Sequel to Charge of March, 1857. Crime in 1856. Prison Discipline in Ireland. Smithfield Penitentiary, Dublin. Thomas WotTickets-of-leave and penal servitude men.

ton.

As we read this table our opinions of Mr. Hill's spirit of industry are raised to a high pitch, but they are still more exalted as we read the book itself, and laying it aside we are reminded of Fuller's good advocate-"When his name is up his industry is not down, thinking to plead not by his study, but his credit. Commonly, physicians, like beer, are best when they are old; and lawyers, like bread, when they are young and new. But our advocate grows not lazie."

When Mr. Hill was appointed to the Recordship of Birmingham, the Chartists were exciting the working classes. A serious riot took place, the leaders were tried, convicted, and sentenced to twelve months imprisonment. These riots gave occasion to Mr. Hill to deliver a most important charge, and from its sequel we extract the following passages, on the treatment of Political prisoners and ordinary criminals; upon counsel for prisoners, and upon the payment of witnesses for prisoners by the Crown. Referring to the changes wrought in the minds of the ringleaders sentenced to imprisonment, Mr. Hill says:—

The opportunity thus afforded them for reading and reflection was not thrown away. One of them, Mr. Lovett, a man of ability, wrote a book while in prison for the use of Chartists, containing a plan of education well adapted to the requirements of working men, which I read on its publication with great pleasure. One passage, I remember, struck me very much. Lamenting the ignorance of the labouring classes, he candidly expresses his satisfaction that he and his coadjutors had hitherto failed in their aims at investing them with political power; for although he still looked forward to the time when they will possess it as not very distant, yet he was of opinion that if it had come before they were prepared by education to make a good use of it, the consequences would have been fatal to the public welfare.

That Mr. Lovett and his colleagues were sincere men, however mistaken or hot-headed, I entertain no doubt; and here I may say, that the prevalent opinion which stigmatizes the demagogue as a designing person, promoting selfish objects under pretence of advancing the public weal, lays down a rule which, to say the least, contains a great number of exceptions. The accidents of life have enabled me to see much of these agitators, and I have often found them persons only differing from their followers in the preponderance of the higher qualities.

What they believe to be true, their zeal, courage, and sense of duty impel them to act upon as true; whereas many who hold the

same tenets, and who love to expatiate upon them, shrink from any sacrifice in their support.

The prevalent opinion to which I have adverted is strengthened by circumstances which, if well understood, would not infrequently lead the candid mind to an opposite conclusion.

Sudden and somewhat violent changes of sentiment often occur among demagogues. These changes, which are not unnaturally attributed by those who are acquainted only with the bare fact, to want of principle, are often the result of a conscientious adherence to opinions, until they have been seen to lead, by a necessary consequence, to unexpected and injurious results.

The earnest sincerity which urges these men to reduce to practice what they profess gives them the teaching of experience, and engages them in reflection; whereas the lazy and the timid, who feed their minds upon mere speculation, have little motive and little opportunity for discovering their errors.

Leaders in every class, high or low, soon find-very often to their great surprise that to succeed in governing others, something more is required than good qualities and right meaning on the part of governors; and their attention is necessarily drawn to defects in the body to be governed. Indeed they view the whole affair of government under a new aspect; and although for a time they may be hurried on by excitement and the power which associates have over each other, yet the truth will eventually force its way; and that period is often accelerated by some event, like imprisonment or a fit of sickness, which withdraws them for a time from the field of action.

From these considerations I have regretted that of late years the distinction between political prisoners and ordinary criminals has been well nigh obliterated. The general instinct of the civilized world in all ages has recognized the difference. Political offenders bave been felt to be, if not exactly prisoners of war, yet bearing some resemblance to such captives. To keep their persons in safe custody, or even to take their lives on great occasions, gives no shock to public sentiment: but to subject them to degrading treatment, to crop their hair, clothe them in a prison dress, march them to and fro under the command of a turnkey, prevent them from supplying themselves with books and the comforts which habit has changed into necessaries, and, above all, to lay harsh restrictions on the visits of their friends, is so revolting to the most ordinary sympathies, that magistrates and governors of prisons will not subject them to such indignities and hardships unless the legislature has made their infiction imperative.

