HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, June 24. sufficient. If, however, the unfortunate debtor did not receive the supply of which he might stand in need, in the course of that hour, the consequence was, that he might be without food for the next four REGULATIONS OF SURREY MAGISTRATES-PETITION OF DEBTORS IN HORSEMONGER-LANE GAOL.] Mr Hob-and-twenty-hours. The act under which house said, he had a petition to present on a subject of considerable importance. It was from the whole of the debtors confined in the gaol for the county of Surrey; complaining of the regulations to which, under the orders of the magistrates of that county, the gaol was subjected. In the first place, the petitioners complained, that the act of the 4th of his present majesty, commonly called the Gaol act, laid down certain rules for the regulation of gaols, which were very undefined in their character. He was of opinion that the House ought to interfere, and to correct the indiscretions which, under this act, the unpaid magistracy of the country were prone to commit. It appeared that by the 4th and 12th sections of the act, the justices of peace assembled at the quarter sessions, were empowered to make such rules with respect to gaols as to them might seem expedient. It was impossible to know how far such a power might be carried. If the justices of peace, assembled at the quarter sessions, chose to direct that every prisoner should have only a single ounce of bread, and a single glass of water per day, there was nothing in the act of parliament to prevent them from issuing such an order. Although many of the Surrey magistrates were men of the highest respectability, and among them his hon. friend (Mr. Denison), and the noble lord opposite (Eastnor), who was recently the Chairman of the quarter sessions; yet, after the treatment which, by their directions, had lately been experienced by a gentleman, whose case had made a good deal of noise-he meant captain O'Callaghan-it was impossible not to look at their proceedings with considerable suspicion and jealousy. The petitioners complained that, in consequence of the regulations of the magistrates, only one hour in the day was allowed for the debtors to provide themselves with food, bedding, clothes, and other necessaries. Now, as many of the friends of the petitioners lived at a distance from the gaol, and were engaged in business of various kinds, it must frequently happen, that the hour appointed for the purpose which he had just mentioned, which hour was from eleven to twelve o'clock, was inconvenient and in this regulation was made stated, that the prisoners might receive food at proper hours. But, as he had already said, only one hour was allowed for that purpose at Horsemonger gaol; and this restriction in point of time was attended with great inconvenience and hardship. The act also said, that the magistrates should be empowered to make such regulations and restrictions under which food was to be permitted to enter the prison as to them might seem expedient. But, at Horsemonger gaol, in addition to the rule by which only one hour in the day was allowed for the admission of food, it was ordered that the food should be of the plainest kind, and nothing but water was allowed even to those debtors who could afford to pay for other beverage. This regulation was so cruel, that the very gaoler had relaxed its severity, and allowed each prisoner, if he chose it, a quart of porter a day. It must be recollected, that no huxter's or other shop, in which food, drink, bedding, clothes, &c. might be purchased, was allowed within the walls of the prison. Even if a prisoner were desirous of sending out for a little bread and cheese, the turnkey was not permitted to procure it for him. This regulation was enforced so strictly, that he under stood a bun had been taken out of the hands of a child entering the prison, lest it should be given to its mother, who was confined in it. Such a law, if not wicked, was at least foolish, and very apt to be abused. The petitioners complained of another regulation, which was, that no visitor should be allowed to remain in the prison after five o'clock in the evening. The consequence was, that many small tradesmen, who were friends of the petitioners; and, which was of much more importance to them, the lawyers who practised in the Insolvent Debtor's court, were frequently prevented from seeing the prisoners at all. Similar regulations, not even that respecting food, did not exist in the Marshalsea and other prisons. Another complaint of the petitioners was, the grievance of shutting up the wards in summer at six o'clock in the evening. Those gentlemen who knew any thing of the situation of Horsemonger-lane gaol, personal compliment which he had paid him, he could not accept it at the expense of his brother magistrates. Like other men, they were liable to err; and he certainly did think that they had erred with respect to cap would be aware, that the sun struck fiercely upon it throughout the day, and that the evening was the only time in which it was possible for the prisoners to indulge in a refreshing walk. To prevent them from doing so was a severe punish-tain O'Callaghan; but he was persuaded ment; more especially when it was considered, that the persons on whom it was inflicted were debtors, and were not persons contemplated by the law as criminals. The jet of the petition (and an extremely well drawn petition it was) was to beg that the House would amend the Gaol act. He hoped that in the next session, the House would take the subject into their serious consideration. It was impossible to go on allowing a discretionary power to magistrates. He certainly entertained a strong opinion with respect to the conduct of magistrates generally. Not that he believed that they wished to be oppressive, but that he thought the power of being so