The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-28 00:00:00

MISS NEWMAN.

Lord BROUGHAM begged to put a question to the
Noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government, re-
specting a matter which had taken place at the late meeting
of the Middlesex Magistrates. It was there stated that Miss
Newman, who had been convicted of various robberies, and
sentenced to 14 years transportation, was favoured with a
commutation of the punishment to imprisonment in the Peni-
tentiary, when she was removed to Bedlam on account of pre-
tended madness, and was now living there in comparative
luxury. It was also stated that the matron of that establish-
ment, upon close observation, was convinced of the assump-
tion, and threatened to subject Miss Newman to the discipline
of the establishment, if she persisted in the imposition. He
begged to ask if that was true ?
Lord MELBOURNE replied, that it was certainly true
that Miss Newman had been so convicted and sentenced ;
and, at the recommendation of the Judge, the sentence was
commuted to three years in the Penitentiary, whence she was
removed to Bedlam, upon the representation of the medical
officers of that establishment. In Bedlam, however, it was
discovered that she was perfectly sane, and that she had been
so throughout. This was communicated to the Secretary of
state last night. With respect to the confinement of the
three children in the House of Correction, the best
way
would be to draw up a report of all the circumstances, and
to lay it on the table.—( Hear.) They had been sent up from
the country, by the Magistrates, under sentence of transporta-
tion, which had been passed on there for the purpose of re-
moving them from their parents, by whom they were in-
structed in crime. The Secretary of State sent them to the
House of Correction, for the purpose of reformation. It was
not true that they were subjected to solitary confinement,
which was not inflicted upon any prisoner, except as an addi-
tional punishment for misconduct in the prison. Nor was it
true that any adults had become insane through the severity of
their sufferings. With respect to the cases last night brought

Forward by the Noble and Learned Lord, his (Viscount Mel-
bourne's) Noble Friend the Secretary of State was of opinion,
considering the gravity and weight of these ch irges, and the
effect that they were likely to have on the public mind, that it
would be advisable to have some report drawn up and laid be-
fore both Houses of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) He (Viz-
count Melbourne) did not consider the peculiar object of the
complaint made by the Noble and Learned Lord last night.
Was it that the punishment was too severe, or that it was im-
proper ? These three children had been convicted at the
Quarter Sessions. The were each ten years old.
Lord LYNDHURST—The youngest seven years and a
half—the others eight and ten.
3rlViscount MELBOURNE—I believe that what I state is
the real fact of the case.

Lord LYNDHLIRST—I have spoken with a magistrate
who has seer, the children, and who has investig kted the mat-
ter with Treat attention, and he says that the youngest is seven
and a half.

