The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-07 00:00:00

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.

Mr. C. F ERG US ON presented a petition from the parish
of Kilmabreck, near Kircudbright, which he had the honour to
represent. The petition was signed by the majority of the
adult population of the parish. It had 400 signatures, 350 of
whom were of the poorer class. It prayed the House to take into
its consideration such measures as in its wisdom would be
deemed most conducive to afford moral and religious in-
struction to the people. Ile trusted that the peti-
tion would net be the less entitled to the attention
of the House, because it emanated from persons of
the class he had described. The petitioners stated they were
fully impressed with the propriety of supplying such reli-
gious instruction to the poor as was consistent with the
purity of Christian doctrine. The question was one of
the greatest importance, not only to the people of Scotland,
but to the people of England, and without entering into a dis-
cussion of the measures which the Right Hon. Baronet in-
tended to propose, in order to attain this desirable object, he
( Mr. F.) was of opinion that the means of religious instruc-
tion ought to be afforded to the poor and as the petitioners
stated, that they should not be refused access to the places
where their religious ceremonies were performed. He ( Mr.
F.) would not then state what his opinion was as to the mea-
sures which were to be adopted for this purpose ; but'the House
must deem it to be a question of great importance, and one
in which the interests of the public were very deeply
involved. The petitioners, as he stated, were the majority
of the male adult population of the parish, and were, as
he was, sincerely attached to the doctrines of the Church
established in Scotland. He repeated that he would not point
out the means as to how the wishes of the petitioners should
he carried into effect, but he hoped the attention of the'House
would be given to so interesting a subject. The petition was
then ordered to lie on the table.
CARLOW POLICE.

Mr. O'DWYER presented a petition from Bryan Honesty
of Carlow, which stated that on Saturday night, the 24th of
January last, after his family went to bed, the police, ac-
companied by a driver named Finn, belonging to a
Member of this House, (Mr. Kavanagh) tapped at his door,
and said that the parish priest wanted to see him (Hen-
nessey), when Finn ordered the petitioner to be instantly seized.
He was dragged out of his bed, was put in irons, imprisoned in
the guard-house, and was obliged to remain that night and the
folowing Sunday handcuffed. The petitioner allegcs that he
was arrested without any summons having been previously
served upon him, or any warrant having been issued
for his apprehension. He alleges also that a person
offered to go security for him, but on inquiring
of the magistrate, who was a Mr. Doyle, what bail
was requisite, he was grossly insulted by that gentleman, and
was threatened to be sent to the county gaol. In conclusion
the petitioner alleges that he cannot expect justice from the
Bench of Magistrates, as Mr. Doyle is one of them, and only
another presides. Mr. O'Dwyer said he had another petition
to present from Robert Butler, and Judith, his wife, both
belonging to the same county.
Colonel BRUEN remarked that the petition had no signa-
ture attached to it—nothing but a mark.
Mr. O'DWYER.—Surely that will be no objection to the
receiving of it.
In reply to a question from the SPEAKER,
Mr. O'DWYER stated that it was only the marks of the
petitioners that were attached to the petition.
Colonel BRUEN hoped, as the petition contained allega-
tions of a serious nature, that its authenticity should be known
before it was received. He did not believe the truth of the
charges that it contained.
Mr. O'DWYER-The petition came in the regular way
of transmission to him, and in consequence of what had just
been said by the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Colonel Bruen)
he was bound to say that the statements of it were
confirmed by a most respectable gentleman, in whom he placed
every reliance. For his own part, he firmly believed its
accuracy. _ _ .

Colonel BRUEN made a few observations in reply, the
purport of which we could not hear.
The SPEAKER.--The question for the House was, if an
individual could not write, was he precluded from petitioning
for the redress of any grievance that he might complain of?
The question was not as to the conduct of the parties com-
plained of in the petition, but as to the propriety of receiving
the petition.
Mr. ROEBUCK remarked, that the petition was as much
signed in the hand-writing of the petitioners, as any other the
House ever received ; the House had no means of ascertaining
the authenticity of any signature attached to a petition.
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL concurred with the Hon. Gen-
tleman ; a petition was as much signed by having a mark, as
by the manuscript of a petitioner. In a court of equity, they
were equally entitled to respect.
Mr. E W ART observed, that what had been stated by the
Hon. Gentleman who presented the petition was quite suffi-
cient to confirm the signatures attached to it, and it would be
found very difficult to obtain better proof on the matter.
On the question being put, that the petition do lie on the
table,

