On this page
- Departments (1)
-
Text (5)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Imperial parliament.
-
Untitled Article
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.
Untitled Article
vf ho being somewhat nervous , was hurried iti his jaaaner , lie said , " Xot so fast , there is time enongh , " and an instant afterwards , " Slacken this thong ; so much precaution is not needed . " AU prcpiration being completed , he regarded the knife for a moment , with a look of mingled curiosity and astonishment , and then laid his' head on th « cushion . The executioner » : ivo the sisiial , a dull lieavv sound was heard , and , llippolyte Bocarme , Laving suffered the judgment of nun , passed to ihe presence of his God . ~
Untitled Article
EXTRAORDINARY DISAPPEARANCE . —TIIE LATE ALLEGED MURDER AXD MUTILATION SEAR NORWICH . On Monday Sergeant Gcoree Q-iinneav , an active officer belonging to the P division of police , accompanied by Mrs . Eliza iie : Ii Fmicett , the wife of . 1 mechanic residing sit So . lfi , Alfred-pUce , Old Kent-road , stten- ' ed at the L-unbeth Police-office , before the Hon . G . C . Norton , aud made the folio wiu < r very singular statement : " lie ( Qhssear ) said thnt at tlie beginning of last month a painter , named Simon Richard Gouoh , wa 3 employed at lhe mansion of Baron De Goldsinid , 0 : 1 Somer-hill , Tunbridge , and having represented himself : is a sinirie man , had offered rnarriiig'J to Ann Bailey , a housemaid in thu establhhjECnt of the baron . The young woman having no reason to doubt his professions , and believing also
that he was a single man , cons-nted to become his ¦ wife , and having giv ^ n regular notice of her intention lett her service on the 6 th of June for London , taking with her her boxes , < fce ., and was accompanied by Gouch . On the 9 ih or lOih of June the fatLer of the young woman . Bailey , and the f rther , also , of Mrs . Faucett then preseiit , received at his residence at Xewcastle-upon-Tyne a letter from Gouch , iu which he stated that he had married his daughter , and that they were living very happily at Xo . 33 , William-street , Ilainpstead-road . This letter Mr . Bailey forwarded to the wife of Goueb , ¦ wh o was then living in Wai north ; and she , 011 receipt of it , at once proceeded to 33 , William-street , Hampstead-road , and having ascertained that a person answering t . Vc description of her husband ,
and a young female , who rei-resented herself to be bis wife , were lodging there , she rushed into the apartment -while the parties were at breakfast . Some high words were heard to pas 9 between the parties , and immediately after Gouch came down stairs , and informed the landlady that , in consequence 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 away , taking with them a number of boxes and Other articles they brought there . From inquiries made by him ( Quinnear , ) he had ascertained that on the same day Mrs . Gouch returned to her lodgings in Ann's-terrace , Walworth , with a female who answered the description of Ann Bailey , and at oace sent for Mr . Dicker , brclcer , to whom she
sold the whole of her goods , with tho exception of Gae box and a few paintings . These latter articles she had carried into the " Walworth-road , and stopped a cab , atiu 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 Couch ' s father , who is a Baptist minister , resided but a short distance from Xorwich ; that Goucli 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 Sorwica about that time ; but so great had been the traffic occasioned by the Exhibition that ho
could got no trace of them beyond the fact that on the day in question 3 s . Gd . had been received for Iu » gage to Norwich , and thi 3 would be about the amount that would be paid for the conveyance , One of the parties also informed him that he had observed a large deal box , painted red , amongst the Jforwich luggage , and the young woman ( Bailey ) had a precisely similar box painted red . Quinnear added that , in consequence of the strongly-ex pressed opinion of Mre . Faucett that the mutilated reraaius of a female body , found in the vicinity of Norwich , Trere those of her sister Ann , Mr . Bobinson , the superintendent , had correspondence with
Mr . P . M . Yarrin » ton , the Commissioner of Police at Norwich , the resnlt of which wa 3 , that though the most dil ' . igent search had been made for Gouch , his wife , and the young woman Bailey , not the slightest traces of them could be discovered . An application was made to Air . Gouch , who is represented 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 the liuman body found , belonging to a person supposed to have been murdered , and to be that of a female between the age of fifteen and sixteen , it was perfectlv impossible to identify them .
Sir . Xoktox remarked that there was one part of the statement which he could not understand , and that was , how tho father of the yonng woman came to know that Gouch was a married man , and where to send letters to his wife ? Mrs . Fjhtcett 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 away with , and the result was that they discovered him to be a married man , and that his * wife resided at Ko . 3 , Ann ' s-terrace , Wal-¦ wo rth . C The circumstances she at once communicated to her father , and the latter lost no time in forsrardin ? to his wife the letter of her husband . Mr . Xoexos said , that this was a satisfactory explanation of that part of the case , and asked Mrs . Faucett what her reasons were for thinking that the portions of body found at . Norwich , were these of Lor sister ?
Mrs . FiucEzr replied , that the instant she read ILe account in the newspapers of the finding of the portions of the body a cold thrill passed through her , and she then 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 with herself that her unfortunate sister had met with an untimely end , and that her body bad been cut up and distributed about to prevent recognition . She added , that Gouch was a profligate , bad fellow , and that her sister was not the first by many whom lie had seduced .
Mr . Sortos admitted the case was one of strong suspicion , and he knew of no better way of bringing to light , in the event of its having been committed , the serious offence alluded to , than the publication of the statement made by the officer , and a description of the missing parties , and from the willingness ¦ which he ( Mr . Xorton ) had always seen evinced by the public press to afford the most ample assistance to promote the ends of public justice , he had no doubt that that assistance would be accorded on the present occasion . Gouch 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 . So whiskers , ana rather well-dressed . Mrs . Gouch is thirty-five ¦ veara of a « e , light hair and complexion , and rather abort and ° thin ; and Ann Bailey is described as being twenty-four years of age , tall , stout , and stands erect ; is good-looking , with a prominence iu front of her throat , dark hair , and hazel eyes , aud had lost several teeth from the front part ot the upper jaw .
