The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-26 00:00:00

was the present, when the whole country was in a state
of tranquillity.—(Hear, hear.) He should, therefore,
support the motion.
Mr. AGLIONBY, who rose amid loud cries of " Di-
vide," said he thought the House having spent so many
days in debates of less importance, might allow five mi-
nutes to any Hon. Member who wished to state his
opinion on this subject.—(Hear, hear.) It was, ad-
mitted that crone case, whatever might be the opinion as
to the constitutional mode of procedure, the expression
of an opinion by that House had led to a mitigation of
the punishment, and he could not but think that any ex-
pression of an opinion by that House would have its
due weight with the Crown. He quite agreed that it
would not be becoming in the Home-office to urge this
upon the Crown as a matter of popularity. With
respect to the Chartists, he thought they had not done
their duty by them. If Hon. Gentlemen had attended more
their general meetings and evinced more sympathy with
the interests of that class, he thought they should not
have heard so much of the disaffection which existed
among them towards that House.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord SANDON said that, although on a former occa-
sion, he had expressed his sympathy with the working
classes, he could not carry out the sympathy in the manner
now proposed. He could not consider the objections of
his Right Hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) as matter of official
etiquette. He represented a large constituency of the
working classes, and he dared say their feelings gene-
rally sympathised with these political offenders, though
he knew of no constituency so free from the taint of
Chartism. But at the same time he could not overcome
his constitutional objection to the motion, however much
these persons might have been misled—however much
they might be " more sinned against than sinning," and,
however, much agitation from a higher quarter had
urged them to the very verge of the law, but punished
them severely for trespassing one inch beyond it.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, with reference to the case
which had been alluded to and which he had brought
before the House many years ago, be believed it was a
strong exception to the general rule, because, whereas in
this case, the advisers of the Crown might think themselves
at liberty to advise a remission of the punishment; yet
where the House had interfered to ask for the prosecu-
tion of offenders, the Crown might think itself restricted
in its prerogative. It was with that view he brought for-
ward the case of Sir M. Lopez. Having elicited from Lord
Castlereagh a declaration that the motion he made should
not be any obstacle to the remission of any part of the
sentence which the Crown might think fit, he moved the
motion that been alluded to. That case appeared to him
a particular exception to the general rule, but motions of
this kind were generally felt to interpose great obstacles
in the way of the consideration of these cases I?), the
Crown, in the way in which they ought to be considered.
Petitions in favour of offenders should be addressed
directly to the Crown, and not to that House. He had
felt this difficulty greatly with respect to a case that oc-
curred some years ago, that of the Dorchester labourers.
It appeared to him, in reviewing that case, that what-
ever were the reasons that induced the Judge to pro-
nounce that sentence, after a certain time it might be
the duty of the Secretary of State to advise the Crown
for its remission ; but the greatest difficulty he felt in so
advising was, that a motion had been made and repeated
in that House upon the subject, when he was obliged
to declare, that if that motion was carried he
could not advise a remission of the sentence, although
he might feel on other grounds that it might
be unjust to those men to refuse it. But having given
that notice he had felt since that considerable evil had
resulted from it, and that the favour was received not
with the acknowledgements due to the Crown for its
mercy, but with boastings that though the House of
Commons did not directly interfere a motion had been
made to which the remission of the sentence was due,
and not to the clemency of the Crown.—(Hear, hear)'
He therefore hoped that Hon. Gentlemen would consider
that those who were charged with the responsible duty
to advise the Crown upon these subjects, instead of
feeling themselves assisted by the interposition of the
House, felt themselves restricted by it. Feeling fearful
that the effect of this motion would be to produce
others for offences of a similar kind, and that offenders
would thus be induced to look to parties in that House
to take up their case, and not to look to the Crown as
the natural and constitutional source of mercy—on
these general grounds, and without saying a word on
the other points, he should give his vote against the
motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury.
Col. SIBTHORP opposed the motion.
Mr. WARD begged his Hon. Friend the Member for
Finsbury to reflect on the nature of the motion, and not
to press the House, under the circumstances, to a division.
His Hon. Friend had seen the imputations to which tht
motion gave rise ; they were told it was not a motion
honestly brought forward, but had reference to questions
out of doors. The best answer, however, to that impu-
tation, into which he was sorry to find that the Noble
Lord the Member for Liverpool had fallen, was, that the
petition had been in preparation for many months, and
that it had emanated at a time when no one entertained
the remotest idea of a dissolution. His (Mr. Ward's)
opinion was, that if his Hon. Friend had been desirous of
submitting his motion to the House at the moment most
embarrassing to Ministers he would have chosen the pre-
sent, because it was impossible for any Government, what-
ever their feelings might be, to concur in it without ex-
posing themselves to the imputation of taking such
a course for the purpose of gaining popularity
out of doors.—(Hear, hear.) Let them discard
those unworthy considerations, and look solely to the
merits of the case ; and on that subject lie should say he
differed entirely from the Right Hon. Baronet the Mem-
ber for Tamworth and the Noble Lord the Secretary
for the Colonies, because he did think there
were circumstances -in the case which not only
warranted, but in some degree called for the interference
of the House. Political crimes were very undefined in
their nature ; and although he did not censure either the
Judges, the Juries, or the Government under whom the
late prosecutions had taken place, he did feel that some
of those political offenders had been treated with great
severity. He admitted, however, that in other instances
the grievous nature of the crime committed merited the
severest punishment. There could be no doubt, too, but
it was necessary at the time these prosecutions had been
begun, to take strong measures for the peace of the com-
munity.—(Cheers.) Still he was persuaded that many
of those parties now in confinement had more than ex-
piated the offences they had committed.. He was at the
same time of opinion that after the explanations which
had been given by the Noble Lord the Secretary for the
Colonies, his Hon. Friend might injure his own cause by
proceeding to a division.

