The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY

the West India proprietors, without interfering with

BERKELEY presented a petition from
he Billof 1846.
mr H.
Bristol, signed by upwards of 6,000 persons, praying
for a comprehensive Health of Towns Bill.
Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from
Walsall in favour of the Bill now before the House
I for the removal of the Jewish disabilities; and also
one in favour of the Catholic Relief Bill.
Mr. WOOD presented a petition from Oxford in
favour of the Jewish Disabilities Bill.
Mr. ORD presented petitions from Newcastle-
upon-Tyne, in favour of the Health of Towns Bill ;
and also a petition from the same place, against any
increase in the military establishments without a pre-

vious inquiry.
Sir R. FERGUSON presented petitions in favour

of the Health of Towns
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY presented a petition from
Stafford in favour of a comprehensive Health of

Towns Bill.
Mr. COBDEN presented several petitions from
places in the West Riding of Yorkshire against the
increase of the army and navy.
Mr. R. YORKE presented petitions from York,
in favour of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.
Dr. BOWRING presented petitions from Bolton
and Oldbury, both the same effect.
Mr. STRUTT presented a petition from Derby
in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.
Sir W. lIEATHCOTE presented petitions from
Hampshire against the Jewish Disabilities Bill.
Mr. ANSTEY presented a petition in favour of
the Catholic Relief Bill.
Mr. SCULLY presented a petition from Leeds to
the same effect.
Mr. BURROUGHES presented petitions from
Norfolk against the Jewish Disabilities Bill.
NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTION.
The SPEAKER informed the House that he had
received an intimation from the parties who had
presented a petition against the return for North
Staffordshire, stating that it was not the intention of
the petitioners to proceed with their petition.
WINDOW-TAX.
Mr. C. LUSHINGTON presented a petition
from St. Paul's Covent-garden, praying the House
to pass an Act for the abolition of the window-tax.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Arbroath,
complaining of the operation of the legacy duty.

SCOTCH HIGHWAYS. -
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Arbroath,
complaining of the present mode of managing high.
ways in Scotland. The petitioners stated that the
rates fell heavy on the poor, and suggested that under
a proper system of management, a toll upon horses
alone would be sufficient to keep them in repair.
JEWISH DISABILITIES.
An HoN. MEMBER presented a petition from Frome
in favour of the removal of the Jewish disabilities.
An HON. MEMBER presented a petition from a
place in Somerset to the same effect.
DEFENCES OF THE COUNTRY.
An HON MEMBER presented a petition against any
increase of the defences of the country.
THE CURRENCY.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Brechin,
praying for the repeal of the Act of 1845, so far as
it interfered with the banks of Scotland.
COUNTY COURTS.

Dr. BOWRING inquired whether it was the
ntention of the Government to bring in a Bill to

amend the County Courts' Act. The Act, particu-
larly with respect to the expense to which suitors
were put, was much complained of. His constitu-
ents loudly complained of its injustice.
Sir G. GREY replied that it was unnecessary to
bring in any Bill on the subject, as by the present
Act the Secretary to the Treasury was empowered
to alter the fees. A gentleman had been
some time engaged in obtaining information
from the various courts, and when he had
collected sufficient information, the Government
would determine what alterations should be made.
The inquiry was in an advanced state, and no time
mould be lost in informing the House of the nature
of any improvements which the Government might
deem necessary.
THE WINDOW DUTIES.
Lord DUNCAN rose to give notice, that unless
he was preceded by the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government, or by his Noble Friend the First
Commissioner of Woods and Forests, hp should on
this day fortnight, the 24th of February, propose a
notion to the effect that the Committee of the Health
of Towns Association and the directors of the Metro-
politan Association for Improving the Dwellings of the
Working Classes having declared that-no sanatory
improvement would be complete which did not in-
clude a repeal of the window-tax—(Cheers)—as it
induced the bad construction of houses, and fell
with quadruple force on the poor as compared with the
rich, he should, in order that the people might be
more equitably taxed, propose the total repeal of those
duties.—(Hear.)
The SPEAKER was understood to say that the
Noble Lord should make his motion more positive
in its character, or he might experience some diffi-
culty in bringing it on.
Lord DUNCAN then gave notice that he would
propose the total repeal of those duties on the day he
had named.
APPEALS IN CRIMINAL CASES.
Mr. EWART said that he would on this day fort-
night bring in a Bill for granting the power of ap-
peal in criminal cases.
DIRECT TAXATION.
The HON. Mastssu also stated that he would,
unless the Government should themselves bring for-
ward some measure on the subject, again bring be-
fore the House his motion on the subject of a system
of direct taxation.
WASTE LANDS (IRELAND.)
Mr. P. SCROPE gave notice that he would, upon
an early day, bring before the notice of the House
the report of the Poor-law Commissioners respecting
the propriety of appropriating the waste lands of
Ireland for the purpose of giving employment to the
able-bodied poor.
LIGHTHOUSES.

