The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-06 00:00:00

Lord DENMAN thought that so Ireportant a change in the Government the propriety of extending the period to twelve
la* ought not to have been proposed without much more con- calendar months.
sideration. The Bill of last year was referred to a Committee, . Sir J. GRAHAM said he thought the Hon. Member for
and repeatedly, discussed by epeiloris of the greatest eepe- Finshery was eight in his vierk of the case; and he should there-
eiemee In catch titattet). The piesent Bill *as breught fore agree to his proposition; and mode thee the weed " six" be
for Ward as a corollary to it, but it had not received the same omitted, and the word " twelve" itiSerted.
consideration. There was a specific offence • the offence of Mr. S. CRAWFORD begged sincerely to thank the flight
• sedition. His Noble and Learned Friends appeared to havts
urn Baronet for this concession, which was a most humane
confined their attention to one single heatteet of sedition, end , Ana Duet one, and. would be sure to command the approval of
that ene of tee lean imerseanee; Yoity or 'Are the ,ledelee , e•
elo every public newspaper, reniareing on the copeeet ,or tee ee-e: S'e'elseeeT W.OIiTLET Owed the toilottlig arm&
Government, was at the 'tierce of the ate'remenit f'de the men's „lh hee, to itiVetitAe pear';, or "
time beinze, but that (linnet- Wes pesse , no Attorney- months;' also, after the word " child'' to acid ;thyi;
Geeerel teeld be Atiiptd enough to institute a prosecution, "or at any time thereafter, upon satisfactory proof that the man
enerely because the Government would be inconvenienced by alleged to be the father of such child has admitted the truth of
newspaper remarks, and if he did the jury would give such allegation." The clause as it stood would induce many
heir Verdict *.?Cr the defendant. In the year letle men to gite at allowartee to the woman for six or twelve
the, hiorniny Chrome* Was prostatted foe reflecting on Months, in order to prevent her making any applieseitt egeiest
king tleorge the third; With reference to the Government of i him, emit it would be too late ; and at the expiration of the
Ireland'; Mr. Pei.ry defended hirriself en the ground Of the sta or tvtelee termites discontinue the alldwaece, while the
right to discuss the theaseres of the boierninerit, and the elatise as it tidw stood siddld eecitidit her froth every, tereedv.
jury acquitted the defendant. Now was not the crime of Sir JAMES GRAHAM was still opinioh that there should
sedition a Crime in itself? Had they not seen people rising be some limitation of the time for the protection of the accueed
tip in arms and rushing to the destruction of their neighbours' man.
lives and property ?—(Hear, hear.) He pot that case because Mr. T. EGERTON said that the argument of his Hon.
it arose out of re.-"t ptemeielltigs.—( Hear, hear.) The at- Friend (Mr. Stuart Wortley) had not been met by the Right
tacking et titan's character tended to a breach of the peace, Hon. Baronet. The argument of his Hon. Friend completely
by kading him, as Dr. Franklin expressed it, to resort to the removed the objection, that an extension of the time would be
liberty of the cudgel.—(Laughter.) lie admitted that some unjust to the man. Could not the Right Hon. Gentleman
advantage had arisen from the Bill of last year, by improving introduce words at the end of the clause, that the woman
the respectability of the press but he did not think a sufficient should not be excluded from proceeding against the man after
time had elapsed to enable them to say that it conferred eery the expiration of twelve months on producing proof of the pay-
great benefit: Whitt he chiefly complained of was that this ment of money during that time ?
thenge *s, proposed without sufficient consideration and de- Mr. ESCOTT was strongly opposed to the antendrisent
liberation. of his Hon. Friend (Mr. S. Wortley), as it would bring back
Lord CAMPBELL replied. He said it seemed they many of the evils of the old law.
were now called on to reverse the unanimous decision of last Sir .LAMES GRAHAM was sorry that his lion. Friend
year; every argument used against the present Bill would apply had thought it his duty to charge him with having introeeiced
exactly as much to the Act of last year. His Noble and an illusory measure. That charge coming from a quareer so
Learned Friend acknowledged that this Act, as far as it had respectable, rendered it the more painful ; and he must, there-
been tes'ed, had been found to work well. lie concluded that fore, give it his firm denial. The clauses to which the lion.
nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the ascertaining, by Gentleman had referred had been framed with an honest spirit,
affidavit, the truth or falsehood of statements in a and he would always be ready to enter into a discussion as to
criminal information. The Noble and Learned Lord their merits. With respect to the amendment of the Hon.
had alluded to the case of the Duke of Brunswick. Member for Yorkshire, he must say that he could not give it
Wetted not the convictions in that case have been much more his support, in consequence of the ambiguity of its terms. Be-
satisfactory, if there had been an opportunity of showing their fore he sat down, he would express a hope that his Hon. Friend
utter falsehood? When the King of Hanover wes assailed by the Member for Oxfordshire, would not adhere to the opinion
charges of a similar character, he boldly appeared in the wit- which he had expressed.
ness-box and denied the truth of those statements. Under Mr. HENLEY said, he had spoken of the Bill, and not of
the circumstances, and after the declaration of his Noble Friend the conduct of the Government with respect to it.
on the Woolsack, supported as he had been by the Chief After a few words from Captain Routs, Mr. Morris, Sir
Justice, he much apprehended the fate of this Bill. They Walter James, and Mr. Borthwiek,
might overwhelm by a great majority the decision of last sea- Sir J. GRAHAM repeated that he had conceded the ex-
sion—they had the opportunity of doing so ; but it tension of the time to twelve months, and he would now so far