The political prisoner, when his treatment is left to the ordinary feelings of mankind, is dealt with as a person in misfortune, who must undergo the sufferings attached to his position, but whose feelings are not to be wounded by contumely. I admit it would not be difficult to find instances in every age wherein the principle has been grossly violated, but such violations have been condemned by universal consent whenever the excited feelings by which they were caused, have subsided.

Political actions assume such different hues, as time rolls on, that society is often spared much regret-perhaps remorse-by having treated them in a forbearing spirit.

I am old enough to remember Sir Francis Burdett sent to the Tower for a letter, which, if published now, would, after the high seasoned language in the use of which the press has for many years been permitted to indulge, be remarked, if noticed at all, for tameness. He subsequently passed a year in the King's Bench Prison, for writing a letter to Mr. Bickersteth, (afterwards Lord Langdale), censuring the conduct of the magistrates and yeomanry, with regard to the conflict, popularly called the Manchester Massacre.

Still later, upon a supposed change of opinions, which he never admitted, he was taken into favour by the political party to which he had been obnoxious; and, although after this event, he did not stand as formerly with his old partisans, yet it would have been a subject of painful remembrance to the whole nation if this high-bred English gentleman had been made to undergo, in any part of his life, treatment which would have outraged his feelings of self-respect.

Mr. Bickersteth who published the letter in the newspapers, rose to be Master of the Rolls, and died a peer of the realm.

Mr. Leigh Hunt, who was imprisoned in the gaol of Horsemongerlane, for a libel on the Prince Regent, had assigned to him spacious and airy apartments, which he was permitted to decorate and furnish at his pleasure; and he is now in the enjoyment of a pension granted by the niece of the sovereign who was the object of his attacks.

The poet, James Montgomery, lately deceased, who had undergone imprisonment more than once for political libels, had also a pension derived from the same source; and neither with regard to himself or Mr. Hunt, was a single voice raised to object against the bounty of the crown being so applied.

Poor Fergus O'Connor was not so fortunate. His treatment in York Castle, when convicted of sedition, was harsh and degrading; and necessarily so, as the law then stood, the visiting magistrates having had no power to alleviate his condition.

The remarks on the distinction which should be made between political and ordinary prisoners, are worthy of Mr. Hill, and are proof not alone of his humanity, but likewise of his sound judgment and knowledge of human nature.

Upon the amelioration of our jurisprudence, by which counsel for prisoners were permitted to address the jury, we have the following interesting history of the rise and progress of that valuable change in our law :

The public apathy to which I have adverted, can hardly be more forcibly illustrated than by the fact, that it was not until the year 1824 that any attempt was made in parliament to remove the disability of prisoners to be defended by full counsel. It ought, however, in candour to be stated, that several excellent persons were adverse

to the change, in the sincere belief that the allowance of counsel to prisoners would not tend to elicit truth. Of these some objected to counsel being heard to address the jury on either side, timidly following in the steps of Bentham, who disapproved of advocacy in any form, in either civil or criminal cases.

The general proposition is intelligible, though, as I think, most erroneous. But how a distinction could be drawn between civil and eriminal cases, I was never able to apprehend; and, if there be degrees of impossibility, was I less able to apprehend how the distinction should be made to restrict the privileges of a person accused of crime: for, supposing distinction could be established, one should naturally expect it to be favourable to him whose life was at stake rather to him whose property alone was in question.

In the year 1824, Mr. George Lamb, the brother of the late Lord Melbourne, brought the subject under the consideration of the House of Commons. He was supported by Sir James Mackintosh, Dr. Lushington, and Mr. Denman, and opposed by Attorney-General. Copley, afterwards Lord Lyndhurst, and Solicitor-General Wetherall. On the division, fifty voted for, and eighty against the motion.* Ten years afterwards, conversing with Lord Lyndhurst, who was still opposed to the measure, he told me that his speech had converted Mr. Canning, who was previously favourable to the change.

