The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-25 00:00:00

libttion

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

TA TTERSALL'S.-THIS EVENING.
QUARTER TO SIX O'CLOCK.
000DWOOD STAKES.

4 to 1 agst Franchise
7 to 1 agat Croton Oil
9 to 1 agst )Era
9 to 1 agat Best-of-Three
12 to 1 agst Parthian
12 to 1 apt Canton
13 to 1 agat The Pride of Kildare
16 to 1 agst Elegance filly
17 to 1 agat Lucy Banks
GOODWOOD Cur.
6 to 5 agst Alice Hawthorn
6 to 1 agst Prizefighter

s'r. LEG It

4 to 1 agst Ithuriel
4 to 1 agst The Cure

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
STANDARD.—Mr. Fitzroy Kelly last night, in con-
sideration of the advanced period of the session, with-
drew his Bill for providing an appeal in criminal
cases. Sir James Graham, un the part of. the
Government, gave a pledge that the subject
shall be seriously considered during the re-
cess. We are willing to believe that by the
arrangement thus come to, the valuable reform
contemplated by Mr. Kelly is not likely to suffer, in fact,
any delay ; if pressed forward a month ago, the Bill
would have raised an opposition, sure to render impos-
sible its passing this session ; whereas, introduced as it
may be after mature consideration by the Government, it
is almost certain to succeed upon an early introduction
next year. We have observed, and if our readers take
the trouble to look back to the progress of legislation
during the last few years, they will find that mea-
sures, postponed under circumstances similar to that
in which Mr. Kelly has postponed his Bill, pretty
generally arrive at harbour more easily, and in effect
more promptly than others. The writer of an ungra-
cious, if not ill-natured notice of Lord Ashley's motion
in this morning's Times, would have done bett?r
had he taken into account this important truth.
The writer in question complains that Lord
Ashley delayed his proposition to the close of
the session. It was not from want of zeal or
foresight, all the public will easily believe, but, as we are
convinced, in the exercise of a sound discretion, and with
a view to ensure its success at the earliest period possi-
ble. Besides that such a proposition could not be pro-
perly canvassed until after the paasing of the New
Poor-law Amendment Bill, still in progress, what
reason is there to suppose that the Queen's Mi-
nisters would or (indeed amid the countless occu-
pations of the session) could give it, the attention
which the importance of the subject merits? Or was it
to be supposed that Ministers could adopt the measure
unexamined? By proposing his measure in that mag-
nificent and affecting speech in which he did propose it,
Lord Ashley has secured to the subject of it the at-
teution of the country and of the Government
for the ensuing half year, and ensured the pass-
ing of a remedial law. But the writer in the
Times says that Lord Ashley is not a states-
man, aliening in proof that the Noble Lord will mount
no hobby7but his own (that is, he will not get behind the
Times upon its hobby), and that he will not press even
his own hobby to a gallop. In our opinion the very best
roofs of the statesmanlike qualifications of the Noble
ember for Dorsetshire can hardly be more clearly
seen than in this very complaint of the Times.
By concentrating his energies upon one object
at a time, hti Lordship always secures the
moral victory, sometimes the practical victory too, as in
the cases of the Mines and Collieries Bill, and as in
the case of the Factory Bill, upon which he had
the practical victory, though he was deprived
of it by a coup d'etut—perhaps a necessary
coup d'etat—but one which certainly acknowledged
defeat ; while by early provision and patient waiting
he obtains results waich he could not otherwise
obtain. The best general is he who organises and
secures his victories before he opens the campaign ;
and surely he is not the worst statesman who
long beforehand organises and secures his vic-
tories, as Lord Ashley has uniformly done. Doubt-
less Lord Ashley might have evaded the sneers
of the Times, had he postponed his motion un-
til next February, and then introduced it with an
almost certainty of being defeated, after having
contributed his share to the waste of the session.
This, however, does not suit Lord Ashley's notions of
statesmanship ; he wants his Bill to be carried, and
carried with as little waste of the public time as
possible, and therefore he introduces it for consider-
ation, though at the risk of the disapprobation
of a journal which has, indeed, not been
much in the habit of encouraging his Lordship's
exertions for the good of our fellow-subjects.
Lord Ashley will, however, in the end beat the
Times and his other opponents and detractors. There
gains ground rapidly in the country an opinion that the
Noble Lord has struck out the true road of statesman-
ship, and though his Lordship may not have, and we
suspect he would disdain to have, a party—a deficiency
with which the Times reproaches him ; he has the people
of all parties.
GLOBE.—It will be seen by reference to our Parlia-
mentary report, that Mr. Kelly's Bill for providing a
Court of Appeal in Criminal Cases, was last evening
postponed to next session. The Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman who introduced the measure was driven, with
manifest reluctance, to consent to the postponement, in
consequence of the threat:with which Sir James Graham
concluded his request, that if the Bill were pressed, he
(and of course those nho perform his bidding) would
Vote against it. We regret the fate of this very use-
ful measure. It was received on its introduction,
with cordial approval both by the House of Commons
and the public ; for it seemed calculated to supply an
acknowledged deficiency in the criminal code of this
country, which does not exist in the criminal juris-
prudence of any other civilised nation ; the necessity
for supplying which, in some such way as that pro-
vided by Mr. Kelly's Bill, had become increasingly
evident, to obviate inconvenience to the Judges, and
to prevent injustice in the administration of the law.
To provide an appeal in civil cases, from the decisions
of Judges and the verdicts of the juries, to the united
wisdom of the Judges sitting in bunco, who revise the