must not be supposed that all those who were absent accede to the proposition of his lion. Friend as to agree to the
—( There were not more than two or three Peers on the addition of these words to the clause--" that the putative father
Opposition benches)—were indifferent to this Bill.— shad be liable, after the twelve months, upon proof of the
(Laughter.) His Noble Friend ( Lord Cottenham) was ab- payment of money within twelve months after the birth of
sent in consequence of believing that the Bill was perfectly the child."—( Hear, hear.)
secure.—(Laughter.) lie could not believe that the Noble Mr. S. WORTLEY expressed himself satisfied—(Bear,
Lord on the Woolsack could be so grossly inconsistent as to hear)—and withdrew his amendment.
oppose the Bill. There was his Noble Friend (Lord The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
Brougham), who had spoken so strongly in favour of the Bill On clause 3 being read,
—he could not be supposed to be indifferent to the Bill. Mr. B. DENISON thought that the power of appeal,
The LORD CHANCELLOR—He prefers something else which this clause conferred upon the putative father was un-
to the Bill.—( Laughter.) wise and improper, and entailed great hardship on the poor
Lord CAMPBELL said he did not think his Noble and woman who sought to establish her claim against the father
Learned Friend was one of those " whose god is their belly"— of her child. He therefore proposed that in bastardy cases
(Laughter)—for on any public question, he knew he was ready three magistrates instead of two should be present when the
to sacrifice every sensual gratification. But even now he would female came forward in the first instance, and that their adjudi-
divide the House, though he should stand alone, in order to cation should be final. The power of appeal, as granted by the
see twee many would remain consistent. clause, would render, in most instances, the whole intentions of
Their Lordships then divided ; the numbers were— tie Legislature nugatory.
For the third reading
Against it
Majority against the Bill —3o Mr. DENISON intimated that he had withdrawn the
SEES OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR. amendment, but
The Earl of HADDINTON reported to the House the deci- Colonel WOOD, in the most earnest manner,intreated that
!ion of the Committee appointed to inquire into precedents as he would not do so. He considered the power of appeal as
to the doubt raised upon this Bill, whether it did not require entailing the greatest hardship on the unfortunate female.
the consent of her Majesty in order to be brought in and dis- Sir J. GRAHAM said he thought two justices would be
cussed in Parliament. The Committee stated, as the result of sufficient ; and it might be inconvenient, and in some instances,
the inquiries, that the Bill was one that does so require the con- almost impossible, to procure the attendance of more. The
sent of the Crown. power of appeal could be discussed at a future time.
The Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and the House Mr. DENISON withdrew his amendment.
adjourned. Mr. BORTHWICK suggested that the allowance made by
the father to the mother of the child should not be paid by him
to her, as the contact might be dangerous.—(Laughter. ) The
sum allocated by the magistrate should be paid to some third
person for her—an overseer or other parochial official.
Mr. ESCOTT said all the compassion seemed to be for the
woman, but his experience in these matters—( Great laughter)
—led him to think that the putative father was frequently as
deserving of compassion. He did not approve of the principle
of sending the putative father of the chile to the House of Cor-
rection, if he were not able to pay the sum prescribed by the
magistrates.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the provision, however hard it might
seem to some Hon. Members, was found to be absolutely ne-
cessary. In fact, without the terror of imprisonment which
this clause held out, one of the main principles of the measure
could not be carried out.
The clause as amended was then agreed to.
Clause 4 was then proposed.
Mr. B. DENISON proposed to omit the words from the
clause which gave the power of appeal from the decision of the
magistrates in cases of bastardy.
Mr. BORTH WICK supported the amendment. He trusted
her Majesty's Government would take the subject into their
consideration.
Mr. T. EGERTON believed that if the provision giving
the power of appeal were allowed to remain in the Bill that it
would be nugatory and ineffective.
Mr. HAWES thought the power of appeal ought not to be
taken away.
Sir J. GRAHAM said this was a very important clause, and
he would recommend the Committee to be cautious in coming
to a decision upon it. lie thought the power of appeal ought
to be retained, as it would act as a preventive to injustice.
Mr. WAKLEY could not see why the appeal should only
be on one side.
After a few words from Sir J. GRAHAM,
Mr. B. ESCOTT said the reason the appeal was only one-
sided was, that the penalties were all on one side.
Mr. WAKLEY said the penalties were not on one side, as
the woman had to bear the burden of the maintenance of the
child. He thought the appeal ought to be made In favour of
the woman as well as of the man.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY was of a different opinion. To
give the kppeal to the woman would lead to much injustice
and hardship.
Mr. CRIPPS thought that if they were to give the female
the power of appeal the provision would be inoperative, inas-
much as in all such cases as these the female was in humble
circumstances, and had not the means of carrying on an appeal.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD supported the amendment of the
Hon. Member for Yorkshire.
Mr. LIDDELL thought it would be impolitic to extend cases.
of appeals to Quarter Sessions.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that after the fullest consideration of
the subject he was of opinion that the clause, as it stood, ought
to be retained.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that after the fullest consideration,
