The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-21 00:00:00

Mr. LITTLETON concluded his explanation of the object
and probab'e effects of the projected Bill by moving the
following resolution:—
" That it is the opinion of this Committee, that compo-
sition for tithes in Ireland ought to be abolished on and after
the Ist day of November in the present year, in consideration
of an annual land-tax, to be granted to his Majesty, payable
by the persons who would have been liable to such composition
for tithes, and of equal amount; that such land-tax shall be
redeemable; and that out of the produce provision should be
made in land or money, for the indemnification of the persons
entitled to such composition."

IM PERIAL PARLIAMENT

THIS DAY, FRIDAY, FEB. 21.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The Speaker took the chair about a quarter past twelve.
This being the last day for the presentation of petitions re-
lating to private Bills, a great number of such were presented.
Mr. RAMSBOTTOM presented a petition from Windsor,
upon the subject of the London and Windsor railway.
Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a petition, signed by 2,000
inhabitants of the city of London, praying that they might be
allowed to participate in the benefits resulting from the London
Bridge Improvements Act. Petition ordered to be referred to
a committee.

Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE brought in a Bill for the formation
of a railway from London to Southampton, which was read a
first time.

Mr. PONSONBY presented a petition from the inhabitants
of Hull for leave to bring in a Bill for the building a bridge
over the river Humber.

Mr. O'DWYER presented a petition from the Limerick
Bridge Improvement Company, and obtained leave to bring in
a Bill.

Mr. FERGUS O'CONNOR presented a petition from Gar.
rowcloy, in the county of Cork, praying for a repeal of the legis.
lative union. From the quantity of business at present before
the House, it would be impertinent on his part to occupy the
time of the House by any lengthened observations. He
would merely beg leave to call their attention to a mistake
that appeared in the papers of this morning respecting some ex-
pressions used by him on the previous night. It had been
stated that he had said that by the Government adopting a good
tithe measure a stop would be put to the agitation of the repeal
question. This must have been a mistake either on his part or
of the press such a measure would never obtain his consent,
as it was totally at variance with his principles. He was sa-
tisfied that nothing the Government could do would put a
stop to the agitation for the repeal of the union.—(Laughter.)
Mr. WIGNEY presented a petition from an individual
named Cohen, the proprietor of the Brighton Guardian, and
at that time a prisoner in the gaol of Chelmsford. The peti-
tion was of extreme length, and he would merely read a few
passages from it to show the hardships under which the peti.
tioner suffered. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read
several extracts from the petition, by which it appeared that
a paragraph had been published in the petitioner's paper rela-
tive to the incendiary fires which had taken place in that part
of the country, and contrasted the conduct of the magistrates
of the district where the fires had occurred with that of the
magistrates of Horsham, in which place it appeared that,
owing to the judicious arrangements made by the magistrates,
no incendiary fires had taken place. The petitioner complained
that no proceedings were instituted against him till five months
after the publication of the paragraph, and that on the 16th of
November he had been called up to the Court of King's
Bench to receive judgment, and that although he had handed
in affidavits, in mitigation of punishment, from several magis-
trates who had deposed that they did not conceive themselves
libelled by the paragraph in question, he had been sentenced
to six months' imprisonment, to pay a fine of 501., and to
give heavy securities for his future good behaviour,
and to be further imprisoned until the fine be paid and the re-
cognizances perfected. Although the paragraph contained only
thirty-two lines there were eight specific charges brought
against him, and Mr. Justice Parke, before whom be had been
tried, stated that he did not think the jury intended to find him
guilty of the libel The petitioner further stated that he was
the sole support of his mother and family. The Hon. Member
stated that he would not trouble the House with any further
observations, but merely add that the petitioner prayed that
the House would take some measures for his speedy release, he
having already suffered three months' imprisonment ; and that
they would be also pleased to make such alterations in the law
of libel as would protect proprietors of newspapers from perse.
cutions of this nature. He hoped that the measure brought for-
ward by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, a few
nights since, for the amendment of the law of libel, would be
speedily carried into effect.
Sir C. BURRELL felt great regret at the absence of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin upon the occasion of the
presentation of this petition, and could only account for it by
the pressure of other business. It was one of very great im.
portance, and it would have been highly desirable if one
of the Ministers of the Crown was present.—(Hear, hear.)
Being one of the bench of magistrates in the neigh-
tourhood of Horsham, the town which had been men-
tioned in the petition, he must be permitted to say a
few words. He felt some delicacy in saying anything respect.
ing the petitioner, but the House should know that that indivi-
dual, who came forward under the garb of innocence, had
already been twice convicted of libel The -louse should not,
therefore, receive the petition blindfolded, but should know the
true character of the petitioner. He did not know why
Horsham should be so eulogised in the petition, but
this he knew, that very great endeavours had been made
by the parish officers there and in the neighbour.
hood, to find employment for the labouring poor. That
was the object which the magistrates had in view, and in re-
ference to the Labourers' Employment Act, he believed that
throughout England there was not an instance, in any parish,
of acts of incendiarism having taken place where that Act was
in force. That fact spoke greatly in favour of that measure,
and was a proof that it should not have been so treated as it
was during the last session of Parliament. He knew nothing
of the petitioner personally, but he knew that his publications
had been liable to great and severe animadversion.
Lord W. LENNOX said he had no personal feeling towards
the petitioner, whom he only knew as the editor of the Brighton
Guardian, but he thought the case a very herd one.—(Hear.)
In the first place, the petitioner was exonerated from the charge
of exciting the labouring classes to acts of incendiarism. The
defence was that he was ignorant of the insertion of the para-
graph, which was sent to his office late on the evening
preceding the day of publication, and that certainly ought
to have been taken into consideration.—(Hear.) Mr. Justice
James Parke, who tried the case, in his charge to the Jury
stated that the Jury had nothing to do with the reasons why the
Government did not institute the prosecution, and that one
reason might be, that in cases of prosecutions by the Govern-
ment, Juries had a very strong feeling in favour of defendants.
That might be true, but he (Lord W. Lennox) was convinced
it would not prevent justice from being done.—(Hear, hear.)
He would not trespass longer on the attention of the House, but
he fully concurred in the prayer of the petition for a change in
the law of libel, for a more disgraceful law never existed.—
(Hear, hear.) He wished that the lion. and Learned Member
for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) had been present, as that Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had taketi up the miltet. thoiight
the law of libel as it existed !Airerie'a was the best, By that
law two things were permitted, viz —to prove the truth of the
libel, and also to prove whether the libel be published on public
grounds or from personal feelings. There was no such thing
there as a farthing damages, and entailing heavy costs on the
defendant.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. FERGUS O'CONNOR considered the case one of

