, and being satisfied that the gaol was as well, as carefully, and as humanely superintended and managed as any other gaol perhaps in the country, he was perfectly satisfied that those statements would afterwards be proved to be overcharged. That he was now prepared to show by authentic papers. But as the noble and learned Lord went into so many details, reading the whole of the petition, and animadverting in stronger language almost than the petitioners themselves on their treatment in the gaol, he was afraid he should be compelled to read the answers which had been given to the allegations of the petitioners, long as they were; and, perhaps, the shortest way would be to read them through at once. The noble Earl then proceeded to read the report of the visiting magistrates of Warwick gaol, on the allegations in the petition of Messrs. Lovett and Collins; and also the evidence on which the report was founded:—
"Vicarage, Warwick, July 23, 1839.
"My Lord,—In reply to your Lordship's directions that a report of the visiting magistrates on the petition of William Lovett and John Collins should be immediately forwarded, I have the honour to transmit a copy of a report, &c., forwarded yesterday to Sir J. E. Wilmot, chairman of the Quarter Sessions, at his request.
"The statements and declarations appended thereto can, if required, be verified on oath.
"In this report your Lordship will perceive that the visiting magistrates have confined themselves chiefly to facts, without expressing their own opinions whether the rules and regulations for the enforcement of discipline and cleanliness, as well as the dietary, are or are not too stringent; this did not appear to them matter of present discussion, in the case of the petitioning prisoners, so much as the fact, whether the mode in which the officers of the prison have carried the rules and regulations into effect had been uncourteous, harsh, or unnecessarily severe.
"I can confidently assure your Lordship, that the visiting magistrates are one and all anxious that no undue restraints, or obnoxious
978
discipline, should be enforced in the prison. They are disposed to assent to and recommend any relaxations of the severity of discipline, or any indulgence to prisoners, which, on mature deliberation, can be deemed practicable and safe.
"I have, &c. JOHN BOUDIER, V. M.
"The Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department."
"To Sir John Eardley Wilmot, Bart., M. P., Chairman of the Quarter Sessions for the county of Warwick.
"Sir,—In compliance with your wish, we, the visiting magistrates, have carefully investigated the charges contained in the petition of William Lovett and John Collins, lately confined in her Majesty's county gaol at Warwick, complaining of undue severity and harshness of treatment. We beg leave to present the following report, to which we have appended statements and declarations of the surgeon, governor, turnkeys, and others, on whose deliberate testimony, as well as the observations made by us, the visiting magistrates, the report is founded.
"REPORT.
"It appears that the prisoners William Lovett and John Collins were committed for a misdemeanour. On being received at the gaol they underwent the same strict examination and search of their clothes and persons to which every individual committed for misdemeanour is subject by the customary rules and usage of the prison. They were also bathed, and Lovett, one of them, had his hair cut.
"In regard to searching and cleansing, however anxious to spare the feelings of parties apparently respectable, it is clear the officers could not, without culpable partiality, draw a line of distinction in the treatment of individuals committed for the same class of offence. For the purpose of identity in case of escape, every prisoner, except a debtor, is, according to long-established custom, inspected minutely in person and apparel, and particular marks described and registered. The visiting magistrates admit and regret, that often from the circumstance of the numbers brought to prison at the same time, and the accommodation not being so ample as might be wished, some exposure cannot be prevented; this, however, is a point to which they are directing their attention with a view to remedy.
"As respects bathing, the very dirty state in which prisoners are brought, especially from other prisons, and from lock-up houses as at Birmingham, renders it indispensable that those who have been so confined, though apparently cleanly, should undergo further inspection and cleansing, inasmuch, as in numberless cases, the best dressed are found in a state which would necessarily introduce contamination, and even vermin, into the prison; hence, by long uniformly recognized and necessary custom, all are inspected, and all are bathed.
"The investigation of the individual cases of petitioning prisoners, Lovett and Collins

