The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-24 00:00:00

EVENING, MAY 24, 1851.

THE LONDON GAZETTE, May 23.
FOREIGN-OFFICE, MAT 22, /V I.
It is hereby notified that Viscount Palmerston, her Ma-
jesty' Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has
receive from Sir Stratford Canning, her Majesty's Ambassa-
dor at Constantinople, a dispatch, dated the 23d of April last,
enclosing a " note verbale" or memorandum from the Porte,
announcing that the blockade of the coasts and ports of
Samos has been raised by order of the Sultan.
WHITEHALL, MAY 23.
[The following is sub stituted for the article which appeared
in the Gazette of Tuesday last, the 20th instant.]
The Queen has been pleased to appoint John Dalrymple,
Esq., to he Lieutenant and Sheriff Principal of the shire of
Wigton, in the room of Randolph Earl of Galloway, resigned.
WAR-OFFICE, MAY 23.
2d Regiment of Life Guards—Cornet and Sub-Lieutenant
Henry John Townsend Stephens to be Lieutenant, by pur-
chase, vice Honourable Jacob Henry D. Astley, who retires;
Assistant. Surgeon Thomas Tardrew, from the Ist Regiment
of Life Guards, to be Surgeon, vice Abraham James Nisbet
Connel, M.D., who retires upon half-pay, May 23.
Bth Light Dragoons—Cornet Smaerset John Gough Cal-
thorpe to be Lieutenant, by purcaase, vice Davis, who re-
tires, May 23.
2d Regiment of Foot—Acting Assistant-Surgeon Francis
Holton, M. 8., to be Assistant-Surgeon, May 23.
10th Foot—Surgeon Charles Alexander Gordon, M.D.,
from the 57th Foot, to be Surgeon, vice Mockler, who ex-
changes, May 23.
14th Foot—Ensign John Barlow to be Lieutenant, by pur-
chase, vice Payne, who retires, May 23.
WHITEHALL, Max 15.
The Lord Chancellor has appointed William Henry Atkin-
son, of Blandford, in the county of Dorset, Gent., to be a
Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery.
BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED.
Thomas Bagg, publican, Aston, Warwickshire.
BANKRUPTS.
James Hacks, cooper, Mill Pond-bridge, Rotherhithe,
to surrender June 3, at two, and Jul- 1, at ens, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Edwards, official'. assignee, Sambrook-
court, Basinghall-street ; Borradaile and Dimsdale, King's
Arms-yard, Moorgate-street.
John Bavin, draper, Wisbeach, May 31, at half-past one,
and July 12, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Pennell,
official assignee, Basinghall- street ; Sole and Turner, Alder-
manbury.
Shadrach Edward Robert Jones, apothecary, Wrockwar-
dine, Shropshire, June 3 and 25, at twelve, at the Birming-
ham District Court. Valpy, official assignee, Birmingham ;
Motteram, Knight, and Emmet, Birmingham.
George Machin, spade and shovel manufacturer, Dudley,
Worcester, June 5 and July 3, at twelve, at the Birmingham
District Court. Christie, official assignee, Birmingham;
Dingnam and Hemmant, Walsall.
John Wilkinson, brace manufacturer, Nottingham, June
13 and July 11, at ten, at the Birmingham District Court.
Bittleston, official assignee, Nottingham; Shilton and Son,
Nottingham.
Edmund William Reilly, livery-stable keeper, Bath, June
6, and July 7, at the Bristol District Court. Acraman, offi-
cial assignee, Bristol; Hellings, Bath.
William George Henry Taunton, civil engineer, Liver-
pool, June 5 and a 6, at eleven, at the Liverpool District
Court. Turner, official assignee, Liverpool; Holt and Rowe,
Liverpool.

DIVIDENDS.
At the Court, Basing hall-street.
S. Adams, W. B. Adams, and G. Ralston, Bow, Mid-
dlesex, engineers and railway carriage builders, June 14,
at half-past eleven—G. Maddivm, Swaffham Norfolk,
grocer and tallow chandler, June 14, at one-11'. Havann,
Canterbury, fellmonger, Jane 14, at eleven—H. Med-
worth, Wisbech St. Peter, Cambridge, grocer, Juno 20,
at half-pat eleven--T. L. Clayton, Pottesgrove, Bedford-
shire, milkman, June 13, at one—G. R. Galloway, St.
John-street, brush manufacturer. June 17, at eleven—R.
Dodd, Sheerness, builder, June 17, at half-past eleven—
J. Scull, Long Buckley, Northamptonshire, licensed
victualler, June 19, at one—S. Jevons, Lincoln, shoe-
maker, June 19, at twelve—W. Locks, Leonard-street,
Shoreditch, timber merchant, June 19, at twelve—J. M.
Cansdale, Norwich, draper, June 19, at eleven—F. Tap-
ley, Sidmouth, Devonshire. linen draper, June 19, at
eleven.

In the Country.
T. Dean, Seaconfoe, Ch'?shira, chemist and druggist,
June 13, at elt,ven, at the Court, Liverpool—J. Johnson,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, banker and spirit merchant, June
'9, at twelve, at the Court, Newcastle. upon-Tyne.