Untitled Article
Police , Ikbcstrul , asd other Statistics of Max-Chestsb . —The annnal report of Captain Willis , the Gakf Constable of Manchester , has juat been pub « lislied , containing , as usual , some elaborate and useful tables , which , besides showing the activity of the police , give a good idea of the progress of tho borough in population , in material wealth and resources . By this return it appears that the population has risen from 255 , 507 in ISil to 303 , 358 is iSSl ; and the gross number of habitable houses ias increased from 44 . 4 C 2 to 53 , 697 . One happy feature of this part of the return is that the inhabitants living in cellars have diminished frem 2 l , $ 2 i in 1 SA 1 to 20 , 399 in JS 51 . The annnal value of tlie property has increased in the same time from £ 841 , 004 to £ 1 , 204 . 241 . The gross number of all buildings is now 58 , 385 , of which 103 are cotton
mills , 7 silk mills , 3 worsted mills , 18 smallware mills , 7 print works , 35 dye works , 15 hat manufactories , 49 machinists , 3 S foundries , 4 lead works , 3 Dauor works , 27 saw mills , 11 corn mills , 773 workshop ? , 1 , 619 warehouses , 6 , 262 shops , 109 places of woi-shJP 413 pnblic and private schools , 12 banks , 10 mrketa , 2 theatres , 7 railway stations , 3 public ¦ srashouses , S infirmaries and hospitals , M public institutions , 33 public buildings , o 3 ^ ery fabks , ^ So £ . ^ SaiS ^ K ^ KmiBsrirttss churches and
1358 dwelings , US shops , 8 ch 4 leS f 1 bath and waahbouse , 3 ^ " ^' . ^ 2 schools . The total number of . reputedthieves r < S" in the borough within the knowledge of fce police is 305 , azfd 267-persons ££ » «« sionaUv to steal . Houses where thieves resort -ol , houses ' for the reception of stolen PWP ^ O * ? .. Society of the Fmksds of ^ -tM ^ SI tide an association ha 5 been established m London haWn " the following objects in view : J *? P " ° affmffin !? onnortuuities to the most competent
authorises for * the publication of works , on w ^ tan of the Italian national movement- *} pn » H >«« correct appreciation of the kalian question of this cewtrr . To use every available constitutional msMs " of furthering the cause of Italian [ national in dsuesdeftce in parliament- And generally to aid , in tiih , eountrv . the cause of the independence , and or tae voHtical and religions liberty of the Italian p « o .. ! e . " Ail persons agreeing with the objects e ? ilae soeiatv are to he eligible as members , on enx nuns fttir " i > amts aad p ^^ l a small animai suo-5 : rii > tioa .
Untitled Article
SATURDAY , Jo-t 19 . HOUSE OF COMMONS . —The house sat at twelve o ' ciock . , The National land Company ' s Winding-up Bid was read a third time and passed . On receiving the report of the Committee ot Sir ' B Hall , with reference to an item in the eivil contingencies of £ 2 , 814 for the funeral of the l-. te Qu- ^ n iDowaser , which included a fee to the Dean and Chapter of Windsor for interment in tho vaalt , asked tho Chancellor of tho Exchequer whether he could state wlwt was the amount of the fee paid to the Dean and Chapter ? tiie lidthat
The Ghaxckli-or of Exchequer repe , tbG foo was 1 £ 22 J , not £ 1 , 009 , as had boen supposed by Sir Benjamin on the previous night . Sir B . Hail animadverted in strong terms upon what he characterised as extortion on the part of a botiv pussejshiif . 1 revenue of £ 53 , 000 a year . The taking a foe of £ 220 , which was to come out of the tnxps ofthe pe-jple , for such a purpose , he thought disgraceful to the Dean and Chapter . The Chancellor of the Excuequeu commented upon the exaggeration of which Sir Benjamin had been gn ! ty in magnifying £ 220 into £ 1 , 000 . Mr . GfcADSToxF . likewise accused Sir B . Hall of want of accuracy as well as of candour iu holding up the sup ? rior clergy to public reprobation without jriving notice of his intended attacks , and confounding the innoeens with the guilty . . Some of the ennons h-.-. d limited incomes , and , therefore , had no interest in this alieged extortion . Mr . Gladstone took this occasion of calling attention to the legal
i disabilities of the colonial bishops , clergy , and laity in communion with the Church of England in regard to making provision for their internal religious concern ? , inasmuch as they had neither the powers appertaining to the established church at home , nor the freedom of voluntary societies . Ho hoped the "overnment would nsxt session take up thi 3 question ; bur , 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 Initv of the Church of England in the colonies that freedom ( subject or not to reservations ) which in substance every other religious community enjoyed . Sir D . L . Evaxs protested against the extension of the episcopate in our transmarine possessions , by the appointment of colonial bishops , who obtained money out of the resources of the empire , calling themselves " Lord ? , " and wrangling for precedence with Roman Catholic bishops .
Colonel SiDTiionr , though a sincere supporter of the established church , thought this practice of demanding fees for the interment of a member of the royal family more honoured in the breach than tho observance ! Mr . "W . Williams considered that it would be 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 . CnKisTornEit defended the Hon . and Rev . Mr . Oust , 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 the Dean and Chapter with relation to the Military Knights of Windsor . Mr . Reynolds approved of the proceeding of Sir B . Hail : and
Mr . Uawus stated that it was not the present intention of the government to bring forward any moasure of the nature indicated by Mr . Gladstone . The report having been brought up , Mr . W . Williams moved the disallowance of the £ 220 ; but this motion was negatived on a division by 37 to 20 . Sir G . Pecuell called attention to tho ossq of tho surviving officers , seamen , and marines who were present at the successful action between four English frigates , under Commodore G . Moore , and lour Spanish frig-vtos , in 1-304 , whose claims for naval medals had been rejected .
Sir T . Baking said the Admiralty had kid down certain rules , and had appointed a committee of experienced officers to consider the claims and services of parties , and the house , he thought , would not act wisely if it interfered with their decision . All the other orders appointed for the day were gone through , and Lord Sbimoub introduced a hill to confirm certain provisional orders of the General Board of Health , after which the house adjourned .