Mr. SHEIL conceived that there was but one feeling on the
absence of all responsible Ministers from the House during the
morning sittings. It was better that no meeting should take
place in this House, than that there should be no Ministers
present, and of course no answer given to such charges as
were brought against them, and no consideration given to
the numerous facts that were brought before the attention of
the House. As the law of libel was introduced, he would
take an early opportunity of stating a fact which he hoped
would come under the cognizance of. the British Legislature,
'aud receive that degree of attention from it which its impor-
tance demanded. Mr. Richard Barrett, proprietor of the
oPtlu wspaper, , in Dublin, was prosecuted for the publication
of a letter signed Daniel O'Connell. The prosecution was in-
stituted before the late Jury Bill came into operation ; but
after it had been enacted. It was pressed upon the Court to
postpone this trial till after the Ist ofJan. , when the advantages
of the new Jury Bill would be applied to the case of the individual
prosecuted. This app'ication was refused ; therelerk of the
Crown supplied forty-eight names, out of which twenty-four
were to be selected. Amongst those were only four Roman
Catholics, and the Crown Solicitor struck off the names of those
four; so that, to use a common and a very strong phrase, this
jury was a packed one ; and a letter, signed " Daniel O'Con-
nell"—was tried by persons, who he would not say belonged to
a party, but whose public conduct was characteristic of factious
feelings. Well ; did they stop there ? No ; a recommenda-
tion was given by the jury to mercy, and on the ground of this
the prisoner was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The
Government, availing itself of a statute which was passed in
1815, Act 55, Cap. SO. issued an ordinance he (Mr. Shell) would
use that word, for it bore a strong analogy to the entire tran-
saction—not to give Mr. Barrett's paper any stamps.—(Cries
of " Oh, oh, oh.") So that he was first incarcerated, though
recommended to mercy, and after having been deprived of his
liberty, he was next deprived of the means of livelihood.—
(Cries of "Hear, hear, hear.") Was this a line of conduct to
be sanctioned in a country where the liberty of the press was
boasted of as a part of the liberty of the, people ?—(Hear.)
Was all this done in a spirit of fairness and impartiality towards
the accused individual ? He (Mr. Shell) would not appeal to
the Government but to the British people, and he would expect
that feeling of" just indignation," of which he hoped the royal
bosom had no monopoly, that the circumstances could not fail
to evoke from the hearts of the British people. He would sub-
mit the case to their justice; and he had to tell them that it
was one not only entitled to their sympathies, but bound up
with their interests.

