The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-02 00:00:00

. „,,,,,
~,,, - -
____..__
.....,....._
, .„
t 9,,,p015-7157115.11'07113:111.-
---
11111 i.
umbl rat:
:
~... .
f ' ,
•
----_______ vt,
.„,...._.._
~
i,
,1,..77. 4 'WI, )
~,,
.I,lJ'. .1 A .:
• 111$4S41•4Miti
.1,,. ij, ; .,
-4<-0 t t 3t . ' •;.., •• ""...4' • (
, .
..,.._ ' -"kit4; 1 at
\-, % • '';' j. T.M. V :•:77, ‘ S•••.. '‹
441 .' N.,
.••••...-______ •
.• ../ ! ...a. -r
,r,c4l.::' ,4 ~, -,_____, .r .--m, ~ \ ~.... ~- ~,, t.,, - (.7-'''...\`,rl, - i-, .!t.
,„„, ft-,,„,
_...,__ („„-------7',Jt . !.- J!:---,-_-•,-2,,---.,,-;1:. .7 ~.•!.,,,4
.1,,,
..,.,...) ,„., 44 i „ .
,• , ~... „ ~ 141t*
:i 'l
-•:
...
ti )i ii it' :
eli,.,', ...„.\„,...4...,.
.....,,.,
~,,,,, ~,, /..,_
vr_- i',-:--- As 7 -.-; • .
`.-- ttV -77: -S7U:--‘:' /
T-7;-1;::•,),.. ~ c,,,?,, .j - .41, --- %.4 ' 10),gl-.4
~.4.1,,..t.,.. Cf.
! ' t)::-,.. - `.!:w ' --' i -----.0? '47-firkOz '
"'.. "
I'7'.:,i)-7,_;) .'.:‘ 7 - ''..,,,L-,41 ' s_t.-z"-.,, it., - tZ, .4, ' - --;cr; •
-,_--:,-:,:::;:i , ..:',,;(0, ~,, :. ''• Pr pI: izi,f,„1::,,.. ~,' .',- ......111,10,v;F::-' --- - ' . __________
L.-75C/71 4' t.

As to wines, other than c, _
m' ly that the duty ;hem may be 10. _at
-half ; and they have no doubt, as in the case
_th brandy, that increased consumption would prevent
any diminution in revenue. Should the result prove
otherwise, your Honourable House should reflect, that
'Neinkind must drink as well as eat; and common sense
suggests that if it were just and wise to take off all duty
on corn, and a variety of manufactured articles which we
can produce, and on the production of which, our whole
population is mainly dependant, it would be far wiser to
lessen the duties on wine, which we cannot produce; and
that such reduction would be more likely to effect that
reciprocity in free trade or commerce, which all other
devices have hitherto failed to accomplish.
Added to this, your Honourable House, indisputably
constituting the best versed in Scriptural reading of any
legislative assembly in the world, should also reflret that
Scripture, which seldom speaks of temporal things, not
even to recommend the union between Church and State,
so far varies in its course, when recommending a mode-
rate use of wine, as distinctly to say, " A little wine is
good for all men." From this " little," however, all but
the rich are unhappily excluded by high taxation; while
the poor, according to another passage in Scripture, ap-
plicable to the use of wine, are fain, after the toil and
labour of the day, " to gladden their hearts," by having
recourse either to ardent spirits or strong beer; the first
of which maddens the mind, and alike tends to fill our
gaols and lunatic asylums; while beer, though preferable
for those destined to out-door labour, is notoriously pre-
judicial to persons of sedentary habits, or such as live
by mental acquirements.
Your petitioners humbly submit that your Honourable
House should also bear in mind that the lowest price at
which genuine wines can now be retailed is 2s. a bot-
tle for those of foreign, and Is. 6d., for those of colonial
growth; whereas, were the duties altered as already
mentioned, foreign wine could be sold at Is. 6d., and
colonial would soon fall below a shilling, and so become
attainable by the poor. It would then be available for
what it is known to be, namely, the best of medicines in
cases of ague and low fever, and to which, it need not bo
stated, the poor are more exposed than any other class
of society.
It would doubtless, also, in many instances correct the
vicious and selfish practice of solitary drunkenness, too
common among heads or fathers of families, enabling
them instead, to gladden their own hearts and those of
their wives and children, by partaking of so wholesome
a stimulant with their social meal on the day of rest.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your
Honourable House will be pleased to grant the reduction
of the duties on all wines imported into the United
Kingdom.
And your petitioners will over pray.