led them into error. He begged to entreat the right hon. secretary in the name of the petitioners, as it was too late in the session to amend the act of which they complained, to consider the expediency of interfering in his official capacity, with a view to mitigate the severity of the regulations of the county gaol of Surrey. He did not exactly know how the law stood. It appeared as if it enabled the magistrates at large to deprive themselves of their authority; for when, in the extraordinary case of captain O'Callaghan, that gentleman applied to the court of quarter sessions for relief from the hardships under which he was suffering, the justices of the quarter sessions said, that they could not take the case out of the hands of the visiting magistrates, although the latter were intrusted with their power, by the court of quarter sessions themselves! He did not know, therefore, whether the right hon. gentleman could interfere; but he was persuaded that he would do it if possible, if he read the regulations of the Horsemonger gaol, and saw how contrary they were to the spirit, and to the letter, of the Gaol act. They were regulations peculiar to Horsemonger gaol. None such existed at the King's-bench, the Marshalsea, or the Fleet. that no magistrates could exert themselves more earnestly for whatever they thought conducive to the welfare of the county to which they belonged. With respect to the state of the gaol in Horsemonger-lane, the complaints of the petitioners were, in some degree, well-founded. But they had directed their battery against the wrong quarter. It was the law of the land that was in fault. There were two grievances consequent on that law which required redress. The one was, that no fermented or spirituous liquors could be introduced into a prison, except by the directions of the surgeon; the other, that the prisoners had not a choice between accepting the gaol allowance and furnishing their own food. He was perfectly ready to allow that there was a wide difference between prisoners confined for debt and criminal prisoners. The former were, in many instances, the victims of misfortune, and ought not to be subjected to punishment. There were two of the regulations of which the petitioners complained, which he frankly allowed were hardships. The first was, the restriction of the time during which food might be brought into the prison; and which certainly ought to be during two or three hours, instead of only during one hour in the day. The second was, the restraint on the intercourse of the prisoners with their friends. As the regulations now stood, the prison gates were closed at three o'clock in winter, and at five in summer. Perhaps the hour might be advantageously extended to four in winter, and six or seven in summer. A further opportunity ought also to be afforded to the prisoners to enjoy fresh air in the evening. It was his intention tomorrow morning to bring these points under the consideration of the visiting magistrates. As to the case of captain O'Callaghan, he had not read the trial of that gentleman, nor did he know any thing of the parties. He had heard the case mentioned by an hon. member on last Saturday night. The first thing he did on Monday morning was to go to the gaol, and tell the gaoler, that he thought there must be some mistake in the business, and that he conceived the prisoner might have what food he required, as 1497] Petition of Debtors in Horsemonger-Lane Gaol. JUNE 24, 1824. [1498 well as the newspapers, and every thing | the petition, before hon. members blamed else that he wanted, with the exception of it, they would do well to see what the old wine, which, in conformity with the law, law was for which it had become a substicould be introduced only through the tute. As compared with that old law, means of the surgeon of the prison. With there was not a single provision in the new regard to the trial, his noble friend, the law which was not favourable to the prisoners. He apprehended that he had no member for Hereford, who presided on that occasion, to whom the county of direct power to interfere on the points of Surrey was so deeply obliged for his valu- which the petitioners complained. In fact, able services, and than whom no man the less the Executive government intercould be found of greater humanity and fered in such matters the better. The discretion, never understood or thought regulations of every gaol must be first that the prisoner would be treated in the agreed to at a general meeting of magismanner in which he had been treated; or trates, and then submitted for the approsupposed that he would not have received bation of two judges of assize, before they all the indulgence that his situation re- could be carried into effect. He had the quired. He agreed with his hon. friend, greatest confidence also in the magistrates with respect to the new powers which the of the country, and was convinced, that if Gaol act had vested in the magistrates. any hardship sustained by a prisoner was He had doubts also, if individuals, having submitted to them, they would immediately seats in that House, should be also ma- listen to the complaint, and, if it should gistrates, whether the same persons should appear a reasonable one, redress the evil. make the laws, and execute them also. Interference, therefore, on his part, did not He trusted, that after what had been appear to be necessary. As to the case stated, respecting captain O'Callaghan, the of Mr. O'Callaghan, he had made inquiries right hon. gentleman opposite would take respecting it. He had had an interview the case into consideration, and with the yesterday with the noble lord who had humane feelings which distinguished him, presided at the trial, and he confessed that extend the mercy of the Crown to an in- that noble lord had satisfied him of the dividual whom it was never intended should