MONDAY , Jolt 21 . HOUSE OP LORDS . —Papal Bill . —The socond reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was moved by . . The Marquis of Laksdowne , who briefly recapitulated the circumstances thnt had caused tlie measure to 1 >« 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 the bill now hefore 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 hnnd 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 Bsaumojtt supported the second reading .
The Duke of Welli . vgton regretted the necessity of violating the enactments of the Emancipation Act . But after therecent aggression of the Papacy some measure of protection must be provided to secure the national liberties as based upon the reformation . He accepted the present bill . Tho Earl of Malmesbury , Lord Berners , tha Duke of Argyll , Lord Airlie , and the Bishop of St . David's successively supported the bill , and the debate being afljourned ' to Tuesday , their lordships ro 3 eat 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 Speaker said , before the house proceeds I wish to read a letter which I have receivod 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 in the record of the proceedings of the House of Commons on Fridav last of all notice of my demand to subscribe the oath of abjuration , and to declare to my propu'ly qualification . Immediately after I had taken the oaths I read from a paper which I held in ray hand the following words : — 'I have now taken the oaths in the form aiid with the ceremonies that I declare to be binding on mv conscience , in accordance with the statute I and 2 Victoria , cap . 105 . I now demand to subscribe tlie oath of abjuration , and to declare to my property qualification . ' No notice has been taken on the proceedings above referred to of my having made this demand . You will therelorc , I am sure , sir , pardon me for drawing your attention to the subject , and respectfully requesting that the minutes of the proceedings of Friday last be amended . With the utmost respect , I have tlie honour to be , sir , Your most obedieut and humble servant , David Salomons .
I ought to state to the house , that these proceed * ings on Friday were very carefully prepared for printing . Most of that which the hon . member for Greenwich said wa 9 perfectly inaudible in this immediate part of the house ; but it appeared distinctly to me that after the hon . gentleman had omitted the words " ou the true 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 was the hon . gentleman's duty thereupon to withdraw —( hear , hear)—and , not bavin / so withdrawn , any statement subsequently made in the house by the hon . gentleman was not > efore the house , and had no claim to be placed or . the records of the house . _ ( Hear , hear the he had
"Ifri Hall then repeated question put on Fridav , observing that A Merman Salomons , Serous of carrying out the wishes of hiseonstituents ? and ' properly to meet the question , without putting the house ' to unnecessary inconvenience , was relolved , as far as lay in his power to take taw seat as a member of the Leg islature , and , as he had certainly taken a seat within the bar , he ( Sir Benjamin ) again inquired whether the government intended to direct the Attorney-General to prosecute Mr . Salomons , in order to bring the question fairly to issue . The hon . alderman was ready , if necessary , to take the further step of voting . Lord J . Ru&seli . replied that the government were not at present disposed to think that they ought to prosecute . Sir B . Hall 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 con-ie
within the house and take his seat . Sir . Alderman Salomons thereupon left his scat on the peers' bench , behind the bar , entered the house , and seated himself beside Sir W . ilolesworth . The Sphaker requested him to withdraw ; but he retained his seat amid vehement cries of " Withdraw . " The Spsase ? - said , if the hon . member refused to obey Ms order , it was for the house to support him . Lord J . Rriasii , m order to support the chair , moved that Mr . Alderman Salomons be ordered to withdraw from the house .
Mr . 0-52 C-n > ' 2 moved , by way of amendment , "That D . 'ivid Salomons , Esq ., having been roturned as a member for the borough of Greenwich , and bavin * nker . tlie catllS r . 9 uired b J law in ^ ' ' » anner mesl l-: r . c : ts v = pon his conscience , is entitled to * ., l- <> At j ' vst is this house . " Mr A : ; : r-- attem pted to address the nouse
Untitled Article
which was in some ferment , but , being unable to procure a hearing , moved an adjournment . Upon a division , this motion was rejected by a large majority . Mr . li . Gibsox 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 prosent' case ; but Lord J . Russell objected to the Chair being thus interrogated , observing that the house had resolved last session thnt tho Baron de llothschild could not sit in that house " until ho had taken the Oath of Abjuration in the form required by law . "
Mr . Akstkt entered very copiously into the technicalities of the question , and called upon the house to do justice by admitting the hon , menibcr for Greenwich , because , . first , Uie act 1 st and 2 nd Victoria had placed Jews in all respects on a footing of perfect equ'ility with others iu tlie matter of oaths ; secondly , the oath was not a lawful oath , nnd tho house had no authority to impose it ; and thirdly , assuming its leplity , he had takim tho oath in the form proscribed by law . Mr . IIobhouse considered that grave difficulties miojht occur if Mr , Salomons should be required to withdraw . Any person elected to a se ; it in that lionse might sit and vote at the risk of iiionvring penalties . Minors had safc in the house , nnd he cautioned the Speaker not to expose himself to penalties , since a court of law might take a different view of the question .
The Attorney-Ge . nekal said , the question appeared to him to he a very simple one . Tlie Act of Parliament positivel y 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 n . 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 the 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 fcliafc it was a disgrace to our statute book ; at the same time , the houses acting in a judicial capacity , had but one duty to
perform—to administer the law as it is . Mr . M . Gmsos observed that the bouse was placed in a position of more than ordinary difficulty by the- discord of legal opinions , the law officers of the Crown differing from each other , nnd the chief law ^ officer of a former government being n ' t direct issue with both . There might be embarrassments in the question , but as exclusion would be a penalty not only upon Mr . Solomons , but upon the constituency which had returned him , he should hare the benefit of tho doubt . Putting the only reasonable construction upon the state of the law , he came to the conclusion that , under tho 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 kw was not sufficiently clear to enable him to pronounce a deliberate opinion that Mr . Salomons was not entitled to sit in that hotifc .