Mr. HUME moved fora series of unopposed re-
tun-is, which were agreed to, with respect to the
various lighthouses of the country.
HYDROGRAPHIC DEPARTMENT.
The HON. MEMBER also moved for certain returns
respecting the Hydrographic Department of the Ad-
miralty, which were also agreed to.
MARITIME SURVEYS.

The How. MEMBER also moved for a series
of unopposed returns on the subject of the nature
and locality of the various maritime surveys, which
had been made under the direction of the Admiralty.
SCOTTISH ENTAIL. _ _

Mr. B. COCHRANE wished to know whether it
was the intention of the Government to bring forward
any mea3ure for altering the law relating to Scottish
entail.
The LORD ADVOCATE was understood to say
that the Government was not at present provided
with any measure on the subject.
LAND IMPROVEMENT ACT.

Mr. MONSELL wished to know when the returns
of the amount applied for and sanctioned under the
Land Improvement Act would be laid upon the table
of the House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that in a few days he hoped to be able to have the re-
turns ready for distribution.
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Mr. MONSELL also wished to know when the
returns of the agricultural statistics would be ready
for Hon. Members.
Sir G. GREY could not state precisely upon what
day they would be prepared. He had endeavoured to
expedite their preparation as much as possible.
RAJA OF SATTARA.
Mr. G. THOMPSON moved for copies of all
correspondence between the Governor-General's
agent at Benares and the Government of India, and
between the Government of India and the Court of
Directors of the East India Company, relative to the
affairs of the late Pertaub Sing, the deposed Raja of
Sattara, from the Ist day of October, 1847, to the
present time; also for copies of all letters addressed
by Rungoo Bapojee to the Court of Directors of the
East India Company, dated, re,peetively, the ht and
31st day of January, 1848, and the answers (if any)
which had been returned.—Motion agreed to.
CUSTOMS AND POST-OFFICE (INDIA).
The Holt. ME3lnnt also moved for copies of
instructions issued by Lord William Bentinck,
Governor-General of India, when at Madras in the
year 1834, to a commission of civil servants appointed
by his Lordship to examine and report upon the
Customs and Post-office systems ; also a copy of the
report of the said commission.—Agreed to.
SWITZERLAND.
Sir H. VERNEY wished to know from the Noble
Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the
decree of the canton of Frihurg (as we understood),
of the 24th of November, 1847, would in any manner
affect the interests of British residents in that canton,
and also whether the offers which had been made
to mediate between the contending parties in Swit-
zerland had been attended with any success.
Lord PALMERSTON said that he was not aware
of any British subject who had been at all affected
by the decree referred to. With respect to the latter
part of the question it was true that her Majesty's
Charge d'Affaires had made a communication with
c respectjal nature,to arbitrating e bweatsw eneont
ablethe ptaortsiteasteofwahnetuhner-
offiany success had dLs
presentedTattendedlNDlA a pet
that communication.
COLONIES.fro
mh
of SSitr.RVincent, praying relief to . the Wteset islandodia
colonies.

2d and 3d Victoria, which gave the power of apply-
ing the system of separate imprisonment to persons •
before trial. The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of
the Home Department had paid a good deal of attention
to this subject, and he hoped he should have the
sanction of the Right Hon. Baronet to introduce the
Bill. They had no right to imprison parties in this
manner who had not undergone a trial. It was said,
however, this system of separate confinement was
established to prevent contamination amongst pri-
soners; but it was opposed to all principles of equity
and justice to test experiments of this sort upon par-
ties who ought to be considered innocent of any
crime until they had been convicted by a jury
of their countrymen. Besides, if this system were
to be continued, there would be an end to the barrier
which drew a distinction between those who
were guilty and those whom Government
was only justified in holding in detention.
By the law as it at present stood, all letters from the
nearest and dearest friends were taken from prisoners
untried, and read by the authorities of the goal. He
might be told that all this was necessary, in order to
prevent improper communications, but in his opinion
nothing could justify such a tax upon an unhappy
and unfortunate prisoner. It appeared to him to be
a tyranny without any purpose whatever ; he be-
lieved it to be totally inconsistent with the system
of jurisprudence of which this country so proudly
boasted, and it was an aggravation of punish-
ment upon the untried totally inconsistent with
the merciful policy of the English law.
Separate punishment was a severe reformatory prin-
ciple. Sir James Graham, in his letter, printed in
the first report of the Commissioners of Pentonville
Prison, stated it to be a probationary punishment,
instituted for the purpose of preparing criminals for
transportation, and for regulating the nature of the
punishment to which they were to be subjected. Hard
labour was not described by the Commissioners as an
additional punishment, but as a relief from the hor-
rors of separate confinement. Mr. William Merry,
one of the prison inspectors, who took an active part
in the construction of the gaol of Reading for separate
confinement, said, before the Committee of the House
of Lords on criminal law, "I believe there is no
man confined in a separate cell who would not
escape from such confinement if he could for the
purposeaof labouring on the tread-mill ;" and the pri-
son inspectors in their last year's report stated that
persons separately confined " are obliged to work,
from the irksomeness of idleness." The Rev. Mr.
Field, the chaplain of Reading gaol for 20 years, and
' the highest authority on the subject, stated in a
book which he had written—" As a general
rule I assert with confidence that prisoners prefer the
hardest labour, even that under ordinary circum-
stances extremely irksome, to idleness which is con-
strained." Mr. M. D. Hill, the Recorder of Bir-

