The Sun.
London, England, 1817-03-01 00:00:00

not believe tile attack on tl:e Prince Ilezent, coos
al I'M:IOUS aA it %vas, to have been the result of anl

se►litious design. tllucl► incorrect information I
been sent tip cot►cerning what I►ail occurred in

county with which he was connected, and he ap-
prehended the same thing might have happened
with respect to other places. He thought it hard
that the county he had the honour to represent
(Derby) should have been so particularly men•
tioned in the Report of the Committee. In this
he considered the Committee to have been rathl-r
precipitate, as that county had been distinguished
by the good order which generally prevailed in it,
in consequence of their having had the good for-
tune to have a Magistrate able and willing to per
form his duty. He %posed tie Bill.
Mr. BANKRS and Mr. TIERNEY rose at the same
moment. There was a loud cry for Mr. Tierney
to speak ; but Mr. Wilkes having first caught the
Speaker's eye, had, of course, the precedence.
BANKES thtn proceeded ; but the shouts of
spiestion and the coughing was so loud and inces-
sant, that we could scarcely catch a word that
fell front him. We underAnod him, however, to
say, that if the situation of the country was such,
that the country could not be tranquillized without
this measure, it oughttp be passed. Prevention
being better than punishment, it would be wise
and humane to check the disatrected in their ca-
reer; before they reached those excesses which
svould endanger others' lives and their own.
After Mr. BANK spealb there was it pause
of some minutes, hut nobody rising, the cry of
QUeSiioll became cry vehement, und strangers
were ordered to withdraw. The 11 on se then di-
vided on the 3d rending ; when the numbers were—
Ayes '265
Noes

Majority
White we were absent, we understood that three
clauses ‘vcre moved, and negatived in succession! :
one, by Sir F. Burdett, that prisoners should he
allowed to see their wives or children, on applica-
ti,m to the home depaanwnt, and that care should
be taken not to confine them iii damp or un-
wholesome dungeons' ; the- second, by Mr. W.
Smith, was to enable persons who had been
wrongfully imprisoned to bring their action with-
in a month after their discharge; the third, by
,Mr. Ponsonby, hich was negatived atter a divi-
sion, was, that the act should expire on the 20th
of May, instead of the Ist of July. The numbers
on this► division ere—
. Against the Motion
Fur it

Najurity

When strangers svere re-admitted the House
was in debate on the Clunse in the Bill, which au-
thorizes the removal of prisoners front one Gaol
1 to another, and the exmmeitie of which, it appear-
ed, had been moved.
The Sot.tcyron-GeNenst, defended the clause.
lie Contended, that it was necessary that the
power of removal should be given, as cases might
occur in which, front the number of the prisoners,
or front their combining together, it would be
very ioconvenicot to retain them together in one
geol. In such cases it might be proper to remove
Prisoners front Gloucester to Hereford, or vice
I:ova ; but care wai taken that they should stitivr
no disadvantage by these removals ; 'tor, if brought
to trial, it was provided that the proceedings
should take place in the County in which they
were orkinally committed.
Mr. PoNsoXBY could tint understand why a man
taken up for treasonable practices in the county
of Hereford should be imprisoned in Gloucester.
AVere not the gaols in the county sufficient, or
were they destitute of keepers It there were
tro gaols in a particular county, or no persons to
guard them, he could comprehend why a prisoner
should be sent to another county ; but todess
some such reason as Ow he hail stated•existed,
the removal was a measure of unnecessary cruelty.
Mr. Bew NETT stated, that cases of great hardship
hail occurred (older the former suspensions of the
Ilith as Corpus Act, in consequence of imprison-
hug persons in distant gaols.
I.llc. B. BATHURST supported the clause, which
AS as ordered to stand part of the Bill. 11
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. Brtotionsm rose, and stated, that from
what alight lion. Gentleman opposite had said,
be supposed it was to be understood, that unless
the notice of a motion for the renewal of the Bill
were given in the month of May, it would be al-
lowed to expire on the Ist of July. If one week
more hail been given, the petitions against the Bill
would have been most numerous.
Mr. CANNING übSCI'VLid, that the period of the
Bill teas limited, but that circumstances might
occur which would render its renewal necessary.
Mr. B 1.3 A-rut:lor had' not said any thing in the
course of the debate about the month of May. Ile
hail given no such pledge. All that he had said
was, that as the Bill was to expire in July, the
tioestion of its renewal would require some consi-
deration; mad, of course, that notice of the inten-
tion of Ministers in that respect would probably
be given stone (inn: before the date to which the
duration of the Bill was limited.
Lord STASILKV said, lie had paid particularat-
tention to what fell front the Honourable Gentle-
man, and he was confident he had used the words
" many weeks."
Mr. BATituast was not conscious that he bad
said many weeks ; he could not answer for what
his Right Houourable Friends might, under fu-
ture cirCillnlitailCES, determine, but such a ques-
tion would, doubtless, require a notice e' a few
weeks.
Mr. Beouousst wished the Hon. Gentleman to
recollect, that the House had gone to a division
on his iluClaratinn.
'MI'. CALVERT stated, that the hurry in passing
the Bill afforded no tittle for the presenting of pe-
titions against it.
Sir C. Mosier( said, that the petitions would be
mote mouerons tigaittst this- than any other
were Utile affUlACtl to the; country to
trans-
ittit them,
The Nil was then passed, and ordered to the
Lords,----Adimoried at 2.

On the door of SirFtLANCIS BURDETT'S house in
Piccadilly k attached a board whereon is written
" empty house," A wit;; jatsilig, wrote ender.
new h the following words Better than a tad
tenant,"