On this page
- Departments (1)
-
Text (5)
-
Jo* 36, 1851. THE NORTHERN STAR _^ 7
-
EXTRAORDINARY DISAPPEARANCE. —THE YlTE A...
-
PoUCEjIxnUSIRIAL, A3SP OTHER STATISTICS ...
-
tmuertal aiarTtam-mf
-
SATURDAY, Jolt 19. DOUSE OP C0MMONS.-The...
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Execution Of The Belgian Count Boca11me....
- . jjgjpg somewhat nervous , was hurried in his « ner he said , « ' Ifot so fast , there is time aazh " and an mstant afterwards , " Slacken *? - - fbong ; so much precaution is not needed . " ^ preparation being completed , he regarded the f nifc for a moment , with a look of mingled curiosity and astoni shment , and then laid his head on the -nshion . The executioner gave the signal , a dull tgavv sound was heard , and , Hippolyte Bocarme , vfljng suffered the judgment of man , passed to iis presence of his God .
Jo* 36, 1851. The Northern Star _^ 7
Jo * 36 , 1851 . THE NORTHERN STAR _^ 7
Extraordinary Disappearance. —The Ylte A...
EXTRAORDINARY DISAPPEARANCE . —THE YlTE ALLEGED MURDER A 2 CD MUTILATIOX 5 EAR 50 RV 7 ICIL
On Monday Sergeant George Quinnear , an active c gcer belonging to the P division of police , accomp anied by Mrs . Elizabeth Eaucett , tbe wife of a mechanic residing at Xo . 16 , Alfred-place , Old Kent-road , attended at the Lambeth Police-office , jefore tbe lion . G . C . Sorton , and made the followin" very singular statement : " lie ( Q . cissEin ) said that at the heginning of last jBtmth a painter , named Simon Richard " Goucb , vas employed at the mansion of Baron De Goldcaid , on Somer-hill , Tunbridge , and having represented himself as a single man , had offered marxaisc to Ann Bailey , a housemaid in the establishment of the baron . The young woman harin ° r no reason to doubt his professions , aM believing also
that he was a single man , consented to become his wife , and having given regular notice of her intention left her service on the 6 th of June for London , taking with her her boxes , & c , and -was accompanied hy Gouch , On the 9 th or 10 th of June the father of the youmg woman , Bailey , and the father , also , of Mrs . Faucett then present , received at his residence at Uewcastle-upon-Tyne a letter from Gouch , in which he stated that he had married his daughter , and that they were living very happily at 50 . 33 , William-street , Uampstead-road . This letter Mr . Bailey forwarded to tbe wife of Gouch , « ho was then Jiving in Walworth : and she , on receipt of it , at once proceeded to 33 , William-street , JJampstead-rond , and having ascertained that a person answering tbe description of her husband , a nd a young female , who represented herself to be his wife , were lodging there , she rushed into the ap artment while the parties were at breakfast .
gome high words were heard to pass between , the parties , and immediately after Gouch came down stairs , and informed the landlady that , iu consequ ence of the unexpected death of his uncle , he must leave the house at once , and having paid the rent due , he , accompanied by two females , went a ** rav , taking with them a number of boxes and ot her articles they brought there . From inquiries jjudo b y him { Q-inuear , ) he had ascertained that c a the same day Mrs . Gouch returned to her lodgjpgs in Aun ' s-terrace , Walworth , with a female who answered the description of Ann Bailey , and at once sent for Mr . Dicker , hroker , to whom she sol d ihe whole of her goods , with the exception of one box and a few paintings . These latter articles she had carried into the Walworth-road , and stopped a cab , and had them placed on the top of that vehicle ; she then got into the vehicle with the young woman , and from that moment all trace was lost of them as well as Gouch himself . Find *
ing that Gouch s father , who is a Baptist minister , resided hut a short distance from ^ Norwich ; that Gouch himself had served his apprenticeship in that city , and that Mrs . Gouch was also a native of that place , he ( Quinnear ) had made inquiries at the Eastern Counties Railway , with the view of ascertaining if such persons had proceeded to Norwich about that time ; but so great had been the traffic occasioned by the Exhibition that he could got no trace of them beyond tbe fact that on the day In question 3 s . fid . had been received for luggage to Norwich , and this would he about the amount that would be paid for the conveyance . Oae of the parties also informed him that he had observed a large deal box , painted red , amongst the
yorwich luggage , and the young woman ( Bailey ) had a precisely similar box painted red . Quinnear added that , in consequence of the strongly-expressed opinion of Mrs . Faucett that the mutilated remains of a female body , found in the vicinity of 5 oTwicb , were those of her sister Ann , Mr . Bobinso * -, tt \ e superintendent , had correspondence With Mr . P . M . Yarrington , tho Commissioner of Police atXorwich , the result of which was , that though the most dilligent search had been made for Gouch , Ms wife , and the young woman Bailey , not the slightest traces of them could be discovered . An application was made to Mr . Gouch , who is repressnied to be a highly respectable man , and he declared that the last time he heard of his son was
in April last , and had not seen him a long time before or since . With respect to the parts of tbe human body found , belonging- to a person supposed to have been murdered , and to he that of a female between the age of fifteen and sixteen , it was perfectly impossible to identify them . Mr . Sorto . v remarked that there was one part of the statement which he could not understand , and that was , how the father of the young woman came to Know that Gouch was a married man , and where to send letters to his wife ? Mrs . Faucett replied , that on discovering that her sister had left her situation , she and her husband had caused inquiries to be made about Gouch , the person she -went a-way with , and the result -was that thev discovered him to be a married man , and that his wife resided at No . 3 , Ann's-terrace , Walworth . _ The circumstances sheat ^ mce communicated to her father , and the latter lost no time in forwardin-r to his wife the letter of her husband .
Mr . Xobton said , that this was a satisfactory explanation of that part ofthe case , and asked Mrs . Faucett what her reasons were for thinking that the portions of body found at Norwich were these of her sister ? Mrs . Faucett replied , that the instant she read the account in the newspapers of tbe finding ofthe portions of tbe body a cold thrill passed through her , and she them and still felt conscious that they belonged to the murdered remains of her sister . Besides , all the members of her family were seized ¦ with a similar feeling , and were equally confident ** ' sih herself that her unfortunate sister had met ~ i th an untimely end , and that her body had been tut up and distributed about to preventrecognition . She added , that Gouch was a profligate , bad fellow , aud that her sister was not the first by many whom is bad seduced .
Sr . Norton admitted the ca ^ e was one of strong SHpicion , and he knew of no better way of bringing bli ght , in the event of its having been committed , tie serious offence alluded to , than the publication tf the statement made by the officer , and a description of tbe missing parties , and from the willingness * Mcb he ( Mr . Norton ) had always seen evinced by Re public press to afford the most ample assistance to promote the ends of public justice , he had no tot that that assistance would be accorded on the present occasion .