979
and their treatment, however complained of, in the opinion of the visiting magistrates, fully exonerate the officers from the imputation of any peremptory, harsh, or even uncourteous conduct. The declarations appended, strongly, deliberately, and, we believe, truly assert that they, the officers, showed every disposition to abstain from needless annoyance; that directions were given to allow Lovett and Collins to take their bath before the other prisoners; and although, by mistake, another person got before Collins, so far from complaint, Lovett expressed himself gratified by his bath, and Collins appeared also well satisfied, The water in the bath was fresh and clean.
"The charge of the prisoners having their hair forcibly cut by a common felon is wholly unfounded as respects Collins, and by no means strictly true in regard to Lovett; the hair of Collins not being cut at all, and Lovett's only shortened, in conformity with his own express direction.
"The bathman and barber, it is admitted, is a felon; but Ids offence is of comparatively trifling character—that of stealing a spade—while his exemplary conduct and previous good character recommended him to the governor as a fit person to be employed and trusted.
"The statements that the prisoners' shirts were taken from them is untrue; all that was done was to stamp or mark them, which is not only usual but necessary, in order to a correct return of them after washing, as well as on their going out of prison.
"The allegation that the prisoners were put into a ward with twenty-two prisoners, one of whom was affected with itch, is explained, and in the main rebutted by the facts. In the ward there was discovered (some two or three days after they were admitted) a deserter who had the complaint, but he was immediately removed and cured. The surgeon, in ordinary course, and in discharge of his duty, prescribed by Act of Parliament, inspected all the prisoners in the ward, and, therefore, Lovett and Collins amongst the number. The ward, be it observed, was the proper misdemeanour ward, assigned to the prisoners under the classification prescribed in the Gaol Act, 4th George iv. sect 10, rule 6, and the only one to which they could have been transferred.
"So far from exhibition of the two prisoners to persons coming out of curiosity into the prison, it is believed that fewer persons than usual visited the prison with orders during the term they were confined.
"The answering to their names was required only in enforcement of the customary and necessary discipline. The taking off the hat appears to have been required in conformity with long-established usage.
"The county allowance of provisions complained of, is in strict conformity with the dietary prescribed; in addition to which each is permitted by order of the Court, to expend 3d. per day, making together, with the county allowance, an amount greater
980
than they are permitted to expend under the rules and regulations of the prison, sanctioned and confirmed by the judges of assize; a copy is appended. The prisoners did not ask to provide themselves, although the rules admitting them to do so are hung up in their day room; they were, therefore, supposed to be on county allowance, which, with the 3d. per day, is so greatly to the advantage of the prisoners, that in the memory of no single officer of the prison have more than one or two prisoners applied to provide themselves, and these have shortly after requested to be put back to county allowance.
"The prisoner having county allowance of warm food, it is not usual in the summer months to have fire in the day rooms; but the two prisoners on application had eggs boiled for them, and knew or might have known, on inquiry that the turnkey would have dressed bacon for them. The governor also distinctly states, that had he been applied to, he should have provided them with the means to cook the provisions they purchased.
"The mode prescribed to each prisoner to make his own bed is according to uniform custom, purposely intended to promote cleanliness and ventilation. The beds are folded up so as to expose the part slept upon open to the air, and the blankets folded and placed upon the bed, as in a barrack room. The visiting magistrates are of opinion that no reasonable complaint can be made of the cleanliness, sweetness, and ventilation of the cells or bedding. The furniture is, as by custom, uniformly supplied to all alike.
"The boots or shoes of prisoners are always ordered to be placed outside the cell, as one means of rendering escape less facile.
"The regulations for walking in the yard are enforced to promote exercise and health, under the approbation of the surgeon. The day-rooms, at such times, in hot or in wet weather, are always open, and the prisoners have access.
"The regulations as to writing:—Correspondence and admittance of friends are in exact conformity with the printed rules and regulations, sanctioned and confirmed by the Secretary of State, or by long-established custom.
"Books, subject to the approbation of the chaplain, will be allowed.
"Prisoner Lovett was informed by the governor, who understood that he wished for writing-paper to prepare his defence, that he might have what he pleased, counted out to him, according to custom, and that what he so wrote for his defence would not be subject to inspection; though his correspondence received, or sent out must be. He had, in consequence, three folio sheets for that purpose, and which he took out with him on leaving the prison, the same not having been inspected.
"The assertion of the prisoners, that from twelve o'clock on the Sunday to nine o'clock a.m. on Monday, they were not served with any food, is answered by stating, that on the

