The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-19 00:00:00

ra °ruin t

LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1846.

The LORD CILLNCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack
at Five o'clock.

M.,:sengers from the Commons brought up the Corn Bill,
which, after a short but smart discussion, in the course of
which the Duke of RICHMOND vehemently protested against
the measure, and indulged in some personalities against Sir
R. PEEL, for which he was remonstrated with by Lord
BROUGHAM and several other Noble Lords, was read a first
time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday next.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then moved the second reading of
the Charitable Trusts Bill.

After a long debate their Lordships divided, when the Bill
was lost by a majority of one.
Their Lordships then adjourned, at a Quarter-past Twelve,

The SPEAKER took the chair at Four o'clock.

The private business having been disposed of, and a short
discussion having ensued with respect to a supposed breach
of privilege, brought before the House by Mr. G. BANK S,
On the motion of Sir R PEEL that the report on the
Customs Duties Bill be read a second time,

Lord GEORGE BENTINCK, at some very considerable length,
stated his objections to the measure. He thought the result
of it would be to give all the benefit to the foreigner and
none to this country, and he concluded by moving that the
report be read a second time that day three months.
Mr. LAWSON seconded the motion.

The House was then addressed by Mr. Alderman Hum-
phery, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. G. Bankes, Mr.
Hawes, Mr. Borthwick, Mr. Plumptre, Dr. Bowring, Colonel
Sibthorp, Mr. Henley, and Mr. Hudson, after which Lord
George Bentinck withdrew his amendment, the report was
agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time to-
morrow (this day).

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned.

The House of Lords on Friday night went into Committee
on the Religious Opinions Relief Bill, and it was understood
that the Bill had passed through the Committee, with the
exception of certain clauses, which were reserved for future
consideration. The only interruption to the unanimity of the
debate was introduced by the Bishop of EXATER, who, in a
long speech replete with arguments of a kind that happily
now command little weight in the country, proposed that the
House should resolve itself into Committee on that day three
months. The Right Rev. Prelate, although he stated that
he knew no more of the law of the land than every educated
gentleman was bound to know, and that he should not be
ashamed if he erred on the subject, yet ventured to set up
his opinion in opposition to that of the Noble and Learned
Lord on the Woolsack, and of the other law Lords who had

favoured the House with their opinions on the very ques-
tions which the Right Rev. Prelate had himself, on a firmer
occasion, wished to have submitted to the judges. It was a
sound and excellent advice long since given to an indifferent
lawyer when promoted to a seat on the judicial bench, that
when giving judgment he should merely state the
conclusion he had arrived at without venturing to
explain the reasons which led to that conclu-
sion, because, although he might very probably be
right in the decision, the chances were a hundred to one that
he would be wrong in the reasons which led thereto.
Happy had it been for the Bishop had he adopted this pru-
dent advice, for he would have been spared the humiliating
discovery that he was wholly misinformed in the principal of
the two reasons on which he grounded his opinion, and on
which he had expatiated so forcibly, so eloquently, to the
House. It appeared that in the year 1790, no less than 55
years ago, an Act was passed repealing the former regulations,
and declaring that no one should thereafter be bound to take
the oath of supremacy on its being tendered to him. The

other reason, founded on the statute of ELIZABETH, was an-
swered by the LORD CHANCELLOR with equal force, who
eloquently contended that it was impossible that any Roman
Catholic, moderately and temperately maintaining the su-
premacy of the see of Rome in matters spiritual, can be con-
sidered as offending against the constitution of this country,
or against what ought to be the law of this country, and
surely this is both law and justice. A vast and important
body of our fellow-subjects profess the tenets of the Roman
Catholic religion, and they must believe in and assert that
spiritual supremacy if they are sincere in that
profession, and who can doubt it who knows how
patiently their ancestors clung to it, with truth
and fidelity, for ages, when they were thereby
subjected to shame and ignominy, were placed under a civil
ban, and not merely excluded from the enjoyment of places
of trust and emolument, bat also subjected to all the heart-
less and oppressive restrictions of a monstrous and intolerable
penal code? Happily those ages of bigotry and intolerance

have passed away. A new light has flashed upon our legis-
lators, on the public aklarge. Our Roman Catholic brethren
are now looked upon id all respects as our equals; their re-
ligion is tolerated, their opinions are respected, and practi-
cally there has been no attempt for many years to act up
to the obsolete and universally condemned laws which still
were permitted to encumber and remain a blot on our statute-
book. Why should, then, the assertion of one of the
fundamental doctrines of their religion, which must be as im-
plicitly subscribed to by them as any of the Thirty-nine Ar-
ticles by tha Right Rev. Prelate himself, be still considered
as an offence, " that the simple punishment of a misdemea-
nour should he retained," or that there should be any danger
in the assertion thereof to this our Protestant constitution?
We should scarcely expect to hear such opinions promul-
gated in any atmosphere save that of Exeter Hall.