Conch is described as about thirty years of age , tall , and genteel in appearance , dark hair , with a spot of white or grey hair at top . No whiskers , fcd rather well-dressed . Mrs . Gouch is thirty-five Tears of age , light hair and complexion , and rather Sort and thin ; and Ann Bailey is described as king twenty-four years of age , tall , stout , and san ds erect ; is good-looking , witbTa prominence -a front of her throat , dark hair , and hazel eyes , and had lost several teeth from the front part of the --Ppefja * - ! .
Poucejixnusirial, A3sp Other Statistics ...
PoUCEjIxnUSIRIAL , A 3 SP OTHER STATISTICS OP MAXC 8 ESTER . —The annual report of Captain Willis , the Ciief Constable of Manchester , has } ust heen pnb » lished , containing , as usual , some elaborate and feefnl tables , which , besides showing the activity tf the police , g ' ve a good idea of the progress of tie borough in population , in material wealth and fa rces . By this return H appears that the popaistion Las risen from 235 , 507 in 1 S 41 to 803 , 353 f 1351 ; and the gross number of habitable houses » s increased from 44482 io 53 , 697 . One happy jf-jtoe of this part of tbe return is that the in-J ? oitants living in cellars have diminished fr < 9 m -j # 24 in lSil to 20 " , 399 in ! 851 . The annual value ** , " * propertv has increased in the same time from « jl $ U to . £ 1 , 204 . 21 ] . The gross number of all Ssis
^ 'wr- now 53 , 385 , of which 103 are cotton a ! p , 7 silk mills , 3 worsted mills , IS smallware rv - Sprint works , 35 dve works , 15 hatmanufac-* - » ,-J 9 machinists , 35 foundries , i lead works , 3 pir w orks , 27 saw mills , 11 corn mills , 775 work-• j 0 ?* . 1 , 619 warehouses , 6 , 262 shops , 109 places of ,, ?• % » , 413 pubUc and private schools , 12 hanks , ; - « n » ket s , 2 theatres , 7 railway stations , 3 public ^ oases , 5 infirmaries and hospitals , U public Rations , 33 public oaildings , 53 livery stables , •' ureweri ^ 121 slaughter-houses , and 511 bmldj » » used as offices . The total new buildings withj-u -a ? t year were 1 , 556—comprising 2 cotton i t ^ sa wmiilf . ; 21 workshops , 11 warehouse . * , £ * dteehmgs , us shops , 8 churches and JUT ' atu and washbouse , 3 breweries , and « -iooU . The total number of reputed thieves -- ' 01 D » ;_ v „ i , .. . ¦ ¦¦ ; . *! Unnlo ' ini nf ¦ lMUUiii WilUIU
, „ Jj , > " » " 1 C I' - LUC auu ^ isugu v . i-j .. ? , ee ! s 305 ; and 267 persons known ocea-Jj ^ ? to steal . Houses where thieves resort 23 i ; r- for the reception of stolen property , 141 . ^ lt rr of : n ^ Fbiesds o ? ItalT . —Under this Nn t " * - on nas beer , established in London , C lithe following objects in view : "By public -Cm Iecturea i ano- the press—aud especially hy iaj . j ?| opportunities to the most competent t -fvl f , for the publication of works onthehis-* > - ' tne Italian national movement—to promote a
t-. ! it -a Pprecia . tionofthe Italian question of this *** ti ?' rt uss every ava * , ao ! e constitutional 'Tf-M . . ' - * e tbe cause of Italian national in' - co-i ° e n P ^ iatncnt . And generally to aid , ih ' " - . - " ^ , | ? : - - -he cauje of the independence , and of M- ' . ! lea - at'd reli gious liberty of the Italian l -:- ;' . l ' ^ ,- ^ d persons " Etrrei-ing with ihe objects ! -. ; . " .- ' * * - : iT'i' 0 le eliiihle us members , on en-- " - •¦•! £ : " jSr - ' ' -Kes ? . Ld raving a small annual snb-« -vn . • °
Tmuertal Aiarttam-Mf
tmuertal aiarTtam-mf
Saturday, Jolt 19. Douse Op C0mmons.-The...
SATURDAY Jolt 19 . DOUSE OP C 0 MMONS .-The house sat at twelve o ' clock . Tho National Land Company ' s "Winding-up Bill was read a third time and passed . On receiving the report of the Committee Of Supply , Sir B . Hall , with reference to an item in the civil contingencies of £ 2 , S 44 for the funeral of the late Queen Dowager , which included a fee to the Dean and Chapter of Windsor for interment in the vault , asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could state what was the amount of the 1 fee paid to the Dean and Chapter ? The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied , that the fee was £ 220 , not £ 1 , 00 ( 5 , as bad been supposed bv Sir Benjamin on the previous night .
Sir B . IIall animadverted in strong terms upon what he characterised as extortion on the part of a body possessina ; a revenue of £ 53 , 000 a year . Tbo taking a fee of £ 220 , which was to come out of the taxes ofthe people , for such , a purpose , he thought disgraceful to the Dean and Chapter . The Chaxcellor of the Exchequer commented upon the exnggeration of which Sir Benjamin had been guilty in magnifying £ 220 into £ 1 , 000 . Mr . GlaBSTOSE likewise accused Sir B . Hall ot want of accuracy as . well as of candour in holding up the superior clergy to public reprobation without giving notice of his intended attacks , and confounding the innocent with the guilty . ' Some of the canons had limited incomes , and , therefore , had no interest in this alleged extortion . Mr . Gladstone took this occasion of calling attention to the legal disabilities of the colonial bishops , clergy , and laity
in communion with tbe Church of England in regard to maki ng provision for tbeir internal religious concerns , inasmuch as they had neither the powers appertaining to the established church at home , nor the freedom of voluntary societies . He hoped the government would next session take up this question ; but , if they were not disposed to take the matter in hand , it was his intention to propose to Parliament in the outset of the ensuing session some enabling bill which would give the clergj and laity ofthe Church of England in the colonies that freedom ( subject or not to reservations ) which in substance every other religious community enjoyed . Sir D . L . Evass protested against the extension of the episcopate in our transmarine possessions , by the appointment of colonial bishops , who obtained money out of the resources ofthe empire , calling themselves " Lords , " and wrangling for precedence with Roman Catholic bishops .
Colonel Sibihobf , though a sincere supporter of the established church , thought this practice of demanding fees for tbe interment of a member of the royal family more honoured in the breach than the observance . Mr . W . Williams considered that it would ha a disgrace to the church , to the government , and to the house if this sum were allowed to be paid out of the pockets of the people . Mr . Christopher defended the Hon . and Bev . Mr . Gust , one of the canons of Windsor , who had been described by Sir B . Hall as a pluralist" and protested against members of that house coming forward and vilifying the clergy without ascertaining the facts of the case . Sir B . Ham . justified what he had asserted . Colonel Sawlet censured tbe Dean and Chapter with relation to the Military Kni ghts of Windsor . Mr . Rbtsolds approved ofthe proceeding of Sir B . Hall ; and
Mr . Hawes stated that it was not the present intention of the government to bring forward any measure of the nature " indicated hy Mr . Gladstone . The report having heen brought up , Mr . W . Williams moved the disallowance of the £ 220 ; but this motion was negatived on a division by 37 to 29 . " Sir G . Pecheix called attention to the case ofthe surviving officer ? , seamen , and marines who Were present at the successful action between four English frigates , under Commodore G . Moore , aud
tour Spanish frigates , in 1804 , whose claims for naval medals had been rejected . Sir P . Baking said the Admiralty had laid down certain rules , and had appointed a committee of experienced officers to consider the claims and services of par ties , and the house , he thought , would not act wisely if it interfered with their decision . Ail the other orders appointed for the day were gone through , aud Lord Seymour introduced a bill to confirm certain provisional orders of the General Board of Health , after which the house adjourned .
