The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-07 00:00:00

NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

Sir D. NORREYS gave notice of a motion, for Thurs-
day next, on the subject of the poor-laws (Ireland).
Mr. CURTEIS presented a petition from the Com-
missioners of Rye Harbour, praying that their rights
might not be interfered with by any Inclosure Bill.
Mr. ESCOTT gave notice that, in Committee on the
Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, he would move the insertion of
a clause to preserve the Court of the Archdeacon of
Canterbury for the purpose of the probate of wills.
In answer to a question from Mr. HAWES respecting
the Medical Relief Committee (as we understood),
Lord ASHLEY said, that the delay of the report of
the Committee was owing to the Committee having to
go over so much ground, in which considerable time was
occupied. The Committee was now actively engaged
in pursuing the requisite inquiries, and he trusted they
would be quickly eaabled to produce a highly valuable
report.
Dr. BOWRING said, seeing the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, he
begged to call his attention to a statement which he had
made a few nights ago on the subject of marine insur-
ances. He stated that English underwriters were ex-
posed to severe competition in Consequence of the vessels
of foreign ports not having to pay brokerage. The Right
Hon. Gentleman, however, told him that he had
been misinformed. Now he had since ascertained
that what he had stated was, in fact, correct. The
Senate of Hambergh took ss. in the shape of brokerage.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
Hon. Gentleman had misrepresented what he said.
What he had said was, that there was a charge on
marine insurances, and this statement he had made on
good authority, namely, that of Lloyd's. The Hon.
Gentleman said that it was not levied for the State, but
in the shape of brokerage ; its being paid in the shape
of brokerage, he conceived, made no difference.
MEDICAL REFORM BILL.

In reply to a question from Mr. F. MAULE
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Medical Reform Bill
was in a state of preparation.
MR. B. GREGORY'S IMPRISONMENT.
Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition from Mr. B.
Gregory complaining of the hardships to which he was
subjected in his imprisonment in Newgate upon a con
viction for libel. He was confined in a solitary cell.
having no bed but a mattrass on an iron frame, with in-
sufficient covering, and the only drink allowed to him
was water-gruel. The Hon. and Learned Member would
take that opportunity of asking the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Secretary of State, whether the gaol of Newgate
was under his control ? and whether, if so, the hardships
of which the petitioner complained were suffered under
regulations imposed by the governor, or by some local
authority ?
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that having had notice of the
lion. and Learned Gentleman's intention to present this
petition, and put his question, he had inquired as to the
particular facts of Mr. Gregory's case. He found that
Mr. Gregory had been convicted of a misdemeanour, and
that the offence was (under a statute passed in 1840) di-
vided into two classes, the first being subject to a less
punishment than the other. Immediately after the
sentence was passed, Gregory moved the Court that he
should be placed in the first class of offenders, but the
Court positively refused the motion, and the petitioner
was placed in the second class, and subjected to the
severer punishment. However, in consequence of repre-
sentations that his health was suffering, an alteration
was made in his treatment. He was not kept in solitary
confinement—he was placed in a room of a better
kind—was allowed a fire, and many other in-
dulgences, which would not be, allowed to prisoners
of the same class, except upon the representation
that their health was impaired by their confinement.
His diet was under the direction of the medical officer.
Special directions had been given to the medical prac-
titioner who attended the prison to visit Mr. Gregory
once every fortnight, and to report to the Home-office,
and so far from the health of Mr. Gregory having been
impaired by his protracted confinement, he was better
now than when he was first confined.—(Laughter.) In
carrying the law into execution, it had not been
thought fit to extend any indulgence to Mr. Gregory,
beyond that which was extended in ordinary cases, and
unless it should be represented to him that the pro-

tracted confinement of Mr. Gregory, under these circum-
stances, would be dangerous to his lire, he should not be
prepared to shorten it.
CONDUCT OF POLICE MAGISTRATES.

Mr. lIORSMAN wished to ask the Right Honourable
Baronet if he had received any information on the
subject of the conduct of a police magistrate in adjudi-
cating upon a case which had been brought before
him. The case was this :—it appeared that a private
in the Grenadier Guards had accosted a female in the
street, who had just left her house ; that, being fright-
ened, she returned towards her home ' • that she was
pursued by the soldier, who entered her house with her,
threatened her, and assaulted her ; that she screamed
" Murder," struggled, and fainted. On the investigation
of these charges before the magistrate, the facts were not
denied, but the man pleaded that he was intoxicated, and
the magistrate, in adjudicating on the case, said that,
taking into consideration the circumstance that the man
was drunk, he should only impose a fine of 10s. He
wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman if his attention
had been drawn to the case ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that his attention had been
called to the case, and he had referred to the magistrate,
and asked for his explanation. It was true as had been
stated, that the soldier was intoxicated; that some signals
had passed between him and the woman ; that she
had returned home and locked the door ; that he had
broken down the door and offered violence to her ; that
she had screamed, on which her neighbours entered and
rescued her ; the soldier had been given into custody, and
the charge had been brought before a police magistrate.
The charge entered on the sheet was that of Mary
Brown, 4, street, Westminster, for breaking in her
door, value one shilling. The magistrate on hearing
the case was satisfied that the man was intoxicated, and
that he had misunderstood the woman entirely in con-
sequence of what had passed between them in the street.
The door was an extremely slender one, and the lock
was so worn as t.) offer no resistance. The magistrate
was not satisfied as to the extent of the violence com-
mitted, and therefore did not feel justified in dealing with
the prisoner as fur a graver offence. He might certainly have
committed the prisoner for an aggravated assault, but
under all the circumstances of the case—especially re-
ferring to what had previously taken place in the street,
and that the actual damage was valued only at a shilling
—the magistrate considered the justice of the case would
be met by the penalty imposed. With respect to the
charge that the magistrate hr.d made drunkenness a
plea in extenuation of the offence, the Hon. Member for
Cockermouth (Mr. llorsman), taking his information
from the newspapers, had been greatly misled.
A statement he held in his hand from Mr. Jar-
dine distinctly denied this, and asserted on the
contrary that he (Mr. Jardine) could not allow such a
plea to weigh for one moment with him in the adj udica-
tion of punishment.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN considered the explanation of the
Right Hon. Gentleman was perfectly satisfactory, and
that from the latter portion of it especially great public
good would accrue.
Messengers from the Lords brought down several
Bills.