Tho Solicitor-General explained and justified the course he had taken in the case of Baron de Rothschild , lie did not acquiesce in the decision of the house in thai case ; but , that being a judicial and binding decision , if the oath of abjuration had not been tnken as that decision required ifc 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 . Clay thought ifc would be' better to declare at once that the house had the power and the will to admit the hon . member for Greenwich to the rights which his constituents hwi given him .
Mr . C . Tiluers said , Mr . Salomons having taken the oath essentially , omitting words nofc essential , and being stil ! excluded , the people could come to no other conclusion than that the house acted from " base and ungenerous feelings . Lord J . rcsskll eaid , he had been prevented from moving a resolution by tho entrance of Mr . Salomons into the house , which had compelled him to call upon the house to support the Chair . Tho question , therefore , simply was , whether or nofc Mr . Salomonsshould be required to withdraw—a question npon which there ous ; hfc to be no doubt j for even those who considered the resolution of last year erroneous might say , " Let us respect it as long ns it exists . " ne acknowledged that he tboujrhfcthe state of the law most unsatisfactory ; that tho 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 case of Jpws , were considered as not of form but of substance , which was an unjust distinction .
Mr . Bet [ IEI . i . said , in hia 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 tho 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 thr . t it should be administered in a manner binding upon the member ' s conscience . This latter principle applied to any particular set of words contained in the oath : and Mr . Bethell , ; n an elaborate argument , endeavoured to show that , whether the words in question were , as ho 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 . TnEsiGEK took an entirely opposite view of the law , though he agreed with the hon , member that the bouse 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 , ho would undoubtedly have demonstrated that , inasmuch aa mry person should take an oath in the form binding " upon his conscience he might omit t ! se 3 e words . " Sir Prederick , however , argued that these words were not a formula ; and he urged the 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 , and , bavins ; disobeyed the orders of the house , he should have boen prepared" to concur in a voto that he be committed to tbe custody of the Sergeant-at-Arm 3 , The noble lord had taken a milder- course , and he assented to his motion .
Mr . AoLtosBY opposed the motion , considering Mr . Bethell ' s argument unanswered and unanswerable . Sir it . Ikglis thought the course proposed by Lord J , Russell was most consistent with the dignity of the house and with the requirements of tbe
case . Mr . Bright observed that the amendment , which went to the rescission of the resolution of last year , opened the whole question , which tho house could look at in two modes—as a question of law , aud a question of precedent . He declined to discuss the first . In the precedent of Mr . Pease more had been done than was aaked in this case , for the house then altered , not only the form , but the very sub-Stance of the 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 altogether they were unworthy of sensible men , and he hoped to see a clean sweep of them . Mr . JTewdegate 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 ifc into collision with a constituency , to see that its decision was well founded . An oath consisted of a promise and an adjuration ; toe latter could be altered , though not the former , and the words in question were merely adjudicatory . Colonel TuonrsoN denied that the fraraors of the oath intended to do more than exclude the Pre-Mr . Crowder 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 . oalomons had not taken that oath , and he supported his conclusion bv a reference to the statutes and the resolution of the house . Where the terms of an oath were prescribed by law they could not be altered without an act of parliament .
Mr . Muntz adhered to his opinion that , while Jews were allowed to enjoy so many other pnyieges they ought nofc to be excluded from larlia-Mr . J . A . Smith said , he had been requested by the hon . member for Greenwich to state that he had voted upon the 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 ^ a ' dtS ^^ ttent was negatived ^ E ^ mored that the deW («*» ft . original motion ) be adjourned . Lord Jonv Russbll opposed this motion , and , » r ^^^ rss " s t . hn imnm unon a division determined that he should
withdraw , and he withdrew awording ly . otcoureo , if Mr . Salomons would not obey the ordeis of the house other measures must be taken . After some remarks from Sir B . HALL and Mr . HoiraoBSB , who called upon lit . Salomons to state the course he meant to pursue , . Mr . Alderman Salomoss rose , and , disclaiming any intention to indulge in anything that mien appear contumacious or presumptuous , said that ,
Untitled Article
having been returned by a large constituency , and believing that he had fulfilled all the requirements of the law , ho hail thought that he should not be Joinir justice to his own position and to his constituents if he did not adopt the course he had taken in d < friice of their lights . Whatever , he added , might be the decision of the house , he should abide by it , provided sufficient was done to make it appear that ho retired under coercion . He trusted that , in tho doubtful state of tho law , no nDiil resolution would bo adopted against , him Without affording him an opportunity of being hoard , Mr . Bright nnd Sir D . Etaxs pressed the ajournruont of the debate . Lord J . Russell di > . l nofc think ifc possible , after the Speaker had ordered Mr . Salomons to withdraw , and had appealed to the house to support him , thnt thu house could consent to adjourn the debate .
AJr . Osborjje advised Mr . Salomons to keep his seat until lie should 0 c taken inco custody . A division th » n took place—first , on the question of adjournment , which was negatived by 237 iigainsc 75 ; then on the main question—the motio ; i of Lord J . Russell—which was affirmed by 231 against 81 . The Speakkr then directed tho Sergeant to remove Mr . Siilouionsftvlio had persisted in retaining liia seat ) , and he accordingly laid his hand upon the shoulder of the hon . Alderman , who immediately rose and retired . Mr . BnicnT inquired of the noT ) le lord what was the resolution ho intended to move this day ? Lord J . ItussELii replied that ifc would bo exactly similar to that which tho house had adopted in the case of Baron de Rothschild . Sir P . Thesiokr stated thafc ho should not move , as he had intended , the issuo of a new writ .
iMr . OsnoitNE inquired if the government intended to pi'osoeure Mr . . Salomons ? Lord J . RussELLrupliod , if Mr . Salomons wished to he prosecuted , he would have no difficulty in finding somebody to do it . The house then proceeded to the Other orders of tho day , which were not got through until a quarter to two o ' clock , when ifc adjourned .