981
Sunday the full allowance for the day is served out; at nine o'clock a.m. each prisoner receives one pound and three quarters of bread, and one pint and a-half of substantial gruel. At twelve o'clock one pint and a-half of soup is given to each, which (notwithstanding complaints of petitioners) is substantial and good, a strong vegetable soup thickened, and a fair portion of meat stewed down during the whole preceding night. It is left to the prisoners on Sunday to reserve such portion of their food as they please, to be consumed during the latter part of the day.
"The visiting magistrates conclude their re-report by expressing a hope, that as the charges of the petitioning prisoners have been made public and printed, that you will move the hon. House of Commons to order that this explanation and reply of the visiting magistrates be also printed, as well as the declarations of the officers of the prison.
"JOHN BOUDIER. "TERTIUS GALTON.
"JAMES RATTRAY. "J. C. B. C. CAVE."
"The Declarations and Statements of the Surgeon, Governor, Officers of the Prison, and others, in reply to charges of undue Harshness and Severity of Treatment, contained in a petition presented to the House of Commons, from William Lovett and John Collins.
"Surgeon, Mr. John Wilmshurst.—(No. 1.)
"The prisoners Lovett and Collins were inspected, and from time to time examined by him only, in the ordinary course of his duty, prescribed by Act of Parliament (4th of George 4th c. 64); that at the time they were placed in their proper ward no prisoner there was affected with the itch, and that when some two or three days afterwards it was discovered that a deserter in that ward was so affected, he was immediately removed and cured. The very filthy state in which prisoners are brought in, especially from other prisons and from the lock-up houses, as at Birmingham, renders it indispensable that those who have been so confined, though apparently cleanly, should undergo further inspection and cleaning, inasmuch as in numberless cases the best dressed are found in a state which would necessarily introduce contamination, and even vermin, into the prison. In the opinion of the surgeon, the precautions uniformly taken are absolutely necessary; the exemptions of the prison from infectious and contagious diseases exemplifying the necessity of the precautions.
"J. WILMSHURST, Surgeon."
"Governor, Henry Adkins.—(No. 2.)
"The treatment of the prisoners Lovett and Collins, both by myself and, so far as he believes, by all the other officers of the prison, was in all respects conformable with the prison rules; they were not subject to any harsh treatment or needless restrictions. As being committed not only for want of sureties, but for trial for a misdemeanour, they could not be placed in any other than the misdemean-
982
ours' yard, unless in his own (the governor's) opinion, their peculiar case rendered it specially expedient, or on their application, which they did not make, he had deemed it expedient to apply to the visiting magistrates to sanction their being removed elsewhere; but, in point of fact, there was no other ward to which he could have properly removed them. To him (the governor) they made no complaint or application whatever, though they had ample opportunity for so doing; and so far from being disinclined to afford them accommodation and comply with their wishes, on hearing that Lovett wished writing paper for his defence, he (the governor) specially called and informed him that he might have such paper; and that, as being used for his defence, it would not be subject to inspection. Three folio sheets were subsequently furnished to him; what he wrote thereon was not inspected and he took them out of the prison when bailed out. "HENRY ADKINS."
"Head Turnkey, John Young.—(No. 3.)
"I received the prisoners Lovett and Collins, who were brought to prison in a car; I took Lovett first down to a room called the description-room, where account is taken of person, clothing, and property, and according to uniform custom ordered him to take off his clothes; he complied without observation, excepting an enquiry whether he was to be put in the felon's cells; I said, 'no; but in the proper ward on the misdemeanour side.' He dressed himself, and I took him to the bathroom, and gave him over to the bath-man, Samuel Smith, saying, 'take this man, search him, and see that he is clean; I have no doubt but he is; if you rind he is, put him into the bath first.' The water in the bath was fresh and clean. I left him, and returned for Collins, and treated him as Lovett: he remonstrated as to his shirt, but on being told it was the prison rule he instantly complied. I turned him over to Maycock, the turnkey, who took him to the bath while I fetched some shirts. I followed him within a minute to the bath room, and finding another man in the water, said to the bathman, 'why did you not do as I ordered you, and put Lovett in first?' Lovett replied, 'I have been in, sir.' He made no complaint. Soon afterwards I fetched Lovett and Collins out of the bath-room, and passed them into No. 3, the misdemeanours' yard, giving them their regular county allowance of provisions; neither made any remarks, that I recollect, though I believe something had been said by one of them as to whether they could have anything in. Conceiving them to be on gaol allowance, I said 'no; but you will be allowed to spend 3d. a-day beyond your allowance. Lovett had three sovereigns, which I put up for him; he took 11 s. 9d. into the prison with him. Collins had 15 s., which he also took into the prison with him. Some Some days after, Lovett applied for some writing paper; I counted him out three folio sheets; when bailed out he took them with