propriety of the conviction. The case be punished so severely as he had been. having been brought before the proper He rather thought that that individual tribunal, and submitted to the investigahimself had committed a mistake, so fully tion of a jury, a verdict of guilty was confident was he of his acquittal under the found; in consequence of which the macircumstances of the gross insult and pro-gistrates sentenced the defendant to a fine vocation that he had received, that he of 20l. and to a month's imprisonment. did not, as he might have done, bring his He (Mr. Peel) had asked the noble lord, case before the court of King's-bench; in whether in considering the sentence they which case, he would have received every should pronounce, the magistrates had kind of indulgence. But the justices of taken into the account the recommendaHis lordship replied the court of quarter sessions had no power tion of the Jury? to order him to any prison but the county in the affirmative. Under all the circumgaol; a place which certainly was not fit stances, therefore, he did not think the for a person of his description. As far sentence unjust and severe, and did not as he could, he would endeavour to re-feel it to be his duty to recommend to his medy the two hardships to which he had adverted. The others were, he feared, beyond his power. Mr. Maberly observed, that as the magistrates of Surrey had delegated their authority to the visiting magistrates, he hoped the error, if any, would be imputed to the latter alone. He should feel it his bounden duty, however, to bring the subject before the magistrates generally. They knew nothing of what had occurred. At least, he might say, as one of them, that he knew nothing about it. Mr. Secretary Peel said, that with regard to the existing law on the subject of majesty to remit it. Understanding that Mr. O'Callaghan complained of the treatment which he experienced in the prison, he (Mr. P.) had that morning required the attendance of the gaoler, and had directed that Mr. O'Callaghan should be at liberty to supply himself with whatever provisions he might wish for; and that his friends should have free access to him. Sir R. Wilson observed, that they were informed by the right hon. secretary, that he had asked lord Eastnor whether the court had taken into consideration the recommendation of the jury: but, there was another question which the right hon. secretary ought to have put to the noble lord; and it was, whether the court had considered that the punishment to which their sentence had consigned the defendant, would have subjected him to such punishment as he had endured during the first eight days of his imprisonment. Lord Eastnor expressed his regret that he was not in the House when this petition was presented, but as he understood that a petition was to be presented from Mr. O'Callaghan, he would reserve any observations he had to make until that petition came before the House. Sir F. Burdett was sure, that his hon. colleague had not meant to cast any imputation upon the conduct of the noble chairman of the quarter sessions. He was likewise sure, that the humanity and liberality which always distinguished the conduct of his hon. friend, the member for Surrey, would lead him to mitigate the hardships of this prison law by every means in his power. He could not, however, help saying, that the case which was then before the House, showed that the alteration which had recently been made in the law of the country was a very grievous alteration; and he did not know how it was possible for any man with the ideas of a gentleman, to avoid experiencing the strongest disgust, on viewing the risk which he now ran of being subjected to the utmost degradation and insult for an offence which any of them might be urged to commit under the impulse of exasperated feelings. For his own part, he would declare, upon his honour, that he would rather be sentenced to be hanged at once, than to undergo the insults which captain O'Callaghan had suffered in the gaol to which he had been committed. He would ask whether any greater mental torture, any more flagrant mental degradation, could be inflicted upon any man who moved in the sphere of a gentleman, than to be placed behind iron railings, and to be compelled to communicate with his friends, not only upon the same terms, but also in the very company of a set of felons? He allowed that the present was an inconvenient time for entering into a discussion on the state of the prison laws; but, nevertheless, he could not refrain from expressing a hope, that the House would soon see the propriety of recurring to the old English law regarding gaols-of taking the management of them from the magistrates-of restricting the magistrates to their ancient jurisdiction and of giving the custody of gaols to the sheriff, the old constitutional officer, to whom it had originally belonged [hear, hear]. Mr. Hobhouse, in reply, observed, that the law itself was so absurd and wicked, and gave so great a latitude to the magis trates by whom it was administered, that no man could be safe while it remained in the Statute-book. He was glad to find that his hon. friend, the member for Surrey, owned that three of the complaints made by the petitioners were wellfounded. He had no doubt that in consequence of what had passed that evening, all those hardships would be remedied. Justice required it. He repeated that it would be much better to abandon the new-fangled system of gaol management, and to go back to the old practice, even with all the vices which belonged to it. As to the case of Mr. O'Callaghan, he would make only one remark. There was not a member in that House who did not recollect a case some years ago perfectly similar. He was far from meaning to say any thing personally unpleasant to the right hon. gentleman opposite. On the contrary, had he been in the