MONDAY , Jul * 21 . HOUSE OF LORDS . —Papal Bill . —The second reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill-was moved by The Marquis of IiAxsnowNE , who briefly recapitulated the circumstances that had caused the measure to be drawn up- The establishment of a catholic hierarchy was an insult to . the crown , and an invasion of the religious liberties of Great Britain . Some measure of repression then became necessary , and tbe bill now before them , was , he contended , sufficient to provide a protection against an encroachment and a protest against insult , while it was so framed as not to endanger any infringment upon the spiritual action of the catholic church .
The Earl of Aberdeen , at great length criticised the bill . He contended that an hierarchy was an essential element in the ecclesiastical organisation of the catholic church , and would occasion no injury to the Protestant establishment . On the other hand he maintained that the measure was both inefficient and persecuting , and concluded by moving as an amendment , that the bill be read a second time that day six months . Lord Beauuost supported the second reading . The Duke of Weixi- vgios regretted the necessity of violating the enactments of the . Emancipation Act . But after the recent aggression of the Papacy some measure of protection musfbe provided to secure the national liberties as based upon the reformation . He accepted the present bill . The Earl of Malmesbury , LordBerners , the Duke of Argyll , Lord Airlie , and the Bishop of St . David ' s successively supported the bill , and the debate being adjourned to Tuesday , their lordships rose at half-past twelve o ' clock .
HOUSE of COMMONS . —On the first order of the day , " Further Proceeding on Administering the Oath of Abjuration to David Salomons , Esq ., ' The Speakee said , before the house proceeds I wish to read a letter which I have received from Mr . Salomons , It runs thus : 91 , Cumberland-place , July 21 . Sib , —I take the liberty to call your attention _ to a very important omission iu the record ofthe proceedings of the Home of Commons on Friday last of all notice of my demand to subscribe the oath of abjuration , and to declare to my property qualification . Immediately after I had
taken the oaths 1 read from a paper which I held in my hand the following words : — 'I have now taken the oaths in the form and with the ceremonies that 1 declare to be binding on my conscience , in accordance with the statute I and 2 Victoria , cap . 105 . I now demand to subscribe the oath of abjuration , and to declare to my property qualification . ' So notice has been taken on the proceedings above referred to of my hating made this demand . You xrill therelore . I am sure , sir , pardon me for drawing your attention totbe subject , aud respectfully requesting that the minutes ofthe proceedings of Friday last be amended . With the utmost respect , I have the honour to be , sir ,
Your most obedient and humble servant , David Salomons . I ou ° htto state to the house , thtvt these proceed * ings on Friday were very carefully prepared for printing . Most of that which the hon . member for Greenwich said was perfectly inaudible in this immediate part of the house ; but it appeared distinctl y to me that after the hon . gentleman had omitted the words " on the trae faith of a Christian " and . the clerk at the table having reported that ' omission to me , I had ordered the hon . gentleman to withdraw , it w .-. s the hon . gentleman ' s duty thereupon to withdraw- ( hear , hear)—and , not having so withdrawn , any . statement subsequently made in the house by the hon . gentleman was not before the house , and had no claim to be placed on the records of the house . ( Hearhear . )
, Sir B . Halt , then repeated the question he had put on Friday , observing that Alderman Salomons , desirous of carrying out tbe wishes of his constituentSj and properly to meet the question , without putting the houee -to unnecessary inconvenience , was resolved , ass far as lay in his power , to take his seat as a member of the Legislature , and , as he bad certainly taken a seat witfiin tbe bar , he ( Sir Benjamin ) again inquired whether the government intended to direct the Attorney-General to prosecute Mr . Salomons , in order to bring tbe question fairly tO issue . The hon .. alderman was read y , if necessary , to take the further step of voting . Lord J . Russbli . replied that the government were not at present disposed to think that they ought to prosecute .
Sir B . Hau then said , hitherto Alderman Salomons had acted fairly towards the house , without subterfuge . In consequence of the noble lord ' s answer , the only course for him now was to come within the house and take his seat . Mr . Alderman Salomons thereupon left his seat on the peers' bench , behind the bar , entered the house , aud seated himself beside Sir W . Moles-The Speaker requested him to withdraw ; but he retained his seat amid vehement cries of " "Withdraw " The Speaker said , if the hon . member refused to obey his order , it was for the house to support h , Lord J ItcssEii , in ord er to support the chair , moved Itot Mr . Alderman Salomons be ordered to withdraw from the house .
Mr Osborne moved , by way of amendment , "That David Salomons , Esq ., having been returned M a member for the boroog h of Greenwich , and llrl " kon the oaths required by law m % » - ¦•« - hjndiiiii upon his coi-soiaicc , is entitled to t-ike his seat in this house . " ^ v , „ M , aVsiev attempted to address the house .
Saturday, Jolt 19. Douse Op C0mmons.-The...
which was in some ferment , but , being unable to procure a hearing , moved an adjournment . Upon a division , this motion was rejected hy a large majority . Mr . M . Gibson put certain questions to the Speaker , as to whether the sense of the house upon the Oath of Abjuration had been taken this session and whether a resolution of the house last session in relation to another case , was binding in the present case ; but Lord J . Russell objected to the Chair being thus interrogated , observing that the house had resolved not
last session that the Baron de Rothschild could sit in that house " until he had taken the Oath of Abjuration in the form required hy law . " Mr . Anstev entered very copiously into the technicalities ofthe question , and called upon the house to do justice by admitting the hon . member for Greenwich , because , first , tho act 1 st and 2 nd Victoria had p laced Jews in all respects on a footing of perfect equality with others in the matter of oaths ; secondly , the oath was not a lawful oath , and the house had no authority to impose it ; and thirdly , assuming its legality , he bad taken the oath in the form prescribed by law .