983
him; I did not inspect them. Lovett had a clean towel when in the bath. More or less towels are used according to the number of prisoners.
"JOHN YOUNG."
"Turnkey on the Debtors' Side, Thomas Maycock.—(No. 4).
"Under the direction of Mr. Young, I searched the prisoners Lovett and Collins. Young takes the particulars and descriptions. I took Collins to the bath-room; observed nothing particular, only heard Collins, say to Lovett, 'well, my covey, (or kiddy, I don't know which,) what you have had a good wash, and had your hair cut." Lovett laughed, and said 'yes.'
"THOMAS MAYCOCK."
"Bathman and Barber, Samuel Smith.—(No.5.)
"I received Lovett and others into the bathroom, and was directed by Mr. Young to put Lovett into the bath first. Young said, 'I have no doubt he is clean, and then let him put his own clothes on.' Lovett said he would much rather have a good wash—it was worth a guinea. I said, 'will you have your hair cut, sir?' He said, yes, cut a little off it, but not much; cut a few long hairs off it behind.' I did so, but not in front at all. Collins came into the bath-room, and said to Lovett, 'we shall have a county crop and a wash together.' Lovett said he had been washed already, and had his hair cut. Collins replied,'d—n it, it don't seem to have been cut at all. I asked Collins whether he would have his hair cut? He said, 'just as you like. It did not seem to want it, and it was not cut. I remember Young remonstrating about putting any other prisoner in the bath before Collins; it was done by mistake, not properly understanding his former order to apply to any one but Lovett.
"SAMUEL SMITH."
"Inner Turnkey, Charles Woodward. (No.6.)
"Lovett and Collins were brought into my yard on Sunday morning. On the Monday morning following I informed them with others that they were allowed to spend 3d. per day in sugar, butter, cheese, bacon, and eggs; either Lovett or Collins asked how they were to get the eggs cooked. I said, 'there is no fire, the eggs are generally beaten up in gruel.' Collins said, he never could eat spoon meat. On one occasion, one of them asked me to boil some eggs, but there happened to be no fire; at another time I did boil eggs for them, and certainly I should not have refused to dress a little bacon for them if asked. It is well known to the prisoners that such is my custom when asked; there were prisoners in the same yard who had been previously in prison, and knew this to be the case. Collins and Lovett both appeared perfectly satisfied, and never made any complaint to me beyond what I have stated above. The rules and regulations are hung up on a board in the dayroom, "CHARLES WOODWARD,"
984
"John Smith, a prisoner in the Misdemeanour-yard.
"I was the person who got into the bath next to Lovett, not knowing that I was to wait, I heard Young complain that I had been put in before Collins. I immediately got out, and Collins got in. I was present when both Lovett and Collins were in the bath; both of them seemed quite satisfied and contented at that time. I was in the yard with Lovett and Collins till they were bailed out, I never heard them complain about anything, I heard Lovett and Collins talk together about bacon, and express a wish they had means to cook it, but I did not hear of any complaint made to the turnkey.
"JOHN SMITH."
He should not trouble their Lordships with any remarks of his own, as he thought the statements he had read would show sufficiently that the treatment of' the prisoners had been greatly exaggerated. It appeared that they had been treated with civility and attention, and he must say, that in his opinion, the noble and learned Lord opposite had, with many hundreds more, been imposed upon, for there was nothing to show that either of the prisoners had been improperly treated.
Lord Broughamsaid, if he had been imposed upon, he had been so as much by the noble Earl as by any other person, for the noble Earl had now confirmed the statement which he had previously made in all its essential particulars. He begged to say, that no charge had been brought against the county magistrates, or against the respectable governor, Mr. Adkins. It was only the bad system which had been complained of, for by that system persons not tried, nor found guilty of any crime, were treated as if they had been convicted. The petition which which he had presented on a former occasion had been prepared from the facts collected by a most respectable individual, whose cross-examination he would trust as much as that of any man not connected with the legal profession. That gentleman said he knew Lovett to be a most respectable man, to whose word every credence was due; and he stated also, that he had had both Lovett and Collins before him for hours, submitted them to a rigid cross-examination in order to test the truth of their statements, and to prevent the possibility of exaggeration. He further stated, that perfect reliance was to be placed on the statements of Lovett, who was a man who could not be excelled in integrity. Let