[PRICE SD•

MR. JOHN O'CONNELL.

It has pleased Mr. John O'Connell, in the plenitude
of his wisdom, to move that Mr. John Joseph Lawson,
the printer of " a newspaper called the Times," be ar
reigned at the bar of the House of Commons for breach
of privilege. Mr. Lawson's alleged guilt consists in the
fact that Mr. John O'Connell's speeches are not reported
at length in the columns of the journal in question.
Now, it appears to us that, considering the language of
the sessional orders with regard to the publication of the
reports of debates, Mr. John O'Connell's mode of seek-
ing redress is of the most Hibernian description. He
accuses us of yielding too implicit an obedience to the
sessional orders as far as he is concerned. What if we
should not report him at all? The world would not be
much the loser; the Times would be infinitely the
gainer; and the orders of the House of Commons would
be implicitly obeyed. Thus all parties would be satis-
fied. The sessional order in question is one of those
ridiculous anomalies which are so peculiarly suited to
the meridian of dear Old England. The greatest
pains are taken to construct galleries for the accom-
modation of the reporters of the various newspapers.
The presence of this body of gentlemen is just as ne-
cessary to the proceedings of the House as that of Mr.
Speaker; nay, we doubt if the absence of even that
learned functionary would be so great a loss as that of
the reporters. But more than this, in the Upper House,
but the other day, an animated conversation occurred,
in which more than one Noble Lord complained of the
false system of acoustics on which the House had been
constructed. In many cases it is an impossibility for the
reporters to record the proceedings of the Upper House,
in consequence of this defect of construction, and the
Peers had the good sense to notice and regret the defi-
cient nature of the accommodation afforded to the regis-
trars of their proceedings. Even in the Lower House
we recollect many occasions on which the presence of
the reporters was referred to in the course of the de-
bate, and the integrity and ability of their reports
mentioned in terms of the highest commendation.
We remember, in particular, one passage from the
speech of an Irish Member during the debate on the
income-tax in 1845; but that Irish Member was a very
different sort of personage from Mr. John O'Connell.
" Can; there be a greater injustice," said Mr. Sheil,
" than to tax in the same propertion the First Lord of
the Treasury and the gentlemen who report his speech
on the income-tax in the gallery of this House?" Thus
much of Mr. Sheil's speech would be sufficient to prove
our point; but we are tempted to add the next sentence,
rather as a compliment to Mr. Sheil than to the body of
which he is speaking. " There are men," continued he,
"in that gallery of liberal education, and of minds em-
bellished with every literary adornment, who by great
labour, by great wear and tear of body and mind, acquire
an income which falls within the range of the tax, al-
g
classt ocommensurate which some wi
t oh f the
ee
afibr is-t
ituihit
eoynu
ogi
rnh
theEit
England
gi
useful
fhnr
aoe
ism,
se
obbfeeialno g
ed." So, then, it seems at
times the sessional order is clean forgotten, and justice
is sometimes rendered oven on the floor of the House to
the unwearied industry, to the nice discrimination, and to
the great judgmeet with which the corps of Parliamentary
reporters discharge their duties to the House and to the
public. Consider for a moment what would be the effect
if the system of reporting suggested by the modesty of
Mr. John O'Connell were once adopted. We should
ourselves be curious to ascertain what is the percentage
of the readers of the Times who do more than read over
the Parliamentary summary, as a guide to the speeches
in which they are each especially interested. tOf course,
those of the foremost men in the House upon noticeable
occasions aro read and re-read. We are nut, of , course,
speaking of these exceptional cases, but of the average
stock of Parliamentary debates. With the best inten-
tions and the suost superstitious reverence for the wis-
