Current:

Leader (1850-1860), 25th January 1851, Edition Town of 2, Page 91, Untitled Article

Page 91
Page 19
19 of 24

On this page

  • Departments (1)
    • 4>$m (CmrariL a —_
  • Pictures (1)
  • Text (7)
  • 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

      AN ANSWER TO SIR EDWARD SUGDEN . Queen ' s Bench Prison , Jan . 14 , 1851 . Sir , —By your letter , which appeared in the Times of the 7 th instant , in which you say " it is high time that the public should be informed of the true state of the case as regards prisoners for the contempt of the Court of Chancery , " you assail those prisoners generally , and me in particular . The passage affecting me is as follows : — " The remaining prisoner of this class has long been in prison for non-payment of about £ 40 costs , from which he could obtain his discharge under the Insolvent Act ; but he is so frequently before the court and the public as to render

      it unnecessary further to refer to his case . ' That the Insolvent Court is appointed for discharge from imprisonment for debt we know ; but we know , also , that there are other courts for discharging from false imprisonment . That I am falsely imprisoned you advise me by your letter itself , if I did not know it before , for you declare that , every prisoner for contempt must be brought to the bar in thirty days , and I have never been brought to the bar of the Court of Chancery at all . You know this fact , for you say that when you visited the prison in October , you " took a note of every man ' s name , and date , and cause of commitment , " &c . Now , you saw that every commitment was by the Court of Exchequer , and for a different cause , and that that cause was

      discharged by an order in June , 1845 , and , therefore , that I have been falsely imprisoned from that time to the time of your inspection , under colour of a writ of attachment for the £ 40 , which had been previously directed to the warden of the Fleet , and which ought , according to law and to your own opinion now given , to have been returned at latest by the last general return-day in Michaelmas Term , 1840 , and that from that time it has been of no legal effect , and that the keeper of this prison , if he had as he ought to have done , put me by force ( unwilling man as you say I am to depart ) out of the prison on the receipt of the discharge from the commitment , the party who claims the £ 40 could not have brought an action against him for an escape .

      This being " the true state of the case us regards " me , I may , without the least exaggeration , complain of contempt of all the superior courts committed by yourself in this instance : I may do this on the authority of the great oracle of your court , Lord Hardwicke , who reduced the several sorts of contempts to three ; the first of which is the libelling , disparaging , or prejudicing suitors in respect of causes pending in courts . Thd Chancery Reform Association full far short of the true etute of the caso" us regards the victims , ior they do not appear to know that nearly all the county gaols contain them , many of whom have been there for

      many yeara—one of them about two years , —for not giving up books und papers ; the reason for not giving up which is , that they are held by his solicitor as lien for the costs of putting in the answer prepared from those books und papers . Now , if this man were brought to the bar , do you say that the court would commit him i No , you aay , the court orders no one to do what is impossible . But I cun tell you of another case in which they did make un order , and held the man in prison in Winchester gaol more thun twelve months , and would have hold j am till now , if I had not prevented it , witjiout its being known whether he could perform the order or not : the order was that , within u certain number of « fty » from service thereof , he should lodge in a cortttin bunk a certain box containing 500 sovereigns . -Uetore the order wan nerved ( und I think it was made ex jxirte , or it would havo been a very foolish order ) trie sovereigns were spent ; yet the man wus taken on attachment for breach of the order . If ho had boon brought up ,. he could not have been committed . AU that while ho luy ut Winchester , not ablo to put

      anjr solicitor on the move , until I heard of him , which I did by another person who was brought up , but brought up too late , and who , for that cause , was very expeditiously discharged , on the motion of Mr . Teed , and instructions prepared by me , under your act . If , as you say , " the courts of equity had no power to release prisoners for contempts without the plaintiff ' s consent , and contempts for mere non-payment of money , or of costs , could not be cleared under the Insolvent Court , " until your act was passed , could a humane mind suggest

      no other cause or blame but that of the prisoners themselves for such a monstrous state of things ? However , it appears that the mind of a great thorough-paced lawyer cannot ; for all you seem to have lamented was , that the persons so kept incarcerated at the " bidding , " as you call it , of the suitors , should have so adapted and contented themselves as to find a " home" in the Fleet ; and your sentiments , and those of Sir George Stephen , who comes in to back you with aletter in the Times of the 10 th , seem most of all outraged that they should have found something to eat !