Mr . Hobhouse considered that grave difficulties might occur if Mr . Salomons should bo required to withdraw . Any person elected to a seat in that house might sit and vote : at the risk of incurring penalties , Minors , had sat in tho house , and ne cautioned the Speaker not to expose himself to penalties , since a court of law might take a different view of the question . The Aitor !* ev-Ges-eral said , the question appeared to him to be a very simple one . The Act of Parliament positively and peremptorily prohibited any member , until he had taken certain oaths ( including the oath of abjuration ) , from sitting and voting in parliament . The house was not to allow a person to take upon himself the risk of the penalties ; it was a matter within its exclusive
jurisdiction , and if a member declined to take the oaths in the manner required by law it was tho duty of the house not only to obey the law , but to enforce it . Some had contended that Mr . Salomons had taken the oath ; but . upon that point the house came to a solemn "decision last year . He admitted that the exclusion of Jews from the house was a mere accident in legislation , and that it was a disgrace to our statute book ; at the same time , the house , acting in a judicial capacity , had but one duty tO perform—to administer the law as it is . Mr , M . Gibson observed that the house was placed in a position of more than ordinary difficulty by the discord of legal opinions , the law officers of
the Crown differing from eaeh other , and the chief law officer of a former government heing at direct issue with both . There might be embarrassments m the question , but as exclusion would be a penalty not only upon Mr . Solomons , but upon the constituency which had returned him , he should have the benefit of the doubt . Putting the only reasonable construction upon the state of the law , he came to the conclusion that , under the statute of Victoria , the house would be justified in allowing a Jew to omit the words " upon the true faith of a Christian . " At all events , the law was not sufficientl y clear to enable him to pronounce a deliberate opinion that Mr . Salomons was not entitled to sit in that house .
Tbo Solicitor-General explained and justified the course he had taken in the case of Baron de Rothschild . He did- not acquiesce in the decision of the house in that case ; but , that being a judicial and binding decision , if the oath of abjuration had not been taken as that decision required it to be taken , and there being a mandatory clause in an Act of Parliament , the simple corollary was , that the house could not permit Mr . Salomons to sit there . Mr . Clvi thought it would be better to declare at once that the house hnd the power and the will to admit the hon . member for Greenwich to the rights which his constituents had given him . Mr : c . viLLiEKssaid , Mr , Salomons having taken the oath essentially , omitting words not essential ,
and being still excluded , the people could come to no other conclusion than that the house acted from base and ungenerous feelings . Lord J . Russell said , he had been prevented from moving a resolution by the entrance of Mr . Salomons into the house , which had compelled him to call upon the house to support the Chair . The question , therefore , simply was , whether or not Mr . Salomons should be required to withdraw—a question upon which there ought to be no doubt ; for even those who consideredthe resolution of last year erroneous might say , ¦¦ Let us respect it as long as it exists . " He acknowledged that he thought the state of the law most unsatisfactory ; that the words , " upon the true faith of a Christian , " were formal only , and were so treated in the case of Quakers , ; yet the same words , in the cased Jews , were considered as not of form but of
substance , which was an unjust distinction . Mr . Bethell said , in his opinion , by the common statute law , as well as by the solutions of the house , the oath of abjuration had been well and legally taken by Mr . Salomons , and that tbe house had no authority to" require him to withdraw . A member was entitled to require the oath to be administered to him , and the house was bound to administer the oath , according to law , which prescribed that it should be administered in a manner binding upon the member ' s conscience . This latter principle applied to aiiy particular set of words contained in the oath : and Mr . Bethell , in an elaborate argument , endeavoured to show that , whether the words in question were , as he thought , only the sanction of the oath , or a part of the eath , the manner in which Mr . Salomons had taken the oath , having . been permitted to take it upon the Old Testament , satisfied . the law .
Sir F . Thesiobr took an entirely opposite view of tbe law , though he agreed with the hon . member that tbe house had brought itself into a difficulty by allowing the oath to be taken on the Old Testament . If Mr . Bethell had proved that the words in question were of form , and not of substance , be would undoubtedly have demonstrated that , inasmuch as every person should take an oath 'in the form binding upon his conscience he might omit these words . Sir Frederick , however , argued that these words were not a formula ; and he urged tho absurd consequences of allowing persons , on the ground of scruples , to omit words in an oath which were part of its substance . Mr . Alderman Salomons , in his opinion , had been contumacious , nnd , having disobeyed the orders of the house , he should have been prepared to concur in a vote that he be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms . The noble lord had taken a milder course , and he assented to his motion . '
Mr . Aglionbv opposed , the motion , considering Mr . Bethell ' s argument unanswered and unanswerable . Sir R . Ikglis thought the course proposed by Lord J . Russell was most consistent with the dignity ofthe house and with the requirements of the case . Mr . Bsiobt observed that the amendment , which went to the rescission ofihe resolution of last year , opened the whole question , which the house could look at in two modes—as a question of law , nnd a
question of precedent . He declined to discuss the first . In the precedent of Mr . Pease more had been done than was asked in this case , for the house then altered , not only the form , but the very substance ofthe oaths , With this precedent might not the house , in a case of doubt , lay aside the strict interpretation of the law ? With regard to the oaths altocether they were unworthy of feasible men , and he hoped to see a clean sweep of them . Mr . Newdkoatb charged Mr . Alderman Salomons with an audacious violation of the orders of the house .
Mr . J . Evans observed it would be wise in the house , when about to come to a decision which might bring it into collision with a constituency , to see that its decision was well founded . An oath consisted of a promise and an adjuration ; the latter could be altered , though not the former , and the words in question were merely adjudicatory . Colonel Thompson denied that the framers of tbe oath intended to do moro than exclude the
Pretender . Mr . Chowder said , the real question was whether Mr . Salomons had taken the oath of abjuration . It was impossible for the house to decide this question , which was a question of law , except as judges . He had no legal doubt upon the subject ; he could come to no other conclusion than that Mr . Salomons bad not taken that oath , and he supported his conclusion by a reference to , the statutes and the resolution ot the house . Where the terms of an oath were prescribed by law they COuld not he altered without an act of parliament . Mr . Muntz adhered to his opinion that , while Jews were allowed to enjoy so many other privileges they ought not to _ be excluded from Parliament .
Mr . J . A . Smith said , be bad been requested by the hon . member for Greenwich to state that he had voted upon tbe last division , but , as the present question was personal to himself , he should retire , and not vote ; but that by his retirement he did not abandou one tittle of his rights . Upon a division the amendment was negatived by 229 against 81 . Mr . Assist moved that the debate ( upon the original motion ) be adjourned . Lord Jons Kcsskll opposed this motion , and , stating that he should defer the resolution ho intended to propose until Tuesday , referred to the precedent of Sir W . Wyndbam , who , an undoubted member of the house , having refused to withdraw , the house upon a division determined that lie should withdraw , and he withdrew accordingly , Of course , if Mr , Salomons would not obey the orders of the house other measures must be taken .
