The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, _MARCH 24, 1835.

SECC7'II7) rl-)7911)N greatest diversity in inflicting punishments, and, in
al.§ 1-4
a. a some places, tbere . was a proportion of not leo
SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock. than 90 ia 1,000 persons uodergoing hard labour. Witt,
respect to diet, also, there was the enormous difference he-
yen 6]. and 3s. 61 on each iodiviistal. Ile linenol.
therefore, under these circumstances, a committee wool,i
Rope:lilted es the ground of a Coraroission for applying
the prinniple of a complete system of • punishment and
diet regulation.—( Hear, hear.) Ile did not - wish to
dictate to the Noble Duke in withdrawing Ids motion,
Lot he hoped if he did, it would be under the notice that it
should be brought forward at a subsequent date, when he
would promise him his support.
The DUKE of WELLINGTON—If he was aware that it
was the intention of his. Noble Friend to bring forward this
subject, he would have bee prepared to -enter the discussion of
it, but his Noble Friend's motion went to do the very thing
that the Committee to enquire into the state of prison disco-
yliae would hove to consider. There was something Very im-
posts:it lost sight of by his Nonle Friend, for it must be
observed that there is a distinction between prison discipline
and secondary punishment. Prison discipline was the ordinary
discipline that prisoners had to..observe. . Under these circum-
stances he could not agree with his Noble Friend who opened
the discussion, that it was requisite, first, to have an inquiry
into the state of pi icon discipline, before secondary punishment.
The Earl of RODEN hoped that if the Noble Duke got
his Committee, it would be extended to Irelnad. He con-
ceived no sort of crime was greater than the mismanagent
of prisons, and nothing was of greater importance than to ea
amine into the cause of the evils they may be exposed to.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE withdrew his motion, his only ols-
ject in making it being to effect the important end they .all
looked to.
The Duke of RICHMOND, hareply, said that he thought
a Committee might collect very useful information on this
subject. It was said by his Noble Friend that it would be ne-
cessary to send a Commission to each- town, but his Noble
Friend ( Lord I-Vharncliffe) well knew that there was depo-
sited with the Clerk of the Peace a plan of each prison (so
we understood) which might easily be brought before the
Committee. One objection he had to the Commission, and
one reason he bad for asking for a Committee was this, that in a
short time a Committee might come to some resolution by which
they might go a great way in resisting evil by preventing the
increase of crime. With respect to the observation of his
Learned Friend ( Lord Brougham) he would say he was prepared
to remove capital punishments, wherever he thought it safe
to do so; but he did not wish to make a speech on capita!
punishments, when he was only asking for the appointment of
a Committec,• is -order that they might know exactly what
the present state of prison discipline was. He was anxious that
there should be one uniform system o 7 dissipline in all
House of Correction. With respect to his not having given
notice of this motion, lie begged leave to say that he had given
notice on Thursday last. He could not see any reason why
this subject should be put off, to enable Noble Lords to come
down and make long Speeches.—( A laugh.) In his opinion
the house would be much better occupied by proceeding at
once with the enquiry, he wanted therefore the House
would agree to the appointment of the Committco.
Lord BROUGHAM assured the Noble Duke that he had
not intended to complain of the shortness of his speech ; all
that said was that he had lamented that the Noble Duke had
not entered more into detail on such a subject. As to the state
meets of the Noble Duke that he (Lord Brougham)
would have an opportunity of making a long speech in the
Committee, he begged to state that his thne was occupied in
the judicial business of that House from ten in the morning till
four iii the afccrnoon. He should not consider it his duty as a
Member of their Lordships' House to attend the Committee
and there state his opinions upon the law of secondary punish-
ment, but he would, at an early day, take an opportunity, in
his place io that House, of stating his opinions on the Criminal
Law, as connected with secondary punishments.
The Duke of RICHMOND said he was not to be put
down by the Noble and Learned Lord's sarcasm—( Hear, hear)
and he would give him an opportunity of making as long a
speech as he liked (laughter) in his place in that House, for he
would then give notice that on that day se'nnight he would
move for the return, but be begged leave to give the Noble
and Learned Lord notice, that he would neither permit him
nor any other man in that House to make sarcastic obser-

THE LONDON GAZEI

THIS EVENING.

