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

8"srells1 of Great Britain, who, in each year since the
,
!t (12W of January, 1839, have suffered corporal pu-
`,ls.hraents and imprisonments ; showing the nature of
the offences, in classes, for which such corporal punish-
ent er imprisonment has been awarded, and the num-
sin each class; stating also the greatest number and
the lowest number of lashes inflicted on any person in
:aell year ; also, the longest and shortest period of con-
anetnent awarded as punishment, and the average
Keriod of confinement for each class in each year.
1, the number of soldiers who, since the Ist day of
January, 1839, have suffered corporal punishment or
nnPrisonment, and whether either.corporal punishment
°l' imprisonment has been inflicted on the same person
more than once, specifying how often it has been so in-
leted, and distinguishing numbers in regiments in the
colonies and possessions of her Majesty from regiments
14 depots in Great Britain and Ireland. Of 'the number
of Le?'Veral-punishments inflicted in the-Royal Navy, in
eachj of the years 1839 and 1840 (in continuation of Par-
"amentary paper, No. 242, of session 1841).—Agreed to.
- POOR-LAW BILL.
M,r. BAILEY COCH'RANE begged to put a question
,„
i'rtne Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the
recollect
Department. The Right Alon. Gentleman would
that when the. Poor-law Bill _went through its
:eond reading, _it was understood that,. an early day
°IQ be fixed for discussing its provisions. It was now
stated that the discussion of the principle of the Bill was
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
oor-law Bill in the present session, and that it was also
tAroduced at an early period of the last session. The
flaetories Bill stood now for Friday. He would suggest to
7,ljouse that the order should be read for the purpose
discharging it, and fixing the. Bill for Monday next.
Mil the House had gone into Committee on that Bill,
17 eouldnot fix a day for going into Committee on the
"Poor-law Bill.
fr; un the motion of Mr. FIELDEN leave of absence was
6117 en to General Johnstone until the 20th day of April,
°n account of ill-health.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES.
1..
•wkr, O'CONNELL begged to ask the Right Hon. Ba-
)cniet (Sir Robert Peel), whether it was in the contem-
P4ti
~., on of the Government to bring in any Bill in the
l'rse of the present session to alter or amend the law
hl'esPect to Roman Catholic charities ?
h.:21. ROBERT PEEL said he entertained a confident
filstee that her Majesty's Government-would be prepared
the Course of the present session to bring in a Bill
ien that subject, carrying into effect the object stated by
qatajesty's Government in the course of the recent
it •
a'rt O'CONNELL inquired whether the Right Hon.
re otiet had any objection to his bringing in a Bill with
4Pect to Roman Catholic charities. All he desired
pm t° bring in a Bill, in order that it might be printed
el -,,Placed in the hands of Members. He did not wish
es,Tovernment to give their sanction to it.
'r R. PEEL said, that if the Hon. Gentleman gave
ktiee Bill, her
h their of the Bill, her Majesty's Ministers would not feel
~ duty to oppose it.
se?, r; O'CONNELL then gave notice, that on Monday
tt:,l- he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend
ito-dzawa relating to Roman Catholic charities in Ireland,
of bto the disposition of property left for the purposes
I,9nlan Catholic worship.
s'..4traUATION OF PROPERTY (IRELAND).
It ...ir DENHAM NORREYS wished to know whether
Miry
the intention of the Government to make any
ittprY with respect to the present system of valuation
141._ relaud as applicable to the purposes of the new poor-
in in thatcountry. *
Sir
tita4 JAMES GRAHAM said there was an under-
wi,",,uing, last session, that if it should be the general
ty,„'''of the -Members for Ireland in that House, and of
it,,'t.lrish Peers in the other House of Parliament, to
ill
i.tute an inquiry into the operation of the
,poor law
84.,,ae present session, her Majesty's Government would
ee'ue to that wish. To this statement he adhered.
te:l3idering, however, the large number of Irish Mem-
tho'' Who were now attending the assizes in Ryland, he
It I.vaficht the matter would undergo a more fair discussion if
gii}?e'postponed until after Easter. With respect to the
rolect of valuation, to 'which' the .Hon. Baronet !had
to cri'e'd, her
with Mr.