Lord STANDON explained. He had expressly guarded
himself against any imputation on the motives of those
who had supported the motion. He only referred to the
inconvenience which might arise from the interposition
of the House at that particular time.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that his only object in
bringing forward the motion was, that he might give
effect to the wishes of the numerous body whose petition
he had presented that night. He had confined himself
to the case of political offenders at home ; and he was
rather surprised to find that his Hon. Friend, the Under
Secretary for the Home Department, had mixed up with
that subject the principles of the Charter, and the case
of Frost, Williams, and Jones. He complained of the
injustice of the treatment -which many of the offenders
had undergone ; they having been in many instances
confined in houses of correction with hard labour, con-
trary to the sentence of the Judge. The subject was
one which well deserved the consideration of the House ;
and his belief was, that he would betray his duty to those
whose interests he represented, if he did not call for the
opinion of the House. If he was sure the case of those
individuals would be considered with a view to their dis-
charge, he should be too happy in withdrawing his mo-
tion ; but as he had no assurance that an Act of Am-
nesty, so much desired by thousands out of doors, would
be granted unless an Address was carried to the Throne,
he should divide, with the hope that he would have with
him a majority of that House.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against the motion 5B
Majority

The SPEAKER then'gave his vote against the motion
and it was consequently lost.
CHURCH-RATES.

Mr. HAWES presented several petitions from Dissent-
ing congregations, praying for the total extinction of
Church-rates, and the abolition of Ecclesiastical Courts.

Mr. DENNISTOUN presented similar petitions from
four dissenting congregations.
Mr. C. WOOD presented six petitions from Dissent-
ing congregations in Halifax to the same effect.
Captain PECHELL presented similar petitions from
4,460 inhabitants of Brighton assembled iu public meet-
ing, and from a Dissenting congregation in Sussex.
Sir A. DALRYMP.LE presented a petition from a
place in Sussex, praying the House not to pass any law
against the rights and privileges of the Church of
England.
Mr. EASTHOPE presented a great number of peti-
tions from Dissenting congregations in Lincolnshire, and
from Moorfields, Bethnal-green, and other districts of
London, praying for the abolition of Church-rates, and
against the practice of the ecclesiastical courts, and that
no further grants of public money be made for the pur-
poses of Church Extension ; also a petition from John
Lowry, the vicar of Burleigh, in Cumberland, in favour
of the abolition of Church-rates.
ABOLITION OF CHURCH-RATES.
The HON. MEMBER then rose to bring forward the
motion of which he had given notice, for leave to bring
in a Bill to abolish Church-rates, and to empower the
members of the Established Church to levy a tax on the
pews and seats for the maintenance of churches. He
said he was sure he would not in vain entreat the House
to abstract itself from the excitement under which the
House and the country existed for some time, and apply
its attention to a subject which, though not so exciting,
was not less important, inasmuch as it related to the re-
ligious establishments of the country. He was confident
that the House would set the good example of showing,
that in the midst of that excitement it was not prevented
fro:n interfering in a subject which was intimately con-
nected with the religious interests of the country. He
was confident the House would, in this discussion, divest
itself of all party views, and, above all, rid themselves of
any imputation that whatever differences of opinion
might exist amongst them on the subject, their object was
not to diminish the just influence or, above all, to inter-
fere with the due exercise of the religion of the establish-
ment. There was one feeling Ivith which he (Mr. E.)
approached this discussion, and that was surprise at
this question being allowed to remain so long unsettled.
It would be in the recollection of the House
that there was scarcely one individual of rank, distinc-
tion, or influence, now in the House, or who had formerly
a seat in it, that had not considered that the question
was one of importance and difficulty, and which ought
to be set at rest. He would call the attention of the
House to sentiments of men of eminence, as to the neces-
sity of settling this question. [The Hon. Gentleman
here read extracts from speeches of Earl Spencer, Lord
Stanley, and other Hon. Members, in the debate on this
subject in the year 1834, in which the expediency of
setting the question of Church-rates at rest was enforced.