Sitting of 2 July 1817

PETITION OF MR. EVANS.
Mr. Barhamsaid, that in bringing forward his motion, it was unnecessary for him to disclaim any feelings 'of personal hostility to the noble secretary for the home department, from whom, as well as from his right hon. relative, he had received his full share of civility. Neither did his motion originate in any general hostility to the measures which were proposed from the other side of the House, nor from any bias towards democratical opinions. The whole course of his parliamentary life would contradict such a supposition. He had always been of opinion that democratical or monarchical principles, pushed to their extent, would have probably in the end the same effect; that as the democratical principle, by unrestrained ascendancy, might destroy liberty by means of the subversion of the government, 60 the ascendancy of arbitrary power by destroying liberty, would cause the destruction of the government. He had once thought fit to support the government, and by supporting it to support liberty itself against democratical power,

1283
and he now, by supporting liberty against arbitrary principles, conceived he also was contributing to the security and permanence of the government. That arbitrary notions and practice now prevailed and were increasing, he was persuaded, not only by things said and done every day, which would not formerly be tolerated, but by the silence observed as to the maxims which had once been the boast of Englishmen, or the manner in which, when advanced, they were received. Not to enumerate many instances, they would recollect that when in a speech which would long be deeply impressed on the minds of all who had heard it, a noble lord (Nugent) had said, that revolution was to be preferred; this sentiment was received by clamour of disapprobation from the opposite side of the House. Was this a new sentiment? Was it not one which had been uttered daily in the best times of English history? As to the case immediately the subject of his motion, two explanations had been given by the right hon. gentleman. The first seemed to disclaim all responsibility for the right hon. gentleman and the secretary of state, as to what passed in the prisons, in which the unfortunate men were committed on suspicion. This doctrine he strongly protested against. The secretary of state should be informed by some confidential person, for whom he was responsible, of the state, and almost the daily occurrences of those prisons. The secretary of state would not be degraded by such a superintendance; for no employment could be more honourable than an attention to the state of men so incapable of protecting themselves. The prisoners had been deprived of the protection they derived from the visits of the magistrates. It might be proper to prevent indiscriminate access; but he could not conceive how this principle could be carried so far as to exclude his hon. friend (Mr. Bennet), than whom a more useful member there was not in the House. What could be the object of this? If it were supposed that his hon. friend would enter into an improper communication with the prisoner, the gaoler was at hand to prevent it. It was painful to think that in a few years so great a change had taken place in our opinions. That benevolent man, who had devoted his life to the examination of prisons to which he had been first directed by his official duty as sheriff of Bedfordshire, and to whom the doors of
1284
every prison in the most barbarous parts of Europe had been opened, would now have had the door of the prison of his own county shut in his face by the gaoler he had appointed, and this by order of a British secretary of state. This exclusion of all examination was one reason for his motion; another was, that a general opinion seemed to prevail, that the complaints of these prisoners were not to be attended to, because they were in prison for their offences; in other words, that they were put there for punishment and repentance. This was an opinion founded in the grossest injustice; if any measure was taken which was not purely a measure of precaution against escape, injustice was done.—He should refer to one or two points in Mr. Evans's petition. That respecting the petition to be delivered to the members for Westminster had been denied, and he was bound to believe, that no petition had been sent to the home department, which had not been forwarded. But evidently there was some mistake, as no man in his senses would have put in the front of his petition, an allegation which he knew could be proved to be a falsehood. This demanded explanation. The statement as to the irons had not been satisfactorily explained. Why had Mr. Evans been sent to a prison where it was the rule to put people in irons without special directions? There was a wide difference between these persons, and those committed on the direction of disinterested magistrates, and after examinations on oath. He should not advert to the felons beds, and the felons fare, nor the beautiful arcade; but there was a fact, which its minuteness rendered characteristic—he alluded to the order to deprive the prisoner of his flute. It reminded him of the story of the gaoler who killed a spider, which had been the amusement of an unfortunate being in similar confinement. It was curious that the right hon. gentleman who could subject men, some of whom were possibly innocent, to such a punishment, was afraid of libelling the gaolers, by inquiring into their conduct. It was said, the prisoners might petition. Suppose they were allowed pen and ink, by whom were they to petition—through those of whom they had to complain? Possibly these persons, who were to overturn the British constitution, might not be able to read and write. Were they to ask the gaoler to write for them? Nothing could be more accordant with the interest

1285
even of the ministers who possessed this power of unlimited imprisonment, if they meant to exorcise it well, than to show the public that they had acted humanely, seeing no objection to inquiry, he should move, "That the petition of Thomas Evans be referred to a select committee."