Alter some remarks from Sir B . Hall and Mr . Hobhouse , who called upon Mr . Salomons to state the course he ' mcai . t to pursue , Mr . Aldprjnnii { mlomo . vs ro . * -, aud , disclaiming any intention to indul g * in anything that mig ht appear contumacious or presumptuous , said that ,
Saturday, Jolt 19. Douse Op C0mmons.-The...
having been returned by a large constituency and belimng that he had fulfilled all the requirements 01 tneiaw , he had thought that he should not be +, ?™ f « ? r u !? , his 0 wn position and to his constituents it he did not adopt the course he had taken in uelenco of their ri ghts . Whatever , he added , migtit De the decision of the house , he should abide oLlll IP l 1 d efficient was done to make it appear that ho retired under coercion . He trusted that in tho doubtful state of the law , no anal resolution would be adopted against him witnout affording him an opportunity of being Mr . Brig ht and Sir D . Evans pressed theajournment of the debate . Lord J Russell did not think it possible , after the Speaker had ordered Mr . Salomons to withdraw , and had appealed to the house to support him , that the h 0 use coul ( 1 mami t ^ * ^ debate . J
Mr . Osborne advised Mr . Salomons to keep his seat until he should he taken into custody . A division then took place—first , on-the question of adjournment , which was negatived bv 237 against , 7 a ; then on-the iiwin question—the motion ot Lord J . Russell—which was affirmed -by 231 against SI . ' The Spkarkr then directed the Sergeant to remove Mr . Salomons ( wiio imd persisted in retaining hl 8 SOat ) , and he accordingly laid his hand upon the shoulder of tho lion . Alderman , who immediately rose and retired . Mr . Brigh t inquired of the noble lord what was the resolution he intended to move this day ? Lord J . Russell replied that it would be exactly similar to that which the house had adopted in the case of Baron de Rothschild . Sir F . Thesiokr stated that he should not move , as he had intended , the issue of a new writ .
Mr . Osborne inquired if die government intended to prosecute Mr . Salomons ? Lord 3 . Russell replied , if Mr . Salomons wished to be prosecuted , he would have no difficulty in finding somebody to do it . The house then proceeded to the other orders of the day , which wero not got through until a quarter to two o ' clock , when it adjourned . .
TUESDAY , Julv 22 . HOUSE OP LORDS . —Papal Bill . — The adjourned debate on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was resumed by , . The Earl of Wixchelsea , who enforced the necessity which had devolved upon the British legislature to provide a safeguard against encroachment upon our Protestant liberties . lie denounced the aggressive tendencies andiboundless ambition ofthe papacy , and while characterizing the measure now provided as being paltry and inefficient , intimated his assent to the second reading , since a better could not be had .
Lord Lvndhubst remarked upon the insult that was inflicted on the Church of England by the assumption of territorial titles for Catholic prelates . Believing that the encroachment would not stop there , and anticipating if it were left unrepressed a prolonged and perilous struggle , he supported the bill ' on the maxim of prin ipiis o ' bsta . Lord Vatjx and the Earl of Wicklow opposed the bill . The Duke of Newcastle referred to the principle of toleration inaugurated by the Emancipation Act , which he wished to preserve from infringement . As
an hierarchy was essential to the free action ofthe Catholic Church , . we must , to be consistent , either recur to the repressive system of 1791 , or give full scope to the tolerant doctrines of 1829 . He denied that the royal dignity was invaded by the Papal Act , and did not concede our right to interfere to forbid a titular change among the members of a church over which no authority was claimed by the British Sovereign . Tbe Marquis of Clanricardk offered various arguments in support of the bill , and reminded those who objected to some of its details that the choice , at this period of the session , lay between the measure now before them or none .
Lord Monteaolb , m opposing the bill , denounced its uncertainty . No one knew how much or how little it would do ; When it would begin or when it would end . He saw many symptoms of renewed agitation and possible disturbance to be apprehended in Ireland if it were passed . The Lord Chancellor defended the bill , and explained its legal import and consequences . The Earl of St . Germans opposed the bill . After a few words of personal explanation from Earl Minto ,
_ Earl Piizwilliam expressed qualified approbation of the measure ; as did also the Earl of Habd-WICKE . The Marquis of Lansdownb replied ; and their lordships divided on the second reading . Contents : Present 146 Proxies 119-265 Non-contents : Present ... 26 Proxies ... 12—38 Majority : 227 The house rose at four o ' clock . HOUSE OF COMMONS . —Thk » Case , of Ernest Charles Joses . —On the motion for receiving the report of tbe Committee of Ways and Means ,
Lord D . Stuart rose to call the attention of the house to the case of Ernest Charles Jones , as stated in his petition presented to this house on the 26 th May last , and to move for copies of all rules and regulations which at any time from the year 1840 to the present have been iu force within the several prisons in England and Wales , so far as they maj affect prisoners convicted of political offences . He said it was the duty of a member of that house to bring forward any case of oppression that came to his knowledge . Mr . E . C . Jones had appealed to him to bring forward his case , and he felt it his duty to do so . Owing to the curtailment of the motion days , he had been compelled unwillingly to bring itforward as an'amendment on a government
motion . Mr . Jones had done all in his power to have the case investigated earlier . He had been discharged from prison late last summer ; and owing to the indisposition of himself and one of the members for Westminster the case had not been brought for * ward earlier . Mr . Jones was a barrister , a man t f considerable literary attainments , and the author of several works in prose and verse . His father , Major Jones , was equerry to the Duke of Cumberland , now King of Hanover . In 1848 Mr . Jones , had been tried for a political offence , delivering a seditious speech , and sentenced to two years' imprisonment in Tothiil Fields Prison , He did not complain of this , but ' of the treatment to which he had been subjected in prison . In answer to the allegations in . Mr . - Jones ' s petition , the prison authorities
admitted , that he was placed in separate confinement on the silent system , was employed in oakum picking , wore the prison dress , was not allowed the use of aknifeand fork , and only had visits from his friends eleven times during the whole period . After , the first three months he had been prevented writing to his friends , ' even to his wife , and had / only heen allowed to write fourteen letters altogether . Towards tho close of the period he was debarred the use of pen and ink , and was not' allowed to write , to , the judge as to the carrying out of his sentence , nor to see his solicitor . This was contrary to the act of parliament ; and to the rules of the prison . He was called upon to pick OakUH ) , and did so at first on his refusal he -raa placed in
a cell for four days on bread and watei- ; and on a subsequent refusal ho was there placed for six days . This was admitted bythi- governor ; arid the magistrates , in giving that ord « r , had Violated the act of parliament , which gave them rio ' authority to confine a prisoner on bread and water ; 'The governor had this " authority for . three days , but not for a longer period ; consequently the order to confine him for four days on bread and water was ' " ' illegal , ' Sliarpe and Williams , who were placed in solitary confinement on "the same day as . Mr . Jones , who died in less than a' week ; and ai ; the inquest the jury commented on the severity used towards them , and recommended that prisoners should not be subjected to such treatment at that time
when the cholera was raging . Mr . Jones suffered in his health , and it was doubtful whether he ' would ever recover from tbe effects of this treatment . The surgeon of the prison , while denying his illhealth , admitted that he had been fifteen wei'ks and two days in the infirm ary , when he was suffer , ing from chronic inflammation of the eyelids . The surgeon admitted that he lost nearl y a stone ; ami Mr . Perring , the medical inspector , said he lost fourteen pounds in five weeks . Mri Jbiies had written to several members of Parliament to come and visit him ; the governor ordered him to desist . This was now denied , but it was cnoablo of substantiation by the production of the governor ' s letter . He complained of having to .. wash in the
open air ; and this Was substantially- ' correct , though in part denied by the governor , ' lie ( Lord D . Stuart ) had examined the place , and found Mr . Jones ' s statement correct , fie found the prison arrangements open to various objections not involved in this case ; there were no flues , nor any artificial means of warming tho prison , which presented ill that respect a great contrast to the Pontonville Prison and the House of Detention , The governor in his report to the magistrates had alleged that the political prisoners , in their interviews with relatives and their correspondence , evinced a determination to repeat their oft ' onnes .. He ( Lord P .
