The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 1839.

would be attended to by the Government, he would
withdraw the petition, believing that to petition Par-
liament upon such a subject, was the last step that
ought to be pursued.
THE CHARTISTS.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Henry
Vincent, W. Edwards, and John Dickenson, who had
been convicted at Monmouth, complaining of the sen.
tence passed up9n them, and the treatment to
which they were subject in the prison of that
place ; their diet being 2 quarts of gruel,
1 albs. of bread, and Ilb. of potatoes daily, without
any animal food. Notwithstanding the sentence
that had been passed upon them, the petitioners
stated their belief that they had the right to meet and,
petition against oppression. He (Lord Brougham)
thought the petitioners were borne out in that by what
had been stated by the Noble Lord the Secretary of
State for the Home Department at Liverpool. The
petitioners also stated their surprise at being punished
for agitating the country, when certain Members of the
House of Commons, whose trade was agitation, were
applauded to the skies for it.
Lord MELBOURNE said the regulations were
there always observed in the gaol, and he believed they
were made by the Judges.
Lord LYNDHURST—No, not by the Judges,
but by the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment.

Lord MELBOURNE must say by whomsoever they
were made, that while they were in force these persoes
in the position in which they were placed had no right
to complain of them or to obtain a remission in their
favour.

Lord BROUGHAM said when Sir F. Burdett
and Major Cartwright were incarcerated for a sedi-
tious libel, such would not have been the course
pursued, and if a remonstrance had been addressed to
the Secretary of State he would have immediately dis-
patched a special messenger, in the middle of the night,
and have ordered the removal to another prison. If
that was not done the Government would not endure
for half a year in that country, and he cared not who
heard him, he would say that if such things were per-
mitted it ought not to endure.
Lord LYNDHURST moved for copies of the fol-
lowing further correspondence relative to the election
riots which took place at Birmingham in 1837. Letter,
dated 24th of August, 1837, from Mr. James Taylor
and eight other gentlemen to Lord John Russell. State-
ments, accompanying the above letter, from Mr. E.
Lloyd Williams, Mr. Samuel Rawlins, Mr. J. B. Heb-
bert, Mr. Henry Smythies, Mr. James Taylor, Mr.
Edward Armficld, Mr. John Morgan Knott, Mr. Cle-
ment Ingleby, and Mr. Robert Gayman. Colonel
Thorn's Report, cited in Lord John Russell's answer,
dated 2d October, 1838, to 111 r. James Taylor and
others. Sir Maxwell Wallace's letter to Colonel Thorn,
also therein cited. The '° several additional documents,"
also therein cited. Letter from the Adjutant General
to Colonel Thorn, dated 4th August, 1837, also therein
cited. Letter from Mr. J. W. Whateley and others to
Lord John Russell, dated 29th October, 1837. Letter
from Mr. George Barker to Lord John Russell, dated
30th October, 1837. Letter from Mr. James Taylor
to Lord John Russell, of the same date, or nearly so.
Letter from Mr. Clement Ingleby to Lord John Rus-
sell, dated 30th October, 1837. Letter from Mr. S.
M. Phillips to Mr. J. W. Whateley and five other
gentlemen, dated Ist November, 1837.—Ordered.
Lord LYNDHURST inquired whether the Noble
Viscount had any objection to lay before the House the
Treaty concluded with the Imaum of Aden ?
Lord MELBOURNE replied that he had no ob-
jection.