law of the Judge and the evidence in the cause, and
who may reverse the judgment of the Court below, and
to refuse such an appeal where liberty and life are at
stake, is really so monstrous an inconsistency as may
well excite astonishment that it has been so long suffered
to exist. The Hon. and Learned Member for Cambridge,
in the speech with which he introduced his Bill, adduced
several instances in which, there was every reason to fear
innocent persons had been executed for alleged offences
of which they had been convicted, but whose non-
participation iu the commission of those offences was
subsequently shown ; and whose lives, had their cakes
been revised by a competent tribunal, would
have been saved. Other instances—equally con-
firmatory of the necessity for establishing a court
of appeal in criminal cases, were also adduced ;
some of them having occurred within the profes•
sional experience of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman,
and others with which he had been furnished from the
testimony of credible witnesses who were acquainted
with the facts—in which circumstances were brought to
light, at the eleventh hour, that showed the innocence of
parties convicted upon mistaken or perjured testimony,
persons who were waiting, in all the agony of antici-
pated death by the executioner, the doom to which
they had been consigned, and who were only pre-
served from execution by the most strenuous
exertions. The memories, if not the actual per-
sonal knowledge, of most persons who have watched
the administration of justice with attention, and have
examined the grounds on which the conviction of persons
for grave offences have rested, will supply many instances
in which doubts have arisen as to the correctness of ver-
dicts, in which the revision of the cases, by a tribunal
constituted for the purpose, empowered to investigate any
additional facts which had been elicited, would have I
tended to satisfy the public anxiety as to the justice of
the sentence. On the other hand, it may be reasonably
assumed that the result of such a revision in some cases
would be, that the convicted party would have escaped
the infliction of the sentence which followed conviction
or corrupt evidence. It is no satisfactory answer
to the well-established facts and arguments in fa-
vour of providing such a tribunal, to say, that
the cases of persons whose convictions are not
manifestly justified by the evidence, undergo a care-
ful and anxious revision at the Home-office before
the sentence of the Court is executed. The public have
an equal right to know the grounds on which a sen-
tence is reversal, as they have to be present at the trial
of the individual. It is quite as possible for a Home
Secretary, ar those to whom he entrusts the duty of
revising such cases, to be actuated by improper mo-
tives, or to be imposed upon by specious evidence, as
for the Court and Jury, which were conducted to an
erroneous conclusion, to have been mistaken or imposed
upon on the trial. The English
people have aniina-1
in-
veterate and well-founded objection to sec
with respect to the res
in jutrced-
matters. Publicity—both w
ings and their results—is, in their view,
essential to
impartial administration of the laws ; and they are not
disposed to waive that objection, even though the duty
of revising the cases of convicted parties devolve on a
Graham. Sir James Graham is not satisfied with " the
principle" of Mr. Kelly's Bill. The " principle of the
Bill is,' we admit, " everything." But that principle is
• extremely simple. It possesses a lucidity so perfect, that,
like the great luminary of heaven, it is seen by its own
light, and itself to the understanding and the heart
of every man to whom it is propounded. That principle
is, that patient, searching investigation should precede
punishment. To hang first, and inquire afterwards, is
reversing the order of justice. In order to pre-
vent the perpetration of judicial—the worst of all-
-murders, and to preserve the innocent people from
being subjected to ignominious punishments, in-
volving irremediable ruin, inflicted in the name of
law, an appeal should lie from the Court which has
pronounced a doubtful judgment, to a tribunal which
may reverse the decision, and avert the injustice, of an
• unjust conviction. To this " principle" Sir James' Gra-
ham objects. We hope reflection will remove the Right
• Hon. Baronet's doubts. At all events, we hope that
Mr. Kelly will persevere with his Bill ; and, by renew-
irEWßiliekt Wain the next Parliamentary year, prevent its
l',
--;65, ---t'em.rtki•iii:l;verboard among the " postponed" mea-
r do-little session.

