The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-20 00:00:00

Oltenbq

LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 20, 1844.

In the House of Lords, after the presentation of
certain petitions, and the postponement of several
Bills, the Bishop of EXETER presented petitions
against the Dissenters' Chapel Bill, and intimated his
intention of opposing the Bill. In presenting these
petitions, he took the opportunity of exhibiting a
specimen of High Church bigotry. It was stated
that some of them came from the Presbyterian Church
of Ireland ; but there was no such Church in Ireland
or England, and there was an express canon of the
Church.againat persons calling themselves .members
of any Church not the Church of England. The

canon was established in 1603 in England, and about
thirty years afterwards in Ireland.
The Marquis of NORMANDY gave notice that on
Monday he would call attention to certain omissions
in the papers recently laid on the table relative to
Gwalior.
Adjourned at Half-past Five o'Clock.

In the Commons several petitions were presented
against the Masters and Servants Bill. Mr. T. DUN-
COMBE presented thirty-six petitions of this descrip-
tion from some of the most populous towns in Eng-
land, among others Manchester, Birmingham, Bolton,
Norwich, Nottingham, and Rochdale.
Dr. BowitiNG gave notice that on Tuesday he
should move for the newspaper stamp returns.
Mr. BRIGHT called the attention of the Home
Secretary to the conviction of an unfortunate woman
at the present assizes in London, for the murder or
her child. It appeared from the evidence that she
had attempted to commit suicide and destroy her
child at the same time, from the utmost destitution.
The Judge in passing sentence held out no hope of
mercy. _ _

Sir JAMES 'GRAHAM said his attention had not
been called to the fact till that moment. He could
not, however, enter into a discussion on such a sub-
ject, but the Hon. Member might rest assured he
would do his best to exercise a sound and dispas-
sionate judgment on all the circumstances of the
case. It is singular that while this melancholy affair
has excited general attention, the Home Secretary,
who, above all others, should have known the merits
of the case, had never heard of it.

In answer to a question from Mr. Ross, Sir JAMES
GRAHAM said he had every reason to believe that a
Bill would shortly be brought into the other House
on the subject of Presbyterian marriages in Ireland.

On the motion of Lord ELIOT, the Irish Municipal
Corporations Bill was read a secor.d time, and ordered
to be committed on the 29th.

The Committee on the County Courts Bill was
fixed for Monday next.
Mr. TUFNELL asked why a writ had not been
issued for Horsham on the accession of Mr. SCARLETT
to the Peerage.
Sir T. FREMANTLE presumed that the writ of sum-
mons to the House of Lords had not been issued, and
consequently the Hon. Gentleman was still a Member
of the house.

Lord J. RussEEE blamed such a slovenly mode of
proceeding, and intimated his intention of bringing
the subject formally before the House, in case such
negligence should again occur.
On the Order of the Day being read for the house
resolving itself into a Commitiee of Supply, Sir C.
NAPIER moved for certain returns respecting the
timber received into the royal dockyards during the
last ten years.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT did not find himself justi-
fied in giving the returns, but he was willing to give
every information to the Gallant Member which he
could, without prejudice to the public service.
A discussion took place on the appointment of
stipendiary magistrates in Ireland, and chiefly on the
late appointment of Mr. O'BRIEN, but it led to no
result.

The House then went into Committee of Supply.
Several votes for colonial establishments were agreed
to. On a vote of 13,6801. being proposed for the
civil charges of St. Helena, Mr. lluuE moved as an
amendment that the sum be reduced by 2,0001., when,
on a division, the amendment was rejected-by a ma-
jority of 45. Several other votes were agreed to,
and the House resumed.

The other Orders of the Davy were then disposed
of, and the House adjourned at twelve o'clock.