Ministers had been lately in
t-erannication Mr. Griffiths, with a view to an
ration in the present -system, and the adoptiOn of
huniform system of tenement valuation throughout
Ireland,
An
ct SI3YTERIAN MARRIAGES (IRELAND.to IROBERT FERGUSON wished to put a question
the Secretary of State for the Home Departnient,
land
a subject of great interest in the north of
riax,and ; he meant the question of Presbyterian mar-
V, e,s. The question had been brought under the ju-
fro-'at consideration of the House of Lords, in a case
Pe p', the Courts of Irelnd. The House might not,
op;),`ltPs, be aware that as very considerable differenoe of
Qtr.:ten, existed Upon the matter among the judges,
thee of the law Lords having given an opinion as to
,- ,alidity of these marriages, and three other law
kos'a,_, baying given an opinion that they were not valid
trntges. The question which he put was, whether
here was any objection to laying those judgments on
Le, table of the House, and whether the GovernMent
Zinade up their minds as to whether they would ro-
pr:,. by legislation upon the subject, or how they w uld
-teed ? .
1r JAMES GRAHAM said the- judgments of the
11.4a1y Lords had been printed for the use of the o her
itt'use of Parliament, and if a communication ere-
tiktibs,. eto that House, there would be eo'difficulty i ob-
's:!ng a. copy of those judgments. With respect t the
na, question. put by the Hon. Baronet 'the facts of
case were as he stated them. As yet no unanimous
efigtnent had been pronounced, - and-considering that
tor: was a variance of opinion amongst the six law
liit,,us, he presumed that the effect would be that the
ou-gdildges would be affirmed. In that case legisl (lion
reii:ae subject would be indispensable. He had e ery
1
etben to believe that the'Committee of the other H use
1,n4-,arliament, to which the Hon. Baronet had adve ed,
th:lr, be re-appointed. Of course he could not tell ow
the tallest
would proceed, but he had no doubt that
the 'lest consideration would be given to the facts of
caae.
IieCnIRT OF REQUESTS (BIRMINGHAM.)Ite „
ion ''Vf
i • 0. STANLEY said it would be in the recol-
la tti' of the House that a trial had lately taken place
Nlitil:nlingham, in which two prisoners, named James
'ord and John Taylor, were charged before the 'Re-
Iltilir With 'assaulting a police-constable of the name of
ta 14,in Butterfield, who had been called in to quell a
totereance which had taken place in the Court of :Re-
lee' prison, in Birmingham, the two persons charged
The the assault being at that time confined for debt.
set the he wished to put to the Right Hon. Niro •
hee,;" Rome Secretary, was, whether his attentionlhad
haehealled to this trial ? and also whether his attention
Co urteen called to the state of the prison attached to the
\veto of Requests in Birmingham ? and whether he
rear, ' consent to lay on the table of the House any Cor
thotl,nidence that had taken place between himself and
etecorder of Birmingham ? .
the J. GRAHAM said that immediately upon seeing
5. i ePort of the trial in the newspapers, he sent down
likktt°ll inspector to investigate the case. That intres-
,4d en had taken place, and a. report had been made,
~,,211 11)011 that report he (Sir James Graham) had been
that tr,, eartondence. with' the Birmingham authorities.
tcnib'''rrespondencewas not yet Completed, but on its
tahir ne,tion he should have no objection to lay it on the
' gine Z the Souse. Having said so much he would just
kaitti„""at `th6 Home Secretary's power was limited to
40 udowninspectoTs and
-to receiving reports. Hehad
kr error power- -
-
O. STANLEY wished also to know if the
Ands''°n• Baronet had directed his attention to all
kr ).Prisons throughout the United Kingdom?