      I deny your position in toto , that " the court only acts on the bidding of the suitor" in these cases , that is to say , in contempts of non-feazance , and which are only supposed contempts . In these cases the theory is , that the court lends its process , which it possesses of inherent jurisdiction to use in cases of real contempt or real feazance , such as abusing its officers or suitors , or prejudicing suits . Real contempts are criminal matters , and indictable ; supposed contempts are supposed criminal matters , and within the meaning of the Habeas Corpus Act . And the only possible principle on which these criminal processes were ever granted merely to enforce orders for private

      benefit was , that the court had no other process to use . Well , then , why is not some other process given ? Why , it is given , and ample means too : and now let me put this question : —Why is not the same power and means which appear so amply set forth in the 13 th section of your act , in cases of " persons having privilege of Parliament , " applied to all other persons ? Why is it not sufficient to take the bill pro-confesso in any other case , as in that of privileged persons , and why cannot it be taken proconfesso in the same manner ? The truth is , that there is no law for imprisonment at all , except in criminal cases , in which it reaches all persons ; and

      that it is not one class that is privileged , but the people at large who are filched of their rights . But I go further , and convict you of being the sole inventor , cause , and author of some imprisonments which have taken place ; and this , too , where you were the Chancellor , and , therefore , the court itself . When you were Chancellor in Ireland , in the spring of 1835 , you either knew , or you did not know , that there was no such thing as imprisoning for contempt in not answering where the object was to take the bill pro-confesso ; and that , if a solicitor imprisoned a defendant when that was the object , he would be fined . Now ,

      nevertheless , and notwithstanding your assertions in your letter about the prisoners bein g " martyrs of their fellow-men , " as soon as you returned , on Peel ' s going out of office , you being out of employment as a judge , set to amuse yourself again as legislator , and produced a counterpart of your English act for that happy country of which you had lately had the jurisdiction . This English act distinguishes between the Chancery and the Equity Exchequer , not extending to the latter a rule dispensing with writs of rebellion , the reason for which was , that the Exchequer having no Sergeant-at-Arms as the Chancery had , could not , in the manner provided

      by that rule , dispense with such writs . When the Irish act came into operation , which waa just at the time of the general refusal to pay tithes in Ireland in 1837 , the usual power of taking bills pro-confesso was found to be insufficient in tithe-suits , because , when the decree was obtained , it could not bo executed readily . Some « harp-sighted wight of the law espied this negative recognition of writs of rebellion to take hills pro-confesso ; and I recollect the exultations of the Times and other papers , that " the law was

      triumphant , " and that it had been found out that refusing to pay tidies waa rebellion , punishable by the Court of Exchequer ! On taking the first bill pro-confcBtio in one of those suits against a prisoner under your act , Chief Duron I ' eimefatlier said , " the practice was entirely new , " and that " those who hud framed the act did not appear to have been aware of the previous practice . " Therefore , however you are uinbrugcd by the idea of peruonii being imprisoned by mistake ? , you see it is the fact , and that , too , by act of Parliament , and with you lor the legislator .

      I feel there is not tqmee , or I hud witthed to exemplify that favourite court of all lawyers , the Insolvent Court ; and , in fact , I sent tin anecdote of it to the Times immediately on reading your letter , but which that journal instinctively eschewed ; and it ia from that journal to t \ m Leader , and the rest of the impartiul press in town and country , thut I appeal for the insertion of thin as u faint sketch of " the true state of the caao . " I am , Sir , yours , &c . MVlhhlAM . CoilMKTT .

      Untitled Article

      THE POPULATION QUESTION . Dec . 510 , 11850 . Sik , —Mr . Search , in his remarks on my statement respecting population und production , appears to mo to have adopted a tone of flippancy totally unsuited to the subject , and quite uncalled for by the passage quoted . Mr . Search should have confined himself to my Htutement , and not have introduced topicn to which I made no reference . I neither mentioned Multhus ' s name nor any of hia statements or arguments , nor do I feel bound to defend hi » view of the question . What Mr . Search culls " Malthus ' n philosophy " —though it i . s no more his thun any other " law of nature '—viz ., that there is a tendency in population to exceed production , is considered so well proved , and ho generally admitted by Dr . Chulmer » und Mr . Mill , thut they adopt tho doctrine

      Untitled Article

      There is no learned man but will confess he hath much profited by reading controversies , his senses awakened , and his judgment sharpened . If , then , it be profitable for him to read , why should it not , at least , be tolerable for his adversary to write . —Milton .

