The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-07 00:00:00

PRICE 7D.

-
of Paris had merely spoken of it as useful to the pupil
when dissecting.
Mr. SHAW would state a fact, in corroboration of the
likelihood that those crimes which had disgraced this
country might very speedily he introduced into Ireland,
were some legislative measure, such as that now proposed,
not carried into effect. Within the last few days, an indivi-
dual bad been discovered in the county of Wexford,
driving a cart, in which had been found the dead bodies of
four children, supposed to have been murdered for the pur-
pose of selling for dissection. A great body of evidence
on this subject had already been before the public, but
whether it was true in its particulars it was important that
some measure, having the same objects as that of the Hon.
Member (Mr. Warburton), should pass into law.
Mr. STEVENSON hoped that the provisions of the
Bill introduced would prevent any price being given for
dead bodies as all. The lion. Member for Preston bad
not been accurately informed as to the schools of anatomy
abroad. In France and Germany the bodies were supplied
from the prisons, workhouses, and infirmaries, and from
the facilities thus efforded,science there hail reached a height
unequalled in any other country. It was in Italy that Harvey
acquired that scientific instruction which enabled him af-
terwards to discover the circulation of the blood.
Mr. RUTHVEN hoped that the Bill, if a good one,
would be applied to Ireland.
Mr. HUNT meant to say, that artificial subjects would
not wholly supersede, but decrease the necessity-for real
ones for anatomical purposes.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, the House had two things
to doe—first, to discourage the practice of horrid murder,
and next to promote science. Prejudices existed as to the
practice of dissection, but the body, if not cut up by the
anatomical knife, became decomposed by the worms and cor-
ruption. No prejudice should therefore arise against the
Bill on that account. As to the school of anatomy in
Dubliu, the Hon. Member for Preston had been grie-
vously misinformed. Great facility had been afforded to
anatomical study, and in consequence of the number of
bodies supplied to that institution it had risen to the
greatest eminence.
Mr. WARBURTON then presented three similar peti-
tions from the town of Sheffield, from the pupils of a
school in Golden-square, and another place. The Hon.
Member took occasion to say that a statement which
the Honourable Member for Preston had made on a
former night was incorrect with regard to Dr. John
Hunter. The fact was, that celebrated individual having
a disease of the heart bad given directions that his body
should be dissected, pnd certain parts should be preserved
in the College of Surgeons. He (Mr. Warburton) said
this upon the authority of a medical gentleman who at-
tended the dissection of Dr. Hunter.
After a few words from Mr. HUNT, in explanation, the
petitions were read and ordered to be printed.
Mr. WARBURTON then presented a petition from the
National Political Union, signed only by the members of
the Council, which of course could only be received as the
petition of those who signed it. They prayed that the
qualification for the franchise might not depend upon the
payment of any rates or taxes. The Hon. Member said
he supported the prayer of the petition.
Lord STORMONT objected to the House receiving a
petition coming from persons professing themselves to be
members of the Council of those societies which had been
denounced by his Majesty's proclamation. On this ground
he should oppose the presentation of the petition.
Mr. WARBURTON was not before aware that any
proclamation had declared all these societies illegal.—
(Hear.) The proclamation was merely directed against
certain societies which corresponded with each other. The
Noble Lord should make out a case to show that the pre-
sent society came within the spirit and letter of the statute,
and even then it would not justify the House in rejecting
the petition, or prevent its being received as the petition
of those who signed it.
Mr. O'CONNELL denied the assertions of the Noble
Lord (Stormont), either as regarded a breach of
the proclamation or of the law. Even if the procla-
mation decided the society to be illegal fifty times,
that would not prove its illegality.—(Hear, bear, hear.)
As a member of the National Union, he denied that it
was an illegal society, or any transactions connected with
it, and he stood there ready to defend the society from any
aspersions. He believed, indeed, it was of the utmost
importance that those Unions should not be treated with
haughtiness or contempt.—(Hear.)