Mr. WILKS said he perfectly agreed in the opinions ex-
pressed by the Hon. Member for Tipperary. He saw the tran-
saction to which that Hon. Member alluded announced with
feelings of the deepest regret and displeasure. In the absence
of the Members of the Government, however, he thought it
only due to the Government to state, that upon reference
to the Act it appeared that there was no discretion left with
the Commissioners of Stamps, who, under the provisions of
the Act, were specifically ordered, in case of the conviction of a
publisher,—(Cries of " Read.") He would read the clause of
the Act, the words of which were, "That in case a printer,
publisher, or proprietor, of a newspaper, shall in due course of
law be convicted of publishing, &c., any seditious libel, the
same commissioners of stamps shall and are hereby prohibited
from selling or delivering to or for the use of such publisher,
&c., any stamped paper."—(Hear, hear, hear.)—Undoubtedly
the words of the Act were specific upon the subject,
and no person connected with the Stamp-office could supply
stamps without absolutely violating the prohibitions of the Act.
In the absence of all the Members of the Government it was
but due to them to make this statement. The moment
they found that this law was put into operation, it was the in-
tention of the Government, with the greatest possible
expediti2p, to introduce a Bill by which the compulsory
crause of: the Act would be repealed.—(Cheers.) And
this most outrageous disgrace to the statute book
would be endured no longer.—(Cheers.) He would repeat,
that he agreed entirely in the sentiments expressed by the Hon.
Member for Tipperary (Mr. Sheil). He (Mr. Wilks) and every
man that had any regard for the liberty ofthe press,must regret
the extreme wrong and hardship which was exercised towards
the editor of the Guardian newspaper. He deeply regretted
that that gentleman should be transported from the county of
Sussex to a distant county. It was to be regretted chiefly that
the industry of army man should be crushed, and that he should
be prevented from earning food for his family.—(Hear, hear.)
These proceedings had taken place on former occasions, but he
hoped they would never again be revived ; and the expression
of the feelings of the House would have a beneficial effect upon
the Judges in their future sentences.

Mr. C. O'DWYER said that it should be recol-
lected that the Commissioners of Stamps were not cognizant
of this transaction respecting Mr. Barrett until they were in-
formed by the Government. They acted under the instruction
of the Government ; and it was a remarkable fact that it re.
mained for a Government professing the utmost devotion
to the press, to be the very first to enforce the obsolete
provisions of the abominable Act.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
There was no penalty upon the Commissioners of Stamps for
not enforcing this law.—(Hear, hear.) The provisions of the
Act could not be enforced, if the party had not been convicted
of publishing a seditious libel. If the word" seditious " had
not been introduced into the indictment, the Act would not
operate. Every lawyer was of opinion that the word seditious
in this indictment was a surplusage, and that it was introduced
solely from vindictive feelings, and to destroy this unfortunate
gentleman.—(Hear, hear.) He had given notice of a
motion upon this subject, and he would see whether
a British Parliament had spirit to resist this abominable
oppression. He deeply regretted the sufferings and wrongs of
Mr. Cohen. He had been prosecuted for a libel against ma-
gistrates. Now he (Mr. O'Dwyer) thought that where a libel
was directed against a particular class, the accused party should
not be tried by the some class. He should be tried by his peers,
and not magistrates ; he should at least he tried by persons who
would not sympathise with the prosecution. If such had been
the case in the present instance, the verdict would have been
sanctioned much more strongly by public opinion than it now