BOLTON POLICE BILL,
Lord DU NCANNON, in moving the Order of the
Day for the House going into Committee on this Bill,
said there were two points for consideration—first, the
would
t
efficiency of the Police Force of Bolton, and secondly,
the
uld b e boundaryfu found Great
manorial and
constables Little
w Bolton.ere
de-
pendent
for payment on the Poor-rate, and the Noble
It
v
and Learned Lord knew that that payment was illegal.
The 18th Geo. 111. gave the power to pay certain ex-
penses, but these were only the reasonable charges, and
betweenhat the
could not apply to a regular salary.
Lord LYNDHURST agreed with the Noble
Viscount.
Lord DUNCAN NON said the whole of the police
force to be depended on was 13, unless they went to
the Polies Act. If they were appointed under that
Act; Bolton would stand exactly in the same situation
as Birmingham, and while the question was pending as
to the validity of the Charter, the Police Act could not
be acted upon. In choosing these constables it had
been said that the Mayor had chosen improper persons.
He (Lord D.) had this day read a very voluminous
correspondence from Bolton to the Secretary of
State and the special constables are stated to have
done their duty extremely well.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
He had read through very carefully all the letters and
communications that had been received by his Noble
Friend from Bolton, and he found that the riot there
had not continued mere than the whole of one day alto-
gether. As to the Mayor he had found that he had
been at his office all that day, and that it was not his
fault the military had not been promptly called out ;
however his Noble Friend had put the conduct of the
Mayor on that occasion into a state of inquiry.
Lord LYNDHURST said that he should be content
to await the result of that inquiry before he said more
about the conduct of the Mayor. He should not op-
pose the Bill passing into a Committee, but he cer-
tainly could not bring himself to believe that the police
force proposed to be raised by this Bill would be suffi-
cient to preserve the peace of that populous town. He
should like to know if it was really meant to be said by
sttrg
hoaai
asLmyete
Lord
tarhroodraoprtt
Dwarh
wteus
otwe
ourNi
fltv ceB,
wasdAt
Bd. for
Ntpr ettoahhceNeeyi
their police,
snoa
inßt
y,o alll
the Noble Viscount that only thirty police were neces-
d
btheefoaunnledndsumffiecnitesn.t.
The Bill lei
eanswer
phoew could
o
T
re then passed through a Committee with pnutiton the supposition
cer-
tain verbal amendments, and was ordered to be printed
The House resumed.
On the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY,
the Report of the Manchester Police Bill was
brought up.

Lord LYNDHURST gave notice, that to-morrow
he should move for certain papers relating to the
business transacted in Parliament during the present
Session.

ASSAULTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord DUNCANNON moved that their Lord-
ships' amendments to the Assaults Ireland Bill, which
had not been agreed to by the Commons. be not in-
sisted upon—Agreed to.

BANKRUPTS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR,
the Bankrupts Ireland Bill was read a second time, the
object of which the Noble and Learned Lord stated was
merely to correct a mistake that had slipped into the
Bill which had passed last Session on this subject.
Lord LYNDHURST wished to correct a' mistake
which had been fallen into in reference to what he was
supposed to have said on Tuesday last upon the Bolton
Police Bill. It was supposed he had stated that the
Mayor had at a meeting to which he referred moved the
resolution which he (the Noble and Learned Lord) had
read. He had not stated that. What he had said was,
that the Mayor had attended the meeting, and seconded
a certain resolution ; but that the resolution was moved
by another person.
Lord MELBOURNE said that he had understood
the Noble and Learned Lord to say that the Mayor was
present at the meeting when the resolution was moved.
Lord LYNDHURST said that that was so, and he
wished to have it set right, as it had been represented
otherwise.
The House then adjourned._

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Actousr 22.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
MANCHESTER AND BIRMINGHAM EX-
TENSION RAILWAY.

Mr. FRESHFIELD presented a petition from the
Grand Junction Railway Company against the Man-
chester and Birmingham Extension Railway Bill. Per-
haps he had better defer stating the petition until the
Report was presented.
Mr. MI LD M AY brought up the Report, on which
Mr. EASTHOPE rose, and was about to address
the House, when
Mr. FRESHFIELD rose to order—he believed
that he was in possession of the House, having first
risen to present the petition.
The SPEAKER said if the Hon. Member was go-
ing to discuss the Report, it should be laid on the table
and printed first.
Mr. EASTHOPE said he was not about to propose
any discussion. He wished merely to state that the
Report did rot contain what he considered it ought to
contain.—(Cries of " Order.")
Mr. FRESHFIELD then rose and said the peti-
tioners stated, that they together with the London and
Birmingham Railway Company formed one continuous
line from London to Liverpool, and also from Liver-
pool to Manchester, and that on the. formation of that
line,they had oxpended a sum approaching to 7,000,000/. ;
that they depended for the maintenance of these rail-
wasla
and fact
Birmingham Extension
competing line with
rail-
ways, as much on the trade to Manchester, as Liver-
lthe
proposed; tha
that t he re
Manchester
Railway, that if those measures had come at the same
time before Parliament, they would have been treated
as competing lines, and that the merits of each would
have been examined by a Committee. They stated, that
the House had come to certain resolutions and required of
Committees sitting on Railway Bills that they should
report especially on some points, among others, what
competing lines were in progress, or even of what notices
had been given ; and they were to report especially
what provision had been made for the interests of com-
merce and agriculture. The petitioners stated that they
had presented a petition representing the interest they
had, and the interest which the public had, in the main-
tenance of this continuous line from London to Liver-
pool ; that when they were to be heard the Committee
came to a resolution—
Mr. BROTHERTON rose to order. The Hon.