985
them now look at the evidence which had been adduced by the noble Lord, and see whether the statements of the petitioners had been in any degree invalidated. The petitioners complained that they had had their hair forcibly cut by a common felon, and what said the evidence? Why it was said, that Lovett's hair was "only shortened" in conformity with his own express direction; but it was admitted that Smith, the barber was a felon; although it was added, that "his offence is of comparatively trifling character—that of stealing a spade." Only convicted of stealing a spade! But as he called a spade a spade, he also called a thief a thief; and it was clear, therefore, by the admission of the magistrates, that the statement of Lovett, that his hair was cut off by a felon, was perfectly true. It was no matter what the amount of Smith's offence was, for the indignity complained of was the same. Then, as to the complaint that the prisoners had been exhibited to persons visiting the prison from curiosity, what was the evidence adduced on those points? Why, it was said, that "so far from exhibition of the prisoners to persons coming out of curiosity into the prison, it is believed that fewer persons than usual visited the prison with orders during the time they were confined." But there was no attempt made to show that they were not exhibited to the persons who did visit the prison, and the numbers of the visitors was not the point in question. It was also said, that "the answering to their names was required only in enforcement of the customary and necessary discipline. The taking off the hat appears to have been required in conformity with long established usage." Now, it was of this sort of discipline, and of this long established usage, which the petitioners complained; for what was the effect of that usage? Lovett was a most respectable householder. He was taken to prison for want of bail, and before he was tried or convicted of any crime he was subjected to the indignity of being mustered with common felons when a crowd of idle people visited the prison, and in that position ordered to take off his hat. The petitioners also stated that they were searched and stripped naked, and that fact was admitted by the turnkey and it was stated that it was the practice of the prison. But it was of the practice that the petitioners complained, because by that prac-
986
tice they were submitted to indignities to which no person not convicted of crime ought to be subjected. The petitioners also complained that the water in which they were forced to bathe was not clean, and it was now said that only two persons had bathed before them. That statement did not invalidate the statement of the petitioners. The petitioners also complained that they were note allowed to use their own money, and it was stated in their evidence that they were allowed to spend 3d. a-day. But they were not felons, and why should they have been thus restrained? The presumption was that they were guilty of no crime, and they had been treated as if they had been convicted. The rules and regulations of the prison were hung up on a board in the day-room, but the prisoners complained that they were not treated according to those rules, and they were told by the turnkey that they must not appeal to those rules, as they were often changed. The rules said, that the prisoners should be shut up at eight o'clock, and the petitioners complained that they had been shut up at seven o'clock, and that they had fared differently in all respects from the rules which were hung up in the prison, and there was nothing in the evidence to show that that statement was not correct. In short, he thought the evidence fully bore out the complaints of the petitioners, but he trusted that some good would arise from this great evil, and that in future a distinction would be made between persons convicted and those who, not having been tried, were, in the eye of the law, guilty of no crime. No magistrate had a right to establish rules by which persons before their trial were treated as if they had been tried, convicted, and found guilty. One word as to the bail. The petitioners had been confined nine days on the plea that the bail offered was not sufficient, and he would ask why the bail had not at once been accepted. Mr. Leader and Sir William Molesworth writing that they would answer for the bail, did not render the bail a bit more sufficient, and it was only because it was found that the prisoners were not helpless and defenceless that the magistrates had at last accepted the bail—and what bail? Why, the very same that had been at first refused. If he were the Government, he would take care that if the petitioners were found guilty, they should have no more punishment. The nine days' confinement