CROWN-OFFICE,MARcn 24, 1835.

lIEBIBERS RETURNED TO SERVE IN THIS PRESENT PARLIAAIENT.
•UNIVERSITY OF CAMBEIDGE.—The Honouralle Charles Ewar,
Law, M.A., in the room of the Right Honourable Sir Cliatic
Manners Sutton, G.C.8., now Viscount Canterbury.
BOROUGH OF CARDIEF.—John Nichol!, jun., of Merthyrmawr;
in the county of Glamorgan, Esq., and Doctor of Laws.

WHITEHALL, MAncx 19,

. ,
The Lor.l Chancellor has appointed John Darlington, of Leeds,
in the county of York, Gent., to be a Master Extraordinary in the
High Court of Chancery.

BANKRUPTCIES SUPER SF,DEII.

CHARLES HANCOCK, brie!:-maker, Hilling,don, Middlesex.
HENRY HEAVERS, linen-draper, Hadleigh, Suffolk.:
BANKRUPTS.
GEORGE WILLIAMS, merchant, Old Broad-street.
WILLIAM St ILKES and RICHARD WILKES, drapers,
Shrewsbury.
THOMAS HARBUTT, brewer, Tynemouth.
JOHN BAYLEY, commission-agent, Manchester.
FREDERICK THOMPSON, wine-merchant, Sloane-street,
Chelsea.
CHARLOTTE BEVAN, china-dealer, Great Portland-street,
Marylebone.
WILLIAM ALLEN, grocer, Holt; Norfolk. •
RICHARD OWEN, draper, Carnarvon. •
THOMAS YORK, carver, Northampton.
THOMAS KENNINGTON, horse-dealer, Wraby, Lincoln-
shire.

RICHARD 'WILLIAMS, nurseryman, Tredwerden, Mont-
gomeryshire.
THOMAS AADLEY, merchant, Liverpool.

THE PARLIAMENT.

(THIS EVENING.)

•
HOUSE OF LORDS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack shortly
after five o'clock.

FACTORY BILL.

Lord KENYON presented a petition from Blackburn,
praying for an alteration in the Factory Laws.
Mr. ADAMS brought up the report of the Commissioners of
the Shrewsbury Roads.
THE UNIVERSITIES.

The Earl of RADNOR moved for a return of the forms
used in dispensations at the Universities; the number of de-
grees of Bachelor and Master of Arts granted without dispen-
sations during the last ten years, and the number of applica-
tions for dispensations during that period.
POOR LAWS.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM in moving for a copy of
the correspondence between the Poor Law Commissioners
and the parish of Stoke Poges, stated that he had had sent to
him affidavits contradicting positively the statements of the
Noble and Learned Lord opposite (Brougham.) As those
affidavits, however, could not be brought before the House
according to its standing orders, he should write to the
parties to put their statements in such a shape
as that they could be received. With respect to the state-
ments in the petitions he had presented, he did not consider
himself answerable for them.
Lord BROUGHAM said that it was far from his wish or
intention to hold the Noble Duke answerable for the
statements or the petitions he presented. He ( Lord Brougham)
was the only person who was held responsible for the state-
ments of the petitions he presented in that House.--( A
laugh.) He ought to say in justice to the petitioners, that
he had received several letters from the gentlema❑ from whom
he had had the information, requesting him to inquire into
the circumstances they had represented to him; having done
so, he was bound to say the result of those enquiries fully
confirmed the statements he had before made.
GAOLS AND HOUSES OF CORRECTION.