Member was stating what wasi n a Report which was not
before the House.
Mr. FR.ESHFIELD said the Hon. Member was
mistaken. He was merely stating the allegation of the
petitioners, who complained that the Committee had come
to a resolution that the Grand Junction and the London
and Birmingham were competing lines, but that it did
not necessarily follow that they had therefore a right
to be heard. The petitioners complained specifically of
this resolution, stating that no other instances had oc-
curred in which competing lines were refused to be
heard, and that they themselves had been admitted to
be heard last Session against a similar application by
the same parties as the promoters of the Bill. They
prayed, therefore, that the Bill be re-committed, or that
they might be heard before an appeal tribunal. He
should confine himself to moving that the Bill be re-
committed, and that the petitioners be heard by
council and agents against the Bill. He believed he
was correct in saying that he could not do so till Tues-
day week. Meanwhile.he moved that it be printed.
The SPEAKER said the Bill could not be discussed
till seven dlys after the Report had been presented, nor
except on a Tuesday, so that it must be on Tuesday
week.

Mr. BROTH ERTON rose, but was interrupted by
Mr. CRAW FURD presenting a petition from the
London and Birmingham Railway Company, stating
similar allegations with those which had just been pre-
sented, and with a similar prayer, that the Bill be re-
committed. He moved that it be printed.
The SPEAKER intimated that the Hon. Member
must then be prepared to make a motion respecting it
on an early day.
Mr. CRAWFURD said he should join in the mo-
tion for recommitting the Bill.—(A laugh.)
Mr. BROTHERTON (in an excited tone) said
this was of a piece with the opposition which the Bill
had received in Committee—(Order)—and which was
the most unfair—(Loud cries of " Order, order !")
The SPEAKER said it was irregular to speak on
petitions.

Mr. V. SMITH presented a petition from a private
Gentleman, also praying for the re-commitment of the
Bill.—(A laugh.)
Mr. E WART presented a petition from the Liver-
pool and Manchester Railway Company to the same
effect.—(A laugh.)
Mr. CLAY presented a similar petition from the
Bolton and Leigh (or Leeds) Railway Company, with
a similar prayer.—( Hear and laughter.)
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from the
county of Kerry against the renewal of the Charter to
the Bank of Ireland. Also one from a parish in Lime-
rick, complaining of the House having taken no steps
to redress the grievances under which the people of
Ireland laboured during the present Session.
Mr. S HEIL presented a petition from Louth against
the renewal of the Bank of Ireland charter.

Mr. WAKE EY had a petition to present of the
utmost importance, and and as it related to a very great
grievance, he trusted he would be allowed to state the
facts as shortly as he possibly could. He lamented the
absence of the Noble Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment, not only for the cause of it, but because that
absence would damage the cause he had in hand. In
November last a respectable surgeon, named Frederick
Nicholas Somers Thomas, and his groom, were taken
before the Magistrates of Union Hall-office, charged
with stealing furniture from a house in Camberwell-
grove. They were then discharged. On Dec. 6 a
bill was found by the Grand Jury, and the parties were
again taken into custody. They were tried on the ith,
without any preparation, and were convicted upon tes-
timony which turned altogether upon identity. None
of the goods were traced to the possession of either
of the prisoners. On the 13th of December a
Mr. Cook, another surgeon stated, that he had seen a
report of a case in the Newspapers, which he
knew to be totally erroneous, for he was the party
who took away the goods, and he was totally un-
acquainted with Mr. Thomas, whom ho had never seen,
and who knew nothing of the matter at all. Mr. Cook,
expecting the parties would not return, took the goods
according to the authority that bad been given him by
one of the parties. Mr. Cook, and two persons in his
employ, Skinner and Watts„ removed the goods in
September. They went to the house in the open day,
and there was no concealment, and no attempt at con-
cealment, Mr. Cook feeling that he was entitled to take
the goods that were assigned to him by his debtor,Mr.Cook
related these facts to the Home Office, and the Chair-
man of the Sessions, but, strange as it might appear,
after Mr. Cook had sent to the Home Office a state-
ment to the effect that the goods were taken by him
and not by Thomas, and that Thomas was altogether
innocent of any offence, ho himself became charged
by the prosecutor with having stolen those very goods.
He was taken before the Lord Mayor—the Lord Mayor
referred the case to the Magistrates of Union-hall,
who dismissed it, and said there was no case whatever