PAYMENTS OF DIVIDENDS.
J. P. Burnell, Mcorgate•street and Coleman-street,
china and glass dealer, 3s. 9d., on Saturday, 24th inst.,
and three subsequent Saturdays, betweeneleven and two,
at the office of Mr. Edwards, Sambrook-court, Basing-
hall-street.
C. G. Jones, Elizsbeth-street, Hans-place, licensed
vicnialler, 4s. H., on Saturday, 24th inst., and three
subsequent Saturdays, between eleven and two, at the
office of Mr. Edwards, Sambrook-court, Basinghall-
street.

G. J. Sharp, Duke-street, Tooley-street, Southwark,
tailor, 31d., on Saturday, 24th inst., and three subse-
quent Saturdays, between eleven and two, at the office
of Mr. Edwards, Sambrook-court, Easinghall-street.
S. Keen and W. Langford, John-street, Pentonville,
brewers, ls. 5d., on sew proofs, on Saturday, 24th inst.,
and three subsequent Saturdays, between eleven and two,
at the office of Mr. Edwards, Sambrook-court, Basing-
hall-street.
11. E. Tuck, New Cavendish-street, milliner, 5d., on
Saturday, 24th inst., and three subsequent Saturdays, be-
tween eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Edwards,
Sambrook-court, Basinghall-street.
J. H. Clegg, Royton, Lancashire, cotton-spinner, is.
9d, on Tuesday, May 27, or any subsequent Tuesday,
between eleven and one, at the office of Mr. Pott, Man-
chester.

NOTICES OF CERTIFICATES.
At the Court, Basinghall-sweet.
J. Burrell, Blacktaore, Essex, victualler, June 20, at
one—W. Couch, John-street, Fitzroy-square, pianoforte
maker, June 13, at two—J. Glasspool, Regent-street,
ladies' boot and shoemaker, June 16, at twelve—W. H.
Tautz and B. Jackson, Great Russell-street, Tottenham-
court-road, linendrapers and milliners, June 17, at twelve.
In the Country.
R. Davis, Tredegar, Monmouthshire, draper, June 17,
at eleven, at the Court, Bristol—H. Reynulds, Aber-
haman, Glatnorganshire, innkeeper and coal contractor,
June 18, at eleven, at the Court, Bristol—W. G. Wil-
liams, Carnarvon, woollen and linendraper, Jima 13, at
eleven, at the Court, Liverpool—J. Hill, Holcombe
Rogus, Devonshire, linendraper, June 18, at eleven, at
the Court, Exeter.

CERTIFICATES GRANTED.
J. B. Warcup, Broadway, Deptford, certificate of the
second class—C. Graham, New Oxford-street, hosier,
certificate of the third class—J. C. C. Millar, Clifton-
street, Finsbury, surgeon and apothecary, certificate of
the second class—T. Rowan, Cambridge, draper and tea-
dealer, certificate of the third class—S. Shaw, Saddle-
worth, Yorkshire, timber-merchant and lime-dealer,
certificate of the second class.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
R. Wallace, J. Watchurst, and R. Thompson, Man-
chester, cotton spinners—R. 'Atirtield and M. Mirfield,
East Bierley, Yorkshire, toptnakers—J. Barnes and H.
Benson, Laneside, Lancashire, manufacturing chemists
and drucfget dyers—A. Crompton, and A. Milne,
Crompton, Lancashire, cotton spinners (as far as regards
the said A. Crompton)—S. E. Taylor, G. B. Taylor,
and F. C4amberlain, Bristol, West India coopers (as far
as regar he said S. E. Tayler)—W. Jones and P. R.
Philipps, Bailisifi, Carmarthenshire, ironfounders—C.
R. Freeman and H. Freemen, Norwich, grocers—J.
Kenward, T. Ticehurst, and J. Stonham, Manchester,
drapers—J. Roper and C. Cocker, Wakefield, York-
shire, woolstaplers—J- Whyatt and J. Clarke, Man-
chester and Salford, common brewers—W. Shaw and
W. Draper, Manchester, fustian manufacturers—E.
Shaw and W. Poulson, Knottingley, Yorkshire, earthen-
ware manufacturers—G. A. L. Marshell and W. Haigh,
Carey-lane, City, wholesale shirt makers--S. Liverside
and H. Cooper, Hall Bower, Yorkshire, fancy manufac-
turers—J. Stevenson, R. Baxter, W. Stevenson, and R.
N. Baxter, Brinsworth, Yorkshire, millers—J. Laidlaw
and J. Erskine, Truro, Cornwall, drapers—N. M. Day,
J. T. Metcalfe, and G. Metcalfe, industrial cutting-ma
chine raanuiaeturers—G. H. Ames, P. Mane, P. W. S.
Miles. J. W. Miles, G. Gibbs, R. Bright, P. F. Aiken,
T. Kington, C. Pinney, 11. Bush, R. Ricketts, and C.
P. Sage, Bristol (as far as regards the said P. F. Aiken.)
INSOLVENT PETITIONERS.
George Stone, Poling, Sussex, blacksmith.
John Shaw, Kingston-upon-Hull.
William Anderson, Kingston upon-Hull, journeyman
shipwright.
Samuel Ward, Kingston-upon-Hull, licensed victualler.
Joseph Green, Kingston-upon-Hull, hairdresser.
Hannah Watson, Kingston-upon-Hull.
Thomas Roberto, Presteigne, Radnorshire, chemist.
Joseph Booth, Manchester, journeyman paper stainer.
Cnarles Willett, Manchester, schoolmaster.
Edward Scholes, Orowland, Lincolnshire, tailor.
Alexander Pope Fletcher, Paington, Devonshire, school.
master.
Joseph Anstey, Birmingham, greengrocer.
Frederick Love Watson, Westbromwich, Staffordshire,
tailor.