987
which they had already suffered was enough for their offence.
Subject dropped.

INLAND WAREHOUSING BILL.
The Marquess of Lansdownerose to move the second reading of the Inland Warehousing Bill. He did not think it necessary to say anything with regard to the sound policy and great advantages of the warehousing system, for he believed, that all persons were now prepared to acknowledge the incalculable benefits that the commercial and manufacturing interests, as well as the country at large, had derived from it. Fortunately, the feelings of the country were not in the state that they were when Sir Robert Walpole proposed the adoption of a system somewhat similar, and which excited against him the greatest unpopularity, and exposed his life and person to danger. The present system was adopted in 1803, and while it had been productive of the greatest public benefits, he was not aware that it had led to any complaints. The question now was, whether they could extend the system by embracing within its operation some of the large inland towns, instead of confining it, as at present, to certain ports. It might be said, that inland towns did not afford the same security for the collection of the revenue on the foreign articles warehoused for home consumption. It was the duty of the Treasury to see that every fiscal security was afforded, and before a licence for bonded warehouses in any inland town was granted, of course proper care would be taken that no risk was incurred in this respect. The question, then, for that House to consider was, whether there was any objection to trust the Treasury with powers which would enable it to take steps to make the inland towns partake of the benefits of the warehousing system, which were important to those places, as well as to the country at large. He had never before heard it asserted, till it was said in some petitions, that the ports which enjoyed these bonded privileges possessed vested rights, and that, therefore, they might deprive other places, and indeed the public at large, of the advantages of extending the system. The principle on which the warehousing system rested was, that taxes should be paid—if it could be done with security to the revenue—at those times, and at those places, most convenient to
988
the consumers. On this principle it was that the depots should be placed in such situations that the manufacturer, retail merchant, or shopkeeper, might get the articles which he required for consumption on paying the duties, and should not be required to pay them before. He proposed the second reading of the bill with great satisfaction, as he was convinced, that it would be productive of great benefit. It was a subject that had for some time been under the consideration of the Government, and it had been carried through the other House by a very large majority; he trusted, therefore, that the House would sanction the second reading.
Lord Ashburtonadmitted, that the ports had no right to claim a vested interest in the possession of the bonded warehouses, and he also admitted that if it was for the advantage of the country those privileges should be extended to other places. He did not think, however, that any case had been made out to prove that any benefits could arise from extending the bonded system to inland towns. This bill was not, as had been asserted, an extension of the principle of the bonded system, but it was a complete departure from it. The only advantage, that possibly could be alleged in its favour, was, that the bill would give certain persons in inland towns longer time for the payment of the duties. There were, however, no large inland towns in this country, at such a distance from the sea ports, that great inconvenience could arise to the public by not being able to get goods from the bonded warehouses in a short time. He also thought it was objectionable to leave this species of patronage to the Government, to determine that our inland towns should have this privilege, while it should be withheld from others. He would take the strongest case, namely, that of Manchester which place was within an hour's travelling of Liverpool. The manufacturers of Manchester could, within as short a time procure their bonded from the warehouses at Liverpool as persons at Westminster could from the London or St. Catharine's Docks. He thought, also, that there would be some want of security to the revenue in having highly-taxed articles conveyed to inland towns without having the duty paid. If this bill passed, he was sure, that within a short time demands would be made from inland towns that

