The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-01 00:00:00

PARLIAMEN TAR Y DIVISIONS.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House if Commons.)
FRIDAY, MARCH 29.
SUPPLY.

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Order
of the Day for the Committee of Supply be now read:"—
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words " That"
to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " it is
indispensable to the maintenance and extension of the Trade
of this country, that those Duties be repealed which press on
the raw materials of manufacture, especially the raw materials
of the woollen and cotton trade :

" That it is expedient also that those Duties be greatly re-
duced which press on articles of interchange in return for our
manufactures ; especially such articles of interchange u at the
same time concern the subsistence of the people ; bein&(besides
corn, which is the subject of superior and separate considera-
tion) such articles as tea, sugar, coffee, bacon, butter, and
cheese :
" That it is expedient that those Duties also be greatly re-
duced which, by their amount, encourage smuggling ; being at
once injurious to the revenue and dangerous to the morality of
the country ; such as the Duties on tobacco, silk goods, and
foreign spirits :
~ That whatever temporary deficiency of Revenue be
caused by such reduction ought, until the Revenue regain its
former amount, to be sustained by the property, and not by the
trade and labour of the country," instead thereof :"—Question
put, " That the words proposed to be left out staid part of
the Question :" The House divided:—
MAJORITY—AYES, 87.
Allix, John Peter Gaskell, J. M. Masterman, Jahn
Arkwright, Geof ge Gladstone, W. E. Meynell, Captain
Baring, W. B. Goulburn, Henry Mundy, E. Millet
Baring. F. T. Graham, Sir James Nicholl, Right Hoe:
Bentinck. Lord G. Greene, T. Norreys, Lord
Blackburne, J. I. Gregory, W. H. O'Ferrall, A. M.
Boldero, Henry G. Grimsditch, Thomas Paget, F.
Borthwick, Peter Hardinge, Sir H. Pakington,'J. S.
Batfield, Boriah Heathcote, Sir W. Patten, J. Wilson
Broodier, Henry Heneage, G. W. Peel, Sir Robert
Bruce, Lord Ernest Hodgson, Richard Peel, Jonathan
Buckley, Edmund Hogg, J. W. Plumptre, J. P.
Buller, Sir J. Yards Hope, Charles Polhill, Frederick
Clerk, Sir George Hope, G. W. Pringle, A.
Clive, Viscount Hornby. John Rendleshara, Lord
Copeland, Alderman Inglis, Sir It. Round, John
Corry, IL. Jermyn, Lord Smith,Rt.Hon. T.&C
Cripps, W. Jolliffe, Sir W. Somerset,.Lord G.
Damer,:Hon. G. Kemble, Henry Stanley, Lord
Darby, George Knatchbull, Sir E. Stuart, H.
Denison, E. B. Law, t harles E. Sutton, Henry M.
Dickinson, F. H. Lawson, Andrew Trench, Sir Frederick
Douglas, Sir C. Lincoln, Earl of Wellesley,iLord C.
Duffield, T. D. Lygon, Hon. Gen. Wood, Colonel T.
Egerton, W. T. M'Geachy, F. A. Yorke, Hon. E. T.
Eliot, Lord Mackenzie, T. Young, John
Escett, Bichkam M'Neill, Duncan
Fitzmaurice, W. Mainwaring, T.
Flower, Sir James Manners, Lord J.
French, F. March, Earl of
Fuller, A. E. Martin, C. W.

TELLE 15
Fremantle Sir T.

Baling, Henry

MINORITY—NOES, 24.
Bowring, Dr. Mite-We, Henry Trelawny J. S.
Bright, John Mitchell, T. A. Walker, R. D
Brotherton, J. Morris, avid Warburton, Henry
Duncan, George Napier, Sir Charles Ward, H. 0.
Feilden, J. O'Connell, M. J. Williams, W.
Forster,:Matthew Plumridge, Captain boike, R. H.
Gibson T. M. Scholefleld, J TELLERS.
Hutt, W. Strickland, Sir G. Swart, W.
Johnstone, Alex. Tancred, IL W Hume, Joseph

