Lords Sitting of 4 June 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal Assent:—Tithe Commutation Acts Amendment.—Read a second time:—Payment of Wages.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of London, from Brain-tree, in favour of Church Extension; and from the Journeymen Bakers of the Metropolis, complaining of their being unable to attend Divine Worship on Sundays.—By Earl Fitzwilliam, the Earl of Camperdown, and the Earl of Faversham, from Bath, Southampton, Halifax, and other places, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws,

CANADA—COLLEGE OF ST. SULPICE.
The Bishop of Exeterbegged leave to ask the noble Viscount (Melbourne) the question of which he had given notice with respect to the Roman Catholic College of St. Sulpice, in Lower Canada. He wished to know what the Special Council had done with respect to the incorporation of that college of which notice had been given in the Extraordinary Gazette.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the Government had received no account of any ordinance on the subject.
The Bishop of Exeterwished to know whether her Majesty's Ministers had received from the Governor-general any report of his having carried into effect, or of his having relinquished his intention of acting on the project which had been announced by him in his despatch of the 13th March.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the Government had received no communication on the subject.
The Bishop of Exeterwished to ask, thirdly, whether the noble Viscount would have any objection to lay before the House the instructions given to the Governor-general, and which he had referred to in his despatch of March 13.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that no instructions had been given to the Governor-general on the subject. The despatch transmitted to him merely contained the opinion of the Law-officers of the Crown with respect to the legality of the proceeding. No despatch had since been received on the subject.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that if the Governor-general had received no instructions, though he himself had alluded to them in his despatch, that of course settled the question.

CORN-LAWS.
Earl of Fitzwilliampresented three petitions from Edinburgh, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws.
The Duke of Richmondwould take that opportunity of asking his noble Friend what the terms of the motion were which he intended to propose. It, in his opinion, would be convenient if their lordships were put in possession of the proposition which they were to be called upon to negative.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, as his noble Friend had made a speech, it would not be out of order in him to do so also. His noble Friend wanted to know the terms of

915
the proposition which their Lordships were to be called upon to negative. Now his noble Friend presumed, he thought, a little too much upon his knowledge of what their Lordships' intention might be. Their Lordships would have an opportunity of considering the matter, and there was no occasion for them to hasten immediately to negative the proposition. He hoped that their Lordships would consider the question with all the deliberation due to one which regulated, not only the importation of corn, but also the exportation of the produce of this country, and thereby affected the happiness and welfare of the great mass of the people. Their Lordships must be aware that it was perfectly impossible for this country to export the produce of its industry unless at the same time it imported the produce of the industry of other countries. Having so far answered his noble Friend, he had to state to their Lordships, that the motion he should submit to them, for their due and deliberate consideration, would be, "that it is expedient to re consider the laws which regulate the importation of foreign corn."
The Duke of Richmondcould assure his noble Friend that the more deliberation the Corn-laws received in that House, the more he should be satisfied, for he only wanted that the public should know the real truth of the case. Their Lordships were aware that persons were sent about the country to tell those things which were not true, and were trying to raise an ill feeling between the labourers, their employers, and landlords. Of course he did not mean to accuse his noble Friend of being a party to the sending abroad of those emissaries. He had merely thought it necessary to know the terms of the motion to be proposed by his noble Friend; and hecon idered it would be negatived as a matter of course, because he knew his noble Friend would bring forward no motion inconsistent with the many pamphlets he had published on the subject. He hoped that his noble Friend would not only bring forward his motion, but would give the House by a vote an opportunity of seeing how many of their Lordships were hostile, as he called it, to the interests of the country.
The Earl of Falmouthwas anxious that the discussion of the subject should take place, because the truth would then be brought to light.
Earl Fitzwilliamquite agreed with the noble Earl, that the more the subject was discussed and considered the better, and, therefore, he did not think that the noble Duke (Richmond) had any right to find fault with those persons who were going about the country. He thought that both lecturers and anti-lecturers were useful in order that the thinking part of the population might be brought to consider the subject. He believed it was one which a great number of persons had very little studied, and he was bound to express his belief that even amongst the highest ranks, not even excepting Members of their Lordships' House, the subject had been very little considered. These were the grounds which induced him to bring forward certain points connected with the subject incidentally.