Viscount MELBOURNE believed that they were all ten
years old, but that did not matter, for they were, at all events,
of a very tender age. The parents of these children were of
a most profligate disposition, and given to plundering, and in,
the habit of doing that which had a great tendency to increase!
one of the greatest moral crimes of this day—an evil hardly)
known 30 or 40 years ago—namely, robbery by children.
These children were sent up from the country, where they
bad been prosecuted, in order to remove them from the con-
troul of their parents, and to give the Government means of
reforming them. Now, with respect to the manner in which
they had been treated. The establishment was managed by
a Committee, who were directed by particular rules, sugs
gested, he believed, by a Committee of that House, who sat
in 1835. The Secretary of State gave no peculiar direction
with respect to these children, and though he had a general
controul, if there had been any unusual severity or harshness,
certainly his Noble Friend was not more than generally re-
sponsible. With respect to the solitary confinement, he (Vis-
count Melbourne) believed there was no such thing as solitary
confinement. There was no solitary confinement—that was
complete seclusion in cells, without being seen, without going
to meals, to public worship, or to the general instruction
which was afforded in that establishment. The report which
he had received with respect to those children was,
that they had regular exercise twice in the day—that they
attended chapel twice on Sundays, and twice during thel
week, to receive the religious instructions of the Chap-'
lain and the schoolmaster—and that, further, twice in
the week they received a visit from the Governor, and that
they had an opportunity of applying to see him whenever
they pleased, and that they were constantly visited by ladies,'
who spent a considerable time with them. This could no
he considered a very great hardship. This report also stated
that these children, since they had been in the establishment,
bad greatly improved in their morals, general habits, ands
learning. The Noble and Learned Lord last night alsoz;
brought forward the case of two men, whom he said had
been kept in solitary confinement. The names of these
men were Welch and Clay. They had been sent to the
Penitentiary, having lived very ill-conducted lives. They
were never in solitary confinement except for prison of-
fences. Welch had been reported thirty-one times and
punished fifteen times, making altogether twenty-two days—
the longest period at a time being three days. Clay had been
reported six times and confined in a dark cell five days two
separate times.
Lord LYNDHURST said that one of the Magistrates
had himself seen the children, and he had told him
distinctly that the youngest was not more than seven
and a half years old when she was first placed in the
prison. Lord Hale had stated, and he believed it to be the
law of the country, that no child could committ a felony un-
der the age of seven. If this child, then, had just turned that
age, it seemed to him that the punishment inflicted had been
very severe ; for to punish such a child with a severity which
would be considered considerable for persons of mature age
was highly improper and inconsistent with the spirit of the
law. But, further, it appeared that the theft committed by
this child had been committed at the instigation of her
mother, who had been indicted for receiving the goods
which the child had stolen. The mother was tried and con-
victed of that offence, and was sentenced to six months' im-
prisonment, whilst the child was sentenced to transportation
for seven years. Now, he had said, to impose that punish-
ment on the child, was, in the highest degree, improper, and
upon that ground he had imputed some blame to the Noble
Lord the Home Secretary ; but it was said that the Noble
Secretary was no party to that transaction. He (Lord Lynd-
hurst) fully admitted that; but the sentence must have been
brought under his consideration, because there could be no
confirmation of it without his consent; and the Noble Lord
therefore, had been a party to the confirmation of a sentence
of transportation for seven years on a child not much more
tTian seven years old, for a theft which she had committed at
the instigation of her mother. Now, had any contradiction
been given to that part of the statement ? The Noble Vis.
count said they had not been committed to solitary confine-
ment. Ho was aware of the distinction, and he had stated
that they had been punished by what was called separate con-
finement, which to persons of that age and under the circum-
stances amounted to solitary confinement. But let them mark
the statement of the Noble Viscount. During the whole of
the night the child was secluded, and during a great part of
the day ; still she was allowed to take exercise for a certain
time, but during that time she was not permitted to communi-
cate with any person—she was not allowed to go to church on
Sunday, and on two occasions in the course of the week, and
for three hours—three hours only in the whole week—she was
allowed to go to school. Was not that in reality solitary con-
finement ? The Noble Viscount nad stated that his represen-
tation was incorrect with respect to Welsh, whom he had stated
to have suffered considerably in health of body and mind.
Now, upon that point he had received a letter from a magis-
trate which confirmed his statement.- The statement of the
Noble Viscount might be correct, but it was at least sufficient
to show that the matter ought to be put into a course of in-
vestigation, and if the Noble Viscount would propose a Corn.
initte.e to inquire into these cases he (Lord Lyndhurst) should
be most happy and ready to attend every hour of its sitting. He
was only desirous of ascertaining the truth.—( Hear.) It was to
be remembered that the Penitentiary was directly under the
superintendence of Government. It was visited and con-
ducted by persons appointed by the Government, and every-
thing, therefore, which took place in an establishment of that
nature, so managed and directed, ought to be watched with
peculiar vigilance, and it was for that reason partly that he
had felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the
subject of these cases, and more particularly to that species of
punishment which had been alluded to, because he Lad been
a party to those proceedings on which their Lordships had
been unanimously of opinion—(llear, hear)—that was, ex-
tension of solitary confinement—and he was unable to distin-
guish between that and separate confinement—beyond a very
limited time was harsh, unnecessary, and severe, and had ex-
pressed that opinion by adopting the amendments which he
had proposed to the series of measures then under their consi-
deration.
Lord BROUGHAM entirely agreed with his Nuble and
Learned Friend that the distinction between separate and so-
litary confinement was most flimsy, shadowy, and unsubstantial.
oabrjaleceetrion to solitary confine-
Wit h regard to the case of the young
;the child,an defencepdt,ahreent secondly,
and tochfhaittlhdie.t
Magistrates was that the child was so young that every means
ctlpi toaoli n
to
0, t reclaimhsecp
owNuaogswli
,absolutely
in
merit was,tothattheleilt:sreYhe'tad no tendency to cure persons of their
ways—they
thievish propensities, or to deter others from the same offence,
sendparent
the aid
parentchild
o might
Botany b e
Bay,effected
or in
theytwo
and that its effects were grievous to be considered. The
separation of the
might
might send the child to Botany Bay. In this case there could
be no doubt that the mother was the principal offender, but
the child was sentenced to transportation, the mother to six
months' imprisonment. He should have thought it was rea-
sonable if the mother had received the more severe punish-
ment;but perhaps thatmEigdhitdbneoatntahn:nkkwtahradtmthodeereofwlaosokainnyg
at the question.
Lord MELBOURN
• •
sufficient case for a Committee ; but if it should appear to be
the opinion of their Lordships that it was desirable to appoint
a Committee, he could of course have no objection.
The Earl of RADNOR thought that a Committee should
be appointed. He bad Leen informed that the cells of the
prisoners in the Penitentiary were adjacent, and that the prison-
ers actually unversed from one cell to another. He had no rea-
son to believe that there was no truth in the statement that
those children could not speak articulately; but that, in fact,
their voices were quite as full as those of children of their age
generally were. That was the representation made to him,
and by a person who had seen the children. With respect to
the boys, too, the Governor said the only difference he found
in them was that they were rather more orderly, but that they
were just as acute as when they entered the prison ; and with
respect to Welch, he had declared that he was much more
comfortable in the Penitentiary than in the workhouse. He
(the Earl of Radnor) only wished that for the future Noble
Lords would take a lesson, and not be so ready to come for-
ward with statements, without having first instituted every
possible inquiry as to the truth of those statements ; for un-
doubtedly great mischief was frequently done by those hyper-
bolical statements.
Lord LYNDHURST begged leave ask the Noble Lord
what course he could have taken for the purpose of obtaining
information in these cases except that of applying to the Ma-
gistrates before whom they had been investigated?
Lord BROUGHAM wished to say one word in his own
defence and that of his Noble and Learned Friend, against
the lecture which the Noble Earl mounting in cathedram, had
delivered ex cethrdra against Noble Lords for calling atten-
tion to facts that were in every one's mouth, and were dis-
cussed in every circle of the law within this city. his Noble
and Learned Friend (Lyndhurst) had not chosen this matter
as the subject of a party attack ; it had been pressed upon his
attention. Application had been made to him in private; but
since he ( Lord Lyndhurst) had ceased putting questions to Mi-
nisters whenever they were in their places, since he had ceased
making frequent motions, since his habits had so entirely
changed, did they think be had forgotten that Parliament was
never better occupied than in considering any grievance al-
leged by any of the subjects of this realm ? Did the Noble
Earl hold that because his Noble and Learned Friend had
obtained those statements in private frotn a person whose
name was not before the public, he was therefore guilty of a
breach of duty which ought to call down a lecture, in the
terms of a formal reprimand, for rashly bringing forward un-
founded accusations? Let his Lordship wait till he saw whe-
ther they were unfounded. The statements which lied been
made were only those which had remained uncontradicted for
a length of time, and which had been proclaimed to the
world at a meeting of magistrates. He considered that the
statements were made on a very solid foundation ; 'and if his
Noble and Learned Friend had not brought them forward he
should have thought him a most fastidious Member of Parlia-
ment.—( Hear.)
The Earl of DEVON said that it was not his business to