he was strongly disposed to let this clause stand over.
Mr. WAKLEY strongly urged the propriety of giving the
right of appeal to the woman, who was the victim of injustice, as
well as to the man, who was the most powerful person and the
oppressor.—( Hear, hear.) In his own experience as a Coroner,
he. knew that one effect of this law was child murder, now in-
creasing to a horrible extent.—( Hear.) He had seen many
cases in which such cases were clearly proved, to the horror and
disgust of the jury. These murders were effected generally, in a
way to render discovery impossible. The effect of this Bill
would be as bad in this respect as the one it proposed to
amend. Why should the House not take away from women
the temptation to commit so horrible a crime ?—( Hear.) He
trusted that the Right Hon. Baronet, who had treated this
subject with great ability and fairness, would place the woman
on an equal footing with the man.
Mr. B. DENISON, statementworkhouse,
of p theoor
and
penniless,
o after
go hearing
out
of
thet he
Co-
roner for Middlesex, said that the remedy which that Hon. Gen-
tleman suggested was very inadequate. Indeed, he would ask,
how could
availth herselfewoman , coming
of such a remedy ?
Mr. WARBURTON thought that the clause was framed in
an oversight of what was the nature of a court of appeal. He
thought that the decision in the first instance should be final.
Mr. WAKLEY said that he had not advocated the appeal
clause. He only said that the woman should be placed on an
equal footing with the man. lie knew that the appeal would
be from Noodle to Noodle.—( A laugh.) Bust Noodle might
act with more caution in the presence of lawyers, and he might
gather up a little sense from their arguments, if he had none in
himself.—( Hear and a laugh.) lie knew that magistrates
were not appointed for their fitness, but through the influence
of their friends, who being unable to do any good with them at
home, found employment for them in dealing with the poor.
Sir J. GRAHAM considered the clause sufficiently difficult
in itself, without being embarrassed with extraneous conside-
rations. From the returns which he had received from all
parts of the ceuntry, he did not think that the bastardy clauses
had increased infanticide, or that the crime had increased. The
feeling of shame and the desire of concealment were mostly the
motives that occasioned it.— ( Hear, hear.) lie would throw
out for the consideration of the Committee. that at the end of
the clause there was a proviso, which seemed to press with
some hardship upon the women ; and he would put it to the
Committee whether the omission of that proviso, thereby leav-
ing to the woman the right of appeal, would not be such a com-
promise as might meet the views of those who wished for a
more express amendment.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY thought the question was too
difficult to be discussed in an assembly like this. What he
wished was, to prevent vexatious appeals, and he would sug-
gest that his Right Hon. Friend should consider this point.
Mr. WAKLEY was satisfied with the concession made by
the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir Graham). But he cau-
tioned him net to be misled by the returns of the coroners, for
in most of the cases there was no possibility of returning a di-
rect verdict of wilful murder.
Mr. B. DENISON said that he had no objection to the
omission of the proviso. But what he complained of was, that
where the man appealed against the decision made in favour of
the woman, she had no means to avail herself of the judg-
ment, as she could not go to the expense of resisting the ap-
peal. It would be a different thing if the parish were bound to
support the judgment in her favour.
Mr. CRIPPS said that he and his brother magistrates had
made every possible inquiry into the subject of infanticide, and
they came to the conclusion that tee crime had not increased
under the new poor-law, but that, on the contrary, the morals
of the people had improved, and the crime had decreased in
their district. He only spoke of his own district, and, of
course, did not deny that what the Hen. Member for Finsbury
had stated was the fact in his district.
After a few words from Mr. ESCOTT,
Sir J. GRAHAM hoped that the Committee would pro-
ceed to divide, but with this understanding, that if the appeal
were struck out, he would retain the proviso.
arr. BORTHWICK (who spoke amidst loud cries of `° Di-
vide, divide,") recommended the Government to withdraw
the clause and reconsider it.—('The interruption continuing,
with laughter, and cries of " Oh; oh"e—He would move that
the Chairman report progress. —( Oh, oh.)
The CHAIRMAN asked who seconded the motion, to which
no answer was given, and
Mr. BORTHWICK proceeded to address the House, but
at last gave way to the repeated cries of " Divide, divide."
Strangers mere then ordered to withdraw, and the Committee
divided, when there appeared--
For the amendment ...
Against. it ............................................ 84
Majority
Mr. BORTHWICK said he was auxioue to prevent the
money payable by the putative father being handed over to her
directly from the person who had already been too successful
against her virtue. The Meuse did not provide for this, and
in his opinioneit ought to do so. He trusted the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir James Graham) would take this matter into his
serious consideration, with a view of engrafting on some future
clause of the etill a provision to the effect he had stated.
Sir J. GRAHAM said a few words, which, from the low
tone in which he spoke, we could not very clearly hear, but we
understood their intent to be that the suggestion should have
his consideration.
In answer to a question from Sir H. DOUGLAS,
Sir J. GRAHAM said he agreed with hint in opinion that
the father should not he allowed to
go scot free when the
woman became chargeable to the parish, or liable to punish-
ment for crime. lie would have words introduced into the
clause which should authorise a proper hold upon the man.
The matter would require to be well considered, and whatever
was inserted mutt be most cautiously worded. In a future