mingham, was of the same opinion; he said that the
punishment was extremely severe in itself without
any addition. And Mr. Baron Alderson, a most
enlightened and benevolent man, said, " It appears to
me that there will be no effectual reform in prison
discipline so long as the county gaols continue as at
present. What is wanted is this—we ought to have
county houses of detention for untried prisoners."
Most cordially did he agree with his Lordship's
sentiments, as he belived, with him, that
there never could be any effectual punishment
until they had powers of detention, such as he re-
commended, separate from the ordinary gaols.
Separate punishment fell far more severely on the
poor than on the rich, as the friends of the rich were
enabled to gather round him and to administer con-
solation to him, whereas the poor could not afford to
pay travelling expenses, or the expenses incidental to
an occasional stay in a country town for the pur-
pose of visiting their relations in confinement.
The rich man might surround himself with many
comforts which the poor man could not obtain. The
poor man more than the rich required communion
with his fellow men, and from this he was entirely
debarred. The authorities to which he referred,
showed that the punishment was a formidable refor-
matory one, and it might be said, if this was such a
reformatory kind of punishment, why not carry it
out to the utmost. The answer to such a question
would be that they had no right to apply refor-
matory punishment to unconvicted persons. To act
upon the presumption that a party required reforma-
tion was to act contrary to the whole presumption of
the common law as declared by the judges, and by all
the commentators upon the common law. The fun-
damental principle of that law was, that all persons
should be held to be innocent till they
were convicted. If the parties therefore were
untried there was not one of them but
might say they had no more business with their
reformation until they were convicted than they had
with his worrship who committed him upon suspi-
cion, and until the issue " not guilty " had
been tried, and his guilt pronounced, they had
no right whatever to apply to them the
any penal reformatory punishment. There were,
however, exceptions to this rule. It was obvious
that very young persons ought not to be allowed
to associate with persons under the suspicion of having
committed grave offences. The child was very dif-
ferent from the adult, the child had no civil rights
whatever with the exception of the right to protec-
tion. The State stood towards it in loco parentis,
and was bound to exercise the same rights and per-
form the same duties as were required of
the parent or other guardian of the child.
There was also a certain class of offences with respect
to which it was evident that it would be improper to
allow persons suspected of, to mix in the so
ciety of others, and perhaps those who
had been already convicted of offences might
constitute another exception to the rule,
All these were, however, examples that could easily
be dealt with. It was the duty of the State of make
this portion of the punishment as light as
possible, and were it could not be mitigated
in severity in point of discipline, it was
obviously necessary that the duration of the impri-
sonment should be shortened as much as possible.
To this end it was necessary to afford more frequent
opportunities to the prisoners to have their casees
heard and determined, by multiplying the times of
the various gaol deliveries throughout the country.
He rested this motion on these grounds, namely, that
this system was contrary to the principles of general
justice. The system pressed heavier upon the poor
than the rich, and while it interfered with the
undoubted right of an accused party to prepare his
defence without being subjected to the inspection of
his detainers it drew no distinction between the
guilty and the innocent. Thanking the House for
the indulgences it had afforded him in allowing him
to make this statement, he begged leave to move the
resolution of which he had given notice.
Dr. BOWRING seconded the motion.
Sir G. GREY gave his Noble Friend due credit
for the motives which had induced him to make this
motion, but he could not at the same time concur
with him in the reasons he had just advanced in sup-
port of his motion. It was of the utmost importance
that the Act to which the Noble Lord had so often
alluded should be kept in force. The provision which
the Noble Lord sought to repeal was a most
valuable one. It had established one of the
most wholesome rules at present existing in
the system of prison discipline prevailing
in the country. He fully agreed with the Noble
Lord that, speaking generally, a distinction ought to
be drawn between an accused party and a convicted
criminal, but he could not go the length of the Noble
Lorrd in asserting that all accused parties, previous
to their conviction, ought to be placed upon
an equl footing. Foi• instance, a party charged
with the wilful crime of murdeo ought
never ito be allowed to intermix with
parties accused of lighter offences ' • and here he must
take leave to say that the Noble Lord was in error in
supposing that the system of separate confinement,
which the 2d and 3d of Victoria established,
was opposed to the old common law of the country,
for it was a notorious fact, that from time im-
memorial, parties charged with heinous offences,
had been kept separate from other prisoners, while
they were awaiting their trials.—(Hear, hear.)
The whole object of subjecting untried prisoners to
separate imprisonment was for their good, and in
order to show the Noble Lord that the course he pro-
poEed to pursue of repealing this statute in that respect
he would refer to several documents, some of which
had been before the House. The Right Honourable
Baronet then read extracts from the report of the
Committee of the House of Commons on Secondary
Punishments ; also the report of the Select Committee
in the House of Lords on the same subject ; the report
of Mr. Clay, the Chaplain of the House of Correction ;
and the report of M. Tocqueville to the Chamber of
Deputies in France, all of which spoke of the neces-
sity, for the good of untried prisoners themselves,
of subjecting them to separate imprisonment.
He said separate confinement prevented con-
tamination. The convention at Frankfort, which
was attended by 80,000 persons who had
taken an interest in prison discipline from
all parts of Europe, which would no doubt be in
the recollection of the Noble Lord, resulted in a
resolution approving of separate confinemen,t the
Ministers of Prussia, Poland, and France having fully
assented to the proposition. If the system did not
prevail in the houses of detention great injury to the
morals of the prisoners could not fail to be
the result. The Noble Lord would find this ably
set forth in a book entitled " Prisons and Prisoners."
A house of detention had been established in Middle-
sex, in which though the persons confined
were kept in separate confinement, they were allowed
to have free access to their friends and legal advisers.
The 10th report of the Inspectors of Prisons, published
in August, 1845, showed that the fears of the Noble
Lord were groundless. It stated that the prisoners
had good and sufficient food, that they were protected
from contamination or injury from the other
prisoners, that they might obtain the pre-