In the year 1826, the pen of Sydney Smith was employed in the cause of the prisoner. He addressed the world through that powerful organ, The Edinburgh Review, and I cannot resist the temptation to insert a portion of his article:

We

Your

"It is a most affecting moment in a court of justice, when the evidence has all been heard, and the judge asks the prisoner what he has to say in his defence. The prisoner, who has (by great exertions, perhaps, of his friends), saved up money enough to procure counsel, says to the judge, that he leaves his defence to his counsel.' have often blushed for English humanity to hear the reply counsel cannot speak for you, you must speak for yourself.' And this is the reply given to a poor girl of eighteen-to a foreigner-to a deaf man-to a stammerer to the sick-to the feeble-to the oldto the most abject and ignorant of human beings! It is a reply, we must say, at which common sense and common feeling revolt; for it is full of brutal cruelty, and of base inattention of those who make laws to the happiness of those for whom laws were made. We wonder that any juryman can convict under such a shocking violation of all natural justice. The iron age of Clovis and Clotaire can produce no more atrocious violation of every good feeling and every good principle. Can a sick man find strength and nerves to speak before a large assembly? Can a low man find confidence? Can an ignorant man find words? Is he not afraid of becoming an object of ridicule? Can he believe that his expressions will be understood? How often have we seen a poor wretch, struggling against the agonies of his spirit, and the rudeness of his conceptions, and his

• Hansard, New Series, vol. xi.

awe of better dressed men and better taught men, and the shame which the accusation has brought upon his head, and the sight of his parents and children gazing at him in the court, for the last time, perhaps, and after a long absence. The mariner sinking in the wave does not want a helping hand more than does this poor wretch. But help is denied to all! Age cannot have it, nor ignorance, nor the modesty of women! One hard uncharitable rule silences the defenders of the wretched in the worst of human evils; and at the bitterest of human moments, mercy is blotted out from the ways of

man!"*

In the same year Mr. George Lamb made a second attempt. He was supported by Mr. Horace Twiss, in an admirable speech; by Mr. John Williams, afterwards the judge; by Mr. Brougham, Mr. Denman, Mr. Scarlett, and Lord Althorpe; but was opposed by Attorney-General Copley; by Mr. Peel, afterwards Sir Robert Peel; Mr. Tyndall, Solicitor-General Wetherall, and Mr. Canning. On that occasion the ayes were 36, while the noes were 105, † so that instead of making progress, the question would seem to have lost ground. Nothing further was done in Parliament until 1834, when the Prisoners' Counsel Bill, introduced by Mr. Ewart, passed the House of Commons, but did not find its way through the House of Lords. The debate was taken on the motion of Mr. Ewart for the second reading of the bill, a motion which I had the honour to second. It was supported by Mr. Pollock, now Chief Baron, Lord Althorpe and Mr. O'Connell; and opposed by Sergeant Spankie; but it passed without a division.‡

In 1835, Mr. Ewart was again at his post, but having been intermediately deprived of my seat, I lost the privilege of assisting him. On moving to commit the bill, he was supported by Attorney-Gene ral Campbell, Mr. Blackburne, Mr. Charles Buller, Mr. O'Connell, Dr. Lushington, and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd; and was opposed by Mr. Poulter and Mr. Sergeant Goulburn. §

On the the third reading there was a second debate. Sir George Strickland and Mr. Charles Buller supporting the motion, and Sir Eardley Wilmot and Mr. Poulter opposing it; the ayes were 43, noes, 36.||

In the year 1836 Mr. Ewart again persevered. The second reading was supported by Mr. Ewart, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Pollock, Dr. Lushington and Attorney-General Campbell, and was opposed by Sir Eardley Wilmot, the Chairman of the Warwickshire sessions, who stated that nine-tenths of the legal profession and of the judges were adverse to the measure. It was also opposed by Sergeant Goulbourn, now one of the commissioners in bankruptcy.

As I have mentioned the names of these two gentlemen, Sir Eardley Wilmot and Sergeant Goulbourn, let me pause a moment that I may bear witness to their kindness of heart. Sir Eardley Wilmot was one of the earliest advocates for the reformatory treatment of juvenile offenders, as his published works will prove. He