The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-07 00:00:00

SOUTHAMPTON PIER BILL.

This Bill was read a third time and passed.
BRISTOL AND EXETER RAILWAY BILL.

On the motion of Mr. DIVETT this Bill was read a
second time (we believe.)
Mr. HAL FORD presented a petition from Leicester,
signed by 5,924 persons on the subject of the Poor-laws
Amendment Act. They stated, amongst other things, that
the workhouse was calculated to contain 680 persons, while
the number of paupers on the books was sometimes between
six and seven thousand. With regard to the tests of destitution,
they complained of the provisions of the Bill, and stated that
the average of wages at present received by workmen was not
more than ss. a-week. The petitioners further complained
that the operation of the Poor-laws Amendment Act was snore
applicable to the agricultural than the manufacturing districts,
and they prayed the introduction of a better and more equitable
system of relief for the poor.
Lord G. B ENT INC K presented a petition from Lynn,
signed by all the ship-owners and ship-masters, against the
Pilotage Bill.
Mr. Serjcant JACKSON presented seven petitions from
parishes in Cork, Monaghan, and Waterford, against the
present system of national education in Ireland.
Mr. POWER presented petitions in favour of the Municipal
I Corporations (Ireland) Bill.
Sir G. STRICKL AND presented petitions from different
parts of Yorkshire in favour of the total abolition of Negro
apprenticeship.
Mr. HUME presented three petitions from Paisley and
Fifeshire against the monopoly now exercised by the Queen's
printers of printing the Bible.
Mr. BAINES presented a petition from a place in the
j West Riding of Yorkshire, against any further endowment to
the Scotch Church. One from a Clergyman in the diocese
of Oxford, against the Bill prohibiting the holding of vestries
and other meetings in churches, and one praying for a uniform
penny postage.
Colonel PE RCEVAL presented a petition from the Apo-
thecaries of Sligo, against certain provisions of the Medical
Charities Bill.

Mr. W. MILES presented a petition from a parish in Bris
tol, praying for the immediate abolition of the system of neg:o
apprenticeship, and one for some alteration in the Beer Act.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the in-
habitants of Bruton-square, against the Middlesex County
Courts Bill.
Mr. PEASE presented a petition from the inhabitants of
Durham, praying for certain alterations in the constitution of
the College of Durham.
RIOTS IN KENT.

Sir E. KNATC HBULL took that opportunity, which was
the first that presented itself, of moving for returns relating to
the recent unfortunate transactions that had occurred in the
county which had done him the honour to send him to that
House as one of its representatives. It was impossible for him
to allude to those occurrences without expressing the strongest
fe:‘lings of regret, and at the same time he must admit that
the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department had
in the most candid and fair manner stated to the Hous:3 what
had been the course pursued by the Government in those trans-
actions. But one of the public journals, in its comments on the
matter had said (he spoke of the Morning Clzronicle),
" The remainder of the statement of Lord John Russell con-
tains a gi ievous charge against the Governors of the hospital,
and the father of the maniac himself. They undertook to
place him under proper protection, but they gave him into
the custody of a person wholly unfit to be entrusted with
such a charge. They must manage matters strangely
in the county of Kent. The father was allowed to
dispose of his son in any manner he thought fit. But
the conditions on which Lord John Russell consented
to his discharge were disregarded. They must manage
matters strangely in Kent, when any man who said he came
from the Home Secretary was taken as evidence of the inten-
tions of that Minister. It was the business of the visiting
magistrates to have taken care tha,t the conditions on which
Courtenay was to be delivered up to his father were complied
with." Now this statement conveyed a strong charge against
the managers of the Kent Lunatic Asylum and the superin-
tending magistrates, which he (Sir E. Knatchbull) would
meet by moving for certain papers to which he apprehended
the Noble Lord could have no objection, and which would sa-
tisfactorily elucidate the subject. It had been stated that the
Magistrate bad issued a warrant against the person named
Thom, without any information or deposition whatever. Had
the Magistrate so acted he would have done wrong : but it was
not so. He ( Sir E. Knatchbull) had himself seen the depo-
..

sition on which the warrant was issued, arid, in h's opinion,
the Magistrate had no alternative but to issue the warrant.
It was stated that the unfortunate officer before he was
wounded, stabbed the person who shot him. This was con-
traryto the fact. There were other cireumst.nces which

would hereafter admit of full explanation, and he should
therefore content himself with having stated the facts which he
had done. He should move for a copy of the order of the
commitment under which Thom was received into the Kent