Tzrrar, Smethwiek, Staffordshire, road eon

tractor.
Samuel Share, Dudley, Worcestershire, grocer.
Robert Cockerill, Towcester, Northamptonshire, agent
to the County Fire-office.
William Henry Fisher, Leckamptan, Gloucestershire.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION.
W. Wanless, Edinburgh, grocer, to meet within
Dowell's Rooms, Edinburgh, May 26, and June 19, at
twelve.

opportunity cf bringing forward his objections.
leo did not bring forward his objections. Instead of
the present process the proposed measure gave the mort-
gagee perfect security without expense. The Noble
and Learned Lord never stated his objections in Com-
mittee, and that was the proper place for the Noble and
Learned Lord to bring forward his objections if he en-
tertained them. He had a great suspicion that the
Noble and Learned Lord was against registration
altogether, and he thought he might turn round
and oppose the measure which was introduced
by his own colleagues in the Government. There
was no intention, as the Noble Lord opposite supposed,
of forcing him to bring all his title-deeds to London.
All he would have to do, if he wished to dispose of his
estate, would be to afford the proposed purchaser an op-
portunity, which under the present system he would de-
mand, of investigating the title; and the registration
would enable the purchaser to dispose of the estate with
much greater facility than the Noble Lord could do
under the present system.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that his respect for
their Lordships would not suffer him to pass over the
imputation of unfairness, and he hoped that their Lord-
ships would not judge of the general accuracy of the
Noble Lord by his accuracy on this occasion. Re had
attended the Committee on its second meeting, and stated
that he understood that great objections existed to the
scheme, but had not made up his mind, and that under-
standing great differences of opinion existed among the
Commissioners, he said he thought the best plan would
be to examine the Commissioners. They were examined,
and, although that examination was not concluded, he
had heard sufficient to satisfy him that the plan of maps
was perfectly impracticable. If a plan could be devised
for registration which could carry out the object he
would support it. It was easy to bring in Bills for reform,
but unless they were well considered they were worse than
useless. If this Bill could facilitate the conveyance of pro-
perty it would be ofgreat use,,if not it would be a great evil.
He had not attended the Committee since. He had not
the power of attending the Committee and of admi-
nistering justice in their Lordships' House and the
Court of Chancery at the same time.—(Hear, hear.)
What did the Noble Lord mean by taxing him with
unfairness I He had done his best, consistent with the
numerous and onerous duties he had to perform—
(Hear)—to understand this Bill, and he thought the
Bill required amendment. There was one clause
which was most objectionable, and that was the clause
that required a wilt to be registered within two years.
That clause would disinherit many widows and orphans.
He had met with many persons who had been
loud in their eulogies on this Bill, because they
were ignorant of its provisions, but when they were
informed of them they changed their opinions. He was
not the opponent of registration, he would be a most
zealous assistant if his Noble and Learned Friend would
introduce a measure that was practicable,
Lord BEAUMONT explained, that in using the word
unfairness he had no intention of casting any personal
imputation on the Noble and Learned Lord. He had
merely meant to say that he thought if the Noble and
Learned Lord had attended the Committee he might
have rendered the cause of registration, of which he
declared himself a friend, great service.
Lord GRAN WORTH made several observations in
defence of the Bill. The nature of the machinery by
which the Bill was to be carried into execution was
pointed out, and the moclas operandi, but the details were
not pointed out. If their Lordships were to wait till the
details were settled, the Bill must be postponed indefi-
nitely. He felt that there was great force in the objec-
tion to proceeding with this Bill to-night, inasmuch as the
print had only been circulated yesterday.
Here the conversation dropped.
GUANO.
The Duke of RICHMOND, after having presented a
number or petitions from places in Sussex, aad in various
parts of Scotland, against Papal aggression, proceeded
to say that he wished to pnt a question to his Noble
Friend the Secretary for the colonies on a subject of
some importance to the agriculturists of this country. It
was well known that there had been extensive importa-
tions of guano of late years into our ports. The Peru-
vian Uovernment had hitherto enjoyed a monopoly of
that article, and although they might have sold it in
London at a profit for 51. a ton, they had charged
for it not less than 91, or 101. a ton. The agri-
culturists of this country had, however, learned with
great satisfaction that a discovery of large quan-
tities of guano had lately been made in Wes-
tern Australia. But they had at the same time learned
with surprise and regret that the Governor of that
colony had placed upon the article the enormous export
duty of 21. per ton. Now, as the people of this coun-
try admitted Australian wool and corn into their
markets without the payment of any duty, it was rather
hard that the Australian Government should place on
one of their export articles that high duty. He wished
to ask his Noble Friend whether he was aware that the
Governor of Western Australia had imposed that heavy
tax on the export of guano; and, if so, whether that
proceeding met with his approval?
Earl GREY said it was true that a discovery of large
quantities of guano had been made in Western Austra-
lia at a distance of about 300 miles to the north of
Fremantle. It was also true that an export duty of
about 21. per ton had been imposed by the Governor of
Western Australia on that article. When that intelli-
gence had reached him, he had felt that that duty was
too high. But as the article was a ♦aluable one, and
to be found in limited quantities only, and as it was de-
sirable that precautions should be taken for preventing
its being wasted, he thought it only fair that a mode-
rate duty should be paid for covering the cost of those
precautions. In the years 1844 and 1845 the export
duty on guano had been fixed at the Cape of Good
Hope at 14 per ton. That appeared to him to be a fair
amount, and he thought it only reasonable that a simi-
lar charge should be imposed in Western Australia.
He had therefore sent a dispatch to the Governor of that
colony directing him to reduce the export duty on
guano to 14 per ton, and at the same time to afford
every facility in his power to persons engaged in tha.
trade.

