The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-09 00:00:00

the trial to which the Hon. Gentleman referred. Having
finished that inquiry, he was as independent of any relation
with the Government as was the Hon. Gentleman him-
self. With regard to the conduct of the Government,
he had never read the letter to which the Hon. Gentle-
man referred. He had never seen or heard of it till the
present occasion. His time was too much occupied to
read the Guernsey Press, from which the Hon. Gentle-
man quoted so largely. The Government had known
Mr. Dobree, but the Honourable Gentleman had not ;
he had formed his opinions on grounds which the
Honourable Gentleman had not, and he stated that
he thought Mr. Dobree was a sane and a true man, and,
being of that opinion, he could not say it was at all in-
consistent with his duty to certify to that effect. He thought
the Hon. Gentleman should be therefore more certain
of his information. The lion. Gentleman had also a few
days ago stated that Sir J. Walsham had interfered as a
polr law Commissioner in Durham and Northumber-
' land, and had introduced Welsh labourers to defeat the
colliers, who stool out for higher wages.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he did not say that. He
had read a paragraph from the local paper which he
held in his hand at the time, and he wished to know from
the Hon. Gentleman whether it was true. It was be-
cause he did not know that it was true that he made the
inquiry. With regard to another point, the Right Hon.
Gentleman had made another misstatement.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that Sir J. Walsham
had interfered as a poor• law-commissioner to put down
the strike for wages in a town with which he had no
! connexion. He (Sir J. Graham) stated that Sir J. Wats-
ham had been an assistant poor-law commissioner, and

had resided in-Northumbekand—that he was a pro-
prietor both in Lancashire and South Wales, and that

he might. as an individual, have induced persons to go
to those places and obtain wages. He did not mean to
say that it was in the least dishonourable for an indivi-
dual. He had not then seen Sir J. Walsham, but he had
since an opportunity of referring to hill, and he was
authorised by Sir J. Walsham to say that he had never
directly or indirectly interfered in his individual capa-
city in the manner alleged. Nothing, therefore, could be
more unqualified than his contradiction of the statement.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he had never stated that he
had received positive information. He had founded his
question on a paragraph in the newspapers, and he had
asked him whether it was true or not. The Right Hon.
Baronet had also fallen into an error in supposing that
it was he who stated that Mr. Dampier was the Crown
solicitor, it was Mr. Daniel Dobree who had stated this

in his letter to the Times.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS.
Mr. BROTHERTON wished to ask the Right lion.
Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, whether it was in the contemplation of
her Majesty's Government to introduce any Bill
in the next session of Parliament, either to-

tally to abolish capital punishments, or to
extend the number of cases of exemption from that
punishment? He was
.quite convinced that these public
exhibitions had a very injurious effect on public morals,
and the melancholy occurrence which had taken place
at Nottingham was a full proof of that. If the House
would permit him, he would just read an extract from a
letter which he had received.—(Cries of " No, no.")
He really thought it was more worthy of the attention
of the House than some subjects which were intro-
duced in that House. (The Hon. Member then
read an extract from a letter relating to the accident
which had just occurred on the occasion of an execution,
in which thirteen persons lost their lives) ; and said he
wished to know whether it was the intention of her Ma-
jesty's Government to introduce any measure to put an
end to these disgraceful exhibitions, which,in his opinion,
did not tend to prevent crime, but only to harden the
minds of the people ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had no hesitation whatever
in telling the Hon. Gentleman that her Majesty's Go-
vernment had no intention to introduce any measure on
that subject. His opinion was entirely the reverse of
that expressed by the Hon. Gentleman, as regarded the
moral effect of executions in cases of murder. At the same
time, he must express his deep regret at the fatal occur-
rence which had taken place at Nottingham ; though he
must say he had never heard an inference which appeared
to him to have so little foundation, as that this fatal
catastrophe was at all to be ascribed to the bad moral
effect of a public execution.—(Hear, hear.) The event
might have occurred at a horse race, or even, through
sudden panic, in a chapel. He repeated that he had
no intention of proposing either the abAition or the re-
mission in certain cases of capital punishments.
Mr. BROTHERTON said he had made no inference
like that which the Hon. Gentleman had mentioned.
The Roman Catholic Penal Acts Relief Bill was read
a third time and passed.
Sir R. PEEL laid on the table papers relating to the
slave-trade ; also papers relating to Captain Warner's
experiment.
CAPTAIN WARNER'S EXPERIMENT AT
BRIGHTON. . _