Stuart ) had seen all the letters written i . v Mr . Jones , nnd found in thc-m nothing whatever indicating an intention to act , improperly . He had yit to learn that it was an offence , to oppose the government , or to induce others to do so . The sp irit of tko . governor ' s report showed very lirtle leniencv or candour . Tho general feeling , was in favour of a distinction between political prisoners and others ; for no one could bo brought to believe that their offences were of the saniK turpitude as jho-ic c > i ' felons and others ; and . wliHtovei ' . act * of P-n-lmmctif might bu passed on tho subject , the publie could i : or- be reconciled to the shuhi tvcsvUwer . t in these caies . In the cases of Redhead , York , Gil-
Saturday, Jolt 19. Douse Op C0mmons.-The...
bert , Wakefield , and William Cobbet , they had not only been allowed to see their friends and correspond , but to carry on their publications . Hunt was worse treated in Ilchester-gaol , but ho afterwards recovered compensation from the gaoler . Mr F . O ' Connor , when confined in York Castle , had been treated with less severity . It appealed there was no uniformity in the treatment of diilcrent gaols . Cooper , in Stafford-gaol , had been treated with great leniency , contrary to the usual rule , but at the express desire of the then Secretary of State , Sir J . Graham . Mr . O'Connell , when in confinement in Dublin , bad his apartments splendidly furnished , was allowed to write to whom Jtc chose , and the' prison was thronged with visitors . Mr . Disraeli , in 1810 , had truly observed that in
dealing with political offenders thoy ought to provide ior the security of the state , not for tho punishment of the prisoners . Mr . C . Duller had said it ir , is the basest and most stupid act of a despotic government to confound political offenders with ' otliijrs . Mr . Justice Talfourd and the present Lord Chief Justice , when in that house , Imd expressed similar sentiments . The Marquis of Kormanby , writing in reference to Mr . O'Connor , said there ought to he nothing of degradation in his treatment , nor anything injurious to the health . Why should Air . Krneat Jones have been ti-eated with greater SCVGrity than Mr . O'Connor ? Why did not the government act in the same spirit as they had advocated in the treatment of Lovett find Collins ? Vincent , it was said , had been treated with greater leniencv
, because his offence was less heinous than that Of Ernest Jones . But the . Offence , as described in the two cases , was the same totidem verbis . When Vincent s case was under discussion , the Secretary of State had given ah assurance that a classification of the prisoners should be introduced ; but this hail not been done . . To treat political prisoners with undeserved ri gour was bad policy on the p : u-t of government . Men so treated could never forget what they had endured , or become attached to th « institutions ofthe country under which they had so suffered . It was time something was done . He hoped the next session would not pass without a measure on the subject being introduced . In one respect Mr . Jones ' s case differed from all others .
He applied to the visiting magistrates for leave to petition this house . That was the constitutional right of every Englishman—it was so declared by the Bill of Rights , and laid down by Blackstone , and it had never been questioned . He doubted whether the interference of any parties to prevent any one petitioning that house was not a breach of privilege . , The Speaker thou » hfc it was not , but no one could question the gross impropriety of the act . Mr . Smith O'Brien had been allowed to petition , and his petition had been received , though ho was attainted of high treason . In Mr . Jones ' s case the magistrates required to know the grounds on which ho wanted to petition the house ; one was to complain of their conduct ; the permission was refused , but he was allowed to write to the Home-office .
Sir ( J . Grey had immediately acted in a way which did him great honour— -he had written to the visiting justices , desiring them to allow Mr . Jones to petition . Notwithstanding this they still refused , and the prisoner had never been allowed to petition that house . Tho conduct of the visiting justices in refusing permission in the first instance , and then disregarding the intimation of the Secretary of State , was i Rionstrous . Nothing could be less characteristic of men who wished to act with leniency and kindness . There was something suspicious in the way in which Sir O . Grey ' s letter had been conveyed to tho magistrates ; its delivery was unusually delayed , so that it only came before the meeting of justices on the 9 th July , instead of the 2 nd . When it came before them , they evaded it by alleging that the prisoner had just written a letter to Mr . O'Connor , and could not by the rules write another till three months expired . It was to bo regretted that Sir O . Grey had not relaxed that rule ,
to enable , Mr , ( Jones to forward his petition . They were bound to have told him at the end of the three months that he was at liberty to send his petition ; but this was kept from him ; and he never knew of the permission having been given . This was a flagrant abuse of power on the part of the magistrates and ought to bo iliquiretUnto , so that the recurrence of such a thing might be prevented . Had he brought this forward at an earlier period , he should have moved for a select committee , and should do so next session . Of all the Chartist prisoners condemned at that time , Ernest Jones was the only one who bad not received a remission of his sentence . This looked like oppression ; and wherever there was an attempt to bear down an individual , it was the duty and the interest of all to see ' that justice was done . He did not bring forward this case because he agreed in the political opinions of Mr , JOIies , but because he thought he had been oppressed .
Mr . W . Williams seconded the amendment . Ho was one of the visiting justices of the prison , and he quite agreed in the language the noble lord had used as to the oppressive and tyrannical treatment of these prisoners , It was most disgraceful to place men merely convicted of seditious language along with common felons . But the noble ford had not properly distinguished between the rules of the prison and the conduct of the magistrates . Had he referred to the rules and regulations , he would nave seen that nearly all which he had imputed to the magistrates was necessaril y imposed on them by act of parliament . They had no alternative but . to inflict the oppressions complained of . In the other cases which tho noble lord had referred to , the prisoners had gone to the second
division of misdemeanants , m the absence of any order from the court to the contrary ; and in that division the prison regulations authorised the visits of friends , wearing their own clothes by . prisoners , and other indulgences . The other ; division was much more strict m its regulations ; both were in conformity to the act of George IV ., ' cap . G 4 . During the . time- hehadbeen a Visiting magistrate of this prison , ; he found that every request . of Mr . Jones had been ,. complied with .: He . was :-not a visiting justice when theprisoner desired , tO petition ; that , he , considered a grievous- wrong . In , one instance Jones had applied for the use of pen , ink , and . p aper , i This was at ' first refused by the visiting justices , but in less than a month after it was allowed . Afterwards Jones , was provided with
a drawing-book , at his own request . He had written to Mr , Sergeant Wilkinsj requesting avtsit , and the magistrates had allowed this letter to be forwarded . Every application made while ; he ( Mr . Williams } Was a visiting justice was complied with . The visiting justices were placed in , a most difficult position , and he knew that toe . feeiing amongst them was in favour of granting all the indulgence- * 'they . could . The oakum picking had heen imposed on Jones owing to the cessation of the payment which exempted him . and the . other prisoners . '' When the money wasraised this degrading occupation ceased . He lamented to know that two of the prisoners who had refused the' work , and been placed in solitary confinenient , had taken the cholera and died . He , did not believe-. the
visiting justices : had any alternative , in . this case ; biit tho oppressive acts by'which their discretion was fettered ought to be-repealed ; and he regretted the noble lord liad inot rnoved for a committee . /( Hear , ihear , ) -These tyrannical and oppressive statutes : could only be got rid Of by their evils being pointed oilt . Ho hsdnotbeen a visiting justice during the whole of Jones ' s imprisonment , h ' ut he had seen ho " disposition in his ' brother magistrates to make the condition of these prisoners worse than 'it necessarily -was . After the death of Sliarpe and Williams , be had visited the twelve rcmattithg prisoners , and separately , asked , them-. if they had any complaint , promising to . brihg . it . -. forT ward . They one and all complained ' of the bitter and tyrannical rules ,- but rio complaint was made of the . -way in which the rules wero carried out , or of the conduct of theofficers , Ho knew that Mr .