In the house of Commons last night, Mr. BRIGHT,
greatly to his credit, called the Home Secretary's
attention to a recent capital conviction at the Central
Criminal Court, which has excited public sympathy
in no slight degree. "The case," remarked the
Hon. Member for Durham, "struck him as being one
of the most extraordinary that had ever occurred.
It appeared that a poor woman had thrown herself
and baby into the water, being at the time in circum-
stances of the utmost destitution. Apparently
her intention was to commit suicide, and not
leave her infant alone and unprotected in the
world behind her. Her own life was preserved, but
the child perished. The unhappy creature had been
sentenced to death for her crime, and one of the news-
paper reports stated that the judge gave her no hope
whatever that mercy would be extended to her.
Such a statement required no comment, and he now
wished to be satisfied that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man's attention had been called to so distressing a
case." Now, what was Sir J. GRAHAM'S answer to
this affecting statement ? "In point of fact," said
the Home Secretary, " his attention had not been
called to the matter until the present moment. In the
very delicate duty which would devolve upon him, the
Hon. Member might rest assured he would do his best to
exercise a sound and dispassionate judgment; but be-
yond this, he could not then say anything, as the
House must be aware of the inconvenience attending
such discussions." Anything more cool—we might
almost add, supercilious—than this reply we do not
often remember to have met with, even in the records
of Parliament. It exhibits all that free and easy in-
difference to human life for which SIDMOUTH and
CASTLEREAGH were so remarkable. The whole town
is just now ringing with the case of poor MARY
FURLEY ; the judgment pronounced on her—legal
though it undoubtedly is--is generally declared
to be harsh and unmerited; yet the Home Secre-
tary knows nothing at all about the matter !
The very Minister, who, from his official position,
should be perfectly cognizant with every case of
moment that transpires in the criminal jurisdiction
of the country, boldly states that his " attention has
not been called" to one of the most heart-rending
trials that have taken place at the Old Bailey for
many a year, " until the present moment !" Does
Sir JAMES GRAHAM never read the newspapers ?
If he is in the habit of doing so, he cannot fail to have
read the whole circumstances of this distressing case,
which have been detailed at length in the columns of
the daily journals, wherein also may be found most
unquestionable proof of the public sympathy for
MARY FURLEY. But we are forgetting ourselves ;
Ministers of State make a point of never reading
newspapers —on the. same shrewd principle, we
presume, that boys fight shy of a dose of wholesome
physic—they tell us so themselves, and even seem to
take a pride in their ignorance. Does an Opposition
Member put an inconvenient question to Govern-
ment, on the faith of some perfectly just statement
that he has met with in the columns of the daily
press, some Minister or other is sure to get up and
reply, that, for his own part, his time is so
fully occupied that he really has not a moment's
leisure to read newspapers, and consequently
cannot be expected to know anything at all
about the merits of the ugly questions put
to him. But how changed the case, whenever
the press happens luckily to furnish Ministers with
weapons wherewith to assault their opponents—with
apt nicknames wherewith to cast ridicule upon
them! Then, it is quite beautiful to see how well
read they are in newspapers—with what studious
attention they keep in mind their agree-
able arguments—what a vivid recollection they re-
tain of their apt felicities of sarcasm ! The other day,
for instance, Sir JAMES GRAHAM—who, of course,
never reads either daily or weekly journals, or other-
wise he would have been fully acquainted with all
the particulars of MARY PURLEY'S case—the other
day, we say, this singularly organised Baronet, being
indignant with the Opposition for presuming to differ
with him on the Ten Hours' Factory Bill, coolly told
them that they were encouraging a " JACK. CADE "
system of legislation. When called to account for
this insulting expression, what was his reply ? The
scamqaur:ps
re
ew
pa
ist nooft is
e us--;Non m
e had
me nest
with
eirtm ino
ae snte,
Isved
s.
paper ! Yes, it was one of those insignificant,
plebeian journals, which well-bred Ministers of State
never read, that had supplied him with the ma-
terials of his invective ! Finding not a single
shaft left in his own quiver, he had—with a condes-
cension which cannot be too highly appreciated—bor-
rowed one from the well-stocked quiver of the Exa-
miner. But, to return to the far more important
subject with which we set out. Sir JAMES GRAHAM,
it seems, has promised to exercise " a sound and dis-
passionate judgment" on the case of MARY FURLEY.
WdMOSt devoutly hope that this judgment will lean to
the side of mercy, for never yet was there a case that
more imperatively demanded the lenient interpreta-
tion of the law.

The advance of a country in wealth and civiliza-
ion—that piogress to which all' legislation and policy