The Duke of RICHMOND said he felt much obliged
o his Noble Friend for that answer. He would, how-
ever, remind his Noble Friend, that in the years 1844
and 1845, when a duty of 11. per ton had been imposed
ors guano at the Cape of Good Hope, the agriculturists
of the country had been much better able to afford the
payment of it than they were at present.—(Hear.) They
had then been receiving 603. a quarter for wheat, while
they were at present receiving only 403. a quarter; and
if they could get a return to the old prices of wheat
they would have no objection to the payment of a duty
of 1/. per ton on guano.—(Hear. and laughter.) He
would, however, submit to his Noble Friend, that it
would at least be but fair to order the Custom-house
officers to return 1/. on each ton of that guano for which
a duty of 21. per ton had already been paid.
Earl GREY said it was not always easy to remedy a
mistake. He believed that if 11. of the 2/. duty were
returned that would be of very little use to the farmers,
and would benefit no parties but those who had shipped
the article.

PENTONVILLE PRISON.
The Bishop of OXFORD rose, pursuant to notice, to
put a question on the subject of certain recent altera-
tions in the administration of Pentonvillo Prison. That
prison had been originally established with a view to
make a great experiment for the punishment, and at
the sumo time for the reformation, of criminals. In
order to carry out that experiment it had been arranged
that no person who had become indurated in vice
should be confined in that prison; that it should only be
employed for the punishment of persons who had com-
mitted a first, or at most, a second, offence; that pri-
soners there should be subject to separate confinement;
and that after they had been released from it they
should not be subject to any degrading punishment, or
compelled to associate with the more abandoned class
of criminals. That arrangement had been for some
years adhered to, and, as he believed, with marked
success. But it would appear from the report which
had been presented to Parliament last year, with re-
spect to the state of the prison, and from the report of
this year, which had been printed, but which had not
yet been published, that those conditions had recently
been, to a great extent, disregarded. He found that
among the parties who had last year been sent to Pen-
tonville Prison, some had been punished five times,
others six times, others ten times, others sixteen times,
and others so many as twenty times, while some
of them were convicts who had returned from
Van Diemen's Land after having spent there
a term of transportation during the worst and most
frightful period of the penal system in that colony.
It appeared, too, that although one chaplain had declared
that the system could not be fairly tried unless the pri-
soners were kept at Pentonville for a period of twelve
months; and although another chaplain thought an im-
prisonment of eighteen months indispensable for that
purpose, the average period of the imprisonment of par-
ties last year had not exceeded forty weeks. Then, again,
with respect to the destination of those persons who had
passed through the discipline of the prison, he perceived
that in that case also there had been a departure from
the original understanding upon the subject. It had been
originally proposed that those persons should be allowed
an opportunity, either in this country or in some of our
colonies, of regaining by industry and honesty a place
in society. But he found from the return for the last
year that 68 of them had been sent in one draught to the
York hulk; that 23 of them had been sent there in ano-
ther draught; that 53 of them had been sent to Portland
prison; and that 109 of them had been sent to the hulks
at Bermuda. Now, he was aware that the Surveyor..
General of Prisons thought that the object for which
the prison had been founded might be attained, notwith-
standing those alterations, and he entertained the highest
respect for that gentleman; but still that was merely a
matter of opinion, and he confessed he could not help
arriving at a contrary conclusion. Pentonville prison
had been established for the purpose of carrying out the
great experiment in the way of the reformation of pri-
soners; and in his opinion that experiment could not be
fairly tried if hardened criminals were sent to the prison,
and if those who had passed through the discipline
there were subsequently exposed to the worst species
of moral contamination. Ho believed that the
practice of sending those persons to the public
works in Portland, Bermuda, or elsewhere, would be
fatal to the whole system. Ho was glad, however,
to find that in one department of the public works at
Portland arrangements had been made which would saven
the prisoners from the loss of sell-respect, by removing
them from the public gaze and enabling them to gain
some of the rewards of labour. But he should repeat,
that he feared the system originally established at
Pen-
tonville prison had been departed from to aneile
r x
xtent
which seriously endangered the success of th w
perimenr. The question ho hart to ask her Majesty's
Ministers was, how far they had carried er
out, o
in-
tended to carry out, alterations in the fundamental prin-
ciples of the administration of the Pentonville prison?
He should he glad
able to .toreceise from
explana-
tion they might be offeruon the them
pointsay
to which
he had just directed their attention.
Earl GREY said, it was true that Pentonville prison