Mr. Addington, in making a few observations on what had fallen from the hon. gentleman, would pass over the general topics on which he had touched, not from disrespect to the hon. gentleman, but because he was unwilling to occupy the time of the House longer than was absolutely necessary. Even if the hon. gentleman had not spoke in terms of so much praise, for which he felt grateful, of his noble relation and himself, he should have been the last person to suspect him of any personal hostility. He certainly could not, however, have expected complaints from him against his noble relation. As to the petition alleged to have been withheld from the House, he had proved to a demonstration, that it was not detained in the home-office. He had a receipt for it from Mr. Harmer, the solicitor for Mr. Evans. It was the only petition that ever came from him to the office. The other point which had been urged against the noble secretary was, that he ought to have been informed of the internal state of every prison. This, however, appeared an extraordinary assertion, that a secretary of state who was so ready to hear every complaint that might be sent to him, requiring a redress of grievances, should be compelled to make daily inquiries into the conduct of gaolers, and whether it was consistent with the orders prescribed to them? It was competent for the prisoner to make complaints, if his treatment had been improper, and the best answer to his own allegations was, that no complaint had ever been sent to the office. Pen, ink, and paper had never been refused to the prisoner, and if not able to write, he might have sent a verbal request by the gaoler; and the fact was, that Mr. Evans had actually sent one message to the office of the home department, by the gaoler of Coldbath prison, that his former petition should not be given to the members for Westminster, but to Mr. Harmer, his solicitor. Directions had been given to every gaoler to pay the strictest attention to the prisoners, and the secretary of state was ever open to their complaints.— Having thus exonerated the secretary of state from the clauses which had been
1286
brought against him, he felt it no less his duty to defend all other persons, gaolers and turnkeys, from the severe accusations hurled against them. To obtain every information on the subject, he had sent that morning for the gaoler, and made every necessary inquiry respecting the management of the prison. He learned that there was an unlimited allowance of coals, except in summer, when only a quantity was provided sufficient for culinary purposes. Candles, indeed, were issued under some restrictions, and only on special authority. Much stress had been laid on depriving Mr. Evans of his flute; it was, however, the rule of the prison not to allow music, as it disturbed others, but Mr. Evans might have had his flute if he did not make use of it.—The bed which Mr. Evans used was perfectly new, and of a better quality than those in common use in the prison; but if Mr. Evans were dissatisfied with this, he might have had his own bed and furniture. The sheriff of Surrey had, he understood, that day, visited the prison, in company with an hon. member with whom he (Mr. A.) had not the honour of being acquainted, but who, if then in the House, would no doubt state the circumstances which came to his knowledge. From every person who had an opportunity of observing the conduct of the gaoler, the most favourable report was made as to that officer's humanity and attention to his prisoners, but he could not be fairly condemned for enforcing the rules prescribed by the magistracy for the government of the prison, although the application of those rules, in the instance of ironing these state prisoners, must certainly be regretted. This rigor was, however, of very short duration; and he was assured, that so far from the prisoners feeling any resentment or prejudice against the gaoler, the whole four were willing, if afforded the opportunity, to testify their gratitude for his kind and benevolent treatment.