defend the Secretary of State, but he confessed that it was not
easy to see what other course the Noble Lord could have taker.
with respect to these children. There was the greatest
danger in confining them in an ordinary prison amongst other
offenders, where they would be subject to every species of con-
tamination ; and they had accordingly been then placed where
they could have the most accurate and careful superinten-
dence. He had the opportunity of knowing, from persons
well informed on the subject, that there was no foundation fir
the charge as to the articulation of the children, and it was
the opinion of several highly-respectable persons that the pm.
soners had much improved, and were in a happier and more
healthy state.
Lord LYNDHURST begged only to ask his Noble
Friend what statement made by him, except that having re-
ference to the articulation of the children, had been at all con-
tradicted ? If he would point out one single fact which had
been contradicted, then he (Lord Lyndhurst) would admit the
weight of his observations.
Lord BROUGHAM wished to say another word upon this
second lecture, and lie could not help observing that Chairmen
of Quarter Sessions were very fond of giving them lectures.
A laugh.) " Never touch a magistrate," said the late
Mr. Wyndham, "because the instant you do so all the rest of
the Justices set their backs up, and then follows a hue, buz,
and bubble, bubble, and they are all upon you as if the most
sacred penetralia of the Constitution had been entered."—
( Laughter.) So it was with his Noble and Learned Friend.
There was the Whig on that side of the House—and the rank
Tory—(Laughter)—near him, and the Waverers not far off.
Every Justice in the country was on the back of his Noble
and Learned Friend—and all this for supposing that a Justice
was a fallible animal—he begged pardon—a fallible being.—
( Loud laughter.) But the Noble Lord had said, why didn't
they apply to five vastly respectable men. For that purpose
it would have been as well if their names had been men-
tioned, but this quingeviran of respectability was not applied
to, and for the best reason, because they wished to know
facts, of which those respectable men knew nothing, and all
of which were in the breasts of other persons—such facts as
the indictment, the trial, the conviction, upon which the ma-
gistrates were the proper, and, indeed, only authority.
The Earl of RADNOR said it might, perhaps, have been
Quixotic in him to take up the case against the magistrates,
but most undoubtedly he had not supported them.
After a few words from Lord Wharncliffe, Lord Brougham,
the Earl of Dovon, Lord Melbourne, and Lord Lyndhurst,
The LORD CHANCELLOR begged to move that a
Committee be appointed to inquire into the cases of Matilda
Seymour, Ann Gray, and Harriet Simpson, prisoners in the
Penitentiary, Milbank, and of John Welch and William Clay,
who have been lately confined in that prison.
Lord LYNDHURST suggested that Miss Newman's case
ought to be included in the inquiry.
After a few words from Lord MELBOURNE, that suggestion
was adopted, and Miss Newman's case was inserted as an ad-
ditional subject of inquiry, and the motion was agreed to.
Their Lordships then adjourned till Thursday,