Jones made more complaints , than , the other-, prisbners'j probably they were well-founded " ; but in general they referred fb the regulations , over which the -magistrates had no power . It ' was a mistake to statefli / tt Jones w . ts the . only prisoner' whose punishment was not shortened '; one man ,, Thomas Joncy , had afi ; e ihipos . etrupo ' n him of- £ 10 at the end of his imprisonment , which he could not . possibly nay ; he waVseni ; to the House of Detention its a ' debtor , the . Secretary of State refusing-to remit the fine , ami it wuslat last paid by the penny subscriptions of his friends ., He rot-retted that the case hail been brought forward .. so late that a committee could- ' not be appointed ; he hoped . this would he done next session . He was confident the . visiting justice ' s would he acquitted of any harshness beyond the law , amJ . it would be seen . that they wore actuated by a desire to grant all the indulgence in their power .
Lord D . 0 . Stuart , ih explanation , said that T , Jones had ri-ceived a pardon in May , his sentence not expiring till July , but this was conditional on his conduct being good , ' Mr . W . J ; Pox said the apology for the magistrates-at the expense of the prison regulations had strengthened the case of the noblo lord , and shown more forcible ths necessity of parliamentary interference . In one case a month ' s unnecessary delay had heen interposed , and on this ground he thought the house might express its opinion as to the
conduct of the magistrates . On three or four points they clearly ha J an option .. In preventing the prisoner from petitioning this house , thoy had debarred him from a right which was conceded to every hum-in being . It was the only defence of a British stibj- ' -ct against illegal oppression within tho walls of a prison ; his petition should have 'Aseasy access to that b"usc as Ills pntveis to the thvorio oi Ileavou . There were ample safpiruiirds in that , ii'ius-i against , any impertinent psiition ; it was
tit I .,. !'•» . i .-,, i ,. / i ., J .:. i ( . ii tn ., 1 ^ ¦** ,..... I . v » wlioi . y unuccM .-ary to plaue further obstacles in the way of petitioniiik ' . The ' viMiing n . asiarafces Mi-ro - -or . the judges of Uli ) prison i ' miln deprivim- ajitdmiy person ot wnu-jn iiiatf .-rk ! K , ' nothiu <' ii ' K'io tmti'tu . s could he (¦ on . ' eT--. ! . It w , ^ s no p-. i-ti-Mi- soi-. t-nro that a i ; t : >*! should be punished hy iri-,- ;; mi ; g - . ua cnib ; t ' . eri !> g hi * utiu-1 . Those
Saturday, Jolt 19. Douse Op C0mmons.-The...
who superintended prisons should rather bo pleased to ace pris oners employing writing materials than anxious to depWro them of thorn . Every one itnew that the object , of punishment was best promoted h y [ . im | al . i ; llcl . , reatiniJnt . i ; , 170 . 5 or of ,- ri' J : * - ' Montaoinerv , the editor oi . tho bhW & dlris , had been confined for a political libel , and was yet allowed to continue the ntautteement ( H his pnper . ihe case was the same wit ' i Mr Dower , the editor of a Cambi-id-e paptrr . wis I , Mr ' h . Hunt , Mr . W . Harvey , and Otilpf . s . In all fl-OSO ewes it was ovid-nt tha ™ men wore not embittered by then- employment . These cases had occurred during twenty-five years of the wm- et period of this country ' s history , when power was moat
unsparingly applied to crush those opposed to it . Yet even now , when the government theni-cives held opinions coincident v- 'ich the victims of tho former system , those gross crm-lties were still « u ! e ! , ioned by the gaol act * * . In Mr . Jotios ' s case thuv had been tlic most extraordinary inttu-positioii of tho -raol chaplain as to his book- *; they = s * cre rejected , hot because they wore blasphemous or corrupt , for the list was lno-st extraordinary . Among them were sunn- r > t . Mr . Jones ' s h-v . ks ; also the Antiquary of Sir Vv . Scott , the Pilot of Cooper , and some wi-rks of an hon-ur .-ibie irit > i « l ... r of chat house , the llOW . lvablC lNWlhw ( Y > r lUiekim-ham shire , which were most extensively w ; id . ( ll .: ' . * ii * . )
It was only n chaplain of the We .-ttminster prison that pbieed these works in an Index Expui-gatorius , Slv , \ kcspeavi > wtvs also interdicted , .-is well : u * some books of tr . Yvl ; and during his six days' solitaryconfinement , even the Uni ' io wsn rcfiisutl him . ( Hear , hear . ) This could be nothing but the wilful exercise of a bad power ; but gaol chaplins seemed to he persons of very pec-diar notions . These -yore all matters in « hich discretion was exercised , and the visiting justices could not be defended by an appeal to the rules . He hoped the suln < : ct would come again before the house , ' and tl . nt there would he not only provision for the future , but reparation for the past , where injury had been committed .
Colonel Thompson considered the Chartists responsible for having lost or seriously damaged a great cause , but did not approve of " m .-iking ' nien heroes by persecution . One tendency of this was to bring these inch into parliament " ; ami he had not the ' tdightesfc doubt that Mr . Vincent would be returned at the next election , ffc had lost nothing in public estimation by his imprisonment , on the other hand , he had gained . Under these circumstances it was not politic to prosecute ; some of themselves miirhfc have stood in the same position , and it behoraftiiein , therefore , to exercise t'oiuothin < f like tenderness .