•
- • •-•- am is expected to arrive in the north
IftCgttlakpf a few- days, the requisite arrangements
;...,,Aukingf.bAnk de for his Lordship's reception at Brougham
:Mtn; '6o;tlth considerable additions and alterations have
ade in the building and decorative depart-
...-
ipj t 3

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
POOR-LAWS.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
Mr. HAWES regretted that the Hon. Member for
Birmingham had fallen into the old exaggerations in
reference to the administration of the poor-law. It had
been said that the old law had been greatly mitigated,
but he thought that the real mitigation which they were
to expect from it would arise from the temper and spirit
in which the law would be carried out. In the speech
of the Hon. Member who had just spoken there was a
singular abstinence from reference to facts. The Poor-
law Commissioners in 1839, in addressing the Govern-

ment, had interpreted the law just in the same way as
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had in-
terpreted it in the observations which he had recently
made to the House. If the workhouse were dreaded by
the poor, it was the fault of the guardians, and not of
the law. It was made so by interpretation and ex-
aggeration, and not by the administrators of the law. In
Scotland the relief of the poor cost as much as eight
shillings a head for the whole population. The law had
been called arbitrary and unconstitutional; but he could
not conceive how that could be the case when the powers
of the Commissioners were all conferred by Parliament.
He hoped these discussions would have the effect of im-
pressing en boards of guardians the necessity of carrying
out this law in the best possible manner. He did not
concur in the opinion that any harshness had been mani-
fested by the Commissioners.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, in the early stages of the law
the Commissioners had delegated too often the power of
writing to one who expressed his opinions in an abstract
manner, and somewhat too harshly.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said that, though he did not wish
to see the Commission abolished at once, yet he could
not help saying that a body appointed for limited pur-
poses was now too often regarded as a permanent insti-
tution of the country. Ire believed Parliament had
never contemplated more than that they should be a
means of carrying. the new system into effect.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS invited Hon. Members to look
at the wording of the local Acts, where there was no
controlling power. There had never been any com-
plaints respecting the improper working of those Acts.
Why, then, should they doubt that the Poor-law Amend-
ment Act might be carried out in a satisfactory manner
without any Commissioners to superintend its working?
What was the expense attendant upon this Commission?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and
his two secretaries cost the country 26,000/. ; the Co-
lonial Secretary and his two under-secretaries cost it
24,000/ ; but the cost of this Commission amounted to
more than both these sums, namely, 53,000/.
Mr. Al ILNES asked those who had paid attention to the
working of this Commission whether it had not striven
rather to discourage than to promote the exercise of vo-
luntary charity ? (Hear, hear.) He believed the prin-
ciple of the poor-law would never be favourably received
in this country, unless it were felt that it was but the
minimum of what the state thought it right that the poor
should obtain from their richer fellow-subjects.
Captain PECH ELL said the continuance of the
Commission was defended on the ground that they had
other duties devolved on them besides the administra-
tion of the poor-law ; but, in his judgment, that defence
was very unsatisfactory. Such additional duties formed
no ground for continuing the Poor-law Commission.
He was in favour of the abolition of the Board of Com-
missioners, because he thought the law could be more
satisfactorily carried out without their interference.
Mr. BORTHWICK said the praise bestowed by the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State on the
Commission all seemed to rest on its having counteracted
the principles which gave it birth.
Mr. NEWI)EGATE said he should vote with the
Hon. and Gallant Officer ; but, considering the period
too short within which it was proposed to abolish the
Commission, if the motion were carried, he should him-
self afterwards propose its elongation.
Colonel SIBTHORI' said he bad every respect for the
present Members of her Majesty's Government. They
were the best administration which had ever existed since
he had sat in that House. They were, no doubt, honour-
able men, and sensible men, they were sometimes much
too sensible for himself.—(Hear, hear.) But he must
oppose their measures when he disapproved of them,
and he certainly felt it his duty to do so in the present
instance.
The House then divided, when there appeared--
For the clause
Against it
Majority