RAILWAY BUSINESS IN PARLIA.
M ENT.
FRIDAY, MARCH 29.
Guildford Junction Railway Bill, read a third time and
passed.
Norwich and Brandon Railway Bill, read a third timo and
passed.
Midland Railways Consolidation Bill, report considered,
amendments agreed to, and Bill to be engrossed.
York and Scarborough Railway Bill, read a third time
(Queen's consent signified), and Bill passed.
Delabole and Rock Railway Bill, order for reading the Bill
a second time read and discharged, and Bill withdrawn.
Delabole and Rock Railway, No. 2, reports from Select
Committees on petitions for private Bills and on Standing
Orders read, and another Bill ordered to be brought in by
Sir John Yarde Buller, Mr. Pendarves, and Mr. Trelawny.
Newquay Harbour and Railway Bill reported, and re-com-
mitted to the former Committee.
Taff Vale Railway Bill, read a second time, and committed
and referred to the Committee of Selection.
South-Eastern, Canterbury, Ramsgate, and Margate Rail,
way Bill, reported, and report to lie on the table and to be
printed,

Lord Denman, in his charge to the grand jury, at
the Essex assizes, said—" I cannot but think that a much
higl.er duty than that of inflicting punishment upon crimes,
rests upon all concerned in the administrationofofjuscritimcee, and
a
that we ought to look rather to the prevention
the salvation of those unhappy individuals, before they have
fallen to that dreadful state 61 degradation calculated to lead
to crime. I allude now to the general education of the peo-
ple ; and although we have to lament that the well-inten-
tioned efforts which have been made by the Government
have not been crowned with success, I think we must still
look for the time when the public institutions of the country.
shall provide a good moral and religious education for our in.-
creasing population."
GOOD OLD AGE.—Since the 16th December, 1843,
to the 25th March, 1844, twelve individuals have been in-
terred at Ripon, and one at Kirkby Malzeard, whose united
ages amount to 1,125 rears, viz.—Widow Brown 82, Mary
Tuting 83, Widow Whittaker 84, George Wharton 112, Ben-
amin lle,arnley 84, Widow Pickersgill 90, John Rudd 70,
Isabella Brown 84, Widow Smith 90, Miss Clough 95, Wm.
Myers 90, Richard Johnson 85, Lawrence Nelson 76.—TotA
1,125. .