stood at present on a somewhat different footing from
that which it hid been occupied wht n it had been used
merely for the purpose or carrying out a great experi-
ment. That prison had originally been established
with a view to determine whether the system of sepa-
rate confinement ought or ought not to be generally
adopted. So long as that system was employed as an
expritnent it was quite right that it should be st, ictly
adhered to; but it was obvious, Chet in order to make
it really tell on the criminal administration of the
country it was necessary, after the experiment
had been found successful on a limited scale,
it should be extended to criminals generally,
and not be confined to a few selected individuals The
experiment as originally made had been found eminently
successful, and it was for that reason that it had been
carried into more extended operation. It was true that
prisoners who had returned to this country after having
undergone former sentences of transportation were at
peesent to be found in Pentonville prison; but he should
observe that those persons formed the very class of cri-
minals whom it was most desirable to subject to separate
confinement, and to deprive of the opportunity of conta-
minating the minds of others. There was no part of the
punishment to which criminals were subjected which
they dreaded so much as separate confinement. They
all knew that it was so awfully severe that no man could
undergo it for any great length of time without consi-
derable injury to both mind and body. Indeed without
the nicest attention it could not be safe to inflict that
system beyond a given time. Some time ago some men
were kept for twenty months under the operation of
the system, and they were broken in health and
smength to a degree which it was never the intention of
Government or Parliament to effect.—(Hear, hear.)
Now, if men went through that punishment for minor
offences, there should be something more for serious
crimes. As long as it was an experiment it might be
very well to confine it to one particular class, but when
it became a general system, they could not apply
tie same punishment to the man who had committed
a minor offence and to him who had committed a
manslaughter, only a degree removed from murder.
Such a prisoner ought not to be sent, after eighteen
months' separate imprisonment, to labour. The system
a convict labour pursued at Portland was carried out in
the hulks. A change in the system was no doubt de-
r irable, but it could only be brought into operation
; tradually. It was the intention of his Right Hon
Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department
to get rid of the hulks as fast as possible ; and a sum of
10,0001. or 12,0001. yearly was applied in extending
oonvict accommodation at Bermuda, Gibraltar, Port-
land, and Dartmoor. The Right Rev. Prelate seemed
to think that separate confinement should follow, not
precede, labour in gangs ; and he had referred to the
opinions of Sir W. Denison in support of his proposi-
t.on. But it should be remembered that Sir W. De-
nison had given that opinion in 1847 before he could
have had sufficient experience of the conduct and lives
otf the convicts subjected to the separate confinement
system, and then put upon the public works.—(Hear,
hear.) All those who superintended public works
:sgreed in opinion that it would be impossible
eo enforce the system which they carried on
at such works, if the convicts had not previously
gone through the ordeal of separate confinement. They
te and that the severest punishment to be inflicted on
convicts engaged in associated labour gangs was to send
them back to separate confinement. It was said that
the labour in Portland could not be penal unless it was
dlegrading; but he would ask was not that labour a
punishment, and were not all punishments degrading?
Undoubtedly it was felt to be a very severe punishment
t o have a man kept at hard labour all day without any
Nve4gQs, and to have him sent at night into a little soli-
tary cell. Taking the large number of convicts sent to
oar colonies into account, it was found that by far the
greater proportion of those who had subsequently be-
come masters, and had behaved well, were men who
had gone through the two stages of punishment. The
light Rev. Prelate had raid that the system of Penton-
Fine prison had been altered by allowing a certain num-
ber of the prisoners confined at night in separate cells to
mix together in the day for the purpose of performing a
portion of the prison labour; and he had condemned the
injudicious economy of allowing such a proceeding to
break down the system. He fully agreed that it would
be very ill-judged to sacrifice the system to any petty
saving of that kind; but at the same time, looking at the
littgo amount of money expended in carrying out crimi-
nal punishment in this country, it was necessary to keep
down the expenditure as much as possible in order to
e nable them to introduce those improvements which
IN',ere essential, as soon as they could.—(Hear, hear.)
Tho Duke of RICHNIOND wished, as one of the
first of the Commissioners appointed to examine into
tis at question, to address a few words to their Lord-
slaips upon it. He had been among those who always
doubted whether a separate confinement of eighteen
months, and labour afterwards, was not too much for
this health and faculties of prisoners. Having had fre-
quent opportunities of examining those unhappy men
while in prison, he could state that the separate punish-
"mut was considered most severe. He was not cognisant
oi? the present system adopted at Pentonville, and there-
fore could not take upon himself to say whether or not
the new system had worked better than the old; but
this he knew, that a Noble Friend of his was of opinion
thitt it was absolutely necessary that convicts atter
separate confinement should work in association prior
to their being sent to the convict ships. The change
from one condition to another was so great, that such
a precaution was required, and during their
management they had always acted upon that prin-
e,ple. The present was not a party question, it was one
in which the pevplo of this great empire was very much
concerned, because it was their duty to reform as well
as punish, and they were bound to take care that the
runt whom they sent into confinement should not leave
t'ae walls of their prisons worse than when they entered
taern.—(Hear, hear.) The separate confinement with-
em- labour was a heavier punishment than with labour.
He thought 18 months was too much as a period for
separate confinement, but he feared that nine months
was not sufficient.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from the Earl of CHICHESTER,
who was understood to defend the present system,
Earl GREY said it was the intention to make every
cenvict sentenced to transportation go through twelve
months of separate confinement.
The subject then dropped.
The Earl of HARDWICKE presented a large num-
ber of petitions from Cambridgeshire, against Papal
aggression.