      4≫$M (Cmraril A —_

      4 > $ m ( CmrariL a —_

      Untitled Article

      [ In this department , as all opinions , however extreme , are allowed an bxpres 81 on , the editor necessarily holds himself responsible for none . ]

      Untitled Article

      Jan . 25 , 1851 . ] ' © ft * QLtabtt . 91

      Untitled Article

      ' BISHOPS AND THEIR POWER . January 7 , 1851 . Sib , — The truly Catholic and unsectarian tone which pervades your columns is really quite cheering in these days of bigotry and exclusiveness , doomed , as we now are , to listen to the war cries of intolerance and the din of battling sectaries . The position you have assumed , in reference to the anti-Popish crusade , I conceive to be the only one justified by the dictates of charity and the teachings of reason and common sense . There is , alas ! far too much real Popery at -work in our so-called Protestant Christendom * to justify censoriousness on the part of the clergy , the laity , or those Dissenters who have seen fit to sustain them in the strife .

      To confine my remarks to a single point—I would ask , is not the aristocratic power at present wielded by our Bishops as essentially Popish , as it is truly subversive of the rights of individuals , and the moral influence of the Church ? As in the social world we behold the rich becoming richer , and the poor growing poorer , so in the episcopal world we find the mitred few becoming more absolute , and the clerical many more helpless , year after year . Wider and deeper grows the gulf which yearns between the rulers and the workers in the Church . The moral

      influence which superior talents , or a well-sustained consistency must ever exercise , is now superseded by a more cold , arbitrary authority , —the promptings of self-will are allowed to lord it over justice ; in fact , the Church , which should be the embodiment of the spiritual , has degenerated into a mere copyist and slave of the worldly , or conventional power . Instances , too numerous to be quoted , might be adduced of the injurious consequences of the toleration of these abuses—instances of wrong without redress—of curates hunted down by their ecclesiastical superiors—condemned without trial—doomed to misery and disgrace without means or opportunity of defence — and all , apparently , on the absurd and monstrous suppositions that Bishops , like despot kings , " can do no wrong . "

      I find such an instance recorded in a pamphlet now before me , entitled , Charles James , Lord Bishop of London ! What he Can do , and what he Has done . ' to which allow me to direct your serious attention . The case to which it more immediately relates , is just one of those which serve to show the real character of the system whose workings they illustrate . It presents to us the strange picture of a clergyman battling for yeara against the malice and inexorable self-will of a bishop , and in vain seeking , as one accused , to be confronted with his accusers , and made acquainted with their accusations . Untried ,

      unheard , the Reverend Ihomas Harvey was condemned by the mitred Lord of London to misery , to fearful loss ; deprived of his income , his clerical position as foreign chaplain , and hence , of his peace of mind . Over eighteen years has this persecution extended , and yet now , even now , it remains unatoned for by the dignitary . The clergyman is , it appears , crippled in his resources , and wellnigh broken in spirit ; and yet , still the bishop remains inexorable ; and , sheltered by the law , defies each effort of his victim to obtain the reparation which justice and charity alike demand for the wrongs of years .

      Now , if such things as these still find toleration within the pale of the Church of England , can we feel any just surprise at her gradually losing her hold on the affections of the people , and ceasing to retain the honour even of her priests ? Does it not behove all who would behold tho rise of a really national and influential Church to resist these abuses , and thus avert the ruin which they must necessarily precipitate ?

      May I , therefore , solicit your influence on behalf of this case , which though , indeed , the case of an individual , is likewise the type of a system . I have studied it deeply in ull its aspects , and am assured of its demanding the support nnd , sympathy of the press , and affording an illustration of the workings of that very power which is year by year weakening the influence und hastening on the downfall of the Church .

      Wishing you all success in your noble endeavour to establish a paper Jit once with the ago and of tho age , I remain , dear Sir , sincerely yours , A 1 ' hu-ow WoiiKKit .

      Untitled Picture

  • Citation
    • Leader (1850-1860), Jan. 25, 1851, page 91, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1867/page/19/