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
GLOBE.—The strong Government, which was
to have everything its own way—whose measures,
conceived in wisdom, were to be brought forth in tri-
umph, cuts rather a sorry figure in both Houses.
With a majority of upwards of 90 in the
Commons, and a subservient peerage prepared to
vote at the nod of Wellington or at the wink
of Lyndhurst, the present Ministers seem as inca-
pable of getting onward with the pubic business of
the country as those they obstructed, and eventually
overthrew. The " dead lock" to which the party
now in power boasted they were able to bring legis-
lation—so strong were they as an opposition:—seems
likely to be produced now they are placed in the
Government, with a large majority at their back.
This difference is, however, perceptible in their
position, and that in which their predecessors were
placed. The embarrassments of the late Government
were created' by their factious opponents, who ob-
structed.the Government for the purposes of party;
the difficulties of the present Government have been
either produced by themselves, or have emanated
from the ranks of their professed adherents. On
more than . one debate and division on the tariff,
the present Ministry was' saved from defeat by
the generous aid aftbrded- to them, in the time
of their 'extremity-, by the Opposition. A junc-
tion of the Opposition with the mal-contents of
the ministerial benches would have left Sir Robert
Peel in a minority on questions of vital-importance to
his government. This might have been justified on the
principle of retaliation. Precedents might easily have
been fbund in the policy of Sir Robert Peel, on va-
rious occasions, as leader of the Opposition. On the
Jamaica question—on the Education scheme—on the
war with China—and on several other questions, the
Conservatives determined to embarrass, if not to sub-
vert, the Ministry. Lest by the Premier and his yet
more factious -and furious coadjutors, and acting
upon the obstructive policy avowed by Lord Stanley,
the Conservatives, as a body, united on vai ious occa-
sions with the Ultra-Radical section of the Liberals.
At the expense of consistency, they denounced
the very policy on which they now ' find. them-
selves compelled to act, and opposed the very
measures which, with scarcely any variation, they
have brought forward as a Government! Had
this conduct been imitated by Lord John Russell,
and the. party which recognises his Lordship as their
leader in Parliament, Sir. Robert Peel would on
more than oue occasion have seen the incon-
venience of sacrificing principle to expediency,
and would • have deplored the provocation to ob-
struction - which he had supplied to his poli-
tical opponents. • A more worthy and dig-
nified policy has been . pursued by the Liberals,
as a body. Lord John. Russell has not merely de-
clined to make himself a party to factious obstruction
—has not merely refused to confer the sanction of his
silence upon a course which (though permitted by
the forms •of Parliament, as the last resource
for constitutionally obtaining a redress of grievances
from a tyrant majority in Parliament) can only
be justified by extreme circumstances, such as
do not, happily, now exist—he has strongly repu-
diated the course taken by Mr. S. Crawford, and those
Members who have united with him in preventing
the House from going into Committee of Sup-
ply. :Indeed, wherever the manifest object has
been obstruction, and not fair and open discus-
sion, the Opposition, as a body, has kept aloof.
They have thus given a dignified reproof to the con-
duct of the members of the existing Govern-
ment, and its supporters, when in . opposition.
They have also shown that the public interests, and
not personal motives, have actuated their Parliamen-
tary course. Whence, then' the humiliating position
of the "-strong Government?" Either the measures
of Ministers have been such as were ill-adapted to the
wants; and in antagonism to the opinion of the country;
or those who entered Parliament as their supporters'
have withdrawn. their confidence, and either refuse
their support, or positively. .propose "amendments"
on the measures brought forward on the responsibility
of the Government. Sir James Graham's Factory
Education Bill of last session was of the former de-
scription. The introduction of that Bill raised a
storm of opposition, which increased in strength until
the measure, after several attempts to modify and
amend its proposed scheme for educating the peo-
ple, was withdrawn, as the only means of allaying
the excitement iti had produced throughout the coun-
try. The Members on whom the Government relied
for support, in carrying their Bill through the House
of Commons, were compelled, by the strongly declared
sentiments of their constituents, to intimate that
they could not vote for the Government measure.
How utterly ignorant of the state of public feeling on
the subject of education must the Governinent have
been, when they supposed they should be able to
consign the youth of the factory districts to the
predominant superintendence of the national
clergy for the purposes of education ! They
tried the experiment—they persisted in press-
ing their measure to the last moment of hope—
and then dropped it, under all the humiliation of an