Lord CAMPBELL postponed, until Friday next, the
Committee on the Registration of Insurances Bill.
Their Lordships then adjourned, at a Quarter-pact
Seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 2:3.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill, Mr.
AI SEUL in the Chair.
On clause 1,
Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE rose to move that the
clause be postponed, until the House is in possession of
a copy of the brief, rescript, or letters apostolical upon
which the enactment in the said clause is founded.
Whatever, he said, was tho difference existing among
them on this question, it was allowed that they had now
Obtained the Bill to which the Government
had pledged themselves to abide. This, how.
ever, was far from being the Bill which they
had read a first and second time. There was a great
deal of new matter, and particularly the first clause,
which he was about to ask them to postpone. That clause
made mention of the letter or rescript from the see of Rome,
and he thought they ought to have this rescript before
them before they consented to deprive many millions of
their fellow-subjects of the.rights conferred upon them
by the Emancipation Act. Ho had taken the liberty
of asking the Noble Lord to produce this brief
before, but he had been answered by being told that
it was a matter of notoriety contained in every news-
paper. Were they, however, to legislate on news-
paper information? Supposing, for instance, a Bill
had been brought in to banish M. Ms eztni
and his companions merely on the ground of
the article which had lately appeared in the Times
newspaper respecting him, and which after all turned
out to be a mere hoax. What would they say then to
legislating on newspaper information ? He wanted
to know, then, why these letters apostolical
should not also prove a mere hoax.—(Laughter.) He
denied, however, that this letter signed by Cardinal
Lai ebruschini when produced would be found to confer
any power or tales at all, it mentioned no man's
name, and conferred no titles, and yet their Bill was
to prevent the a.sumption of certain ecclesiastical titles.
The rescript gave no titles, and therefore he thought
the Noble Lord himself was bound to produce his
authority for these titles ever having been conferred.
Whenever a Railway or a Divorce Bill was introduced
into that House, the parties were obliged to prove their
preambles, and he would call now upon the Noble
Lord to prove his preamble. The Solicitor-General
had paid him a compliment the other night at the
expense of the Honourable Member for Athlone,
by saying that his demand for the rescript was cer-
tainly just the sort of question which a man
of common sense would ask on the first
clause being considered, but the Solicitor-General
seemed the most useful man he bad met with for some
time, and he congratulated the Government on their
acquisition.—(" Hear, hear," from Lord John Russell.)
The Noble Lord cheered that, and he supposed, then,
the Solicitor-General was just the sort of man that they
wanted. He had said, too, that he was perfectly
--(Cries
ready utterly to demolish every argument which had
been or could be brought against the Bill.
would call
of " Hear, hear.") Well, then, he thought the
time was come for this demolition, and they
upon the Solicitor-General neral to perform his promise.
There certainly were not many lawyers on the
other side, although when he saw the lion, and Learned
Members fur Sheffield, Athlone, and Plymouth, he would
find rather tough materials to deal with. Thevv()
seemed
Attorney-General,however, had said but
little about the
Bill, and to do him justice
Now, he asked, was it worth while going
to care less.
on with this
Bill and wasting the time of the
better proceed with the business of the"se; had they not
country ?—(Hear.)
He saw there were three or four amendments on
the paper, but he knew
that number in reserve, and there was double
better, under the would it not L•
to make se
ciscumstauces, for the Noble Lord
the Bill a present to the other side?—(A laugh.)
hl),,epweans induEn.iot the, Noble Lord was pursuing phantorn ;
naily becoming the advocate of principles
whichla,,isheitily her became him nor belonged
to him.
ill vas
Would he still. persist in going on with the
h not satistied with the bigotry which
he had evoked, with the laurels which Oxford had pre-
pared for him, and with the commotion which
he had created from one end of the kingdom
to the other?—(Cheers.) If he was still not satisfied,
and was determined to go on, all he asked him
to do Ives at all events to furnish the House
with a copy of the documents on which he pro-
ceeded,—(Bear, hear.) They were not only in-

