The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-14 00:00:00

IZ;_:bie

LON DON
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1839.

Amongst the petitions presented to the Lords last
night, was one from Mr. CARPENTER, in favour of the
men capitally convicted at 'Warwick, which Lord
BROUGHAM ably supported. We begin to have some
hope that those unhappy men will not be cut off.
Undoubtedly, offences against property must be re-
pressed, but not by taking away life. To execute men
for destroying a house, is, in truth, for the society to
be more guilty than the men it consigns to death.
They violated the right of property, it violates the right
of life,
Sundry Bills were forwarded. The Metropolitan
Police Courts Bill was further mutilated by Lords
LYNDHuasT and BROUGHAM, on the further considera-
tion of the Report.
The Sheep-Stealers (Ireland) Bill, which was de-
scribed on all hands as a measure for compounding
felonies, was put off for three months.
The Bishop of LONDON, under whose pastoral care
Christianity has thriven so much in the metropolis—as
witness the Sunday teachers, in the streets, of Atheism
—extends his protection, we see, to the whole empire of
Ind, and to all the Christian soldiers serving there.
The Rev. Prelate moved for some papers relative to
tip:, suppression of idolatry, the employing British
'soldiers in idolatrous festivals, and the resignation of Sir
P. MAITLAND of the command of the Madras army.
On these subjects the Right Rev. Prelate expatiated at
some length, and with some clearness, but with lament-
able forgetfulness or ignorance of the idolatry and irre-
ligion which prevail in his own diocese, and amongst his
own flock.

Viscount MELBOURNE answered the Right Rev. Pre-
late, and insisted that the Government and authorities
of India were doing, and had done, all that had been
promised to discourage idolatry; but he stated with the
comprehension of a statesman, of which a Priest has no
• conception, that the empire must not he endangered
by affronting the religious prejudices of the people.
The pilgrim tax, he said, was discontinued, and
other efforts had been made to discourage idolatry.
The Duke of WELLINGTON praised the idolaters as
excellent soldiers, and warned their Lordships—he did
not condescend to notice the Bishop—how they risked
the empire of India for the sake of religion. The
Duke is not a man to think nothing. of the empire of
the whole world if he can save a soul.
14 „The despatches re!atiog to Sir P. MAITLAND the
i' D'shop of LONDON declined to press for ; the others
were granted.
i'''' committal of the Admiralty Cosirt Bill ,wa
I mo.yed by the LORD CHANCELLOR: ho explained its
objects.
Lord LYNDHURST,chicv period of the Session, and ofir; aocncoun account of the late
.4 hc, entertained to the 11account of the objections
i mittoe for three montlits , moved to postpone the Com-
_,oid BROUGHAM supported
Lord LYNDnuasT ; Lo.rd MELBOURNE attacked Lord
I .
iI DROUGHAM for resisting the %Ili, as he had frequently
required such a measure.
i could not tell against their Lordsl Lordship's raillery
:i v , and the Bill
was thrown out. It must be
morPtifs)Oing
otes
mons to see the infants they have
reto the Com-
cafully nursed
into life thus cruelly put to death
or mutilated. Their
i
Lordships rose at H ilf-past N ne.
The Commons met yesterd sy at Twelve o'Cl
read the Birmingham Police Bill a third time,
boyck3Bantdo
8, in spite of the representatiies of that borough, who
wished it put off' for three months. The Birming' ham
men may have hope in the Lonls, for they seem inclined
to reject all the Bids sent up to them.
Out Lord JOHN RUSSELL moving a Committee on
the Manchester Police Bill the motion was opposed by
Lord GEORGE SOMERSET, the brother of the Duke of
BEAryotiT, who tm,k up the IV hig ground, that it
would supersede local authority, that it was brought for.
inhabit.
ants in a hurry, and was not required by the
anis of Manchester. Mr. GRIMSDITCH, Mr. DARBY,
and other Tories, opposed it because it was unpopular ;
and the Whigs, such s Mr. M. PHILLIPS, Mr. P.THost.
SON, and Mr. BROTHERTON, supported it,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL defended the Bill, and the par-
ticular clause objected to, because it had been recom-
mended by Sir It. PEEL, he being a more submissive
follower of the Ri4ht Ilon. Barocet on this point than
Lord G. SomErtsLT or Mr. DARBY. lie also defended
it as necessary to pres..rve the peace of Manchester.
As:,-..airt but short debate ensued, though not on party
prinetp:e...s ; for Whigs voted and spoke with Tories,
and Tortes voted and spoke with Liberals, which ended
0