The Duke of RICHMOND wished to know whether it
was the intention of Government to propose any measures for
the amendment of the discipline of gaols and houses of correc-
tion ? If he learned that such was not their intention, he should
move for a Select Committee to inquire into this subject. He
was not an advoeote for severe punishments, or long terms of
imprisonment; but for a proper plan of prison discipline. It
was the duty of the Government to endeavour to reclaim of-
fenders, but the effect of the present system was to render
them still worse. Be could appeal to the Magistrates and
gaolers of the several prisons in the country to prove the as-
sertion—that offenders were made twice as bad by their
sojourn in the prisons, amongst those who were older in the
practice of crimes, by whom they were corrupted and rendered
still more mischievous. He did not bring forward this subject
from any party feeling—( Hear, hear)—but because be
felt there was an imperative call for the interfer-
ence of the Legislature. He did not now intend to
go into any lengthened details upon what plan should bo
adopted in reference to those who were convicted of minor
offences, and how juvenile culprits should be managed; but he
thought that a plan,should be adopted to prevent them becom-
ing worse than they were before they entered our prisons.
He should conclude by moving that a Select Committee be
appointed for the purpose of enquiring into this subject.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said he most freely concurred in
all that had fallen from the Noble Duke. Their Lordships
would recollect, that last Session he had called their attention
to the subject; but that he had not moved far a Committee of

rations:

Lord BROUGHAM—My Lords, I really must, having
been attacked by my N.01)1;3 Friend, appeal to your
Lordships, whether in the whole course of your ex-
perience of Parliamentary debates, of Parliamentary tactics,
or of Parliamentary attacks or defence, you ever heard of
saw an individual more unjustly dealt by, or more harshly
treated than I • am by my Noble Friend. ( Hear.)
Which of us attacked the other first ? (Laughter.)
Did not my Noble Friend on the cross-bench (the Duke of
Richmond) begin by attacking me for my wishes to make-
long speeches?—(Hear, hear.) Did he not begin with
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

that House, but for an address to his Majesty, praying him to
appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole subject. It was
right their Lordships should know what had been done since
that time; A Noble Viscount (Melbourne) then at the head of
Home-office had tried to enforce the discipline of the Govern-
ment of the United States, and had had it in contemplation to
alter the large prison in Clerkenwell for that purpose ; but being
soon after called upon to take his place at the head of
the Government, nothing more seemed to have been
done after. He would appeal to the House, whether
the present Government had not had enough to occupy their
attention since the time they succeeded to office, without
taking time to try an experiment of the kind.—he would say
that the present Government, without any possible delay, were
quite willing and anxious to take up the question, and if
the Government would take his advice, they would
immediately issue a Commission, or more than one,
in order that enquiries might be made on the spot, which in
his opinion would be much better than taking evidence before
a Committee of that House, who must necessarily call for
those persons who would have an interest in giving the
best colour in their power to the system of discipline
Which they themselves pursued. Of course when the report
of the Commission was made, some measure upon the subject
must be introduced. The present Government were quite as
willing as their predecessors to do all that was wanted on the
subject, and they would take all such measures as were in their
power to get such information as was possible. The written
law upon the subject had done more harm than good, and more
money had been spent on prisons of the old construction than
might have carried into effect great ameliorations. He trusted
the Noble Duke would consent to his plan, which would much
better answer his views.

Lord BROUGHAM thought that a Commission, seeing
with their own eyes and hearing with their own ears, and ex-
amining the different methods of prison'discipline, would be at-
tended with great advantage ; but he was not prepared to say that
it would be better than a Committee of that House, who might
examine persons in a judicial station who had formed a judg-
ment upon secondary punishment. He hoped this enquiry
would embrace this most important subject. In any Le-
gislative measure, for the purpose of altering capital pu-
nishment, they should provide for the better regulation
of secondary punishment. They/should not .do away with
capital punishment, with its advantages hid such as they were
for repressing crime, without substituting some other
punishment.— (Hear, hear.) He thought a Committee was
the proper tribunal to which the inquiry should be
entrusted not only for improvement of prison discipline, but
also the subject of secondary punishment ; and he would sug-
gest to his Noble Friend on the cross bench (the Duke
of Richmond) that this subject of secondary punishment,
before it was referred to a Committee, ought to have
been introduced.—( Hear, hear, hear.) They could no:
enter into the subject of prison discipline with advantage,
without considering the question of secondary punishment.—
It was a subject that had been very much considered elsewhere
and discussed by a variety of persons, not one of whom had ever
thought of severing the two subjects. He hoped the subject
would be further discussed in this House, and that they would
absolve the public mind of an impression that had gone abroad
that they were desirous of giving the " goe-by" to these
questions.