TUESDAY , July 22 . HOUSE OF LORDS .-Papal Bill . - Tho adjourned debate on the Ecclesiastical Titles J 3 ill was resumed by The Earl of WiscnEMEA , who enforced the necessity which had devolved upon the British legislature to provide a safeguard against encroachment upou our Protestant liberties , lie denounced the aggressive tendencies and houndlessuinbition of the papacy , and while characterizing the measure now provided as being paltry and inefficient , intimated his assent to the second reading , since a hetter could not be had . Lord LTXDHunsT remarked upon tho insult that was inflicted on tho Church of England by the assumption of territorial titles for Catholic prelates . Believing thafc the encroachment would not stop there , and anticipating if it were left unreprossed a prolonged and perilous struggle , he supported the bill on the maxim of prin-ipiis oOHa .
Lord Vacx and tho 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 of the 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 inv . idi'd by tho 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 . The Marquis of Clanricahdk offered various arguments in support of the bill , anil reminded those who obiccted to some of its details that the choice , at this period of tho session , lay between the measure now before them or none .
Lord Monteaglh , in . opposing the bill , denounced its uncertainty . No one knew how much OV how little ifc 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 ex-Y > biined its legal import and consequences . The Ea . i-1 of St . Germans opposed the bill . After a few words of personal explanation from Eavl Minto , Eiirl Fitzwiimam expressed qualified approbation of the measure ; as did also the Earl of
IIarb-. The Marquis of LANsnowKK replied ; and their lordships divided on the second reading . Contents : Present HO Proxioo 110—205 Non-contents : Present .., 2 G Proxies ... 12—33 Majority ; 227 The house roaeat four o ' clock . HOUSE OF COMMONS . —The Case of Ernest Oharlks Joses .- —On the motion for receiving the report of the 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 houso on the 26 t . li May last , and to move for copies of all rules and regulations which at any time from the year 184 ft to the present have been in force within the several prisons in . England and Wales , so for as they may affect prisoners convicted of political ofiences . 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 fbtWftrd his case , and he felt it his duty to do so . Owing to tho curtailment of the motion days , he had been compelled unwillingly . to bring ifc forward as an amendment on a government motion . Mr . Jones had done all in his power to
have tlie case investigated earlier . He had boen 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 forward . earlier . Mr . Jones was a barrister , a man ' i > f considerable literary attainments , and the author of several , works in proso and verse . His father , Major Jones , was equerry to the Duke of Cumhefr landj now King of Hanover . In 1848 Mr .. Jones . had been tried for a political oftence , delivering' a seditious speech , and sentenced to two years' imprisonment iu Totliill Fields Prison . He did hot complain of this , but of the treatment to tyhicb he had been subjected in prison . In answer tp the allegations in Jar . Jones's petition , the prison authorities admitted that heiwas ; placed in separate
confinement on the silent system , was employed in oakum picking , wore the prison dress , was not allowed the use of aicnife . and fork , and only had visits from , his friends eleven times during the wholeperiod . After the first three months he had been proven ted writing to his friends , even to his wife , and had only , been allowed to . write fourteen- letters altogether , Toward 3 the close of the period he was deoarred the . use of . pen and ink , and was not' allowed to write to the judge as to the carrying put 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 oakum , and did so at first ; on hia refusal he wag placed iu a cell for four daya on bread and water . ; and on a subsequent , refusal he was there placed for six
days . : This was admitted by the governor ; and the magistrates , in giving ' that order , had violated , the act of parliament , which gave them no 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 . illegiil . Sharpe and Williams , who were placed in solitary confinement on the same day as Mr . Jones , who died in less than a week ; and at 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 . tho cholera was raging . Mr . Jones suffered in his health , and ifc was doubtful whether he would ever ; recover from the effects of this treatment .
The surgeon . of the prison , while denying his illhealth , admitted that he had been fifteen weeks and two days in the infirmary , when he was suffering from chronic inflammation of the eyelids . The surgeon admitted that he lost nearly a stono ; and Mr . Perring , the medical inspector , said he lost fourteen pounds in five weeks . - Mr . Jonea had written to several membors of Parliament to come and visit him ; the governor ordered him to desist . This was now denied , but ifc was capable of substantiation by the production of the governor ' s letter . Ho complained of having to wash in the open air ; and this was substantially correct , though in part denied by the governor . Ho ( Lord D . Stuart ) had examined the place , and found Mr . Jones's statement correct . He found the prison arrangements open to various objections not involved in thia case ; there were no flues , nov any artificial moans of warming the prison , which presented in
that respect a groat contrast to the Pentonville Prison and the House of Detention . Tho 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 offences . He ( Lord D . Stuart ) had seen all the letters written by Mr . Jones , and found in them nothing whatever indicating an intention to act improperly , He had yet to learn chat ifc was an offence to oppose the government , or to induce others to do so . The spirit of vke governor ' s report showed very little leniency or candour . The general feeling was in favour of a distinction between political prisoners and others ; for no one could be brought to believe that their ottences were of the sums turpitude as those of teions and others ; and , whatever acts of Parliament niit'ht bo passed on the subject , tho public could not be reconciled to the same treatment in theso cast ? , In the cases of Redhead . York . Gil-
Untitled Article
bert , Wakefield , anil William Cobbot , they had not only been allowed to sco their friends and correspond , but to cavry on their publications . Hunt was worse treated in Ileiioater-jjaol , but lie afterwards recovered compensation' from the naoier Mr . F . O'Connor , when confined in York Castlv " had been treated with k > S 3 severity . It appeared there was no uniformity in the treatment oi different gaols . Cooper , in Stsfford-gaol , had been treated with great leniency , contrary to the usual rule , but at tlie express desire of tlie then Secretary of Btato , Sir J . Gt \ ah . im . Mr . O'Conuoll , when in confinement in Dublin , hail his apartments splendidly furnished , was allowed to write to whom he chose , and the prison was thronged with visitors .