Mr. KAVANAGH entered some objections against it on
the ground of some defects, omissions, and other circumstances
connected, with the marks and signatures attached to it.
Mr. O'DWYER said that he had fully expected that the
Hon. Member who spoke last was about to propose a Com-
mittee of that House to investigate the matter. That
would have been the proper and manly way to meet the
charge, and to do justice to the petitioners. He could
affirm, that every assertion made in that petition was
substantially correct; and he would add, that the House was
bound to believe those allegations until they had been disproved.
Mr. KAVANAG H rose, and was about to address the
House, when the Speaker reminded him that he had only then
the right to explain. Upon which the Hon. Member stated
that he had nothing more to say on the subject.—(A laugh.)
Mr. O'DWYER said he had now a petition to present from
Thomas Butler and Judith his wife, of the county Carlow,
complaining that on the night of the 24th of January last,
after they had retired to rest, a party of police, accompanied by
the under agent of Thomas Kavanagh, Esq.—( A laugh)—
called at their house, dragged them out of bed and conveyed
them to Borris, where they were kept in confinement the re-
mainder of the night and the whole of the following day
(Sunday)—that Judith, one of the petitioners, was the mother
of seven children, one of whom was dangerously ill, and that
she prayed to be left with him that night, and would be
ready to answer any charge that might be brought
against her the following day, but in vain, as she
was compelled to accompany her husband, and for what crime
they are still "ignorant. The Rev. John Walsh enquired of
the police sergeant by what authority he had arrested the
petitioners, and he replied that it was on the warrant of Mr.
Doyle, and Hawkshawe, the chief of police—that this magis-
trate Doyle was an overseer and under agent to Mr. Kavanagh
with a salary of 801. or 1001. a year. He (Mr. O'D.) would
not go into a detail of all the circumstances, but they were of
such a nature as to challenge the immediate• inquiry of the
Irish Government.—( Hear.) With respect to Mr. Doyle,
the magistrate complained of, he (Mr. O'Dwyer) would
mention a circumstance which had been communicated
to him by a gentleman to whom be was satisfied the House
would give implicit credit—that gentleman was Mr. Vigors,
who, in the last Parliament, represented the town of Carlow.
—( Hear.) The circumstance which had been witnessed by
Mr. Vigors was, that two persons had been brought before the
Magistrates (one of whom was Mr. Doyle) 'on a charge of
inciting a tumult, and the party complained against had been
fined 20s. A summons had also been issued against a person
in the employment of Mr. Kavanagh, who was proved to have
committed a violent assault by striking another with a stone
on the head, and he would beg of the House to mark the
difference between the penalty inflicted in the two cases. In
one, a person, charged with exciting a riot, was fined 205.,
and in the other a person who had actually committed an as-
sault, was fined only ss. and Mr. Doyle, the magistrate, who
adjudicated on the case, had the indecency on the bench to pay
the fine of this latter oknder. He would beseech the House
to ask of itself what justice could the people expect from
a bench partly constituted of a magistrate who was capable
of acting in the manner in which he had acted ? He (Mr.
O'D.) would call on the Right Hon. the Secretary for Ire-
-I.nd, if he could obtain his attention for a moment, to investi-
gate this matter, and if the allegations were true, to remove
this Magistrate from the Commission of the Peace. A man
capable of such indecent conduct, if true, was not fit to hold
the Commission of the Peace.
Mr. KAVANAGH said that the charge made by the Hon.
Member was perfectly false.
Colonel BRUEN said he for one was far from hushing an
enquiry, and like the Hon. Member for Drogheda he challenged
investigation. He was sure that upon a proper and full
investigation, the charges would be found to be wholly and
absolutely unfounded. He must at the same time say that
the proper tribunal to try such charges was not in that House.
Mr. Doyle lie knew to be incapable of acting other Wise than as
became a magistrate and a gentleman, and whilst in his name
he challenged investigation, he must still say that the proper
court would be the proper tribunal before which such enquiry
ought to be instituted.
Sir. H. HARDINGE said that if the Hon. and Learned
Member for Drogheda had informed him that he intended
to present a petition calling in question the character of
a magistrate, he would have been prepared to inform him
of the course which the Government intended to pursue.
As, however, his attention had been called to the case, he
would refer it to Dublin, and would make all necessary inquiry,
and he had no doubt, after what had fallen from the Hon.
Member for Carlow, that the Magistrate who was charged
would be able to give a very satisfactory explanation.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that would depend altogether
upon the persons of whom the inquiry was made.—(Loud
cries of " Hear," from the Irish Members.) If the cause
were referred for inquiry to persons who participated in the
sentiments of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir H. H.)
himself he had not the least doubt but that the facts would be
proved. He had received information of the charges in such
a state as to be capable of demonstration by legal evidence.
Sir H. HARDINGE said that if the Noble and Learned
Member chose, the enquiry might be made in the usual course,
and not through the Government.