- Lord WHARNCLIFFE was as anxious as the Noble Duke
to obtain the hest information upon the subject ; but he still
thought that the sub ect would be better enquired into by a
Commission. He trusted, therefore, that the Noble Duke
would postpone his motion, in order to afford Ministers an op-
portunity of considering what steps they should take.
The Marquis of SALISBURY regretted that some part
of the county houses of correction were places of punishment,
whilst in others they were places of amusement. He thought
much more good would be done by a Commission than a Com-
mittee of the House. He trusted the Noble Duke would post-
pone his motion.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM said that the only object of
the Noble Duke (Richmond) was to ascertain what the
law upon the subject really was.—( Hear, hear.) He must
say, that in his opinion that could not be better ascertained
than by a Committee; if therefore the Noble Duke persisted
in his motion for a Committee, he should support him. In
some parts of the country there was a totally different punish-
ment for an offence that there was in others.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE wished to offer a few ob-
servations on the subject now under discussion. He continued
to hold the same opinion now as he did when the Noble Lord

brought forward the question, and when information wily
made to this House that it was their duty to deal with tillr
important subject, either in the shape of a Committee, or by
Commission, or by avote. . He thought a Committee ought
precede a Commission. The House was now in possession of
the report of the Commission sent out to inquire into the state
of prisons in America, satisfactory not only in itself, as
comparison it showed us the state of gaols in this country.
—( Hear, hear.) If the inquiry was to extend no further.

than merely to the necessity of regularity and • uniformity o';
punishment, he thought it would he a great advantage. At
present this was a point very much neglected, as they did 001
know in what degree they had the power to inflict punish.
ment—( Hear, hear. )—as it depended at present on the dif
ferent discipline of the various gaols, or upon the disCretim
of the magistrates. At this . moment, there was tilt

county of Fermanagh, should have been attributed to the
corruption of the Ilibbatmen of the county of Leitrim, and
thnt incu:-,ion cf sorre of the spirit of the people of the
county of Leitrim wau'Ad be useful to Fermanagh, as Leitrim
was one of the most peaceable counties in Ireland.
Mr. HENRY GRATTAN rose amidst loud cries of "Or-
der, order."—He ( omplained that the Morning Herald
of that macro ing—( G eat laughter)—words had berg
attributed to him which he had never used. The report alice.ed
that he had stated that a party of Orangemen, on a SunAay,
had marched into Trim, headed by a Clergyman, armed with
pistol, and that the men were in the service of the
Honourable Member opposite. He (Mr. 11. Grattan)
had said
,such thing ; but he had stated that these
Orangemen had marched into Trim, and that they were after-
wards in the service, if not in the pay, of the Hon. Member.
He had to complain of this as a very great breach of privilege,
end he trusted that that paper would be more correct in its re-
ports on another occasion. The case of the lion. and Gallant
Officer was one which loudly called for the interference of the
House.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose.-No man was more.
indisposed than he was to bi:ing forward the subject of breach
of privilege, or to find fault with the gentlemen who are has-
tily compelled to write the reports of the proceedings of this
House, yet he thought that the language used by the news-
paper in question, in reference to the lion. Admiral, ought
to be taken notice of. The Noble Lord then proceeded to
read the paragraph complained of, which appeared in the
Morning Post of yesterday. He thought it not advisable
to brine- a question of this kind to issue when the passi,ms
are excited in favour of one party, a Member of this
House, and to censure another not belonging to it. He there-
fore gave notice that on to-morrow he should bring the
question of breach of privilege in reference to this paragraph
under the consideration of the House.
Sir J. CAMPBELL presented a petition from certain in-
habitants of Dublin praying, as far as we could catch its pur-
port, that the order of the House for examining. the sufficiency
of the sureties, in the case of the Dublin Election petition be
discharged.
Mr. -C. W. WYNN was understood to object to receiving
the petition, lest by so doing they should seem to sanction its
prayer.