suiting the creed of our Roman Catholic subject
sod degrading the priesthood, but proceeding on false
principh s and in the dark.—(Hear, hear.)
The SOLICIrOR-GENEii.AL said he was much
obliged to the Honourable Member for his amusing
speech, but while he gave him credit for
los ready wit, and the many other qualities
he possessed, he was sorry that, in the interval
between Monday and Friday, his memory had
so seriously failed him. Ile considered that no course
would be more derogatory to the House than to take
evidence that certain parties had assumed the title of
archbishop and bishop !or pretended sees under the au-
thority purporting to be given by the Popo, after the
circumstance, which have lately become so notorious.
The Hon. Member had said there would be great diffi-
culty in indicting a person under the Act without
producing the rescript of the Pope. Now, fur the
satisfaction of those who thought the Bill ought to pass,
he gave his opinion, as a lawyer, that it would be Effec-
tual, and that he had not the slightest doubt that, under
it, any person who assumed such titles might be con-
victed without the production of thatdccument.—(Hear.)
The Hon. Member also said the Noble Lord had taken
a fatal step, that ho hart departed from those high prin-
ciples which distinguished the illustrious statesman
who brought forward the Bill for Catholic
Emancipation, but he (the Solicitor-General)
would venture to state that not only the Noble
Lord, but the party with whom he was connected, were
the parties who distinguished themselves in endeavour-
ing to remove those restrictions which pressed on the
Roman Catholics long before the period when that
lamented statesman passed his Bill. (Cheers.)
And it was because the principles of that Bill
had been invaded by the gross arrogance of that
man who dared again to attempt to raise
what he called spiritual supremacy, but which was in
fact an attempt to raise again the most despotic spi-
ritual control over toe human race—it was because
be had endeavoured to violate the principles of civil
and religious liberty, as iu the case of Sardinia and else-
where, and to exercise a spiritual tyranny over the peo-
ple, that he asked the House to give its hearty concur-
rence and assent to the Bill which he trusted would be
passed.
Mr. ROEBUCK said he would not follow the grandi-
loquence of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
It was his opinions that if there was any meaning in this
first clause it was wholly useless, because before they
could convict a man under this Bill it must be proved
that the title assumed was taken under the au-
thority of the bull referred to in the Bill. Now
how was that to be proved if the suggestion of the Hon.
Member for Fiesbury were not adopted? It could not
be done. Either this Bill was utterly useless, or so exten-
sive as to put an end to the Roman Catholic religion in
Ireland.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said there would be
no necessity to adduce the proof which the Hon. and
Learned Member referred to, and that was his answers,
to the objections which had just been addressed to the
Committee. Any offence to be committed against this
Bill would come under the second clause, and all the
would have to be proved was simply that the offender had
assumed a title which the Bill prohibited, Now what
were those prohibited titles? Why, simply, those that
were named after the existing sees in cities of this
country; and therefore no priest of the Roman Catholic
Church would be precluded from adopting a title taken
from a foreign see.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought the Hon. and Learned At-
torney-General had proved his case, and that was no
lets and no more thanithat the first clause of this Bill was
wholly useless and unnecessary.
Mr. WALPOLE wished to know if they were to dis-
cuss the merits of the clause or that of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Finsbury? For his part, he thought they ought
to confine themselves, in the first instance, to the latter
question. Ought the brief of the Pope to be produced?
The Honourable Member for Finsbury founded
his motion upon the circumstance that there
was no evidence that any such brief had
ever been received in this country. Now was
that the way their ancestors proceeded on similar
emergencies ? No, they did not require strict
legal proof, which the Honourable Member
demanded to-day, but they based their legislation upon
what in the Saxon tongue was known as common
clamour—(lronical cheers)—but which when translated
into modern phraseology meant public notoriety.
The receipt of the Pope's bull was too noforious to re-
quire iegal proof, and he therefore called upon the Com-
mittee to reject this proposition.
Mr. KEOGH said the Solicitor-General had not been very complimentary to Hon. Gentlemen who had op-
posed the Bill, when he said that he heard no argument
against it which had made an impression on his mind.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that what he
had observed was, that he had nor heard any argument
which had impressed itself on his mind as being in-
vincible.
Mr. KEOGH was bound to accept the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman's correction; but after the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had heard the speeches of the Right
Hon. Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), of the
Bight Hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr.
Gladstone), and of the Hon. and Learned Member
for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer), he yet said that he
had heard nothing which had impressed his mind,
adding the word invincible. At the same time
he (Mr. Keogh) scarcely knew whether to at-
tribute it to invincible arrogance or invincible ignorance
on the part of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. The
fact was, that the Bill as it stood proceeded from that
(the Conservative) side of the House; and as the Govern-