Mr. B. Shawsaid, that knowing formerly the treatment of the prisoners, the discipline of the gaol, and the conduct of the gaoler, he was surprised at the accounts that had gone abroad under the sanction of the petition. He had therefore made a point of going to the prison that morning, for the purpose of satisfying himself of the foundation of these accounts. He had seen and conversed with all the prisoners, who all concurred in stating that they had no complaints to

1287
make against the treatment they received at the hands of the gaoler or the magistrates. The elder Evans mentioned, that so far as his treatment in prison was concerned, he had no charge to make, but that liberty was sweet, and that no situation could be agreeable in which he was deprived of it. Pilkinson confirmed his testimony to the conduct of the gaoler, by declaring, that he was so far from complaining of any oppressive or harsh usage from the gaoler, that he regarded him with love and gratitude, as his friend and benefactor. The younger Evans had no complaint to make, except with regard to the supply of candle, and Ogden went even farther than the rest in giving his evidence to the kind behaviour of the gaoler; declaring, with tears in his eyes, that he should never forget the kindness which he had experienced from his hands.
Mr. Bennetnever accused the gaoler of harsh conduct or gratuitous severity, for he had never heard any thing of him but what was to his credit; but the question had no reference to the particular character of an individual, but to the general system of treating prisoners confined under the suspension act. The right hon. gentleman had contradicted no material fact of the petition but one—that regarding the refusal of pen, ink, and paper. This he had denied; but he believed the right hon. gentleman was mis-informed. The pleasure which the prisoners were said to enjoy in a fine view of the Surry hills was now given up. The next allegation was, that they were not supplied with light; and the defence set up against this charge was, that they were, so far as the rules of the prison would permit. The right hon. gentleman had spoken about an arcade in which they were allowed to walk; but, if he had himself gone, as he ought to have done, and examined this arcade, he would have found that it was merely a narrow passage, into which the doors of the prison cells opened. In all those cases the rules of the prison were thought a sufficient apology for the treatment these prisoners endured; but if ministers suspended the liberties of the people and threw men into prison on suspicion they ought to correct these rules so far a their treatment was concerned. If ministers proceeded with their new system o imprisoning, they should build new prisons, and not treat the victims of their power like the common disturbers of society.
Mr. Sumnerstated the prison to have been visited by three magistrates of the county, subsequent to the committal of the prisoners: Mr. Young and Mr. Laing were of the number. They visited the cells without any objection being made to their doing so. Evans complained of having been put in irons, which he said was grating to his feelings. He had been told this was contrary to the rule of the prison, unless it was ordered by the secretary of state. He (Mr. Sumner) had understood that the gaoler, as he was accustomed to put persons charged with felonies in irons, had conceived himself bound to take the same course with an individual who was charged with a still higher offence. The magistrates recommended the prisoner to present a memorial to the secretary of state; this was done, and the memorial immediately produced the desired effect. He bore testimony to the unexceptionable character of the gaoler. He described the dimensions of the prison; stated the prisoner to have been at liberty to send for his own furniture, and added, that this had formerly been done by Mr. L. Hunt, who was confined in the same apartment, and furnished as it was by him, he (Mr. S.) had never been in a more comfortable room in his life. Mr. Evans might have made it the same. With respect to fire, the prisoner had been restricted, not as to quantity, but as to time. If he had been deprived of his flute, other enjoyments were left to him. Pens, ink, and paper were allowed, and also books. He could not see that any blame attached to those by whom these matters were regulated.