dom of the knights and burgesses of England, it cannot
but be so. This is a busy country. We can tell
Mr. John O'Connell, who probably never troubles him-
self to read any speeches but his own, that to follow the
discussions of the two Houses, from their meeting to
their prorogation, is in itself a laborious and a not very
agreeable pursuit. As it is, matters are bad enough,
but, were the system of stereotyping senatorial breath
once adopted, the result would be that the debates in
Parliament would never be read by any individual in his
right mind throughout the length and breadth of Eng-
land. This is no idle hypothesis, no vain assumption
on our part. In Germany Mr. John O'Connell's system
has been adopted, and the result has been what we have
described. It falls, perhaps, more in our way than in
that of most persona to have such matters brought under
our notice. We have heard many complaints from
Germans of the evil arising from the method adopted
in their assemblies of giving the speeches of mem-
bers in extenso, without any exercise of discrimina-
tion. In England we give such prominence to a topic
of debate as it deserves, and a Member is reported ac-
cording to the value of the opinions he delivers. We
do not profess to satisfy the vanity of individuals, but to
give, within such limits as our space permits, a faithful
record of all that is of public interest or value in the
proceedings of Parliament. If Mr. John O'Connell is
not a wise man, nor an eloquent man, nor a discreet man,
that is no fault of ours. Let him say things worthy of
being recorded, and we will record them; but we cannot
undertake to sacrifice a column of much more valuable
matter in order to find room for a corresponding quantity
of erambe repctita upon Irish affairs. The public has
been favoured with all Mr. John O'Connell's favourite
arguments many hundreds of times already, and has pro-
nounced upon them no dubious sentence of rejection and
disregard. Why should our columns be made the me-
dium of inflicting upon the empire a repetition of matter
to which all men have agreed to turn a deaf ear for the
future ? As far as regards Irish debates generally,
we are in the recollection of the readers of the Times
if what Mr. :John O'Connell stated yesterday in the
House of Commons be or be not the fact. " The most
trivial English debate," said he, " upon the most pass-
ing subject of the day was faithfully reported; but, let
a subject of the deepest interest to the people of Ireland
be brought forward, and they found the debate slurred
over, and the speeches of Members mangled or misre-
presented." The phrase of " construing through a
brick wall" used to be applied in our younger days to
the persevering German commentators who endeavoured
to extract sense out of the disjointed choruses of such
flisecuhlyt•
ileu:,o
ofnor alike ke
do es Mr.
nature.
Although the files of the Times for the last half-cen-
tury
are thus in fiat contradiction of his ridiculous asser-
tion, he does not hesitate for one moment. We will makeom
him a safe pledge. Whenever he shall utter matter
worthy of record he shall never have reason to com-
plain of being loft unreported. Meanwhile, he would not
du amiss to reflect upon au unusually sagacious remark
dropped by himself in the course of his indignant appeal
to the House,—" It might be said that he thought too
much of himself and what he said." Wo have no just
cause of complaint against the tone adopted by the other
speakers in the course of the discussion, with one single
exception. Mr. G. Berkeley was so cruel as to suggest
that Mr. John O'Connell should for the future send his
speeches to us instead of making them in the House.
Now, this shifting of painful burdens upon the shoulders
of other men who have done nothing to merit the in-
fliction is scarcely evidence of a generous mind. When
Mr. G. Berkeley proposes to favour us with literal
transcripts of the orations in question, instead of listening
to them in his own proper person, we would remind him
of Baillie Nicol Jarvie s exposition of the golden rule of
practical ethics :—Let A du to Bas he would have B
Rio to him, and the product will bo universal felicity.—
Times.