sence at any time of the warden, the
governor, the surgeon, and the chaplain, that
they might see their friends and legal advisers,
and read letters. They were not allowed
to read objectionable books, but they were
allowed to work if they thought proper, to
have exercise in the open air, and to attend
chapel. Their tempers were not irritated by others
and they concluded by saying that if they believed
the friends of persons committed for trial would
rather see their relations placed in this confinement
than in any other. He bore testimony to the excel-
lence of the motives by which the Noble Lord was
actuated; but, seeing that the subject had
been fully considered by many benevolent
individuals, he earnestly entreated the House
not to consent to the motion, because he
believed it would be injuries, as it could not
fail to partake of a retrogade character
and to derange all the excellent arrangements fur the
improvement of prison discipline that had been made
during the last few years.—(Cheers.)
After a few observations from several llon. Mem-
bers, the motion was withdrawn.
(LEFT SITTING.)

CHARGE OF CRUELTY.—Yesterday Mr. R. Hunt,
of Old Brentford, was brought before the sitting magis- 1
trates of Brentford on a charge of cruelty to his nephew,
Charles Hunt, a boy 14 years of age, who was suffering
from ill-health, and was allowed a chair during the exa-
mination. It appeared from the evidence of Mr. C.
Allen and Mr. Myers, the assistant overseer and over-
seer of the parish, from that of police-sergeant Carshaw,
and from the statement of the boy himself, that he (the
boy) had been a sort of servant to his uncle, that he had
been kept in solitary confinement in a garret by his
uncle for a fortnight. ending Saturday last, and fed on
bread and water. There had been no fire in the room
during that time, he had straw to sleep on, and during
part of that time he had been tied by a cord by the leg to
the grate, to prevent his escape. He had been very ill, and
had been supplied with pills by his uncle. The uncle, in
his defence, made a lengthened statement complaining
of the boy's conduct, and saying that the police were
prejudiced against him. The magistrates called upon
him to find sureties for his appearance at the sessions,
and, as he did not produce them at the moment, he was
detained in custody. _ .

ELECTION PETITIONS.—The following days have
been selected for the appointment of the Select Com-
mittees to try the matter of the petitions complaining of
undue elections : for Bodmin and Bolton, on Thursday,
the 14th of February; for Montgomery (borough) and
Carlisle, on Monday, 28th February; and for Bewdley
and Northern Division of Staffordshire, Thursday, 2d
of March.

PENTLAND FIRTH.—We learn that 14 experienced
pilots have manned two large well equipped boats at
Duncansbay, for the purpose of piloting vessels through
the Orkneys. Ship captains may now with greater con-
fidence approach the firth, as they will at all times,
weather permitting, be met at Duncansbay by one of
these boats, when a pilot may be taken on board.—John
0' Grout Journal.