ignominious defeat ! The Factory Bill of the pre-
sent session has been equally unfortunate to the
reputation of the Government for. Parliamentary
strength. The Ministerial defeats successively sus-
tained on the twelve hours' clause, though not fol-
lowed up likr Lord Ashley as they might have
been; have -shown the lack of that cordial support
-which is essential to the efficiency and stability of an
administration. The Cabinet was at the feet of
Lord Ashley. Though he has declined to press his
advantage to the extent of breaking 4 the " strong
Government," he has shaken its hold upon public
confidence, and destroyed the prestige which is an
element Of strength.
GLOBE.—The County Courts Bill—which had
been delayed until hope of its appearance had almost
become extinct—was last evening introduced to the
House of Commons by Sir James Graham. The
more easy recovery of small demands—whether of
the nature of simple-contract debts ; or of damages
for. trespass against the person or property of the
claimant ; or for the unlawful holding of pro-
perty, rendering the party liable to an action of
trover--are proposed to be brought within the juris-
diction created by the Bill, should it pass into
a law. The County Courts (sometimes called the
Freeholders' . Courts) are among the mint ancient
Courts of the realm ; but they partake of the de-
fects which time, and the changed s condition of so-
ciety, necessarily create in ancient institutions. No
limitation exists as to the amount for which a per-
sonal action may be brought in them ; a writ of
justicies is therefore issued to remove actions from
their jurisdiction. into the superior Courts in West-
minster-hall. While the practice of the superior
Courts has been re-modelled and their machinery
simplified, in accordance with the recommendations
of the report of the Common-law Committee in
1839, the county courts remained unimproved. This
abstinence from interfering with their constitution,
probably arose from an anticipation, that they
would undergo a complete remodelling by Parlia-
mentary enactment, with a view to simplifying
their operations and extending their jurisdiction.
Se far as we have been able to examine the Bill
now introduced, it appears to be adapted to the ob-
jects proposed to be effected by its means. The claim
is to-be limited 'to 151., the subject-matter of the
jurisdiction we have already described : in the case of
small debts the writ of summons must be issued at
least 'seven days previous to the day. of trial :
either party may 'demand a jury, which isr,ta be com-
posed of five : the Court may order the debt to be
paid by, instalments : elocution to issue against either
the body or goods of the defendant. Upon giving
proper securities, either party may remove the case
into a superior Court ; and also obtain - a new trial,,
on the same conditions. Cases for the recovery of
possession of premises, in which two magistrates
have now the power to interfere, are to be trans-
ferred to the Judge of the Court. In cases of debt,
the Court is empowered to examine either, or both,
the Fifties, with the view to the discovery of the
truth relating to the matter in issue. The brief
outline we have given of the leading features of the
proposed measure will serve to show that, if passed,
it will be a great boon to the poorer classes of arti-
zans, small tradesmen, and shopkeeper's, who will be
enabled to prosecute their claims for debts or injuries
under 15/., without the apprehension of being ruined
by the expense, or worn down by the law's delay—th s
dread of which has often induced them to submit to
the loss of the debt, or to sit down under the injury,
rather than encounter the greater loss in the shape
of costs, and the uncertainty with which the issue,
caused by the protraction of the proceedings, has been
involved. The measure will also place the whole
kingdom on the same footing with respect to these
advantages. The principal cities and towns have
already availed - themselves of the Act of 1839.
About forty of them have applied for, and obtained
Acts for the erection of local courts, in which debts
under 15/. are recoverable by a cheap and easy process.
Mr. Hawes made an observation of great practical im-
portance, and which will well deserve the careful con-
sideration of the House when in committee on the j
clause to which it relates. The Bill gives power to 1
issue execution against the person of the debtor. The
operation of this power, invested in the Courts of Re-
quest, has given rise to serious oppression, and in-
flicted heavy burdens on the county rates. The Acts
under which these Courts were created apportion im-
.prisonment in the county prison, for default of pay-
_ ment, at the rate of ls. per day for the amount of the
debt and costs. The persons who are subjected
to this imprisonment are, we need hardly say, the
poorest of the poor. They are maintained while
in prison at the cost of the county, and thus
inflict upon the county-rate payers an amount of
costs for their maintenance and safe custody, more
than double the amount of debt for which they are
0034VItse:17.,Hawes remarked—" It had been re-
unme a
_yr 4-Committee which sat some years
/.
L'ilAtlfirtill persons proceeded against for debts
vr. a'aitaiu. amount should be liable to an
)AN- -- ...--T7.1,9•!,/