Sir. F.. RICE thought that every petition should be re-
ceived which did not contain improper expressions, and was
open to no other objections stronger than those which were
made against the one before them. By receiving a petition
they did not sanction its contents--( Hear, hear)—but to
reject petitions upon slight grounds was a bad precedent,
and unjust to the community. If by permitting the petition
they approved of its prayer or contents, he should hesitate as
to receiving it ; but as that was not the case, he thought it
better for the House not to interfere, and not to express an
opinion on such an occasion. He concurred in the general
principles laid down by his Right Hon. Friend; but he did
not think that there were sufficient grounds to reject this
petition.
Mr. F. SHAW hoped the petition would not only be re-
ceived, but that the House would take the matter up and
make some inquiry into the circumstances. He meant to
make no charge agi.inst the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
opposite, but now for a second time the security and solvency
of two highly respectable gentlemen were impugned. He
could state that there were not two more respectable and
solvent men in Dublin. One was the Lord Mayor of
Dublin._(Hear, hear.) They were both gentlemen in
business, and it was of the utmost importance to their cha-
racter that these charges should be investigated. Both those
gentlemen, when their solvency had been impugned on a for-
mer occasion had travelled from Dublin for no other purpose
than to meet the charges that had been made against them.
lie would declare, upon his word as a gentleman, that he be-
lieved each of the gentlemen to be worth at least 20,0001._
(1-sear, hear.) He trusted that the petition would be re-
ceived, and the matter investigated, provided it was not to
put off the ballot upon the Dublin election petitions.
They were gentlemen whose personal property was at the
very least worth 40,0001. per annum ; he entreated the
House not to let this go off on a mere point of form, but to
investigate the matter verb closely.—(Cries ef " Question.")
Mr. H. MAXWELL said he was perfectly satisfied, and
he would vouch for the perfect solvency of the two sureties.—
( Question. )

Sir .101iN CAMPBELL hoped the House would allow
the petition to be brought up, and then decide upon the
question in its own way ; he did not mention the Lord Mayor,
for the best of reasons, lie did not know it himself. The
petition was respectfully worded, and he hoped it would be
allowed to lie on the table.
After a few words from Mr. H. GRATTAN,
Mr. GO ULB URN rose and said that the question for the
Houie to consider was not whether it should receive the peti-
tion, that was a small matter, but how far the House would
commit itself by so doing, for they might be driven into this
alternative, either to an inquiry into the solvency of the par-
ties or the truth of the allegations, he hoped that the Learned
Gentleman would look into the petition, to ascertain if it con-
tained any allegations adverse to its reception by the House,
and lie believed tile Learned Gentleman would exercise a just
and sound discretion.