situation of that right hon. gentleman's brother, on the occasion to which he alluded, he would have done just what he did. The act, however, was an assault similar to that which had been committed by Mr. O'Callaghan. But, what was the punishment? A month's imprisonment in the King's-bench. How different from the punishment of Mr. O'Callaghan! He had seen the prison, and the particular place in which the gentleman he alluded to was confined. He had his friends to dine with him every day, had any kind of food, had every indulgence he wished for, and walked about at his ease. But, Mr. O'Callaghan was shut up in a solitary cell twelve hours out of the twenty-four, compelled to live on bread and water, and, exposed to the most painful mental degradation. He knew the gentleman, and a more respectable man he never saw. The sentence, hard in itself, was rendered infinitely more so by the mode in which the gaoler thought he was called upon to carry it into execution. He had a right to say that the sentence was hard. Chief Justice Best had, the other day, declared, with reference to a respectable individual who had given another two slaps in the face, that the jury could not give more than a farthing damages. He would ask the noble lord, if the bench of magistrates intended that Mr. O'Callaghan should be punished as he had been; and he was sure the noble lord would reply in the negative. As therefore that gentleman had received a more severe punishment than the court intended, he did think that the right hon. gentleman was called upon to recommend the remission of the remaining term of his imprisonment. Mr. Peel said, the hon. gentleman ought to bear in mind, that, in the instance to which he had adverted, the sentence, besides a month's imprisonment, was a fine of 500l., and to enter into recognizances to the amount of 8,000l. to keep the peace for five years. The law was, that a person committing a misdemeanour, should be subjected to a certain punishment; but it provided, that under special circumstances that punishment might be modified by the visiting magis trates. Ordered to lie on the table. PETITION OF LUKE CARLOS O'CALLAGHAN, COMPLAINING OF ILL-TREATMENT IN THE SURREY County GAOL.] Mr. Abercromby stated, that he had to present a petition from the individual whose name had been so often alluded to in the course of the late discussion; he meant Mr. O'Callaghan. The case of that gentleman had excited great public attention, and the only reason which he could find for its having done so was this-that when the public looked to the offence which Mr. O'Callaghan had committed, to the provocation which he had received, to the recommendation which the jury had given him for mercy, and to the treatment to which he had subsequently been subjected in consequence of his sentence, they saw that there was such a difference between the offence and the punishment, as compelled them to withhold their sympathy from the punishment, and to give it to the person on whom the punishment was inflicted. The petition was, in his opinion, well deserving the attention of the House; and he thought that the right hon. secretary, if he took it under his consideration, would see, that the petitioner had suffered a degree of punishment for the space of a week, which neither the noble chairman who passed the sentence, nor the bench who concurred in it, intended him to suffer. The hon. member then went into the particulars of Mr. O'Callaghan's case, reading them from the petition. After he had the House to the fact, that Mr. O'Calla finished them, he called the attention of ghan had been obliged to submit to this extraordinary treatment for a week, and that he had not ceased to suffer from it until his hon. friend (the member for Surrey), with a humanity that was highly creditable to him, had interposed his authority to put an end to it. He asked whether any person, looking at the provocation which Mr. O'Callaghan had received, the offence he had committed, and the condition of life in which he moved, would have subjected him to all the severities which he had undergone? It had been said, that the bench, in passing sentence on Mr. O'Callaghan, had taken the recommendation of the jury into their consideration: but, in reply to that assertion, he asked, whether the bench would have passed the sentence which it had done, supposing they had known the different aggravations which it was to receive from the gaol regulations? Looking at all the circumstances of the case, he thought that strong grounds were laid for the interference of the House, and for its calling on the right hon. secretary to recommend the petitioner to the mercy of his majesty. The petition did not so much apply to the sufferings of the petitioner as it called upon the House to prevent similar severities from being inflicted on others. Lord Eastnor assured the House, that he never undertook a more painful duty in his life, than that of presiding at the late quarter sessions for the county of Surrey. He undertook it not from any wish of his own, but at the request of his hon. friend the member for the county, in order to give the magistrates time to select a proper successor to their late worthy chairman, Mr. Harrison. He could assure them that he had given his best attention to this case, and that the rest of the bench had done so too. They did not wish to do any thing harsh, but they thought that they were bound by their sentence to mark their opinion of the assault which had been committed. He did feel that without a strong case, it was impro per to allude in that House to what occurred before the judicial tribunals of the country; but, after what had fallen on the present occasion from hon. members, he felt himself bound to state, that the provocation which Mr. O'Callaghan received did not appear to be such as warranted the assault he had made on the prosecutor. |