The Marquess of Salisburydid not think it very desirable that the question should be discussed on the presentation of petitions, and without due notice.
The Duke of Richmondhad never objected to lecturers going about the country, but what he objected to was their stating what was perfectly untrue, in order to excite the labourers against their employers. He did not think it came very well from the manufacturers, who themselves employed large bodies of artisans and workmen, to be inflaming the feelings and passions of the working classes against their masters.
The Earl of Falmouthwould remind the noble Earl that the organ of the Anti-corn-law party, a very mischievous publication, called the Anti-corn-law Circular, had termed the landlords blood-suckers, robbers of the poor, and enemies of the poor.
Earl Fitzwilliamhad seen the paper in question, but any body who took in a newspaper was not to be held responsible for its language; indeed there was hardly any newspaper that did not contain something reprehensible. He thought it was a very indecent mode of describing a most respectable class, who were certainly equally respectable with the fund-owners, the mill-owners, or any other owners.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that the noble Earl would find that these words had been made use of in the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, and he was rather surprised to find so respectable a body of merchants sanctioning the use of such terms.
The Earl of Warwicksaid, that if the noble Lord looked at the Anti-Corn-law Circular, he would find that he was recognised as their leader in the House of Lords, and that all the petitions were recommended to be sent to him for presentation.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, he did not think the Chamber of Commerce was responsible for the opinions of every individual of the body.—Petitions laid on the table.

CASE OF MR. O'CONNOR.
Lord Broughampresented a petition adopted at a large public meeting, held at Bradford, in Yorkshire, and signed by the chairman on behalf of the meeting, complaining of the treatment of Mr. Feargus O'Connor in York Castle. The petition stated that Mr. O'Connor, for the offence of which he had been convicted—a libel —had been subjected to the treatment of felons, and to the inflictions suffered by thieves and murderers. He begged it to be understood that he was here stating merely the petition, vouching not in any degree for its truth, nor saying (because not knowing) how far it might or might not be exaggerated. The petition went on to state that Mr. O'Connor, had been compelled to lie on an iron bedstead, and to perform various menial offices, some of them of a disgusting nature, which were specified—that he was not allowed to receive visits from his friends—that he was denied the accommodation of a wooden bench to sit on, and was obliged to sit upon the cold stone, although suffering under disease; and that the effect, of this hard usage had been greatly to injure his health. The petition went on to give various instances of persons, who in former times had been convicted of similar offences, but who had not been subjected to like treatment, and complained of the hardship and injustice of thus varying the punishment for the same offences. The prayer of the petition was, that their Lordships would institute an inquiry into the case with a view to Mr. O'Connor's removal from the felons' to the debtors' side of the prison. As far as respected the inquiry, it was within their Lordships' power; but as to the other part of the prayer, he doubted much if they could interfere. This, however, he must say, that if there were any truth whatever in these statements, and others of the same kind which had lately come before the
918
public, there was cause for the deepest regret, and great danger of exciting that feeling so fatal to the design of all punishments—of indignation at the treatment of the offender instead of at his offence. Offender he must call Mr. O'Connor, as he had been convicted by a competent tribunal. The case excited in his mind many reflections with which he would not now trouble their Lordships. But he was anxious to afford his noble Friend, the noble Marquess at the head of the Home Department, an opportunity of stating the result of the inquiry, which might have been instituted, and how far there was any truth in these statements. He would now for a few moments request the attention of their Lordships and of his noble Friend to a point intimately connected with this subject, to a clause introduced into a bill sent from their Lordships' to the other House, and proposed to be amended by one of their Lordships. He wished to have it considered, whether the object of that proviso could not be effected in another manner. He was desirous of avoiding even the semblance of an indifference, as to the giving some power to prevent the recurrence of such evils. But if the noble Viscount wished to apply a remedy to the existing ease, he thought it would be better done by the Executive Government, upon its own responsibility, leaving the House to make the general changes that were necessary in the law. He would give no opinion upon the subject, and he only threw those suggestions out for the purpose of attracting the attention of the noble Viscount. If no harm was likely to occur from the delay of the introduction of so important a clause in the Prisons' Bill, as that which had been proposed, he thought some little delay should take place in order to afford ample time for its consideration. With respect to the treatment complained of in the petition, he thought that such treatment ought not to be adopted even towards felons, far less ought it to be employed to those who were guilty of misdemeanors. He thought that punishment in the most aggravated cases ought not to be of that nature which was revolting to humanity.