use.

r

execution against their goods. He always thought
that some general provision should be made on
that point. He should call attention to this point
when the Bill came regularly under the con-
sideration of the House. He hoped that those
local Acts, which enacted so many days to liqui-
date a debt, would be taken into consideration,
as he was quite sure it would not only effect a
saving in the county-rates, but also put an end
to the enormous misery so frequently suffered by
families being broken up in consequence of the im-
prisonment of the head." The great objection to
limiting by law the remedy of the creditor to the
goods of his debtor, consists in the difficulty of ascer-
taining whether the poor person who applies for
credit has furniture, or any other description of goods,.
properly his own property, so as to be available to meet
the process of the Court. Sir J. Graham remarked :--
" If to have credit was advantageous to the poor (of which
he was not quite convinced) he was very much afraid
that unless there was a remedy against the person, credit
would be stopped." If imprisonment could be ren-
dered of any advantage to the creditor, in such cases,
by obtaining for him the payment of his claim, there
would be some reason for depriving the debtor of his
liberty. But this is impossible. The trader has the
remedy in his own bands. Where there are not
visible means of payment, he can refuse credit.
If he thinks there are, and is deceived by ap-
pearances, he had better regard it as a bad debt, and
forego his claim, than pursue his debt for the mere
purpose of incarcerating his person, and thus break
up his family, compel them t.) seek refuge in the
workhouse at the expense of the parish, while the
man himself is maintained out of the county-rate.
Let false pretence, for the purpose of obtaining credit,
be punished as a fraud ; but where a trifling amount
of debt has been incurred, as a simple contract be-
tween the parties, and there is no property upon
which to levy execution, the practice of imprisonment
is, to say the least of it, extremely impolitic, if it be
not unnecessarily severe.
STANDARD.—A curious difference of opinion
was last night exhibited on the Opposition side of
the House of Lords. The Marquis of Clanri-
carde explained that in presenting a petition
from Ireland of which he had given no,
tice for this night, he would . abstain from
offering any remarks—chiefly from the considera-
tion that as a writ of error, which would come
before the House in its judicial character, was threat-
ened by the parties convicted at the late State trials,
the House ought not to enter into any discussion
calculated to lead to an extra-judicial decision in the
Lord Clanricarde is clearly right as far as
Ae goes ; but, perhaps, he ought to go further. If
the petition to be introduced to-night has any refer-
ence to the late trials, it ought to be withheld until
the writ of error shall be disposed of, for courts of
justice are properly careful to exclude suggestions,
from whomsoever proceeding, upon the subjects about
to come regularly before them. What would Lord
Denman say of a Chartist petition presented to
the Court of Queen's Bench, suggesting the course
that ought to be pursued with reference to the trial
of a number of persons accused of conspiracy, or
convicted, and waiting for judgment, as the case
might be ? Would he not commit the petitioners, or
at least the persons guilty of the indecency of
placing such a petition in his hands ? The double
capacity in which the House of Lords acts, no
doubt, forbids such severity on its part ; because
petitioners may be easily enough mistaken as
to the character in which that Assemby receives
petitions, but Members of the House ought to re-
member the distinction, and, as we think, to withhold
all petitions touching matters in which the House is
likely. to be called to act judicially. The Marquis of
Clanricarde has probably not thoroughly considered
the subject, for it is quite plain from the forbearance
which his Lordship observes so far, that he is desirous
to offer all respect to the administration of justice. What
however, is to be said of the course menaced
by the Marquis of Lansdowne, who, notwith-
standing the excellent example of Lord Clanri-
carde—notwithstanding the strong remonstrance of
Lord Brougham—notwithstanding the volunteer
proffer by the Government of all the papers for
which he proposes to move, declares that he will
persist in his purpose of making a speech upon
that very topic—the construction of Irish juries in
criminal cases—which is universally known to be
the basis of the writ of error upon which, within a
few weeks, his Lordship may be called to decide as
a judge ? The Noble Marquis, indeed, promises that
he will make no allusion to the late State trials ; but
then, he says, the question presses so much that he
cannot wait until the writ of error, if any be brought,
arising out of these trials, shall be disposed of.
But why, if his Lordship's speech is to have no re-
ference to the late trials, is he, at this particular
moment, pressed to make it ?—why was not the
speech made last year, or the year before 2—or
why will it not keep till the month of May ?
These are questions that we confess ourselves unable
to answer ; but they are questions to which we think
Lord Lansdowne is bound to reply.
STANDARD.—For forty years the Whig party
has been essentially a persecuting party—we use the
phrase in a strict sense, as describing a party
mean and malignant enough to hunt out indi-
viduals frequently very humble and obscure
individuals against whom to direct the whole