Mr. O'DW YE R said that if the Government would sup-
ply the parties with money, there would be no objection to go
to the courts of law.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The Right Ho-
nourable Baronet must be sufficiently acquainted with
the practice of law to know that a_ party without money would
not be in the most favourable position. He had received that day
a letter from a Roman Catholic clergyman, giving an account of a

transaction that had lately occurred, in which another Magis-
trate went forth at the head of the military and the police.
The SPEAKER called the Hon. Member to order, and he
sat down.

Sir H. II A RDING E repeated, that he had no doubt,
after what had been stated, that the explanation which would
be given would be satisfactory.
Col. EVANS said he doubted this. He had been lately in
Ireland, and would venture to state that there were men there
in the Commission, who were unfit to hold that office.

Mr. F. SHAW said that when serious charges of
this kind were brought against men holding public of-
fices, some person should be made responsible for them.
There was no name to this petition but simply a mark—there
was nothing to show that the document had been read to the
person so putting his mark. He knew the gentleman
against whom these. charges were brought, and he did not
believe that there could be found a .worthier or a better man.
At all events, much recrimination had been resorted to on one
side and the other. He had no objection to a proper investi-
gation, but he objected to bringing forward unauthorized do-
cuments of this kind, which attacked the character of in-
dividuals.

The petitions (as we understood) were laid on the table.
Mr. BAINES brought up a report, but we were unable
to ascertain to what it referred.

MALT TAX.

Sir W. GEARY presented a petition from Kent, for the
Repeal of the Malt Tax.

Mr. WAKLE Y presented a petition in favour of William
Nixon, as we understood, convicted during the last Assizes,
and sentenced to transportation for life.
Mr. POTTER presented a petition from a town in the
county of Lancaster, for the repeal of the malt tax.
Mr. CLTIZTEIS said as he saw the Noble Marquis, the
Member for Buckinghamshire now in his place, he should
take the liberty of asking whether it.was his intention to bring
on his bill for the repeal of the malt tax, on the day for which
he had given notice ?
The Marquis of CHANDOS begged to assure the Hon.
Member and the House, that it was his decided intention to
bring forward that Bill on the day appointed.
Mr. O'CONNELL said he was asked, nay, indeed com-
manded by some of his constituents to enquire of the Go-
vernment whether his Majesty's Ministers could announce
any change in their arrangements with respect to the Malt
Tax. Ile could assure the Right Hon. Baronet that it was
in obedience to these commands he now put the question. He
should not be surprised if he declined to answer it.
Sir ROBERT PE EL said he thought nothing could
be more unfair than to endeavour to anticipate the state-
ments of the Government,' nor could any thing be more
unfair than to give answers which relate to transactions con-
templated in ministerial arrangements. He could assure the
Hon. and Learned Member, that this was the only considera-
tion which weighed with him on declining to answer the
inquiry he had made, as nothing could be more likely to
embarrass their proceedings, and he hoped, therefore, the Hon.
and Learned Member would not interpret it in any other sense.
Mr. O'CONNELL said he entirely concurred in what had
fallen from the Right Honourable Bart.—( Hear, hear.)
He had made his inquiry solely in compliance with the com-
mand of several highly respectable constituents. He certainly
did not anticipate its being answered.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

Colonel EVANS inquired of the Right Hon. Baronet when
it was his intention to bring forward his financial statement ?
Sir ROBERT PEEL said he thought that it would
be a most inconvenient course, to introduce the financial
statements of the country before the estimates were passed,
and the amount of revenue, and the general demands for the
public service, were satisfactorily ascertained. This was the
ancient course, and he thought by far the most convenient.
Mr. HUME could not concur with the expressions of
the Right Honourable Bal onet ; on the contrary, he could
not but think that it would be infinitely better for the public
service that the House should be in possession of what was
necessary for the demands of the Government, as they would
then know what proportion was to be voted for. It was a
practice to which he had always objected, to vote the money
without knowing to what purpose it was to be applied. He thought
the House ought to be acquainted with the state of the revenue,
as they might then be able to pass a vote for the actual sum
required.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the Government did
not intend to postpone their measures, but the course he had
stated was the adopted, as well as the most convenient,
custom. The Hon. Gentleman was sometimes most impatient
for the estimates being laid before the House.
Mr. HUME said he was not so now.
NEWSPAPERS.
_ _ _

An HoN. MEMBER wished to ask the Solicitor-General
whether it was the intention of Government to enforce the pe-
nalties on different papers fined under the present Act ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, in answer to the
question which had been put to him by the Hon. Member, he
had intended to give notice of motion on Monday last ; and
he did not know whether he might do so now--(hear, hear)—
to bring in a bill to repeal the Act to which the Hon. Mem-
ber had alluded.