The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-05 00:00:00

sessions of Great Britain, who, in each year since the
Ist day of January, 1839, have suffered corporal pu-
nishments and imprisonments ; showing the nature of
the offences, in classes, for which such corporal punish-
ment or imprisonment has been awarded, and the num-
bers in each class ; stating also the greatest number and
the lowest number of lashes inflicted on any person in
each year ; also, the longest and shortest period of con-
finement awarded as punishment, and the average
period of confinement for each class in each year.
Of the number of soldiers . who, since the Ist day of
January, 1839, have suffered corporal punishment or
imprisonment, and whether either corporal punishment
or imprisonment has been inflicted on the same person
more than once, specifying how often it has been so in-
flicted, and distinguishing numbers in regiments in the
colonies and possessions of her Majesty from regiments
in depots in Great Britain and Ireland. Of the number
of corporal punishments inflicted in the. Royal Navy, in
each of the years 1839 and 1840 (in continuation of Par-
liamentary paper, No. 242, of session 1841).—Agreed to.
POOR-LAW BILL

Mr. BAILEY COCHRANE begged to put a question
to the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the
Home Department. The Right HOR. Gentleman would
recollect that when the Poor-law Bill went through its
second reading, it was understood that an early day
would be fixed for discussing its provisions. It was now
stated that the discussion of the principle of the Bill was
to be deferred till after Easter. He begged to ask whe-
ther that was the fact?

Sir J. GRAHAM said the House would remember
that the Factories Bill was introduced before the New
Poor-law Bill in the present session, and that it was also
introduced at an early period of the last session. The
Factories Bill stood now for Friday. He would suggest to
the House that. the order should be read for the purpose
of discharging it, and fixing the Bill for Monday next.
Until the House had gone into Committee on that Bill,
he could not fix a day for going into Committee on the
New Poor-law Bill.
On the motion of Mr. FIELDEN leave of absence was
given to General Johnstone until the 20th day of April,
on account of ill-health.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES.

Mr. O'CONNELL begged to ask the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet (Sir Robert Peel), whether it was in the contem-
plation of the Government to bring in any Bill in the
course of the present session to alter or amend the law
with respect to Roman Catholic charities ?

Sir ROBERT PEEL said he entertained a confident
hope that, her Majesty's Government would be prepared
in the course of the present session to bring in a Bill
on that subject, carrying into effect the object stated by
her Majesty's Government in the course of the recent
debate.

Mr. O'CONNELL inquired whether the Right Hon.
Baronet had any objection to his bringing in a Bill with
respect to Roman Catholic charities. All he desired
was to bring in a Bill, in order that it might be printed
and placed in the hands of Members. He did not wish
the Government to give their sanction to it.
Sir 11. PEEL said, that if the Hon. Gentleman gave
notice of the Bill, her Majesty's Ministers would not feel
it their duty to oppose it.
Mr. O'CONNELL then gave notice, that on Monday
next he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend
the laws relating to Roman Catholic charities in Ireland,
and to the disposition of property left for the purposes
of Roman Catholic worship.
VALUATION OF PROPERTY (IRELAND).
Sir DENHAM NORREYS wished to know whether
it was the intention of the Government to make any
inquiry with respect to the present system of valuation
in Ireland as applicable to the purposes of th9'new poor-
law in that country. .
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said there was an under-
standing, last session, that if it should be the general
wish of the Members for Ireland in that House, and of
the Irish Peers in the other House of Parliament, to
institute an inquiry into the operation of the poor-law
in the present session, her Majesty's Government would
accede to that wish. To this statement he adhered.
Considering, however, the large number
,of Irish Mem-
bers who were now attending the assizes in Ireland, he
thought the matter would undergo amore fair discussion if
it were postponed until after Easter. With respect to the
subject of valuation, to which the Hon. Baronet had
referred, her Majesty's Ministers had been lately in
communication with Mr. Griffiths, with a view to an
alteration in the present system, and the adoption of
an uniform system of tenement valuation throughout
Ireland,

PRESBYTERIAN MARRIAGES' (IRELAND).
Sir ROBERT FERGUSON wished to put a question
to the Secretary of State for the Home Department,
respecting a subject of great interest in the north of
Ireland ; he meant the question of Presbyterian mar•
riages. The question had been brought under the ju-
dicial consideration of the House of Lords, in a case
from the Courts of Ireland. The House might not,
perhaps, be aware that a very considerable difference of
opinion existed upon the matter among the judges,
three of the law Lords having given an opinion as to
the validity of these marriages, and three other law
Lords having given an opinion that they were not valid
marriages. The question which he put was, whether
there was any objection to • laying those judgments on
the table of the House, and whether the Government
had made up their minds as to whether they would pro-
ceed by legislation upon the subject, or how they would
proceed ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the judgments of the
six law Lords had been printed for the use of the other
House of Parliament, and if a communication were
made to that House, there would be no difficulty in ob-
taining a copy of those judgments. With respect to the
second question put by the Hon. Baronet the facts of
the case were as he stated them. As yet no unanimous
judgment had been pronounced, and considering that
there was a variance of opinion amongst the six law
Lords, he presumed that the effect would be that the
Irish judges would be affirmed. In that case legislation
on the subject would be indispensable. He had every
reason to believe that the Committee of the other House
of Parliament, to which the Hon. Baronet had adverted,
would be re-appointed. Of course he could not tell how
that Committee would proceed, but he had no doubt that
the fullest consideration would be given to the facts of
the case.