-------
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE
METROPOLITAN REFORM ASSOCIATION.
Sir,—On Monday the 30th of April, the Poor Laws
(Ireland) (Rate in Aid) Bill was read a third time and
passed, with a majority of 129 to 55.
On Tuesday the Ist of May, the Member for Dum-
fries (Mr. Ewart) made his motion for the abolition of
the punishment of death. The subject was of increased
interest from the circumstances of the times. It is
plain that public opinion is gathering fast, and the
subject must be set at rest; and the question is, how.
A practical suggestion which seems capable of exten-
sion and improvement, is that a state of punishment
should be prepared for criminals in whose cases circum-
stances may in the actual condition of things prevent
the application of death, and see whether some-
thing cannot be produced to which the public, upon
experience, shall be willing to entrust the repression
of crime in its deepest dye. Experiment upon
second-rate murderers as in corpora viii, and
perhaps also upon the guilty, of crimes which have
with great hesitation been taken out of the category of
death punishment, such as violation and house- burning;
and see what the promise is, with respect to the final re-
pression of the whole black list. There needs no great
delicacy with respect to crimes like these; especially the
first, which is said to have doubled in frequency since
the removal of capital punishment from it.
Secretaries of State may boast; but the known truth
is, that transportation though declared to be for life,
has not the necessary terrors in the public eye.
There is no doubt it may be made bad enough;
but the badness is not trusted. There are indistinct
ideas afloat of emancipists who keep their carriages
abroad, or come home to brave those they have in-
jured here. And though it is certain thees are the ex-
ceptions and not the rule, the effect is destructive
upon salutary terror. It there must be murder,
there must be punishment bearing some ade-
quacy to its repression. Death has hitherto been tried,
as the cheapest and most efficacious. If a substitute
is to be found, it must have as many as possible of
the attributes of death. There must be a punishment
from which, as from the hangman's grasp, there shall be
no return; save only the single chance of the future proof
of innocence. Except far this chance, the criminal
should as nearly as possible be annihilated. An island
prison in the ocean, where the inmates should
be confined to the regimen of something between
a monastery and a poor-house, would seem to be the
thing to start with. And there ought to be no remission
or return but by an Act of Parliament. If the cry is
raised of interference with the prerogative of the Crown,
precedents may be found where the prerogative has been
voluntarily deputed tor the public good. It the
Crown had all the prerogative which could be
exercised up to the moment which answers to
the drawing of the hangman's bolt, it would have
nothing to complain of. Either make a punishment
which, with the single exception of innocence discovered,
shall be as decisive and irremediable as Imaging, or else
hang on. Public men will of course go halting between
two opinions, till the accumulation of general feeling
drives them to some practical decision.
It has been heard urged, that the experiment of
raising the scale of punishment in the way proposed,
would be derogatory to the dignity of murder. Murder
must have a bed for itself, and therefore you must not try
to make another bed to fit it. This is certainly
a wide departure from•the times, when the scaffold was
a bed that fitted all crimes, down to starring woman's
shoplifting; but it does not therefore follow that it is
exact. To insist on it, seems to be refusing the practi-
cal step which gets over obstacles. The dread of the
public at present is, that no punishment shortof death can
be found suilliciently strong for murder. The dread of
the objectors is, that murder should lose pre-eminence.
Mr. Ewart's motion was lost by 75 against 51. A
considerable improvement on the last, which was 192
against 66. _

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
AN OLD REFORMER.

London, May 2, 1849.