Lunatic Asylum—copies of all applications which had been
made to the Secretaries of State for his discharge—copies of all
correspondence between the Secretaries of State and the,visit-
ing Magistrates as directors of the asylum—and a copy of the
order for his discharge. Painful as was the duty which had
been imposed on the Magistrates, he was confident that they
had done what they could for the preservation of order, and he
did not believe that any wrong impression prevailed in the
district.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL could only express, as the Right
Hon. Baronet had done, his deep regret at the occurrence
which had taken place, and he thought the Right
Honourable Baronet was perfectly justified in asking
for an explanation, as to what fell from him on a former occa-
sion, in consequence of the inferences which had been drawn
from that statement. He did not say any thing which was
intended to convey any charge either against the visiting Ma-
gistrates or the Directors of the Asylum, because the fact was,
that upon the statement which he had received, he thought it
right to direct that a pardon should be issued for Thom, and
that being the case, it was not in the power of the visiting
Magistrates or Directors of the Lunatic Asylum to require
that any other conditions than those contained in the par-
don itself should be complied with. But the motion made
by the Right Hon. Baronet would not give the whole re-
sult of the transactions which preceded the liberation of
Thom. The first representation that was made to him upon
the matter was by the father of this person, accompanied by
his wife, who were recommended to him by two Members of
this House—one of them the Master- General of the Ordnance
—vouching for the respectability of the parties. The father then
made various statements with respect to the state of his son's
health, and told him he might be perfectly assured that if he
were permitted to take charge of him, instead of allowing him
to remain in a lunatic asylum, he would prevent any mischief
that might be apprehended. He (Lord J. Russell) had then
stated to the father that it was not to be expected because his
son was then perfectly harmless, and presented no appearance
of violence, that some paroxysm might not occur which
would render his going at large dangerous, and that he could
not agree to any proposal, unless the father engaged that a proper
person should be near him for the protection of the public in
case any future symptoms of violence should appear. That
assurance was given, and he ( Lord J. Russell) thought it
right to state it, as that conversation would not be contained
in the papers moved for. As the Right Hon. Baronet had re.
ferred to the statements and reports made in the papers, he
( Lord J. Russell) thought he was justified in referring to the
statements made by a Noble Lord connected with the county
of Kent, namely, that certain Magistrates of that district
had made representations against the liberation of this
Thom. He ( Lord John Russell) denied that any such
representations had ever been made, and, on the contrary,
he rather inferred, from no such representations having been
made for some weeks during the progress of the application,
that there was no immediate apprehension of any violence.
Undoubtedly neither the visiting Magistrates nor the Directors
of the Lunatic Asylum had any discretion in the matter—they
were bound to obey the order for his liberation. With respect
to the farther statements that had been made, he was glad the
Right Hon. Baronet had corrected some of them ; an it ap-
peared to him that the conduct of the Magistrates had been as
judicious and prompt as the circumstances would admit of. He
doubted, however, whether, on the first appearance of this man,
the attention paid by the Magistrates was as prompt as it ought to
have been. He had received from Dr. Poore, a relation of
all the occurrences that had taken place, in which it appeared
that he had only heard of the matter on Tuesday, the 29th ;
from the statements made by Dr. Poore, it appeared to him
( Lord John Russell) that all that could be done under the cir-
cumstances was done for the purpose of preventing disturb-
ances taking place. He would not now go further into the sub-
ject, except to move that in addition to the papers asked for by
the Right Honourable Baronet, a copy of the letter he had
received from Dr. Poore should be laid on the table, because
he ( Lord John Russell) thought that what Dr. Poore had
done, and the steps he had taken, ought to be brought before
the House.

Sir E. KNATCHBULL agreed with the Noble Lord
tint the letter of Dr. Poore ought to be hid on the table of
the House, but that motion would come far better from the
Noble Lord than him.

Mr. HUME wished to make a few observations before
the present question was disposed of. He did not rise
to make any objection to the production of the papers
that had been moved for, but for the purpose of calling
the attention of the Noble Lord and the House to the
lamentable loss of life that had taken place, with a view to the
adoption of some measures to prevent such an occurrence in
i future. No man n that House could but express his surprise
that such a state of ignorance as had been shown in the pre-
seat case should exist in a county not 50 miles from the Nletropo-
lis, and inhabited, as it avowedly was, by some of the first men in
the country. If such an occurrence had taken place in Kilkenny,
or in any part of Ireland, it might not have been the subject