Captain PECHELL observing that a portion of the
peepers which the Right Hon. Baronet had laid on the
table consisted of the correspondence with Captain
Warner, would ask him a question on the subject. lie
did not mean to say that Captain Warner was a fit sub-
ject for a lunatic asylum, but he would state to the
House certain facts which had come to his knowledge.
He had received a model of a vessel from Shoreham, the
port from which the ship destroyed by Capt. Warner had
sailed ; and from that it appeared the ship had ropes fitted
on board her, fastened from stem to stern, and that after the
process it appeared that from 150 to 200 fathoms of line
had been thrown overboard from thn steam-vessel, show-
ing that a direct communication had been established be-
tween the steam•-vessel and the ship. He wished to know
if the Government had received from the naval officers
any communication calculated to explain or to affirm the
suspicions which most people entertained with regard
to that experiment. The fact was, it was generally
looked upon as a complete humbug.
Sir R. PEEL had seen the reports which had been
made to the Admiralty upon the subject by naval
officers ; but those officers had not been admitted into
any very close communication with the vessels. He
could not either confirm, or deny the report to which
the Hon. and Gallant Member had referred. The ex-
periment, he took it for granted, had been performed in
the manner in which Captain Warner represented ;
but with respect to the ropes he had had no opportunity
of satisfying himself on the subject in such a manner
as to enable him to answer the question, not that he
meant to imply that the vessel had been blown up
in any other way than the one which had
been represented. If the Hon. Gentleman had read
the correspondence, he would see that it was not likely
that he (Sir R. Peel) would enter into any incautious
engagement.—(Laughter.) He would not give 400,0001.,
or even 100,000 L, for the blowing up of a vessel, with-
out having that vessel pretty closely examined before-
hand—(Laughter)—but he again repeated, that he did
not mean to insinuate that there had been any unfair
proceeding on the part of Captain Warner.
CASE OF THE CONVICT SIMPSON.
Mr. WAKLEY said he had had papers to present from
Mr. Humphries, the solicitor, on the subject of a convict
named Simpson, which he had submitted to the Right
lion. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment; that Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that he
saw no reason for interfering, and then be had determined
him to bring the subject before the House ; but; since
he had entered the House, the Bight Hon. Gentleman
had stated that he thought there were points in the case
deserving of consideration, and, therefore, he would not
trouble the House on the subject.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought there was one important
fact in the case which had not received the attention
it ought. He considered the Hon. Gentleman had exer-
cised a sound discretion in acting as he had done.
LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
Sir J. GRAHAM rose to move for leave to bring in
a Bill for the alteration of the law of settlement. They
had had many important disCussions on the poor-law,
but this was a subject of the utmost importance. Within
the last year 12,000 orders of removal had been made
for English paupers, and 5,000 for Scotch and Irish ;
and in the whole 19,000 Orders of removal had been
issued, under which 45,000 persons had been removed.
The House would do well to consider the immense
quantity of human suffering which was inflicted by these
orders of removal. It had been observed by Adam Smith
that there was no poor man in England, who had at-
tained forty years of age, who had not reason to complain
of the law of settlement. It was an important and diffi-
cult subject, and the course which he proposed to
take was, to repeal all the statutes at present in
existence on that subject, and to legislate de novo.
He should propose to the House, therefore, an Act, re-
gulating the law of settlement, and the appeal on the
order of removal. The subject was naturally divided
into three branches—the settlement itself, the power of
removal, and the law respecting the appeal upon the order.
First, with respect to existing settlements, he proposed
wherever there had been an order of removal, and
a fixed settlement, that that settlement should not
be disturbed. He then proposed to repeal the existing
Acts of Settlement, which, he believed, were no less
than nine in number. Settlements were now
gained by marriage, by apprenticeship, by rent-
ing a tenement, by paying rates, by serving
an office, and, last of all, by birth. Hiring at ser-
vice was another mode of gaining a settlement, which
was, however, still somewhat in dispute. His proposi-
tion was, that henceforth birth, and birth only, should
give a settlement, and that the place of birth should be
held to be the place of settlement. Failing proof of
the place of birth, he proposed to admit proof of a
derivative settlement in the second degree. First, he
proposed to admit the Sather's settlement, and fail-
ing that, the settlement of the mother. He would
not carry the derivative settlement any farther,
and he proposed that the settlement of the grand-
father and the grandmother should no longer be
received. He proposed that the register of births
and deaths, and the register of baptisms, should be ad-
mitted as proofs of birth ; and that a married woman
should not be removed from her husband's settlement
during her husband's life. He had now exhausted the
first branch of the subject. He had thought that
settlement by birth was the most simple ; and that
the derivative settlement, in the first degree from
the father and mother, was also the most
simple. the most sure, and the most advisable.
lie now came to the second branch of his subject.
Two conferences then took place on the C,iunty Coro-
ner.' Bill and the Art-Unions Bill, in which the House
of Lords disagreed with the House of Commons.
LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
Sir J. GRAHAM then resumed his arguments with
respect to this Bill. He proposed that parties should be
irremovable under the following circumstances : First,
he proposed that men who resided in or near a parish
for five years, and whohad not be= guilty of felony ormls-
demeanour, should be-irremovable ; this applied to Irish
and Scotch paupers. Secondly, no woman who resided
with her husband at the- time of his death, in a parish in
which he had been settled, should be removable after the
death of her husband to her own parish. Thirdly, ne widow,
whether living in her husband's parish or elsewhere,
should be removable until twelve months after his death.
Fourthly, no legitimate child should belemoved after its