We have ever felt that the true and enlightened policy
is to give the most perfect freedom of opinion, civil
and religious, to every man ; none should be fet-
tered or restrained, or compelled to descend to hypocrisy
to conceal the real sentiments of his heart, if he should be
associated with others to whom his opinions might in any
respect be repugnant. He should not unnecessarily offend
the prejudices or wound the feelings of his companions;
claiming for himself the most perfect and entire freedom;
he should accord to others that which he desired to himself;
in all things he should act up to the sublime direction of the
Founder of our Common Religion, the Saviour of Mankind,
"by doing unto others as he would they should do unto
him." If this great truth were felt in its full force we would
not have had penal laws or civil disabilities affecting any of
our brethren. Every man would be permitted to worship
his CREATOR in the manner and form which, in his conscience,
he believed to be right, to be the most proper, and a great
and fertile source of civil dissension and disagreement would
be totally removed. We feel proud, as Britons, of the fact,
that in a few short weeks our Legislature will have affirmed
tthoisoreaotunpt as irir pl
a e,laannd of universalbedthatwealtloltehreanneeand
able
freedom
oeepdooinmt
of opinion. Our nation has ever taken its
lac
of civilisation. It will not be the least valuable ble in
the van
tri-
umphs to point to the example which she is ofaffh
now orerd.lng
to the world, to other kingdoms, by the abolition of all civil
and religious distinctions.

Not the least gratifying part of the debate was the pure
spirit of Christianity, of philanthropy, which characterised
the able and eloquent speech of the Lord Bishop of ST.
DAVID'S. In that speech the principles of true liberality, of
enlightened statesmanship, will be found to exist in the
highest degree. His Lordship put the Bill in its true light,
" that it was not a greater relief to thous who had laboured
under the disabilities than it was to the members of the
Church of England—to one class it was a relief from injus-
tice, from vexation, and disgrace; to the other it was a relief
from a heavy load of obloquy, discredit, and shame." These
are sentiments well worthy of falling from the lips of a
Christian minister, of a dignitary of the Church in which his
Lordship holds so high a station. He truly stated that the
great mass of these laws was unjust and iniquitous, a cruel
and wanton violation of the liberty of the subject and of the
rights of conscience, " that nothing could justify or warrant
such a perversion of the powers of legislation." He asked,
"wherein did the force of a bull consist? Not in the seal—
not in the string—not in the document itself—not in the
mind or intention of the PorE—but in the senti-
ments of the people to whom it was addressed. He en-
tertained no apprehension so long as the Roman Catholic
people of this country preserved their allegiance, and they
had done so throughout the hardest trials—as long as they
continued in the course which for ages they had pursued, he
should have no fear, even though Papal bulls were smug-
gled into this country, even though one of them might be
posted on the walls of Lambeth Palace, or those of Bucking-
ham House—he still would say there was no more danger
than if they had remained in Rome and rotted in the Vatican.
The force and virtue of these documents would rest not with
the power that issued them, but with those to whom they were
addressed; and it might be safely left to the intelligence and
loyalty of the RomanCatholie population alone to deal with
them. Instead of showing suspicion and distrust of these
our fellow-subjects, we should do away with all grounds for
distrust and suspicion. He did not believe that that class
would ever be anfaithful to us; but it would conduce to the
honor and dignity of this country to take care Out their ,

honourable feelings should not be so sported with and
trampled on as they had been."
We tender our hearty thanks to the Right Rev. Prelate for
this noble speech, and we recommend it to the hearty and
attentive consideration of his episcopal brethren. So long as
the occupants of the bench of Bishops are actuated by such
feelings they must command the esteem, the respect, the love
of the people of all religious denominations, and we do hope
and trust that the brilliant example thus set to them by one
of themselves will not be thrown away; but will sink deeply
into their minds, and find many and strenuous supporters in
the body.