Mr. Stuart Worthyhad never heard a charge more completely disproved than the present; nor had ever seen a case that appeared more completely trumped up to deceive the public, and to excite odium against the government. With regard to the petition which was alleged to have been sent to the secretary of state's office, and there detained, the person who had made such an accusation, or who authorized it to be made, must have known that he was advancing a direct falsehood. Mr. Evans himself could not have known whether his first petition was presented or not; but his solicitor, Mr. Harmer, who drew up the second, and who made the detention of the first one of its alleged acts of oppression, could not have been ignorant of the fact. He therefore must have been conscious, that in allowing that

1289
allegation to stand uncontradicted, he was authorizing a falsehood, for the purpose of exciting odium against the secretary of state, and creating an impression in the country against the government, by having a charge of this kind inserted in the newspapers, and giving it currrency for a few days without the chance of contradiction. He was sure that his hon. friend who presented the petition would not have countenanced such an attempt at delusion, had he suspected it. His hon. friend must have forgotten the circumstances, or have read the second representation very carelessly; otherwise, with this suspicious circumstance staring him in the face, he would not have allowed the House to be deceived, or the country to be excited. Had he not, therefore, a right to say that this petition was trumped up, not to complain of a grievance, but to propagate a delusion? The person who drew up this document knew that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act had excited a great deal of party heat in that House, and therefore played off this falsehood for the sake of effect, and with the intention of increasing the unpopularity of the measure. With regard to the irons, he had an equally good title to complain of an attempt at delusion. The irons, which it was the practice of the prison to put on all prisoners, were struck off as soon as a representation of the circumstance was made to the proper quarter. He saw no reason why they who were charged on oath with being guilty of crimes against the state should be more leniently dealt with than other persons confined for less offences; but allowing that they ought not to be so treated, why make such a complaint when immediate redress had been obtained, except for the purpose of creating unfavourable impressions? This was another evidence that the petition was trumped up for delusive ends. The charge brought against the prison for the small-ness of the rooms was equally destitute of foundation, and manifested the same spirit. He was at first disposed to consider the taking away the flute as a piece of cruelty; but he was reconciled to it when he heard it was the rule of the prison, and reflected that it might be troublesome to the other prisoners whose comforts should be consulted as much as that of Mr. Evans. If this rule could be dispensed with, however, he would think it better to do so, though the cruelty of the act had now been disproved. There was not a single al-
1290
legation that had not been sufficiently contradicted. With regard to the want of ground for walking, he thought that though the arcade removed some of the cause of complaint, the prisoners might be allowed to use the garden, if that indulgence could be permitted consistently with the safe custody of the prisoners. He made these observations because he had supported the suspension act, believing in his conscience that the measure was necessary for the safety of the constitution. It was true that the House should watch with care the exercise of a power so largely granted, but it should likewise guard against being made the vehicle of trumped up accusations and unfounded complaints.
Sir F. Burdettobserved, that the hon. gentleman who spoke last had declared, that he had voted for the suspension act from a love of the constitution—that was, from a love for the liberty of the subject; and yet, when a subject deprived of his liberty complained to that House of injustice and oppression, the hon. gentleman angrily deprecated his conduct, because the application for redress was not made to the very persons to whose system the complaint referred. He would vote for having the petition referred to a committee for the purpose of inquiry, because the statements in that petition presented prima facie grounds for parliamentary investigation; and he could not be dissuaded from thinking that such an investigation should take place, by any of the testimonies which the House had heard with respect to the character of the gaoler; for he could not forget, that when he formerly submitted charges of a similar nature against a person, he was met by the most confident assertions and the most lofty eulogiums upon the person to whom his charges referred. He would not impute any criminality to the gaoler of the prison in Horsemonger-lane, for he knew nothing of the man, therefore such an imputation would be neither fair nor liberal; but was it fair or liberal in the last speaker, to impute falsehood to a man in a dungeon? Was not such an imputation indeed utterly unwarrantable, while the hon. gentleman himself admitted that it was wantonly cruel to deprive this unfortunate prisoner of his flute? But to return to the complaint which he had on a former occasion brought forward with respect to the conduct of a gaoler, he felt strongly its analogy to the case under consideration, for

1291
he remembered that several gentlemen were found in that House to bear testimony in favour of that gaoler,—some indeed asserting, that his only fault was, truly, excessive humanity towards his prisoners. Such was the testimony in favour of Aris, of Coldbath-fields, of an honourable and religious member of that House—
Mr. S. Wortleyhere rose to order, observing, that the hon. baronet had on a former evening applied the same description to a member of that House, when it escaped notice; but he submitted that such a description was not correct or parliamentary.