The Marquess of Normanbywas not then prepared to enter into all the subjects alluded to by the noble and learned Lord. He wished, however, to say a few words with regard to the case of

919
Mr. Feargus O'Connor. The day after it had been decided that Mr. O'Connor was to be sent to York Castle, an application had been made to him to postpone his transfer to the prison. That happened on Friday evening, and the application was made on the ground of the state of Mr. O'Connor's health. He recommended, that the departure of the prisoner should be deferred till the following Monday, in order that he might have time to procure farther information on the subject. He found, however, on inquiry, that the immediate removal of Mr. O'Connor was not likely to be attended with any danger to his health. Another reason for his declining to interfere was, that Mr. O'Connor was then in the custody of the officer of the court which had pronounced sentence on him, and he was sure, that the court had deliberately considered the place in which Mr. O'Connor should undergo his confinement. The first communication on the subject was one which he addressed to the visiting magistrates of York Castle, on the 25th May, in which he had stated to them, that he thought in some cases of misdemeanor it might be advisable to relax the prison regulations. [The noble Marquess read a letter dated 25th May, for which see the debate in the Commons of June 2nd.] The Act 4th, Geo. 4th, gave, he thought, the justices power to relax the gaol regulations in certain special cases, but the justices had usuaily construed that act as only giving them power in cases of sickness, and had excluded other cases from their considerarion. This letter of 25th May showed, that in that early stage of the business, his attention had been directed to what might be considered under the special circumstances of the case by Mr. Feargus O'Connor, as personal indignities. The next communication he received was a memorial from Huddersfield, complaining of the treatment to which Mr. Feargus O'Connor was subjected. He again addressed the magistrates in consequence of this memorial, and went more into detail as to the relaxations which he thought might be advisable in the case of Mr. Feargus O'Connor. On the same day he saw Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, and then came the complaint, that Mr. O'Connor had been compelled to associate with felons. He had called the attention of Mr. Hague, the visiting magistrate, to this subject, and referred him to the enactments, ordering
920
the separation of persons convicted of misdemeanor from felons, and Mr. Hague had given an explanation which was perfectly satisfactory. He had alluded to the Act 5th, Geo. 4th, in which, although it was enacted, that persons convicted of misdemeanors should not be associated with felons, yet in case there should be but one misdemeanant confined in a goal, he might be associated with other persons in the prison if he were desirous of it. Now Mr. O'Connor was the only misdemeanant in York Castle, which was not generally used for the confinement of prisoners of that class, Mr. Feargus O'Connor was asked if he preferred being left by himself or being associated with others, and in consequence of his not wishing to be left alone he was put with two other prisoners. Mr. Feargus O'Connor had mentioned this to Sergeant Talfourd, he had said that certainly he preferred being associated to being left alone. It was entirely a matter of taste, but Mr. O'Connor said of course he declined being left alone, and was consequently placed with these persons. With respect to his next statement respecting Mr. O'Connor's bed, it did appear to be a case of great hardship, and he had recommended the visiting justices that indulgence in that respect should be extended, and he had every reason to believe Mr. Feargus O'Connor was now provided with a bed of another description. With regard to his being obliged to perform menial office, that was a matter to which he had directed the immediate attention of the visiting justices, and they had informed him that Mr. O'Connor had not been required to perform any menial offices except making his own bed, which was now dispensed with, and that any menial offices which he might have performed, he would not allow any person to do for him. With reference to the food, that was one of the points on which the visiting justices, had, under special circumstances, the right to relax their rules, representing it afterwards at Quarter Sessions; and in his last letter he had called their attention to that, with a view to permanent arrangement, but in the mean time Mr. O'Connor was not suffering any hardship on this account, because the surgeon, as a matter of health, had ordered him tea and sugar, and fresh meat once a day. On the 1st of June he had caused a letter to be written, to the following effect:—