The great measure of commercial reform, now finally esta-
blished, for though it may be delayed it cannot be undone,
is destined to produce a vast revolution in other states be-
sides the United liingdom. France and Germany and
Switzerland have been watching the long and ardent con-
test in the Commons' House of Parliament with•an interest
and anxiety greater even than those which have affected
either Pratectiohists or Free-traders, not only on account of
their social and commercial relations, but, as regards two of
these countries at least, on account of the influence which
the change may have on the power and wealth of England.
The danger, however, to their trade and manufactures which
may be anticipated from such a vast scheme forms the first
and prominent subject for their consideration, and taking all
circumstances into account, never on a previous occasion did
any event occur in this country so pregnant with results
of the most vital importance to their commercial prosperity.
The great drawback on the complete success of British ma-
nufacturing interests was the high price of provisions in this
corn-taxed country, compared with that in states where pro-
visions of every kind were cheaper, and where the operatives

of course could produce manufaeSures, taking.,all other cir-
cumstances to be equal, at wages little more than one-half
of those paid by British manufacturers. By throwing open
the corn-trade, together with the admission of cattle entirely
free of duty, and nearly all the necessaries of life used in
those countries at an extremely moderate, almost a nominal
rate, prices will become equalised to a degree hitherto un-
known. Whether or not it falls materially here, corn in other
countries will at once rise in price, the cost of living will be
proportionally increased, and the rate of wages will
either rise in like manner, or the master-manufacturers
must yield to rivals who, in almost every other respect, had
the advantage over them. The British manufacturers had
an enormous superiority, and will still possess it, in the abun-
dance of coal and iron, in the excellence of their machinery,
in the mode of carriage, whether by canal or railway, and in
the great amount of capital at their command ; yet, with all
these in their favour, the Germans and the Swiss, owing to
the cheapness of provisions, were able to undersell English
dealers in several markets. The new tariff has at one blow
deprived foreigners of almost the only advantage they had.
But, in addition to that, it will throw open to us markets
which were closed or approached with little profit, while the
obnoxious and ruinous impost on the necessaries of life re-
mained unaltered. Merchants or speculators who bring us
corn, and cattle, and beef, and bacon, and potatoes, besides
many other articles, all free of duty, will take
something back in return, either the produce of
our colonies, or the manufactures of the country,
now relieved from the incubus of excessive and prohibitive
duties. The ships of all nations will direct their course to

this country as to a free port, while the employment of
' British vessels will be increased in proportion to the new
markets thrown open. We look not, therefore, merely to the
increase of our manufactures but to the increase of our ship-
ping—of that mercantile navy which keeps up at present
such an advantageous intercourse between our countless dis-
tant settlements and the mother country, and which forms
the only certain bulwark of our security and national inde-
pendence. Can France, and Prussia, and the whole Zolve-
rein, look on with apathy, and follow in the same beaten and
ruinous track, while England has opened up a new way for
herself, both for the increase of trade and of national power?
These changes cannot take place without giving additional
impulse to population. We have only to look back for
forty years to see what vast power trade has conferred
on this country: even hampered and discouraged as it has
been, the population has nearly doubled. In 1801 the popu-
lation of Great Britain was in round numbers only
11,000,000; in 1841, it had risen to 19,000,000—thereby in-
creasing even in a still greater proportion, not only the vast
revenue derived from Excise and Customs, but the assessed
taxes, the property-tax, and we may say, the taxes under
every department. Comparing the past with the present,
we can hardly wonder that England, with her small popula-
tion, and as a consequence her small revenue, could not put
down her revolted American colonies. How the strength of
both has increased since, and from what causes, it is needless
to inquire. The measures of Sir ROBERT PEEL are mainly
calculated to give additional effect to that national enter-
prise and those habits of profitable) industry which have
since raised Great Britain to her present eminence, and which,
when allowed to act with freedom, must enable her to main-
tain still more firmly, her high rank among nations.

In the question of Solitary Confinement is involved infi-

nitely more than the mere improvement of individuals, for
with its discontinuance or its preservation there will follow
the discontinuance or the preservation of a system in which
our happiness and our morality as a nation are to a consider-
able extent implicated. On these accounts it becomes a
matter of extreme importance to observe the consequences
which result from the operation of this punishment, for the
purpose of testing its efficacy or its ill-success. For this
purpose it becomes necessary to submit culprits to a series of
experiments, and to note down with the most scrupulous
nicety the mental or the bodily phenomena resulting from
their influence. Whether by separate incarceration a
criminal becomes more dogged and sullen in his adherence to
vice, or whether by the salutary mediation of undisturbed
reveries, the mind becomes softened down to a detesta-
tion of guiltiness and a yearning for sobriety, we
must acknowledge that in the abstract the fact
of experimentalising upon the most subtle elements of the
human mind, and of submitting the most powerful emotions
of the heart to so severe an ordeal, a very fearful responsi-
bility indeed devolves upon the experimentalist--the experi-
mentalist in this instance being the Government. Still
prospects were so peculiarly propitious under existing cir-
cumstances, and it was evident that an almost incal-
culable amount of good would flow from the establish-
ment of such a system, on its being proved to be salu-
tary, or at least in every case innocuous, that a trial—criti-
cal as that trial might prove—became almost incumbent upon
the Legislature. Supposing it were proved that, as a reforma-
tory scheme, separate imprisonment turned out to be gene-
rally successful, and never injurious, a comparatively lenient
' .