The Speakersaid, that being appealed to, he must observe, that to describe any member in ironical terms was not consistent with parliamentary order; and the hon. baronet must be aware that such a mode of designation was not agreeable to the usual practice of the House.
Sir F. Burdettdid not mean to use the description objected to ironically, but distinctively, and in order to mark the character which was known to belong to the hon. member alluded to. That hon. member was, it would be recollected, among those who were imposed upon with regard to the character of Aris, and therefore testified to that which he presumed he would now be ready to admit was quite erroneous. Mr. Wilberforce Bird was one of the members of the committee to whom the complaints respecting Coldbath-fields were referred, and he recollected that hon. gentleman to have stated a fact with respect to Aris, which was quite equal, if not superior, in cruelty, to the old story of the destruction of the spider in the cell of a prisoner in the French Bastile. A prisoner who was confined for 13 or 14 months in a cell in Coldbath-fields, which was only S feet long—by 6 feet wide, was still loaded with irons. A robin, which had got into the cell through the grate, was the unhappy man's only companion and consolation. This robin was, indeed, so familiar, that it was not disturbed, or would not leave the cell, on the appearance of the turnkeys, who daily brought the prisoner his provisions. But Aris himself happening one day to accompany the person who delivered the pro-visions, he seized the poor robin and crushed it to death; and the prisoner declared in tears to Mr. Wilberforce Bird, that this event inflicted a more severe pang upon his feelings, than could have been produced by the death of all his relations. Such
1292
was the act of his "excessively humane gaoler" as some gentlemen in that House described him—as the magistrates of Middlesex indeed universally pronounced him, and yet those very magistrates found it necessary, some years afterwards, to dismiss this gaoler from his appointment, for most unworthy conduct, under suspicions indeed of the most heinous guilt. He could not, then, with such circumstances in his memory, be satisfied of the propriety of dismissing a prisoner's complaint merely upon testimonies to character from those who perhaps had no adequate opportunity of ascertaining the gaoler's real conduct. If the gentleman opposite were so fully convinced of his rectitude, why object to the appoinment of a committee? An intelligent observer of human nature had said "that the steel-hearted gaoler was seldom the friend of man." He would not say that the gaoler immediately alluded to deserved any censure, but he would maintain that there were sufficient grounds in the charges against him to call for inquiry. The right hon. gentleman had emphatically observed, that no prisoner wa6 precluded the liberty of complaining; but what availed that privilege, if prisoners were to be condemned for complaining to any but those with whom the cause of their complaint originated. The petitioner had been now above five months in custody, precluded from the due enjoyment of air and exercise, and surely such a case deserved the humane consideration of the House. All legal, equitable, and humane authorities had protested against any degree of rigour, as unnecessary for safe custody with regard to prisoners, especially before trial and conviction. Why, then, should any unnecessary rigour be practised towards these state prisoners? If ministers wished to remove suspicions, and not to excite disaffection, there were no means so efficient for both as by agreeing to the present motion.
Lord Castlereaghsubmitted to the House, whether this case was one into which it was incumbent on them to institute an inquiry. To allege, that individuals in the unfortunate circumstances of the petitioner, were exposed to the possibility of hardship, was rather an argument against the suspension bill itself, than an inducement for going into this committee. He admitted, that persons confined under the powers of that act ought to be treated with all the indulgence that was consistent with their situation; but the reasons urged

1293
for referring the petition to a committee would be an argument for adopting the same course in each individual case. He did not deny that circumstances had arisen in the course of this discussion which would lead to a correction of the evil; and the presumption was, that whenever an abuse did exist, it would not be long before it came to the knowledge of government; who, he could assure the House, would be disposed to pay the utmost attention to it.
The motion was negatived.