that could be sustained for one moment against Mr.
Cook ; but the Lord Mayor ordered the goods to be
delivered up to the prosecutor. They were so deli-
vered to him, so that the prosecutor who came forward
to swear the goods were stolen by Thomas, had had the
goods given up to him by another party who had not been
punished for the offence. Those things might appear to the
House extraordinary, but it appeared to him (Mr. Wak-
ley) more extraordinary still that, after all that had
been said and done on the subject, and after the repre-
sentations that had been made to the Home Office,
Mr. Thomas should be still incarcerated. Mr. Thomas
was sent to Chelmsford Gaol in December last, and
this prosecution had had such an effect on his mind
that he had since been removed from that place, and
was now in the Criminal Wing of Bethlem Hospital,
Mr. Cook with the most praiseworthy benevolence had
made every exertion in the power of man to endeavour
to obtain the liberation of his innocent fellow-creature,
but every effort he had made had been unavailing.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) He (Mr. W.) had often reason
to complain of the Noble Lord the Secretary for
the Home Department, in reference to his politics,
but he must say, that so far as the administration of
justice was concerned no Minister ever deserved
a higher character for his conduct. He believed that
Noble Lord had always endeavoured to ascertain the
truth of the facts of every case brought to his notice ;
and in defiance of every slander and every threat, when-
ever he discovered the truth he acted manfully and
boldly.—(Hear, hear.) That was the character which
the Noble Lord was entitled to as Minister of Justice,
and as Secretary of State for the Home Department,
and he (Mr. W.) was utterly at a loss, seeing the way
in which the Noble Lord always had acted, to compre-
hend how it was that the Noble Lord's mind continued
blind with reference to the facts of this case. He was
afraid the Noble Lord had been influenced by inferior
persons, who when they had fallen into an error, in-
stead of looking at the merits of the case, and endea-
vouring to rectify that error, only sought to prove that
it was no error, and that though all other persons
might be wrong they themselves might be right. All
he (Mr. W.) wished was a fair, open, and candid in-
vestigation. He wished Mr. Thomas and his accuser
to be brought face to face. At the time the trial
took place, Mr. Thomas knew nothing whatever of
Mr. Cook. He was called on to prove a negative.
A party swore that he was seen in the street, and
Mr. Thomas could not prove that he was not. What
had occurred since? Why, the sweep who swore on
the trial that he had been hired by Mr. Thomas to
get down the chimney and opened the door, had con-
fessed with tears in his eyes that he had been bribed,
and that he was threatened, unless he gave the evidence
he did he would be convicted of some offence he had
committed. He had confessed that he swore falsely.
One of the policemen stated, that when he took the
servant of Myers to Thomas's house, she said " that's
not the gentleman—lie was taller," which was the fact ;
but notwitstanding that, and the confession of the
sweep, and the evidence of a surveyor, who examined
the chimney pots, and stated that it was impossible the
boy could have gone down into the house in that way.
Mr. Thomas was incarcerated in a dungeon, he had
become demented, and was now lodged in the felon's
cell of one of Vie lunatic asylums of the metropolis.
He could not understand how the authorities of the
Home Office had investigated the case under such eir.
cumstances, but he believed there were some men who
would rather hang the innocent than eat their mutton
cold. Nothing was so injurious to the law or to
the judicial institutions of the country, as to allow
cases of such extreme hardship to remain unredressed.
He pledged himself to prove the entire innocence of
Mr. Thomas, and if he did not do so he would never
bring a case before that House again. Many of the
documents and materials on which his innocence rested
were at the Home-office, and the petitioner could not
even get the papers back again, and would not be allowed
to take copies of these documents. He was anxious,
having stated the case, to found a motion on it for an
address to the Crown, praying her Majesty to direct a
full and impartial investigation of the allegations con-
tained in the petition, but as the Noble Lord was not
there, and as twenty-four hours' deliberation might
be of service to the unfortunate man, he weuld
postpone the motion till to-morrow. He trusted in
the mean time that the Noble Lord would make some
intimation to him that an inquiry would take place, and
thereby render the motion unnecessary. Let the Noble
Lord refer the matter to some respectable barrister
nho had given no opinion on the case, and there was
some hope that that unfortunate individual, who had
been now eight months incarcerated, would ultimately
obtain his liberty.

Mr. HAWES said there were some parts of the
Hon. Member's statement which required a little eluci-
dation ; and as he had taken some interest in the case,
he would take the liberty of addressing a few observa-
tions to the House. He was bound to state his en-
tire conviction of the complete innocence of Mr.
Thomas. Ho made that statement not upon his
own conviction, but as the result of the profes-
sional investigation of two barristers of eminence,
who had gratuitously given their services in the case.
He would state further, that be had received from the
Noble Lord every possible attention ; ho had submitted
every document to him, and yet, nevertheless, the
Noble Lord had some how come to the conclusion that
he was not justified in ordering his discharge.