THE RAJA or SATTARA.—Yesterday a ballot wall
taken at the East India-house on the following question
—viz., " That this Court is of opinion that the treaty
concluded by the Bombay Government is 1819 with
Pertaub Singh, Baja of Sattara, and subsequently renewed
with his brother and successor, the late Appa Sahib,
conferred upon and guaranteed to those princes the he-
reditary sovereignty in the principality of Sattara; and
this Court being further of opinion that the heirs and
successors to those princes, whether by adoption or in
right of blood, are intitled to the inheritance under the
terms and conditions of the said treaty, this Court con-
siders it to be right and necessary to record its opinion,
that no case has been made out to justify the annexation
of th, said principality of Sattara to the British terri-
tory." At six o'clock the glasses were closed and
delivered to the scrutineers, who reported that there
were—

For the question ..
Against the question

... 116

... 297

Majority against the question... 201
BIRTHDAY OF THY Duns OF WELLINGTON.—
Yesterday, agreeably to the usual custom, a numerous
party of gentlemen met at the Albion, to celebrate the
birthday of the illustrious Duke. The chair was occu-
pied by Mr. Field, who was supported by Mr. William
Cubitt, M.P., and assisted by the stewards and their se-

cretery, Mr. If. Graves. The dinner was served in the
usual complete manner by Messrs. Staples, and the
hilarity of the evening maintained till a late hour, after
paying due honours to the health of the illustrious
Duke. His Royal Highness Prince Albert, attended by
Lieut.-Colonel the Hun. A. Gordon, honoured the Duke
with a visit at Apsley-house, to offer his congratulations
to his Grace on the auspicious return of his natal day,
which completes his 80th year.
COLLIERY EXPLOSION AT AGECROPT.—An alarm-
ing explosion took place on Monday morning, at the
Agecroft new coal mine, the property of Messrs..
Knowles. The mine is situated about a quarter of a
mile from the highway to Bolton, and near the Man-
chester and Bolton Railway. The depth of the shaft
is about 900 feet. It appears that there are two mines
at present in working condition, and in both of these
mines, we understand, 80 or 100 men and boys are em-
ployed. otyheed:,
"Four
-tioiontwmhiinehe.”thelateseciedmen occurred l
sto'clock
yesterday
their safety
that about
yesterday morning the colliers had descended to their
work, and, as usual, had carried with then'
lamps; but it appears to be their practice, after examin-
ing the mines with these lamps in the morning when
they begin work, to lay aside all precautions,
and use
naked candles. A boy, named Richard Puke, about
eight o'clock, took his candle to an old working, in
which a quantity of carburetted hydrogen had collected,
and an immediate explosion was the consequence. The
report was heard at the foot of the shaft, and every ex-
ertion was made to facilitate the escape of the
men who were employed in the various parts of the
mine, and who had, of course, been much alarmed by the
explosion. It was ultimately discovered that a joutb,
named Jacob Barker, had been killed by the explosion,
that his brother, Israel Barker, was seriously jured
and that Price himself had been severely burned about
the head and face. John Barker, the father of these two
lads, with some other men, was employed behind that
part of the mine where the explosion took place, and had
to make their escape through the sulphur, but with, the
exception of having been much shaken by the explosion,
and having inhaled a considerable amount of sulphurous
vapour, they escaped uninjured. We understand that
the Messrs. Knowles compel the colliers in their employ
to use the " Davy" lamps, but the practice appears to
be entirely confined to the examination of the pits in
the morning, after which they work with exposed can-
dles; and to such an extent does this system prevail, that
they are in the habit of leaving the mines when they find
any accumulation of explosive gases, rather than give up
the candle for the safety lamp. The body of Barker
wits removed to his father's house, at Pendlebury, where
it now lies awaiting the coroner's inquest.—Manehester
Examiner and 'limes.
A deputation, consisting of Mr. R. Ormsby Gore,
M.P., Mr. John Ftolliott, M.P., Colonel Percival, tuid
Mr. A. Leiroy, had an interview with Lord John
Russell yesterday. A deputation, consisting of Lord
Bernard, Mr. W. Fagon, Major Ludlow Beamish, and
Sir Denham Norreys, had also an interview wigs. gito
Noloh Lord yesterday.