Mr . Disraeli , in 18-iO , bad truly obsorvcl that in de : > iing with political offenders they ought to provide for the security of the srate , not for tho punishment of the prisoners . Mr . C . Buller had said it was tho basest and most stupid act of a despotic government to confound political offenders with others . Mr . Justice Talfourd and the proso .-it Lord Cliief Justice , when in that houso , hud ox |> resse
in the treatment of Lovett nnd Collins ? Vincent , ifc was said , had been treated with greater Icnicncv , because his offence was less heinous thin that of Ernest Jonos . 13 ufc tho offonci > , aq described in the two cases , was the same toikkm vcrbis . When Yincent ' s case was under discussion , the Secretary of State had given an assurance that n . classification of the prisoners should be introduced ; but this bad nofc been done . To treat political prisoners with undeserved rigour was bad policy on the psirt of government . Men so treated could never forxret what they had endured , or become attached to the institutions of the country under which they had so suffered . It was time something w . 13 ( iorie , He hoped tbe next session would not pass without a
measure oi \ the subject being introduced . In one respect Mr . Jones ' s case differed from fill others . He applied to the visiting magistrates for leave to petition this house . That was the constitutional ri ght of every Englishman— -it was ' so declared by tho Bill of Itiglits , and laid down by Iiinckstono , and ifc had never been questioned , lie doubted whether the interference of any parties to prevent any one petitioning that house was not a breach of privilege . jTlie Speaker thought it was not , but no one could question the gross impropriety of the act . Mr . Soritli O'Brien had boen allowed to petition , and his petition had been receiver ! , though he whs attainted of high treason . In Mr . Jones ' s case the magistrates required to know the grounds ou which
he wanted to petition the house ; one was to complain of their conduct ; tlie permission was refused , but he was allowed to write to th-j Home-office . Sir G . Grey had immediately acted in a Avay which did him great honour—ho had written to the visiting justices , desiring them to allow Mr , Jones to petition . Notwithstanding this they still refused , arid the prisoner had never been allowed to petition thafc house . Tlie conduct of tbe visitin ^ justices in refusing permission in tho first instance , and then disregarding the intimation of the Sccrctsvy ' ol ' State , was monstrous . Nothing could bo leas chivracteristic of men who wished to net with leniency and kitidnoss . There was something suspicious in the way in which Sir G . Grey's letter had boen conveyed to the magistrates ; its delivery was unusually delayed , so that it only came before the
meeting of justices on the Oth 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 tlie 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 afc tbe end of the three months that Iip was at liberty to send his petition ; but this was kept from him ; and ho never knew of tho permission having bean given . Thia was a flagrant abuse of power on tho part of the magistrates and ought to be inquired into , so that the recurrence , of such n thingmigbfc be prevented . Had he brought this forward at an earlier period , he should have moved for a select committee , and should dp so next session . Of all the Chartist prisoners condemned at that time , Ernest Jones waa the only one
who had 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 aud the interest of all to see that justico was done . He did nofc bring forward this case because he agreed ia the political opinions of Mr . Jones , but because he thought he had been cppi-eased . Mr . W . Williams seconded the amendment . Ho was one of the visiting justices of the prison , and lie 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 won merely convicted of seditions language along with common felons . But tho noble lovd had
not properly distinguished between the rules of the prison and the conduct of tho magistrates . Ilad he referred to the rules and regulations , he would have seen that nearly all which he had imputed to the magistrates was necessarily imposed on them by act of parliament . They had no alternative but to inflict the oppressions complained of . In the other cases which the noble lord had referred to , the prisoners hud gone to the ECCOnd division of misdemeanants , in the absence of any order from the court to the contrary ; . aad in that division the prison regulations authorised the vi 3 its of friends , . wearing their own clothes by prisoners , and other indulgences . The other division was much more strict in its regulations ; both were in
conformity-to the . acfc of George IV ' ., cap . Gl Daring the time ho had been a visiting magistrate of this prison , he found that every request of Mr . Jones had . bceh complied with . Fie was not a visiting justice when the prisoner desired . to petition . ; that he considered a grievous , wrong . In one instance Jones had applied for the , use of pen , ink , and paper . This . was at first refused by . the visiting justices , but in less than a . aonth after it was allowed . Afterwards Jones was provided with a drawing-book , at his ^ own . ' request / 'He had written to Mr . Sergeant Wilkins , requesting jv visit , and tiib . magistrat . es had allowed this letter to be forwarded . Every application made while he iMr . Williams ) was a visiting justice was " complied
with . The visiting justices were placed in a most difficult position , and he knew thrifc the feeling amongst them was in favour of granting all the indulgences they could . The oakum picking had been imposed on Jones owing to the . cessation' of the payment which exempted him arid the" other prisoners . When the money was raised this degrading occupation ceased . He lamented to kuow that two of the prisoners who had refused' the . work , and . been placed in solitary confinement , had taken the cholera ' arid died . He did not believe the visiting justices had any alternative in this ' case ; bur . che oppressive acts' by which ' their discretion was fettered ought to be repealed ; and he regretted the noble lord had not moved for a committee . / Hear , hear . ) Theso tyrannical and op ' -i pressive statutes could only be . got rid of by their
evils being pointed ouc . ' He had nofc been a visiting justice during ihe whole of ' Jones ' s imprisonment , but he had seen no disposition in his brother magistrates to make the condition of these prisoners worse than it necessarily was .. After the death of Sharpe and Williams , he bad visited the twelve remaining prisoners !' a'nd ' separately asked them if they had ony complaint , promising" to bring it forward . They one and all complained of tho bitter and tyrannical rules , but no complaint was made of the way in which the rules were carried out , or of the conduct of tbe officers . He knew that Mr .. Jones made more ' complaints than the other prisoners ; probably they were well-founded \ but in general they vefeived to the regulations over which ¦