ment would not answer him when he asked if they would
dare to put it into operation in Ireland, he could only
infer that they were nicking use of their opponents in
that House to pats the Bill, in order that they might be
enabled thereby to retain office, and that when the Par-
liamentary difficulty was got over they meant to deceive
them out of that House.
Mr. REYNOLDS said that the Attorney-General,with
his usual legal flippancy, attempted to get over the dif-
ficulty presented by this motion by saying that the Hon.
Member for Finsbury had made an amusing speech, but
that would not go down in that House; for the question
that was submitted to them for decision as to a jury
was, whether the clergy of ten millions of British sub-
jects were to be convicted upon false testimony or not.
If a man was indicted for forging a bill would the pro-
secutor dare to appear in court without the forged do-
cument? The Noble Lord, however, did so in this in-
stance. The Honourable and Learned Member for Mid-
burst no doubt came to the rescue, and said the intro-
duction of the Papal brief was known by public cla-
mour. There had been enough of public clamour; ever
since the Noble Lord had published his Papal edict in
November there was nothing but clamour. But sup-
pose the Bill passed, did the Noble Lord think he would
be at rest or that the public peace would be confirmed?
He (Mr. Reynolds) believed not; indeed, he believed
the troubles of the Noble Lord would have only com-
menced.—(Cries of " Divide.") He (Mr. Reynolds)
would move to report progress if he was met with cla-
mour. In conclusion, he urged that as there was no
evidence of the publication of the rescript in question—
as even the most clamorous for the Bill could not swear
to that fact, the measure, being one of pains and penal-
ties, should be postponed until the production of such
evidence.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... 49
Against it
••• ... 221
Majority •••
••• —172
The CHAIRMAN then put the first clause to the Com-
mittee, on which,
Sir F. THESIGER rose to move the amendment he
had put upon the paper. After the observations which
had been made on Monday night respecting this clause,
he anticipated that he would receive no opposition from
the Government to that amendment. The clause as pro-
posed by the Government, coupled with the preamble,
said that a certain rescript brief, issued by the Pope on
the efitla of September, 1850, was illegal; and the ob-
ject of his amendment was to make all similar rescripts
oro btrriyefs previous iv
the Pope and published in this
un
to the passing of this Act to be csisouuesd by
com-
prehended within the term of its enactment. He was
certain Lthat the House would see—even those who
opposed the measure could not fail to see, that such
an addition was essential to making the measure
complete; but, to make the matter plain, he would
state in a few words what was his views as to the
law affecting the question. He agreed in the opinion
expressed by the law officers of the Crown on the
somewsubject hat, butdifferent he had
cour arrived at that conclusion by a
se, and he would, there-
fore, state his reasons for coming to the conclusion he
had done. In order to do that, the Acts of Parlia-
ment he would refer toaßni
dev'h(ta'
the
eiddthbee
repealing; Sf eeew
Actsdi n, tnhouefmFlbBi First
aln' tide ys
ewe
oe rned oonfl yE
it
ihzoasbee
tohf,
and 8
which,
clh:l6. for These
eAt
tce
rt s re el
ol aoti edda
titoon wo of
thedistinct sst
iuobnj c
he
so ,
l
aigotery.of
thTehevyowpee,reantdhotsheoswohaicphplrioe:
would to
fated to referthe jursiesdp
re-
able to the introduction of the bulls into this country.
e first was regulated by the Act of Elizabeth, and it
was curious that during the whole of the discussion on
this question, the most important section of one of these
statutes (the first of Elizabeth), the 16th section, had
nalotoig.oertet
yjoc
beenioev,erlooked. That section enacted that
spiritual or temporal, could use or
enjoy any power, jurisdiction, pre-eminence, spiritual or
ecclesiastical within this realm, or within any other of
the dominions of the Sovereign, and that all such were
hauceforth abolished out of the realm. Now, there could
be no doubt if, in the face of that section of the Act, any
subjects of the realm had attempted to exercise such
jurisdiction or power, they would have been indicted as
for a misdemeanor, and punished with fine and impri-
sonment. But the Legislature did not leave the
matter in any doubt, for the punishment attached to
such transgession of the law was provided for
by the 27th to the 30th sections of the Act in-
clusive, and was, for the first offence, forfeiture of
goods and chattels; for the second offence, the punish-
ment of preetnunire; and for the third offence, the party
so transgressing, was declared to be guilty of high trea-
son. The Act of the 6th and 7th Victoria, passed in
1844, repealed the third and second of these Punish-
ments, and the 9;h and 10th Victoria, passed in 1846,
took away so much of the punishment of the first offence
as forfeiture of goods and chattels, but still left the
offence punishable as a misdemeanour. Now, though it
might be said that the punishment bring taken awe
ye the
tfiicacy of that 16th section of the Act was taken away
also, yet the Acts passed in 1844 and 1846, only referring
to tee punishment clauses of the Act of Elizabeth, the
16th section of the Act still remained the same, and un-
if eny one transgressed that
repealed; and undoubtedly
section, he would be liable to be punished for a misde-
meanour. Then, again, us to the introduction of bulls
into this country
by the Pope of Rome, that was pro-
vided against by the statute of the 16th Richard
commonly called tne statute of plsernurite, which enacted
that if any person or persons issued, published, or printed,
or caused to be printed, any bulls, rescripts, or other
writings, Which interfered with, or called in question the