CHURCH-RATES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR,— Should nose of your " legal friends" notice the in-
quiries of your Bingham correspondent in The Sun of the
24th, I would venture to suggest to him-
-Ist. That the entire current of the authorities supports the
reply you have given : " That every rate is retrospective
which is levied (laid) to defray expenses already incurred."
But I think it is Sir Edward Sudden who, on a very recent
occasion, declared his conviction that a rate should not be
deemed retrospective which had been granted to Church-
wardens, within their year of office, for expenses incurred
within the same year.
2d. That it is not " illegal to move that a vestry meeting
be postponed (adjourned of course is meant) for six months."
Such adjournment may be legally resolved by the vestry of
today; but it has no legal effect to bar the assembly, upon
due notice, of another vestry after the lapse of one week, which
vestry will in no way be bound or eontroulled by the resolu-
tion of adjournment for six months, carried at the preceding
vestry.
3d. That " a person whose name has not yet been put on
the (any) rate-book" may not " demand to have it put there
before the polling and then vote"—for as respects the question
upon which the poll is taken, there can be no " rate-book"
until the result of the poll shall have authorised a rate to be
made—but every person liable to be rated, by virtue of the pos-
sible result of the poll, and consenting thereto, may, although
not previously assessed to any rate, demand to vote upon that
poll.--58 Geo. 111., c. 69, sec. 4.
4th. The question, " Has the Chairman a right to restrict
the polling to one clay ?" involves matter of most vital import-
ance to the independence of parochial meetings. In Chitty's
Blackstone, it is laid down that the Chairman of a vestry
meeting has no power whatever to adjourn a meeting, or to
controul its proceedings, but only to preserve order; and in
Shaw's Parochial Lawyer, p. 234, that " The persons assem-
o'ed at a vestry, being all upon an equal footing, the power of
adjourning it does not reside singly in the minister, or in any
ether person as Chairman, or in the Churchwardens, but in
the whole assembly; for, inter pares non est potestas ; and,
therefore, the adjournment, as well as every other act of the
vestry, must be decided by a majority of votes.—Stoughton v.
Reynolds, Stran, 1045."
Now, if this be so, as.regards a Chairman by election of a
meeting, and to whom extensive powers may be freely dele-
gated, a fortiori it should be so in respect of one who assumes
the chair ex officio, adversely, it may be, to the will of the
meeting, and whose powers of offence against that will should
therefore be construed almost with the strictness of a penal
statute. .