power of the party, be it much or little, for the
purpose of injuring or destroying the selected victim.
The only opportunity of indulging the persecuting
disposition, however, arises when the person to be in-
jured happens to be promoted or otherwise favoured
by the advisers of the Crown, for happily, in social
life, party has no power, and this opportunity has
the recommendation, that persecutors may invest
themselves with pretences of care for the public
good, and indulge their spite under the cloak
of patriotism. The memory of most readers will
supply numerous instances in which the Whigs
have resorted to the expedient, but we challenge
a single example of a recourse to it on the part
of Tories or Conservatives. And let. us remark
by the way, that this contrast alone decides the
question. which party is composed of gentle-
men—generous men, and men of honour—and
which is not. The Whigs attack the individual,
no matter how humble his rank—no matter how
fatal the attack may be to the interests of
an innocent and meritorious man and to the
living of his family ; and in this way they
have directly ruined many better men than
themselves, and indirectly ruined more by
rendering it intolerably embarrassing, if not
impossible, for the opposite party to pay their
debts to their most zealous and useful, who are
always their least discreet and most uncom-
promising, friends. A Tory or Conservative. Go-
vernment might safely confer patronage upon a
worthless lukewarm hanger-on, but woe be to it
if it shoiald dare to aid a bold and efficient friend—
a motion in Parliament would be the inevitable
consequence ; and to men overworked, as Ministers
are overworked, such a casual addition to their toil is
no light matter. This has, however, one good effect,
that a Conservative Government will find its more
prominent supporters only in men of independent minds.
The Conservative party, on the other hand, scorns
to strike at individuals. Its adversaries, hen in
power, are free to promote whom it shall please them,
except they insult the public by offering to notice
some one marked with a stigma as scandalous as the
executioner's brand. We again challenge an instance
in which a Tory or Conservative has ever complained
of the appointment to office of any man of generally
fair character, solely on the ground of his political
opinions.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Norwich, March 28.
(Before Mr. ANDREWS, Q.C.)
Mr. Andrews took his seat in Court at ten o'clock this
morning, and assisted the Learned Judges in trying prisoners.
The following case, which excited very great interest in the
city, was tried before him :
A DRAMATIC CIRCLE.—James Henry Mungard, comedian,
aged 26, was indicted for feloniously intermarrying Rosina
Saker, his former wife, Kathleen, being alive at the time.
Mr. Worlledge conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Prender-
gast and Mr. W. Cooper the defence.
The prisoner is an actor, and has figured with more credit
to himself than he did to-day on the stage of mimic life in
this city, where lie has for some time past been a member of
the corps dramatique. He is a good-looking young man, and
in the year 1836 he won the affections of a Miss Kathleen
Fry, the daughter of a clergyman in London, to whom he
was married in the month of March in that year. For
some reason, not explained by the evidence, he and his wife
separated five or six months after their marriage, and the
lady and ker mother went to Paris, where she formed a con-
nexion with a M. Ammon, a Frenchman, with whom she
lived for two years, and until his death, after which she and
her mother went to reside in Belgium. In 1839, a Mr.
Saker, also a comedian, was in Norwich with his daughter,
Miss Rosina, and an attachment sprang up betwixt her and
the prisoner. which ended in their marriage in that city in
the month of February, 1840. A very short time after this
second union of the prisoner, a rumour of his first marriage
and of his first wife being still alive got abroad, and came to
the ears of Mr. Saker and his daughter, and rendered them
very unhappy. The prisoner was taxed with the fact, and
at length admitted that he had been married, but asserted
that his wife was not living, that she died abroad, and was
buried in Italy Remembering, however, that the prisoner
had married his daughter as a " bachelor," and not as a
widower, this assertion by no means satisfied or convinced
Mr. Saker, and he forthwith set inquiries on foot for the pur-
pose of ascertaining the true state of the case. Whilst these
inquiries were going on, the prisoner went to Belgium, and
saw Mrs. Fry, the mother of his first wife, and shOrtly after-
wards Mrs. Fry wrote three or four letters to the second
" Mrs. Mungard," or Miss Saker, informing her that she
might make herself quite easy about the matter, as her
daughter, the first wife, died in Italy, " and was buried
at Naples in unconsecrated ground." The letter in
which that alleged fact was announced stated that

" in Italy the Rotiian Catholic was the only religion that
was tolerated, and that nobody whose religious faith was not
that of the tolerated religion was permitted to be buried in
consecrated ground, which was the reason why Mrs. Mun-
gard was buried in ground unconsecrated." This circum-
stantial untruth satisfied the'fears of the Sakers for a while.
Mrs. Fry also wrote to infot:m Miss Saker that she had
heard that her daughter was married at the time of her
union with the prisoner, to a Mr. Liviau, a person who had
the misfortune to be transported for forgery, but it appeared
that she never vas married to him. Mrs. Fry admitted