.1)1.1ce. • GRAHAM-said a general inspection had taken
~,,Sir b FERGUSONAUPER LUNATICS.
qohie--' n' wished to put a question to ' the
the
Itfiord the Secretary for Ireland, with reference to
mant'aement of criminal and pauper lunatict in
ut t Ile wished to know whether any measure was
J,o,„phe proposed on the subject.
copie's ELIOT said, that in the course of the recess
'iossie °f the Report of the Committee appointed last
4i i< to consider this subject, had been sent to each
the rg lunatic asylum in Ireland, with a request that
tlieir scnis having charge of such asylums should give
Platig'"Pinions of the comparative-merits of the different
11% °uggested:by the Committee. These Reports were
4, , binn_tb,e hands of her Majesty's Government ; and
4,1?, 44 e;_en, at no very distant period, to be able to in-
`-lcver: Ron. Baronet of the conclusion to which the
ment had arrived.
uti 4,.. POOR-LAWS.
kr.le motion for going into Committee of Supply,
'l'itli gr °IITHWICK rose and said that he had heard
!iven beat disappointment the answer which had been
llnnieli the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the
ridpertePartment to his Hon. Friend the Member for
•••a_ll)l3B,.,(l_lr.Cechrane), as to the time at which it was
'when '4., to "go into Committee on the Poor•law Bill.
e. f thiWi3nne liight Hon. Baronet rnoved the second-reading
jag thron , ale (Mr. Borthwick). did not oppose its pass-
at an
_Ugh that stage sub silentto; on-the" understanding
~‘eilterinr4,ll,(!rtunity would be afforded of discussing and
i):ineibre. uni into its details, and alsO of discussing its
n0we`.01,41n."12 he Right Hon. Baronet now proposed to go
u °s:ii he D'idee on the Factories Bill on Monday next.
i)(eiw ern
Borthwick) confessed that the time was
Thrtinent i 7 When it would not be presumptuous or im-
h ' hiterest um? to remind the Right Hon. Baronet of
e ini„, • s Which were affected bthe Poor-law Act—
eh.. • 1,1.4 se
rti-mop,ire. lie said
most important interests in this great
;itboutle.itiiiisotth said that no time ought to be lost in re- .
e New Poor-law Bill, and he hoped the Right
,:tsc_ ussion
~.t would not allow Easter to pass before the
.2ek) ktle.7 the new Bill took place, for he (Mr.Borth-
7?ther
8:8. should that distussion be so delaed? that
'Li!): eorisis,
_lon would pass over before the Billy would be
that a. 7,0.
tie he had JAM could assure the Hon. Gentleman
sincere 'a respect for the time of the
e Ise as th:su
that
oule b, on. Gentleman himself, and, therefore,
di scion,
be as brief as IDossible. He could assure him
tantl Bsion, in ° 'neon-5 depreciated the importance of a
therereus a„Vving, as it did, the interests of the most
there tore, eor,loost important class in this country. He,
i thy. . wally joined the Hon. Gentleman in hoping
eitst diseussi
matt Possible, do --on would be entered into with the
eu,,er I,,faitin ay• Still, there was another important
thetTeMent of,
el_ciori disc.ussion, and that was, the
as we„nse whethfloren in 'factories. He appealed to
114 d n't 43-
the det%
, en a former occasion, the principle
thy ot been r of the Poor-law Amendment Bill
wool the 'lily discussed . -
,Ould be moat in that House ? He thought
zsill, „, to expedienta.o..._ course -to pursue, therefore,
out, tit' the te though the Committee on the Factory
e Infte f eave it printed and circulated through-
c,..l4lnittee, 4 factoring (it
g tstricts, and after that to go into
471 r. Bogthe details of the
et Corn ettitrlcT, . Poor-law Bill. .
Sir ~ mittees
0., n• wished to know if there would be
vt oitA ~1 „,the Factories Bill ? '
---..'"1 Said the Bill would go through