921
"I am directed by the Marquess of Normanby to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 29th May, respecting Mr. F. O'Connor, and to inform you that his Lordship sees no objection to a suitable room being supplied Mr. O'Connor in another part of the prison, provided it can be done agreeably with the arrangements of the law respecting debtors, who are to form a separate class. I am also, with reference to the fifteenth rule, desired to refer you to the tenth section of the 4th George 4th, which enables one or more justices, under special circumstances, to allow a prisoner to receive food and clothes beyond the first allowance, and to recommend you to allow Mr. O'Connor to have any reasonable allowance in these particulars."
He thought it was due to the visiting justices that their case should be laid as clear as possible before the public, and therefore he had sent Mr. Crawford, an inspector of prisons, to York to put himself in communication with the visiting justices, and learn all the facts of the case; and he thought it would turn out that many of these things, from the state of Mr. O'Connor's health, had made a greater impression on his mind with respect to the hardships he was suffering, than the facts warranted. He had stated to their Lordships the other day, in dealing with an amendment of the House of Commons, that he felt, in the present state of the law on this subject, parties of various kinds were subjected to a degree of hardship that he did not believe it was originally intended they should suffer. Most of the cases alluded to in the memorial from Bradford were of persons convicted before the 4th George 4th, and before the classification of persons convicted of misdemeanours, and their separation from debtors. It must be always remembered these regulations were adopted for meeting the case of the physical condition of the great majority of persons subjected to prison discipline, which, previous to that act, had been much neglected. He thought himself that public attention required to be more directed to those who had fallen under these regulations, and that the amendments that had come up from the House of Commons did not meet the evil. He would not relax or show any indulgence to persons because they were born in a higher sphere in life, but still they must consider how those things operated as hardships on one class which did not upon another. He thought, therefore, that the amendments of the Commons might be carried a little further with re-
922
spect to those who had been convicted of minor offences; still he thought there was great objection to giving this discretionary power to the Executive Government and it was only for the purpose of putting an end to that evil that he had proposed his amendment to their Lordships. He had shown that amendment to the Lord Chief Justice, who was of opinion with himself that it would be best to adopt the amendments as they had come up from the House of Commons, adding thereto the amendment he had proposed. He was quite ready to postpone the consideration of those amendments if he thought he could carry a general measure on the subject.
Lord Broughamthought, one part of the noble Lord's statement was quite satisfactory, namely, that directions had been given to enquire into the truth of these allegations. Very opposite accounts had been given, and he had no doubt from the character of the Gentleman employed, there would be some light thrown upon the subject. The postponement of the power intended to be conferred by the clause would not have the effect of postponing the indulgence which he understood had been already shown to that gentleman.
The Duke of Richmondthought, the best thing that could be done would be to refer the bill to a Select Committee. He thought when gentlemen were guilty of a violation of the law, they ought to be punished with as much, if not more severity than the humbler classes. They ought to be very cautious in making any changes in the great principle of prison discipline, because a man might say he did not care for committing an offence, as his health was weakly, and when sent to prison he would receive indulgencies. In his opinion, the best way to deal with offences was to make the punishment certain, and of that degree of severity that it would deter persons from violating the law.
The Earl of Devonagreed to the principle, as proposed by the noble Marquess, as by it the Judge would be enabled, when passing sentence on the prisoners, to state the class in which he should be confined.
Petition laid on the table.