Major BEAUCLERK said that it appeared by the cause of
the Act read by the Hon. Member for Boston, that the words
of that Act were imperative on Government, and that there-
fore they were not to blame.—(Hear, hear, and No, no.) He
agreed very much in the opinions expressed by the editor of the
Brighton Guardian ; but he thought that in some instances
that paper had gone beyond the strict line of preprieti, in the
causes which is advocated, and that it would have been better
for the paper itself if it had not done so. He therefore had
no wish to see that paper attacking the Magistracy, but great
allowance should be made for the period in which the publica-
tion was made. It Hon. Members looked at the columns, of
the Chronicle or the Times, they would see much stronger
attacks on Magistrates, and written with amore gigantic pep, or
which no notice had been taken. He hOped Government stfoulg
take this case into consideration and "Telege this `individual,
whose prospects would be blasted for life if he were allowed
to remain in gaol. He trusted Government would take this
humane course; and when they recollected that this indivi-
dual had been charged with inciting incendiary fires, and
that he had been honourably acquitted of that crime,.
they would surely feel that it was a great stretch of
cruelty to have him thrown into prison. He hoped Govern-
ment would look over the case and relieve the unfortunate man.
If he had done wrong, the spirit of revenge ought tc; be sa'tii,
fled by the punishment already inffic,ted: He joined sincerely
in the'opinio!is exPies;ed by the Hon. Member who presented
this petition, and he hoped it would receive the attention it
deserved.

Sir C. BURRELL said that until the case came before the
House, in a direct form, it was impossible to come to any satis-
factory conclusion on it.—(Hear, hear.) Oil this ground
alone he considered that it was incumbent on them; until
there was a full and sufficient answer, from the course that
had been adopted, to postpone their opinion upon it. He
would only add, that, to his own knowledge, there was pqt
single magistrate on the jury who bid tied this offence.
(Hear, hear.) It should not, therefore, go forth that the
contrary was the case. It would be a great injustice if it did so,
and he repeated, he would take on himself to state that there
was not a single magistrate on this jury.
Mr. PRYME said that this prosecution was not insti-
tuted by his Majesty's Government; they had no more to
do with it than with any other felony that hod teen
tried at the last Sussex Assizes. 13.'t whoever Were the
prosecutors, he }nut wqy, knowing nothing of the case but
what he had heard in that House, and hearing the publication
read by the Hon. Member who had presented the petition, that he
was surprised at the punishment inflicted, and at the sentence
of imprisonment in any gaol, much more in a distant one.
With this, however, Government bad nothing to do.. Some
Members were so anxious to throw blanie'on'thein, that they
did so on pvery. ocCasiOn, #ll4 intrpduced discussions for that
purpOie Which had nothing to do with the subject before them.
He would not anticipate the question further, but would beg
to make one remark upon the observation of the Hon. Member
for Boston, that there was no penalty attached to a disobedience
of the provisions of the statute. The words were that " they
are hereby prohibited from issuing stamps ;" and although there
was no penalty attached to a disobedience of this provision,
every lawyer was aware that a disobedience of any Act of kar-
.