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 5.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
Mr. FERRAND presented a petition from an individual in
Lancashire, against the New Poor-law Bill. The petitioncr
attributed to this law the existence of Chartism, Rebeccaism,
and the Anti-Corn.law League.
Mr. EWART presented a petition from the wood sawyers
of Paisley, praying for protection against the use of machinery
in their trade.
Lord ASHLEY presented a_petition (we did not hear from
what place), signed by 2,400 petnns, against the Truck System.
After an interval of a quarter of an hoar, during which no
business was done, _

Lord SANDO SI moved that the Secret Committee of Poet.
office Inquiry might have leave to sit, notwithstanding the ad
journment of the House.—Ordered.

ACCIDENT AT BOLTON.

Mr. FERR AND, seeing the Right Hon. Baronet, the Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department in his place,
begged leave to draw his attention to a dreadful accident that
took place in the town of Bolton, on Monday last ; by the
bursting of a steam boiler in a factory one man was killed, and
three or
_four seriously injured. We understood the Hon.
Member to say, that some mismanagement of the machinery
was the cause of the accident, and that the man who had lost
his life had only that morning come into the employment, with
the nature of which he was unacquainted. As there were in-
spectors of railways, he wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet
whether the Government had no power to prevent such fearful
accidents in factories ?

Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Government had no control
over factories such as that which was exercised over railways
through the inspectors.
MEDICAL REFORM.
Mr. D. BARCLAY begged to ask the Right Hon. Baro.
net whether he had abandoned his intentions respecting medical
reform, or intended to carry through his Bill this session ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said he would lay the Bill on the table in
the course of this session.

In answer to a question from Mr. BELLEW,
Sir J. GRAHAM said that it was his intention, during
the present session, to lay on the table of the House a Bill to
amend the law of settlement in Scotland and Ireland. He
should not, however, proceed with it this session.
Captain PECHELL gave notice that, on Tuesday week, he
should call the attention of the House to the claims of the
lunatic officers in Hasler Hospital.
The Committee on the Joint-stock Companies Bill was
postponed till twelve o'clock on Wednesday next.
The Committee on the Canal Companies Bill was postponed
till Monday.