. -73

Mr. VERNON SkITII proposed that the following
clause, which was read a first and second time, and
' agreed to, be added to the Bill. To insert after
clause 55, " And be it enacted, that if the board of
guardian's of any parish or union make application to
the said Commissioners, to direct the appointment of a
paid collector of the poor-rates in such parish or union,
or in any parish or parishes of such union, it shall be
lawful for the said Commissioners, by order under their
hands and seal, to direct the said board of guardians to
appoint such a collector ; and the said Commissioners
shall have the same powers with respect to
such collectors as are given to them by the said first
recited Act with respect to paid officers, or of
any persons other than the board of guardians of such
parish or union to appoint any such collector, and (ex-
cept when otherwise directed by the said Commis-
sioners) all appointments under such powers shall cease."
The Earl of ARUNDEL moved the following clause:—
" And be it enacted, that the Commissioners do and
shall order boards of guardians to take measures for
allowing all paupers, not being members of the Church
of England, to attend their respective places of worship,
when within reasonable distance, at all reasonable times."
Sir J. GRAHAM felt that every facility ought to
be given to Roman Catholics in workhouses to attend
their respective places of worship, and he should be wil-
ling to attend to any representations which might be
made upon the subject. Instructions had been given by
the Poor•law Commissioners to secure the object soughtby the Noble Lord, and he hoped that under these cir-
cumstances the clause would not be pressed.
Mr. ESCOTT hoped the Noble Lord would press the
clause.

Mr. DAItBY wished to see the principle which the
Noble Lord advocated carried out to the full extent.
Mr. P. HOWARD supported the clause.
_ _

Mr. V. SMITH woad recommend his Noble Friend,
after the assurance given by the Right Hon. Gentleman
(Sir J. Graham), not to press the clause to a division.
. .

The clause was then withdrawn.

Mr. S. O'BRIEN then proposed the clause which he
had postponed in the morning, namely, " Provided
always, and be it further enacted, that whenever it shall
appear to the board of any district school that the space
within such school is more than sufficient for the accom-
modation of poor children within the district for which
such school shall have been built, it shall and may be
lawful for such board, subject to the approval of the
Poor-law Commissioners to make order for the admis-
sion of so many other children residing in the said dis-
trict as shall seem expedient to such board ; and
the weekly provision for the maintenance and educa-
tion of such children shall be fixed by the board at such
rate as shall in their judgment be amply sufficient to
cover every expense on account of such children." He
did not think, if the Right Hon. Gentleman should con-
sent to the admission of this clause, that he could have
cause to rerget it.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought this was not a proper time
to resume a discussion on the important question of the
national education of the poor. He thought this sub-
ject had, during the discussions on this Bill in
the present session, been fully and sufficiently argued,
and yet at the end of a protracted discussion the Hon.
Gentleman again opened this question. If the clause of
the Hon. Member for Northamptonshire were agreed
to, it would hold out expectations that education was to
be provided for the poor children of the district beyond
the limited number to be educated in the union work-
houses. It would also have the effect of destroying the
means of education for the children of the industrious
labourers, for their children would be withdrawn from
the schools in which they now received education. He
felt it to be his duty most firmly to oppose the clause.
Mr. HAWES was surprised that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman so decidedly opposed the clause now, the prin-
ciple of which he countenanced on a former occasion.
He did not oppose the clause on the ground of expense.
The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government
had entertained views similar to those which were em-
bodied in the clause of the Honourable Member for
Northampton.