liament was indictable at common law : and if the clause was
not put in force, the party disobeying was liable to an indict-
ment at the prosecution of any person who sought to do it.—
(Hear, hear.)
_Mr. ROEBUCK said he would not trouble the House with
many observations. It appeared to him that, although the Go-
vernment did not commence the prosecution of the Brighton
editor, they had the discretionary power of keeping the party
in gaol or not, and they did not exercise that power as they
ought to have done, for they kept the unfortunate individual in
prison. He would call the whole transaction a most disgraceful
one—it was disgraceful to the prosecutors—it was disgraceful to
the grand jury—it was disgraceful to the magistrates of Sussex,
and he would say it was disgraceful to the judges of the land. He
would not use guarded language, for this was not a case in
which guarded language should be used. They had come there
to express their sentiments freely, and he for one would do so.
This unfortunate person (Mr. Cohen) had inserted in his news_
paper a paragraph respecting incendiary fires. He had stated
a fact, and a fact simply—namely. that incendiary fires pr._
veiled in one district in Sussex, and that in another it did not.
The whole gravamen of the charge was, that he had incited
persons to make these incendiary fires, and yet the Judge
before whom he was tried had declared, after the trial ha t
terminated, that that charge was not made out.—(Hear.)
What then was he punished for ? Simply for saying that eel-
fain Magistrates of Sussex were harsh towards the lower '
classes, and in other districts that they were not. He (Mr.
Roebuck) thought he was perfectly justified in saying so.'
(Hear, hear.) He was of opinion that in every district they
would find some specific cause for the outrages of the pea-
santry. The people generally were fond of the law, and never
kicked against it, except on account of some persecutions or
oppressions. He was quite willing to admit that a resident
gentry were of great service in promoting the interests of
the people, and, as Magistrates, they had a great and
powerful engine in their hands : if they abused it, or made
it an instrument of oppression against the people, it would
only excite them against the laws and against themselves. The
matter for which the proprietor of the Brighton paper had
been punished was what any man had a right to express his
opinion upon, and the law which could put a man for six
months in gaol for it was most disgracetbd. Those who sanc-
tioned that law must be tinged with some of the disgrace
attached to it.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Court
of King's Bench had always evinced a leaning to the most
strict interpretation of the libel law in its penal provisions, and
had thereby made it a disgrace to the country. Mr. Cohen had
by accident published in his paper a paragraph which he ex-
pressed himself willing to explain, and to show that he had
done the very contrary to that which he was charged with ; but
this wouldnot be allowed him. He (Mr. R.) contended that
no man ought to be punished for a single act, when his inten-
tion was taken into considmation, and Mr. Cohen was willing
to show, that if he was to be judged by his previous acts, the
whole tenor of his writings had been against those incendiary
fires, and that he was an enemy to this species of depredation,
and destruction. The Government had frequently attacked
persons in this disgraceful way. They had instituted a pro-
secution against the Hon. Member for Oldham, but they had
been defeated, and they had now caught at the unfortunate
Mr. Cohen, and, by means of a special jury and the disgraceful
libel law, they had ilting him into prison. He trusted that
the Hon. Member for Brighton would not permit the subjeet
to drop, but that he would bring forward a specific motion for
an address to the Crown; for the continuance of that man in
prison was a disgrace to the law and the country. Mr. Cohen
had merely stated a fact in his paper, and if that was a fact
which should be laid before the people, then he (Mr. It.) conceived
he was perfectly justified in doing so. It appeared that the
Secretary of State would not interfere in the matter, and no
other resource was left than an address from that House to his
Majesty; and if the Hon. Member for Brighton would bring
forward a motion to that effect, he should have his (Mr. Roe-
buck's) cordial support, such as it was.
An HoN. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, said
the individual who prosecuted the petitioner had thought it
was his bounden duty to do so on public grounds only. He , ,
hoped, however, the Hon. Member for Brighton would take an
opportunity of moving an address to the Crown for the release
of the prisoner, and he would be happy to support the motion.—
(Hear.) He was bound to say, as far as the prosecutor was
concerned, that a more honourable man did not exist,