SIR JOHN CAMPBELL would not discharge his duty
to the the petitioners if he withheld it. So far as the matter
rested with him, he certainly should persist in presenting the
petition.—( Hear.)
Mr. C UTI. A R FERGUSON said, the question of the
jurisdiction of the House, was not the one which they had to
consider, but whether it should be received or not. The pe-
tititioe complained, howdver, of the conduct of the
sureties of the petitioners against • the sitting members,
—one of whom was, he believed, an officer of that House.
He admitted that the House ought riot to set aside the deci-
sion of the Examiners who were the proper persons to judge
of the qualification of the sureties, but he saw no reason why-
the petition should be rejected. A great deal too much had
been said about qualifications of the Lord Mayer, and the
impropriety of calling his credit in question: but every per-
son who became a security put his character and credit in
question—( Hear)—and he hoped the doctrine would never
he recog,nized in that House that they were not at liberty to
question the qualifications of any surety. It would be a dan-
gerous precedent to refuse to receive petitions complaining of
grievances—( Question.)
Mr. JAMES MAXWELL bore testimony to the solvency
and respectability of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, and the other
surety to the petition.
Mr. ROBINSON observed that enough had already passed
to show the impolicy of entertaining such petitions. If the
present was entertained, other Hon. Members would have
similar petitions to present; and before many days they should
perhaps have a petition impugning the truth of the allegations
in the present petition.—( Hear.) The House, in his opinion,
had na jurisdiction in the matter, and he trusted it would not
consent to receive the petition —( Loud cries of " Question, ,'
and." Divide.")
The petition was then read.
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said that he had done his duty,
and he had nothing more to say in the matter.
The petition was then withdrawn.
COMMUTATION OF TITHES -IN ENGLAND AND
WALES.
Sir ROBEKT PEEL.—.I am about to call the attentien
of the House to a question not connected with any
party matter, but in which the public have long felt
a deep interest. I allude to the facillitating the
settlement of the Tithe question in England and Wales.
I approach the subject with great
,diffidence of my power
to .settle it in a satisfactory manner.—( Hear.) To pre-
Earfle otherwise would be. to betray a great ignorance of
the objectionable matter.—( Hear, hear.) The House had
had especially appointed persons to judge of the
question of sureties, and the House should not encourage ap-
peals from them. He for his part would like to have the
petition brought up in order to have it read, so that he might
be able to judge how far it might go..
The petition was then brought up and read.
Mr. LE FRO Y said, as it was now admitted upon all hands
that the House had no jurisdiction in the case, why, he would
ask, was the question pressed, unless for the purpose of
casting an imputation upon the solvency of an honourable
and respectable constituent of Dublin—upon the solvency of a
man who was %yell known to be worth more than twenty times the
amount of 500/., which at present was all he was to be answer-
able for. He felt it to be due to the respectable gentleman not
to press upon the House such a course as would have no other
teplency than to cast uiifiunded imputations upon an lion.
Gentleman.—( Loud cries of " Question, question.")
Sir R. PEEL then rose and said it appeared to him that
there was a vast difference in the mere bringing up of a peti-
tion and the question that it do lie on the table. The Mem-
ber- presenting the petition might not, in his opening
of its contents, put the House fully in possession of all
its facts—supposing a petition to be presented in the
usual form, which, on being brought up, was found to contain
a charge affecting the personal character of any person, then
the House might object to its being laid upon the table ; but
if it was not brought up, the House could not be aware of
of tha subject. The inconvenience has long been felt of
taking the tithe in kind, and it is time the prayer of the public
should be conceded. I will not trouble the I louse with a display of
pedantic learning, or by referring to details, but will at
once allude to the variety of interests connected with the
question—to the bad effects of taking tithes in kind,
on cultivation in discouraging improvements, in involving the
owners of tithes in litigation with the payers of tithe, and I
will take for granted that both the House and the country are
unanimous in their desire that the question shouid be settled.
I think, Sir, that a great object would be attained if we could
devise any other mode by which this might be levied. At differ-
ent periods various suggestions have been proposed for attaining
that object, and it is necessary that I should shortly review
the principal features of those various suggestions ; but
I do not hesitate to say, that if I thought that
any -of' these suggestions were preferable to those
which I am about to bring forward, or if, in the course
of the discussion, it may
.appear that any thing bet-
ter can be devised, I shall not hesitate to adopt them.
because in submitting any measures to effect a settlement of
this most important question, it is impossible to do so
without great distrust and anxiety as to its probable re-
sults.-e-( Hear, hear.) The measures which have hitherto
been devised for the settlement of the Tithe question have
gone upon one or other of these principles.—( Hear, hear.)
It has at one time been proposed that the tithe of the
country should be valued, and after that valuation has
taken place that an equivalent, either in land or in a
corn rent, should be substituted for the amount of tithes. I
apprehend, however, that if any measure were introduced,
founded on that principle, it would fail to give satisfaction.
If V.:ere were to be a strict valuation, exclusive of every other
en deration, and exclusive of the forbearance of the clergy-
ma in the levy ; and if any equivalent were granted in lieu of
tit s, founded upon a reference to its abstract value as
imp ,ssib:e to refer to the evidence taken before the Agril
cultural Committee, without find'ng, that there was an universe.