the magistrates had no power . It ' was a mistake to state that Jones wa 3 ; the only prisoner whose punishment was not shortened ; one . man , Thomas Jones , had a fii .-e imposed tipon him of £ 10 at the end of his imprisonment , which he could nofc possibly pay ; he was sent to the House of Detention as a debtor , the Secretary of State refusing to remit the fine , and it was at last paid by the penny subscriptions of his friends . . He regretted that . the case had . been brought forward so late that a committee could hot be appointed ' ; he hoped this would be done nextsession . He was confident tho visiting justices would be acquitted of any harshness beyond the law , and ifc would be . seen that they were actuated by a desire to grant all the , indulgence in their power . . :
Lord D . C . Stuart , in explanation , said that T ., Jones had received a pardon in May , his sentence not expiring till July , but thia was conditional on his conduct being good . . , ' . i . ' "' Mr . w . j . Fox said the apology- for ¦ trio magis-{ rates at the expense of the prison regulations had , strengthened the case of the . nqblo lord , apd shoyen ; more forcible the necessity of parliamentary ' interference . In one case ' a mo ' rith's unnecessary , delay , had been interposed , and on thisgroundhe thought the house might express its opinion asit , o . the eoiiduet of the istrates three
mag , On or . four points they clearly haJ an option ! .. In preventing the prisoner from petitioning' this house , they had debarred him from a right which was conceded to every human being . It was the only defence of a British subject against illegal oppression within the walla of a prison ; his petition should have aseasy access to that house as his prayers , to the throne of Heaven . Ihcre were ample ; safeguards in that house against any impertinent petition it w £ wholly unnecessary to place further obstacles S
™ ° ™ » 'f atin f COUW »> e conSd ' was no o i ? ola ? rS S ^ should be P « " ^ ed 0 } uratating aad embittering his miad . Tko « e
Untitled Article
who superintended prison ? should rather be pleased to scu prisonors employing writin <; miit-. Tials than anxious to deprive thorn of thoin . Every one Icnow that the object of punishment was host pro « motcd by lciml a .-iii Jibcml trenftm-iif-, in 17 PJ or 'Mi Mr . Jiiiiios Montgomery , tin ; editor oi tho Sheffield Ir ! s hu < i be « n uoiilineil for a political libel , ana was yet allowed to CiUitintio : i ; t ! iiiaii .-igemcnt of his papur . Tiie case \ v ' » . s tho wi . e with Mr . 1 ' Io . vcr , thu editor "f a C .-nnbi-iil ^ e paju'r . v . -iili Mr . ' <• Hunt , Mr , W , Uam-. v , imd others . Iu all those cases m was evident these- r . iot , wi-n ; not <\ -iib : tH > red oy thew emp ! oymi . i . r . . Thf-.-c c : isos had occurred cou ury s hwtoiy , xvhen power w . i » most un « pnr"'^ "P P 1101110 C ! ' ^ ' t «! o , ,,, ~ i to ifYefc
. . . oven now , when the irovonn ^ i iilcn , P , | v ; held opimonscomcdiMit with th , victims of tho m-mep system , these jrroascru . Uu * «« ,- „ 8 y » y ; , 1 ( - . tio ^ by tho gaol aeto . In Mr . Jot * * ' ,, case th , ' -o ad been the most extraordinary ii , f .. s . jlusi [ iu 21 tlf tl " gaol chnplaui as to his books ; they \ vevo mooted > u > fc because they wein bi ; i-. p ! a-ii , ous corrupt ' for ihe list was most cxiiv . oivniar . v . Amon « them were some of Sir . Jonoe ' s books ; also tha Antiquary of Sir W . H-joit , the 1 'iht of Cooper , and sonm works of : m Lou -uruble member of that housf , the honeuvaiilij muinVjui * for Bm-kii ^ 'liam shirc , whieh were most extensively read . ( H ar . J It was only a chaplain of the West minster prisoa
that placed these works in an Index Expur « : a [ oriiis . Siia ! iO .-peare was also iiitoiviietiid , as well as somu books of irivel ; ami during his six days' solitary confinement , oven the UUlia wo . * refWul him . ( dear , lienv . ) This could bo nothini : but the wilful exercise of a bad power ; but jjaol ehajdins seemed loUo persons of very peculiar notions . Those were . "ill matters iu which discrotion was exercised , and the visiting justifOi could" not be defended by are appeal to the rules . He hoped the sublet would coino again before the house , and . that there would bo not only provision fur the future , but reparation , for the past where iimu-y had been committed .
Colonel TllOMPSOX considered tho Chartists responsible for having lost or seriously d .-unriged a great cause , l > ut did not approve of ' inakin ^ men heroes by persecution . One- tendency of this wast to bring theso men into p .-ii-liuinent ; imd lie lmd nofc the slightest douht tlj'it Mr . Vincent would ba returned at tiio next election , lla hsul lost nothing in public estimation by his impmoiiineiit , on tha otlii-r hand , he had gained . Under these circumstances it was not politic to prosecute ; some of theutselvos might have stood ia the same position , and it bshoved them , tliurcfoit ' , to exercise some « thing like tenderness .
Mr . Uouvkrie said he- would confine the question to the case of Ernes ! : Jones , lot thinking that any advantage could result iVoin a debata on prison discipline generally , or on the relative effects oC mental ami bodily suffering . Thure were no rules nnd regulations peculiarly relating to political offenders ; the law did not recognise then ) , but only felons ::. nd misdemeanants , with some minor divisions . It should bo boi-nc in mind that Hie Secretary of State had no powcv ot oiifovcing or dispon . sing with ruisulaUoKS , lust eoulilo : ; ly improve or disapprove of those made by tlie magistrates . It was true that . Mr . Jones had been confined in a separate ceil , but this was at his own request ; the only alternative the magistrates ct . uld offer him was that ; of confinement \ vith Uio oiln . T prisoners , and ho
preferred separate eotiimtm- nfc . , As he bad nofc been sentenced to ho conliiird in tho first division of misdemeanants ,-ho noccasarily : Avent into tho other . The act hsd given the jud » e power to make this distinction ; he hud not mado it in Mr . Jones ' s favour ; and thu cons-Cfliicnco was , he was necessarily subjected to a more harsh treatment . It was impossible to draw a ' . listinotion in favour of what were nailed ... political oifenees , without including sonic of the worst crimes thafc disgraced humanity . Tho dress worn by the pri » soiioi' in this case was in conformity with thu regulations , and the number of letters written by him had been quite equal ' to the . number allowed . It was not because a- prisoner was -characterised as a political offender that he should , be entitled to a
variotv of indulgences which xrcro not granted to othoi' 3 . Thu jud ^ a who tried tho case \ ma bc- « fc able to decide this . nuc . 'Uon . Why should men be sent to prison at ail , if their condition was to bo 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 ovidonoa . to show th . it thi . j was tho result of the prison discipline , beyond tbe necessary confinement , which , was of the essence of the imprisonment . The . surgeon stated that his long continuance in the infirmary wasmoro of bis own indulgence than from necessity . Tho medical inspector said his complaint , diarrhoea , only 1 sted a single day ; and whiic he was their , he re * coived excellent nourishment .