Mr. A. TREVOR said it was obvious to him that his
Majesty's proclamation was aimed at such societies. If
persons chose to petition the House as resident house-
holders, or in any other capacity but as members of the
Council of a Union, be would never object to it ; but he
felt bound to support his Noble Friend (Lord Stormont)
in opposine this petition.
Mr. HUME, as a member of the Political Union, de-
clared that its exertions were most meritorious. He
advised the opposers of this petition to read the prospectus
of the society, and if they could find any thing illegal
in its transactions, then only could they properly make
any objection to the petition. So far from those societies
being illegal, he would be glad to see them established in
every parish in England. He denied that the King's
proclamation could suppress them, unless they had been
guilty of an offence against the law.
Mr. TREVOR asked if any society denounced by the
King's proclamation, be permitted to meet and petition
this House as a body, of what use was the proclamation
Mr. HUME answered none at all.—(Loud laughter
and cries of " Hear.") If those societies were guilty of
any offence, the remedy was not to be found in the King's
proclamation.
Mr. HUNT said, the prayer mentioned in the petition
had been wholly lost sight of, viz.—that the payment of
rates and taxes should not be made a qualification to vote;
and in that prayer he concurred. He contended that the
petitioners were entitled to have their petition received,
even though they had been found guilty and convicted of
an offence. That would not deprive any person of his
tight of petitioning.
After a few observations from Sir F. BURDETT and Mr.
WARBURTON, which were totally inaudible, the petition
was ordered to be printed.
Lord ALTHORP then moved the order of the day,
for the House receiving the report of the Committee of
Supply, when
Sir R. VYVYAN rose for the purpose of postponing
h;s motion with respect to Belgium. The Hon. Member
observed that the fluuse would recollect on Friday last he
had stated that the presentation of a treaty between five
Powers, and ratified only by thr. e, was totally without
precedent. The Noble Lord (Palmerston) had cited the case
of the Congress at Vienna, which at the time it was laid
before the House, in 1815, wanted the signature of the
Plenipotentiary of Spain. He (Sir R. Vyvyan) most
certainly thought it did nit require much argu-
ment to prove that that treaty was no authority
fur the course adopted by Ministers, a step which had in-
volved his Majesty in the serious predicament of having
sent a treaty to Parliament not properly ratified. It Eggs
consequence of such difficulties surrounding the country
and the House that he now rose for the purpose of postpon-
ing his motion, not kncwing at present how to deal with
the subject. When he gave notice before Christmas
of his intention to bring the subject forward, it was
generally understood that the ratification was to take
place on the Ist of January.—(Hear.) It was, howevee,
postponed to the 31at. The House was, therefore, in this
predicament, that it could not discuss the treaty as a docu-
ment that might be amended. It was an incomplete
transaction, and it would be premature to bring the
subject before the House until the treaty wee
ratified by all the Powers. He (Sir Richard
Vyvyan) was the more induced to postpone the
motion in consequence of having seen a protocel, stating
that the ratification would he produced in a short time,
perhaps within a fortnight or three weeks. Such being the
case, he should postpone the motion to the 28th. At the
same time begging it to be understood, that. ie She event of
the treaty not being ratified, he should think it necessary
to postpone it still further. For as the motion which he
should have to make would probably be a vote of censure
on Government, he should not wish to bring the (subject
forward till the Government were prepared to meet it.
Lord PALMERSTON, when he quoted the authority
of the Congress at Vienna, had prefaced it by stating it was
not a case perfectly similar to the present. In that cage
the Spanish Government hail not ratified the treaty : the
Douse would also recollect that he had stated, that if there
were no precedent to be found, the ergency of the case
should itself make a precedent. He had alas stated
then, that the treaty wits not less binding on
this country, because it had not been signed by three out
out of the five contracting parties.....(Cheers.) In Lis
opinion it was the bounden duty of the servants of the