punishment might then be administered to certain classes
of criminals ; those criminals would be preserved
from the malific influences of association with de_
prayed companions ; and from veritable pests to society
they-might, after a given period, be emancipated, orderly citi-
zens. Thus "from the nettle danger might be plucked the
flower safety," and the demoralising effects of a community
in crime be altogether evaded. Upon the settlement of this
question, therefore, hung the continued wretchedness of
thousands, or the general reformation of the populace. Hence
it was, we conceive, most assuredly worthy of investigation, of
trial, of analysis. Too much of happiness and of misery de-
pended upon its own evidences when in operation to admit of
any dilatoriness or indolence in its regard. The scheme was
advanced ; beneficial consequences from its acceptance were
very generally and very lavishly promised ; the people
looked to the legislators, not certainly for its immediate

adoption, but assuredly for some demonstration of
its mode of working; and hence any withdrawal
from the inquiry on the part of Government would
have been regarded with universal dissatisfaction. A great

boon was prophecied; an attempt, however slight, for its ac-
quisition was not unnaturally expected. From the combi-
nation of all these incitements emerged several novel houses
of incarceration : the Government set the proposed system in
operation, and the public most rigidly scrutinised the re-
sult. Some considerable time has now elapsed since this effort
was commenced; the plan has continued in uninterrupted
play up to the present moment ; and it is allowable, there-
fore, to estimate the merits of the system, and to collate
such coincidences from the experience thus acquired as would
conduct us to some accurate conclusion upon the subject.
Impressed with this conviction, Sir PETER LAUSIE, one of
the most active Aldermen of the City of London, has col-
lected together a large mass of information as to
the manner in which solitary confinement has affected the
prisoners submitted to its agency, and the deductions which
hie has drawn from a comparison of these facts are embodied
in
a pamphlet recently issued by the worthy Knight, under
of " no murder
the somewhat whimsical bat extremely significant title
or the Effects of Separate COl-
fiaement on the Bodily and Mental Condition of P '
." Unli
withke the
no
seditiousproto prototype ype
n of in
notions
irnti:
soners in the Government Prisons and other Gaols rl.
title,G rea tthßirsitpauinblicaantdion is animated
America."
whatever ; on the contrary, it appears to be fired by
a ospirit the most pure and unaffected benevolence. We think
hoot
utgohc odni
scpeasd es
itoon
ai ttse revelations
.
anndd ditosiningfseore,nitceiss
thus of the animus which has summoned it into existence,
aimnpeanurnibeslet tn
It would be futile to attempt here any adequate
synopsis of a brochure extended over fifth-five
printed pages; both leisure and space would closely
preclude us from
the endeavour, while
the publication of the pamphlet itself
would render such a Proceeding 1
tion. It would appear that, notwithstandingaost one of
experi-
mentssupereroga-
at Millbank and at Penton the
ducted with singular tenderness,
the
ele have been con-
ducted
system have, according to Sir PETESMbaelign effects
of
markable intensity, and of such an unlooked-
efonr of such re-
as infinitely to preponderate over its beneficial conpsereqvualence,es
In this manner the separate imprisonment at the Millbank.
Penitentiary in 1838, appears to have driven four into a state
of insanity ; in 1839, five ; in 1840,five more; while between the
Ist of January and the 30th of September, 1841, nine priso-
net s were transferred to Bethlehem as lunatics, while 10 male
and one female of unsound mind were found by the house in-
spectors. Similar announcements are made by Alderman
LAURIE throughout his pamphlet, and that accompanied
with such circumstantiality as to enforce the deductions he
draws from their comparison. As this publication under-
takes to demonstrate that solitary confinement is, "lst,highly
injurious to the minds of prisoners; 2d, dangerous to their
bodily health; 3d, demoralising in its effects; 4th, that it bas
failed in America, from whence it was derived; and, sth, that
it is burdensome to the country from its great cost," it can-
not be denied but that it demands a most extensive perusal
and a most serious investigation. With regard to the sys-
tem itself, it is impossible to consider it altogether as ad-
IThell it la perceptible that 1/9litude, eyem 1004