Lord D . Stuart . —An . d during ' . tha timo ho lost l-Htis . of fiosh . Mr . Ijouverie said the oakum-picking was prescribed in compliance with tho act regulating the employment of prisoners not sentenced to " hard labour . But it appcaved Mr . Jones lad chosen to ba persecuted and oppressed rather than submit to a small payment . lie refused either to pick the oakum or allow tho money to be paid . Thereupon he was sentenced to six days' solitary . confinement on bread and water . This was . charged as an injustice against the visitiii " magistrates but thu prison regulations empowered thein to continue this confinement for a month . Lord D . Stuart . —But there is no such provision . in the act .
Mr . JiouvERiE said there was the general provision authorising thorn to make the ; necessary arrangements for the good government of tho ira&S . lie was convinced that Mr . Jones had been treated with great indulgence on various occasions , and should therefore oppose themotion . . Mr . G . TnoMvsoK deniud that , tho > wearing of a felon ' s cap was in . conformity with , tho rules and regulations of the prison , oiv . that tho exclusion of the books referred to had been ? o required . It wag clear this whs an extra punishment , and a most severe and heartless one . Mr . Jonps . had been compelled to walk to and from the ' .-chapel , with a class of prisoners to whom he did not bolonjr , including felons . The ho . n . . gentleman who , , spoke lasc Jiact passed by the charge of ' Mr . Jones , hein"'prevented
irpm seeing his solicitor , oije of the . most important grounds of complaint . ' Why , had not the hon . gentleman accounted for . the .. neglect of the Secretary of State ' s letter . ;? , This letter , dated at the Home Office ' on the , 2 nd of . June , only . cnro . 0 before the usticca ' ii week after ,, the governor , stating that it had only been received at tlie prison , on the 7 th . Why had not this bp . on inquired into , and explanation given ? How , was ' it that Mr .. Jones never knew of this letter [ being received , and of peimissicri being given'for him to petition- tho house ? These were ajll , violations of the prison rules , aud could only ha ' yo arjsea from a wish on , the part of the magistrates , to make the prisoner ' s situation as painful as possible . , IIe i-ejoiced that . thu question la ' d . 6 een brousht forward at a time free from
political excitement . Mr . Jones had been the victim of such excitement ; the sentences then passed wore aggravated ,. by the excitement ... which prevailed ; and ' the , least severe would .. now have been thought a sufficient ' punishment for . what then took place . He trussed . th . e . discussion . would at least wve the effect of drawing tho attention of tho legislature to tho necessity of making a distinction between political . offences and others .. ) Mr . Jones had never sought for a commutation of ( jis sentence ; he had only complained of the severity \ pf his treatment beyond what the prison regulations required . As the c ' ase stood it wore a mosirsuspicious aspect ^ particularly as to the ' dete ' n ' tioii of a . letter from tho Homo Office ., . IIo hoped" tlie whole' matter will be brought under the consideratiquc-f the house early nextession '
s . . . : . ., . -, . , . Sir II , . ytihi . ovGupY expressed ' his opinion that Mr . ironosia ; d . bopn .. iiui' 3 } ily and unjustly treated . He was not sentenced , to hard iabd ' u r , , but had heua put to the degrading occupation of oaku : n picking . The act did not prftseribe . this as a ' punishiiKait , hut to repay the county lor the ' expensoi of tho prisoner ' s maintenance . As Mr . Jones was afilicted with chronic . inflammation , ' of the , ' eyes , it was » , marvel to himh ' ow tlie visiting justicesicould think of enforcing this ignominious lajlpur , especially on a man . qf education .. The solitary confinement had been ordered at a time , when the- cholera waH prevailing , when there was a greater Ability of serious consequences . The prisoner » had becn depvived of a most important right . i > y . the .. magistrates j n ,. aiioftea
uemg to petition , for three . months , for at that time the house w . ouldf not ' .. Jj ^ jBiifrn g . Some explanation was due on this' po . uyfc ; , ' for whoever ^ - / , . atcyer a pri ? onet ,, was ,. . iie ' had a right to . bring hls case befqr . o tHe Vouse \ He . thought ° deep . ly . to he regretted . . hat the JLord . Chief Jifstli " ( S ^' vV ?" ' A « t . class , pf .. misdemeanants , " ear , near . ) . Ifc was impose b . e . to come to anv moWfo ^ ' ' ^ uld , . therefore , support tho motion for an inquiry next session ,. ' . in ^ f " k ^ was . socry " to observe a want of ¦ Sffi ^ ^^ - ^ ™ J' FNcK ^ ie government aeau with this case , . It . was undeniable that nil tho other
prisoners had received a commutation of their ; sentence , Jones ' only exeepfced . ' Considerii ^ ne ridiculous nature of , the ' attempt in which they had been engaged , he t h © ii « Vt it a case where lenity might properl y have been exercised . Should a committee bo asked for he would support tho morion . Mr . llESLBY thought it net surprising that Mr . Jones believed himself to have been harshly treatet . Without , throwing blame on the « o « ran : cr . t , ! io thought further inquiry oug ht to ta . e p . n e . Much , no doubt , fed been Ms W the u ¦ n n } --Uces , and th . ir discretion M not ^ ' ~ be iiSpSrs wr * m ^ ™*™ is
Imperial Parliament.
Imperial parliament .
Untitled Article
July 26 , 1851 . - ----- THE NORT HERN STAR „________ 7
-
-
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/vm2-ncseproduct1636/page/7/
-