989
would appear to be unsuitable, to be released from their bonded warehouses, as they would be productive of so much inconvenience. He believed, that the bill had been pressed upon one of her Majesty's Ministers by his constituents, as it was generally supposed, that they would chiefly profit by it. He recollected, that the late Mr. Canning said that while Member for Liverpool he found it to be impossible to do justice to the jobs of his constituents, and to the claims upon himself as a Member of the Government. He was satisfied that this bill would add nothing to the commercial advantages of the country, and at the same time, it would lead to gross abuses, and to constant losses of the public revenue. He was also satesfied that no great inconvenience was experienced at present, as all the large manufacturing towns were within a short distance of the bonding ports. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not sanction the bill, but would support the amendment which he should propose, namely, that the bill be read a second time that day three months.
Lord Broughamstated, that his noble Friend was a very great authority on all subjects, but more particularly an a matter of this kind, as it was well known, that he had long been regarded as the first merchant in the world. He did not, however, altogether agree with him in the conclusion that his noble Friend had arrived at. He was by no means sure that the bill might not be productive of advantages, he should, however, vote for his noble Friend's amendment on the ground that sufficient time had not been given for the consideration of the bill. In addition to this, his noble and learned Friend had presented two petitions from important places, praying to be heard by counsel against this bill, as property to the amount of millions would be risked by it. If he was not mistaken, the petitioners stated, that property at Liverpool of the value of nearer five than four millions would be risked by the bill. It was nonsense to assert, that property was not increased in value by the warehouses having the privilege of holding bonding goods being conferred on it. Thus the land on which the Regent's docks at Liverpool stood, was increased in value to an almost incalculable extent by this privilege, whereas the warehouses within fifty yards of them, which had not this privilege, were of com-
990
paratively little value. He presumed the reason why the privilege was to be conferred in warehousing thirty miles off the docks at Liverpool, while it was refused to those within a few yards of them, was, that Manchester bad the good fortune to be represented by the President of the Board of Trade. He did not, however, mean to say, that on consideration he might not assent to the bill, but he should oppose its progress now on the ground that it was too late a period of the Session to bring forward a measure of this kind, on a subject respecting which there was such a great discrepancy of opinion, and when there were parties at the bar praying to be heard against it. The bill was introduced in the other House only on the 16th of July, and it was one of that class of bills that he stated a few nights ago should be introduced at an early period of the Session.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that notwithstanding the great knowledge and experience of the noble Lord (Lord Ashburton), and the great eloquence and observations of the noble and learned Lord, he thought that no valid ground had been stated for the rejection of this bill. He certainly did not think that it came within that class of bills which it was urged should be postponed, in consequence of their requiring further information, and the fullest consideration. The noble Lord stated, that no material grievance had resulted from the want of bonded ware houses in inland towns. But this was not a fair ground of objection, for could it be said, that no evil arose, when the interests of the country and of these places were not promoted in the way in which they might be, by having such privileges as these? Was it no injustice to deprive these persons of such advantages? The noble Lord said, that all the great towns were near some seaport where there were bonded warehouses. What would the noble Lord say to the towns of Birmingham, Nottingham, or Leicester, which were as nearly as possible in the middle of the island? They were, therefore, as far from seaports as they could be, although the noble Lord might not regard them as being very distant. Was it not advantageous for the manufacturers and consumers at those places, that they should have the bonded articles as near them as possible, and that every facility should be afforded to procure them as they were required. The