Sir R. PEEL said he intended to support the views of
his Right Hon. Friend. He confessed he was strongly
impressed originally in favour of the clause. It ap-
peared to him that it would be an advantage to give an
opportunity to the parents of poor children to afford them
the benefits of education when they could not otherwise
receive it. He could not attach much weight to the
objection of its being unfavourable to the Esta-
blished Church, for he thought it was beneficial, on
the whole, to the Church, that the principles of
religion should be inculcated into the children. On
communication with others, however, he found that by
giving the least facilities to education in district schools,
they would be rather impeding the voluntary principle
for the purposes of education—that they would be more
likely to check individual efforts for education, than pro-
mote the sum total of it. He'was therefore unwilling to
act on his own impressions and the views he expressed
in 1841.
Mr. VERNON SMITH said that he did not think
the Right Hon. Gentleman could be charged with in-
consistency if he found reason to alter his opinion, but
the Right Hon. Gentleman had not attempted to argue
the question. He merely said that the Bishop of London
and others had induced him not to put the views he for-
merly entertained into practice. He thought the House
would do better to rely on the arguments which the
Right Hon. Gentleman used in 1841, than on the reasons
which he had given for not carrying those views into
effect.

Mr. CHILDERS and Mr. M. MILNES supported the
clause.

Mr. T. EGERTON opposed the proposition for im-
posing a tax for the education of children other than
paupers.
Mr. DARBY also opposed the clause as impracticable.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN replied, and after stating,
that though unsuccessful, he could not regret the turn
the discussion had taken, withdrew the clause.
Sir J. GRAHAM in moving the introduction of two
clauses, one to enable guardians to enter schools and
asylums as visitors, and to record their opinion of what
they saw, and the other to remove technical difficulties,
said that it might be convenient if he should state to the
House the course he intended to pursue. After the two
clauses he had now proposed were agreed to, he should
propose that the further consideration of the
report should be postponed to a future hour of
the day, and that as soon as they had gone through
Committee on the Controverted Elections Bill, then
he should propose that the first business be to pro-

ceed with the further consideration of the Poor-law Bill.
The clauses were then agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. ELPHINSTONE Archbutt's
Divorce Bill was read a third time and passed.
Sir J. R. REID presented a petition from Trelawney,
Jamaica, against any reduction in the differential duties
on foreign sugar.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from Liverpool
in favour of the County Courts Bill.
NOTICES Olf MOTION.

Captain BERNAL gave notice that on Tuesday next
he should move for copies of all letters or instructions
written to Lord Heyteshury relative to the disposal of
Church patronage in Ireland.
GAME-LAWS.

Mr. BRIGHT gave notice, that early in the next
session of Parliament he would move for a Committee
to inquire into the effect of the game-laws, and the
amount of agricultural produce that was consumed in
this country by game ; and also to inquire into the effect
of the game-laws on the moral condition of the agricul-
tural labouring population.
Captain PECHELL moved for a return of all union
workhouses under the Poor-law Amendment Act in
which mills or machinery for grinding or crushing bones
have been erected or placed, with the date of such erec-
tion or placing, and the names of the chairman and vice-
chairman of the board of guardians of every such union
at the period. Also, the cost of the said bones, includ-
ing all expenses of carriage, and other incidental ex-
penses, and the amount which the same have pro-
duced in their manufactured state, and whether the
same have been sold by tender, or at a fixed price, or
otherwise.—Ordered.