The Noble Lord had certainly given the most careful
and minute attention to the matter, having de-
voted his time for upwards of an hour to the
subject. He (Mr. Hawes) had requested the Noble
Lord to review his decision, but nevertheless he remain-
ed, he believed, the same. He could only account for
it by supposing that the Noble Lord must, in the mul-
tiplicity of his business, rely in a great measure on the
information of others ; but he felt at all events that
there had not been that careful investigation of the sub-
ject which its importance demanded. He was justified in
making that statement from the circumstance of the
authorities at the Home Department having, in the first
instance, mistaken the case, and attributed to the peti-
tioner, Mr. Cook, that he was a man of a bad character,
although it turned out that it was another person of the
same name who was a man of indifferent character.
He regretted, after so much time and so much care had
been given by the Noble Lord to the case, that he had
come to the resultion he had done.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
could assure the Hon. Gentleman who had presented
the petition, that the only cause of the absence of
the Noble Lord was indisposition. He must
admit that the Hon. Gentlemen had done full justice
to the principles which had actuated his Noble
Friend. No doubt the notice that had been taken of
the case in the House would call to it the attention of
the Secretary of State, but whether that would produce
a different result, he could not say. Whatever that re-
sult might be, he trusted the House would not under-
take to review lightly the prerogative of the Crown in
cases of the present nature. In conclusion, he begged
to inform the Hon. Member for Finsbury that he
would take care that what had occurred should be
made known to his Noble Friend.

Mr. WARBURTON thought there was the
greatest doubt whether this gentleman had been pro-
perly treated, and he hoped therefore that an investiga-
tion would take place upon the subject.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that he thought there was
one clue in this case that he thought would put an end
to all difficulty, which was, whether the individual
had this!propertyin his possession, because if lie had and
gave an authority to part with it there could be no
felony.

Mr. HAWES thought the case might still be con-
sidered as under the consideration of the Government,
and not yet adjudicated upon.
Mr. %VA KLE I' observed with reference to what
had been said by the Honourable Member for Dublin,
that Thomas and Cooke were wholly unknown to each
other. He would give notice for a motion to-morrow
sincerely hoping there would be no necessity for
snaking it.
The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. P. THOMSON presented a petition from
Stroud, praying for relief from the duty on post-horses.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Geo. Connor,
of Leeds, one of the rational religionists, who was now
in prison under the Insolvent Act, complaining that the
Commissioner bad rafased to liberate him in consequence
of his not taking the oath, to which he had a conscien-
tious objection. Also a petition from Henry Vincent,
Wm. Edwards, and John Dickinson, who had been con-
victed at Monmouth, complaining that they were kept
on felon's food, and denied the use of pen, ink, and paper,
and treated in a manner contrary to the express wish of
the Judge. The petitions were ordered to be printed,
the Hon. Member stating that he should call the atten-
tion of the House to them to-morrow.

The HON. MEMBER also presented a petition from
Thomas Steele, Esq., praying that a memorial might be
raised to the memory of Sir Isaac Newton, and that
he house in which he lived, near Leicester-square,
might be preserved.
THE FISHERIES.

Lord PALMERSTON, in presenting papers by
command of her Majesty, stated that one of them was
a Convention between England and France, to settle
all the disputed points about the fisheries, which had so
long attracted the attention of the House, and been a
source of anxiety to the Governments of the two countries
The object of the Convention was to fix the boundary of
the oyster fishery between Jersey and the coast of France.
The subjects of each country were to have the exclusive
right of fishery within three miles of low water mark on
the coast of the United Kingdom on the one hand, and
the French coast on the other. Commissioners were to
be appointed within two months after the ratification to
make regulations to govern the conduct of the fisher-
men. When they might be on the seas between the
two countries, and beyond the three miles. These re-
gulations if approved by the two Governments were to
be recommended to the legislature of each country in
order to give them the force of law, as it was likely these
Commissioners might conclude their labours and agree
on the regulations before the re-asserr bling of Parlia-
ment, he was desirous of obtaining a temporary au-
thority to the Crown during the recess of giving effect
by Orders in Council to such regulations, and he pro-
posed to move for leave to-night to bring in a bill for
that purpose, and he trusted the House would allow it
to be carried through its different stages to-morrow and
the next day.