A polling from day to day is neither more nor less than an
adjournment of the vestry from day to day. If the Chairman
appoints a single day for taking a poll, and no resolution be
passed by the meeting for extending the time, the assent of
the vestry is virtually given to the arrangement ; the act of
their official organ becomes their act by adoption, and its va-
lidity, in particular cases, would, according to recent adjudica-
tions, be dependent on the question, as to whether, in point of
fact, the sense of the parish was fairly to be ascertained by a
poll for the time limited. But it is a quite different, and,
practically, a far more important question, whether, in case of
a Chairman appointing a one day's poll, and the vestry ap-
pointing and taking a two day's poll, the result of the first
day's poll could be maintained by the Chairman as deciding
the result. lam not aware that this question has ever yet
been put directly in issue ; it involves the question, as to
whether an ex officio Chairman can, either by compulsory ad-
journment, or by arbitrary denial of adjournment, controul the
decisions of a vestry, and make it speak contrary to its own
voice ? And while, in some parishes, the arbitrary power as-
sumed by Churchwardens of setting at nought the decisions
of a vestry is now being fairly tried, it were much to be wished
that the arbitrary power assumed by ex officio Chairmen in
other parishes, to control the decisions of the vestry, in limine,
should also be brought to a conclusive issue.
If I might venture to offer a suggestion to my fellow oppo-
nents of Church-rates, it would be, in all cases, boldly to ex-
ercise their constitutional rights, and thereby to throw upon
the enemies of such popular and constitutional rights the
onus of making good their aggressive powers.
Your obedient servant,
SAMUEL COURTAULD.
Braintree, Feb. 25, 1838.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Licensed Victuallers in the borough of Marylebone
arc likely to have a fine time of it, under the mild administra-
tion of Lord Teignmouth, in ease of his being elected to re-
present it in Parliament. It is not very likely that the Noble
Lord will be selected for this purpose ; but it is as well for
them to know that we have now before us a printed document
which, without proof or evidence of any description, intimates
that the Licensed Victuallers of Marylebone " are in the
habit of allowing unlawful games, and gaming with cards,
bagatelle-boards, &c.," and that his name stands second upon
the list of those whose names are appended to the document !
We applaud the determination of the sages of Marylebone " to
take it into their serious consideration, whether a license
shall be renewed to any person so offending against the
Act of Parliament, and the express conditions of the
license ;" but we think it would have been as well,
in the first place, to have duly considered whether such
practices were common in Marylebone, and, in the second,
whether it was always in the power of the landlords to prevent
them, and whether it was with their consent that such prac-
tices wore permitted. These grave considerations appear to
have been beneath the notice of P. Laurie, Chairman ; Teign-
mouth, E. Pcpys, C. Elliott, W. A. Mackinnon, Edward
Budge, 11. C. Moreton Dyer, L. Archer Burton, T. Edw.
Colebrooke, P. Laurie, jun. ; but they cannot well escape that
of those who are thus summarily denounced, and in many in-
stances without any fault on their part. As a body, there is
not a more independent or respectable class of voters in the
borough of Marylebone than the Licensed Victuallers ; and
wa question not that in this, as in every previous instance,
'they will do their duty, not only by their own interests, but also
by those of the borough, which would be sadly compromised by
the election of a Tory saint in the person of Lord Teignmouth.
—Morning Advertiser.
The Times makes a flourish that Ministers were beaten,
and, as usual, misstates the case. The Ministers were not
beaten. Tho short and simple statement of the question and
division is—that in a division of 517 Members a mere small
majority of 9is obtained, declaring what? Why, that the
House of Commons is not guilty of perjury when acting in
its judicial character. The Ministry as a Ministry, are no
more implicated in this than Sir Robert Peel or Lord Maid-
stone ; but it suits the Tory organs to confound statements
and propagate a lie.—lllorning Chronicle.

,f the

The half-yearly meeting of the Proprietors of tt.
General Steam Navigation Company was held yesterday at
their office in Lombard-street. The affairs of the Company
are in a very prosperous state, and the number of ships and
extent of tonnage is yearly increasing. A dividend and bonus
tstere declared, and the proprietors appeared highly satisfied
with the report and accounts laid before them. The prospe-
rity of the Company, which has been of the • greatest psiblie
utility, is now firmly and permanently established, and it gives
us great pleasure to find that the undertaking is as advanta-
geous to the shareholders as it is beneficial to the country.
THE BlGoTs.—The extreme section of the Isle of
Wight Illiberals ihas got up petitions to tha Houses of Lords
and Commons for " the immediate and permanent exclusion
of all Roman Catholics from the Legislature," stating that
the Relief Bill was a measure " highly offensive to Almighty
God," and also the usual tirade about the Representatives of
Ireland being perjured men. The petition contains about an
equal amount of bad grammer and bad feeling. Indeed it is
some consolation to find that ignorance and bigotry generally
go hand in hand. After remaining more than a. month at
Rowden's Library there are ten names.—Hampshire Inde-
pendent,