Another HON. MEMBER (name not known) said, he was one
of the Bench of Magistrates who were the parties libelled (if
any were) by the petitioner; but they thought it would be
giving too much importance to it by instituting proceedings,
particularly as there had not then been any fire in that part of
the country, nor indeed had any one occurred up to the present
time.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. FINN presented two petition from the parishes
of Carrigeen and Coleron, in the county of Kilkenny, for the
abolition of tithes. He stated, from an inquiry that he had
very carefully made, that the Roman Catholic population in
that county were as thirty-one to one of the Established Church.
There were ten parishes lying together in which there was not
a Protestant, and there were thirty parishes in that county in
which there was not a singlemember of the Established Church.
When the House was legislating for England and Ireland
respecting tithes, that distinction was not made between the
two countries which ought to be made.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
Lord Grey had declared that in England the Protestant
population was as two to one Dissenter, while the Bishop
of London stated it was as three to one. In Ireland the
Protestants, for whom alone the House should pisovide religious
instruction, were only as I to 14—perhaps they might amount
to 600,000. The measures now proposed, instead of
relieving the people of Ireland, were calculated to increase
the pressure of the burdens now existing, and would only
give a premiuM to landlords to oppress their tenants. They
would, in fact, produce a conflict of a most odious character,
and the result would be that the mass of the pcopie, including
the gentry, would combine for one common object. The mere
changing the name of tithe signified nothing. What was the
fact ? The House had made a declaration against the conti-
nuance of sinecure offices in the army, navy, and other
departments, and yet the people of Ireland were to en-
joy the luxury of a sinecure Protestant Church.,4llear.)
In the whole county of Kilkenny there were but 5,000 Pro-
testants, and it would be well for the House to guard against
the future. It was certainly pleasant to possess patronage*
and very painful to part with it ; so it seemed the, Ministers
thought, for while out of office they condemned the system,
but when they got into office they imagined that it was not a
farthing too costly. He implored the Hquse riot to press too
much on the Iwo* of Ireland, for they might arouse a spirit
which in even the most peaceably disposed might be stirred
up. In one parish (Bray, we understood) in which the op..
position to tithes first began, it was given on the authority
of the Rev. Dr. Doyle, that many person who paid but Is. an
acre rent paid more than that for tithe, so that it was a direct
tax on the industry of the labouring poor. On many occasions
it had been sought by the House to obtain the reiative popula-
tion of the county of Kilkenny, but he, would take the popula-
tion according to the returns of 1831, and on comparison with
what it was a century ago-,,viz., in 1731—according to the re-
turn made to the House of Lords, upon the motion of the then
Protestant Bishop, he found that the Protestant population of th at
period exceeded what it was at present. Then was that result
produced by religion or patronage? He contended that it was
the system which had been adopted by establithiug severallaws,
&c. The Roman Catholic poptdation had increaeked four-fold,
while the Protestant population had remained stationary,
if it had not kcreaseti.-77(Hear.) The House was acting
in a IPofit unjust manner towards that unfortunate country.
He believed that the Right Hon. Secretary for Ire-
land had a strong sense of justice, and would be anxious, if he
were permitted to do as he was inclined, to adopt measures for
the benefit of that country. He conceded to that Right Hon.
Gentleman, that in his deportment to all who had occasion to
transact business with him he was roost courteous, but his
measures were not his own, but were, the emanations of the
whole Cabinet. Where the, Right Hon. Gentleman had had the
power he 44 evinced every disposition to do justice to Ireland.
The parts of the country whence the petitions came were the
least disturbed of all.

Lord NORREYS presented a petition against the tax on
malt and hops.

Mr. HODGES presented a petition fropl the county of
Kent, for an alterotion in tithos,

Mr. SHE4.I presented seyeral petitions from various places
in thecounty of Tipperary, 3 for a repeal of theleoialative union,
three, for abolition of tithes, and one for doing away with the
corrupt borough of Fethard,

After the petT,qns had Wen read,
Mr. stipii, said, that he would call upon his Majesty's
Ministers for a copy of the communication between them and
the Stamp Office relative to Mr. Barrett, of the Pilot, as the
Stamp Office had issued stamps to that paper after hi; convic-
tion, and of course it was by a direct intimMion.f,rom Govern-
ment that they were stopped,

Mr. CARTWltlglrl:krvseated a petition from Berke, for
a repeal of the trait ta-X:
Lard CI-14160S presented three petitions from the County
of Buckingham, praying for an attentive consideration to the
subject of agricultural distress ; and two petitions frorn Car-
narvon, praying for a repeal of the malt tax-
The Noble Lora
supported the petitions and bore textimony to the respectability
of the signatures, which were, very numerous.
Mr. ROBINSON said there were many petitions being
presented 4o,ra tho Agricultural interest for the repeal of the
malt tax, but ho would call upon them, or upon the Noble
Marquis, who was so identified with that interest, to point out
some mode by which the revenue of the country might be
kept up without that tax. The petitioners not suppose
that it was possible for the Noble Lorca, (Althorp) to continue
in his office without having thp means; and they were
well aware that without the malt tax the business of
the countri! cpulft. skot' be. carried on unless another tax was
substituted.—.(Hear, bear.). If the, Noble Lord and the class
which he represented would submit to a commutation of taxes,
then they might come With a goo 4 grace to that House and