991
noble and learned Lord alluded to Manchester, but he (Lord Melbourne) believed that that town was not the place that most anxiously sought for this bill. His noble Friend had alluded to the rapid means of communication between Liverpool and Manchester, but it was manifestly absurd to say, that the heavy goods, such as those warehoused articles, were conveyed from one of these places to another in an hour. This might be the time for passengers, but heavy articles were not conveyed by railways. With respect to the protection of the revenue, the Treasury would have the power of deciding on proper sites for warehouses, and of course due care would be taken on this point. This bill would be advantageous to large numbers of the manufacturers and traders of the country, and it was sought for by a great number of large towns, and it had been sanctioned by a large majority of the other House. He thought that the latter was a reason that would have weight with his noble and learned Friend, who had dwelt much upon measures sent up to that House that had received the sanction of a large majority of the other house. He, however, did not regard this of so much consequence, as he was satisfied, that measures that ought to receive the sanction of their Lordships might only be carried by a small majority in the other House. Very good measures might only be supported by a very small majority, and therefore he did not attach so much importance to the circumstances of a large majority as his noble and learned Friend. He would only add, that he was satisfied of the beneficial tendency of this bill, and should give it his cordial support.
The House divided on the original question:—Contents 38; Not-Contents 48: Majority 10.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

ARCHBISHOP.

Warwick

Armagh.

Bathurst

DUKE.

Longford

Wellington.

Wicklow

MARQUESSES.

Rosslyn

Downshire

Charleville

Londonderry

Oxford

Ormonde.

Harrowby

EARLS.

Glengall

Abingdon

Eldon

Morton

Ripon.

Moray

VISCOUNTS.

Galloway

Hereford

Dartmouth

Strathallan

Aylesford

Strangford

992

Gage

Berwick

Hawarden

Redesdale

Gort

Ellenborough

Canterbury.

Prudhoe

BISHOPS.

Rayleigh

Carlisle

Bexley

Oxford

Wharncliffe

Glocester.

Fitzgerald

LORDS.

Lyndhurst

Saltoun

Brougham

Sinclair

De Lisle

Monson

Ashburton.

Sondes

Paired off.

Montrose

Sherborne

Bute

Falmouth

Exeter

Sydney

Ailesbury

Hood

Westmeath

Doneraile

Jersey

St. Vincent

Eglinton

Exmouth

Dalhousie

Beresford

Leven

Combermere

Orkney

Canning

Digby

Reay

Carnarvon

Rodney

Courtown

Kenyon

Mountcashel

Braybrooke

Clare

Dunsany

Bandon

Glenlyon

Limerick

Maryborough

Lonsdale

Forester

Verulam

Downes

Bradford

Wallace

Portman

Lilford

De Mauley

Rosebery

Albemarle

Dormer

Torrington

Kintore

Vernon

Methuen

Lichfield

Strafford

Bellhaven

Yarborough

Camperdown

Crewe

Kinnaird

Cowper

Sutherland

Lovelace

Petre

Bateman

Shrewsbury

Erroll

Carew

Wenlock

Lynedoch

Fingall

Sefton

Zetland

Cork

Bruce

Scarborough

Duncannon

Ducie

Cloncurry

Uxbridge

Lovat

Bill put off for three months.