Mr . ftouvEtuE said he would confine the question to tho case of Ernest Jones , not thinking that any advantage could result from a , debate on prison discipline generally , or on the . vo . la . Uvfe elects of mental anuTbodily suffering . There were no rules and regulations peculiarly relating to political offenders ; the law did not recognise them , bur , only felons mid misdemeanants , with soino minor divisions . It should be borne in mind that tho Secretary of State had no power of enforcing or dispensing with regulations , but could only appvoveor disapprove of those made by t-ht ; in : tgistr < ites . It was true that Mr . Jones had been confined in a separate cell , but this was at his own request ; the only alternative the magistrates could offer Itini was that
of confinement with the other prisoners , and ho preferred separate confinement . As he had nob been sentenced to be confined in the first division of misdemeanants , ho necessarily went into the other . The act had given the judge power to make this distinction ; he had not made it in Mr . Jones ' s favour ; and the consequence was , ho was necessarily subjected to a more harsh treatment . It was impossible to draw a distinction in favour of what were called political offences , without including some of the worst crimes that disgraced humanity . The dress worn hy the prisoner in this case was in conformity with the regulations , and the number of letters written by htm had been quite equal to the number allowed . It was not because a prisoner was characterised as a
political offender that he should he untitled to a variety of indulgences which were POt granted tO others . The judge who tried the ease was best able to decide this question . Why should men be sent to prison at all , if their condition was to be made as pleasant as it could be if they were at liberty ? The visiting magistrates had been charged with injustice because the prisoner was ill ; but there was no evidence to show that this was the result of the prison discipline , beyond tho necessary confinement , which was of the essence of tho imprisonment . Tbo surgeon stated that his lon-j continuance in the infirmary was more of his own indulgence than from necessity . The medical inspector said his complaint , diarrhoea , only listed a single day ; and while he wasthyre , he received excellent nourishment .
Lord D . Stuart . —And during tho time he lost 14 lbs . of flesh . Mr . Bouverie said the oakum-picking was prescribed in compliance with the act regulating the employment of prisoners not sentenced toward labour . But it appeared Mr . Jones had chosen to bo persecuted and oppressed rather than submit to a small payment . He refused either to pick the oakum or allow the money to be paid . Thereupon he was sentenced to six days' solitary confinement on oread and water . This was charged as an injustice against the visiting magistrates ; hut tho prison regulations empowered them to continue this confinement for a month . Lord D . Stuart . —But there is 110 SUCll provision in the act .
Mr . Bocverie said there was the general orovision authorising them to make the necessai-y arrangements for the good government of the gaol . He . was convinced fchTst Mr . ' Jones had been treated with great indulgence on various occasions , and should therefore oppose tbe motion . Mr . 6 . Thompsos denied that the wearing of a felon ' s cap was in conformity with tho rules and regulations of the . prison , or that the exclusion of the books referred to had been so required . ; it , was clear this was an extra punishment ; and a most severe and heartless one . Mr . Jones had sheen compelled to walk to and from the chapel with a class of prisoners to whom ho did not bolone , including felons . The hon . gentleman who spoke - last bad passed by the charge of Mr . Jones being prevented from seeing his solicitor , one of the most important grounds of complftint . Why had not the hon . gentleman accounted for the neglect-of the Secretary
of state ' s letter ? This letter , dated at tho Home Office on .. tho 2 nd of June , only caino before tbe justices a week , after , the governor stating that it had only been received at the prison on the 7 th . Why had not this been inquired into , and explanation given ? How was it that Mr . Jones xievcr knew , of this letter being received , and of permission being given for hitn . to petition ihe house ? These were all violations of tbe prison rules , and could only have arisen from a wish on the part of the magistrates to make the prisoner ' s situation as painful as . possible , lie rejoic . ed that the question had been brought forward at a time free from political excitement . Mr . Jones had been tho vir-. tim of such excitement ; the sentences then passed were aggravated , b y the excitement which prevailed '; and the least severe-would now have been thought a sufficient punishment for what then took place . He trusted the discussion would at least
have the effect , of drawing the attention of the legislature to tho necessity .. of making , a distinction between political offences and others . Mr . Jones had never sought for acommutation of his sentence ; he had only complained of . cho severity of his treatment beyond what the prison regulations required . As the case stood it wore a most suspicious aspect , particularly as to tho detention of a letter from the Home Office . He hoped the whole matter will be broughfrundcr-tho consideration of the house early next session . ,
Sir H . WiuouoiiBY expressed . his-opinion that Mr . Jones had been harshly and unjustly treated . Ho was not sentenced to-hard labour , but had heen : put to the degrading occupation of oakum picking The act did not prescribe this as a punishment , but to repay the county for the ' expense ofthe prisoner s maintenance . As Mr . Jones was ; afflicted with chronic inibuntuation ofthe eyes , it was a , marvel to him how the visiting justices could think of enforcing this ignominious . ; labour , especially on a man of education . The solitary . coi ) fi . r-ei-ic-nt-iliad been ordered at a time when the cholera was . pi-e-Vi-iling , when there wash greater liability of serious consequences . The prisoner had ; been deprived ' . of a most important right , by the magistrates ill ; hots , being allowed to petition for . three months , for at that time the houso Would ,. not .. be sitting . -Some
explanation was due on this point ; for whoever and whatever a prisoner was ,. he had a right to brin > his case before the , house . . Ho thought it deeply to be regretted -hat the Lord Chief , Justi-e who sentenced this prisoner ,. had , rto , t , directed , his confinement -in the first cSass , of , mwderaeariaiite ( Ileaivhear . ) It was impossible to corne ' to any Other conclusion . than that he had been iwrshlvand unfairly treated ; he would , therefore , . uppoa ho motion foran inquiry next session . _ StrDaL . Evass was . sorry . to observe a want- nf SS ' if ? ' ^^^ S ^^^« ?? S J ¦ B Ca V C V ftw . M- i Ondentoble that all th . t } oi ^ E ? ' S T " V ° ' - >' a commutation of t ' , 't , sentence , Jones only . excepted . Considerine 1 e ridiculous nature of . the attempt in , « they ¦• " 1 been engaged , he thought it a ease where lenity n . ignt properl y have heen exeicised . Should a comnattee be asked for he would support the hiPtiyn . ¦ MivTlkuhT thought it not sm-prieing that , Mr . Jones believed hiiusTelf to bav & lx-eiihavsi : ) -. treated .
. Without throwing blame on tho govern ' " e ; . c , tie Ihoniiht further ' inqir ' vv -ons ; iit . to t-. ke place . -Much , no doubt ,-h « d beun lets to the vin < : n-r-j * stice * , av , t . i their discietion ( lid ' tiMs-em to have . be . m a vei-v sound one . Tho fact of Ju- ' -fmig-haii ! ' th-. j hitter . jff-ir George Gri > v was n th . it ' .. »* -hto . i wuld hardly have t . kenj 1 -te " i : i » :. y «••"• n Ea «!«"«» , . Tl- ! * : r-iANC ! LI . Oi : - » f I llO KrC'Mll-Qt ^ f . :,- .: C , \ i H .. > -l In : tu . p . jssiOi-: W - . empty wi ' . ; . ' .-: ' ; mt'UOii as Iv
-
-
Citation
-
Northern Star (1837-1852), July 26, 1851, page 7, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/ns2_26071851/page/7/
-