The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-29 00:00:00

MAYNOOTH.

Several Noble Lords presented petitions against the
proposed grant to Maynooth.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a Pres-
byterian congregation at Loumore, which the Noble
Lord said complained of the horrors of Popery, but
nevertheless in favour of the grant.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
The same NOBLE LORD presented a petition, numer-
ously signed, complaining of the Act passed last session
for abolishing imprisonment for debt.
The Duke of ILICIIMOND presented petitions to a
similar effect from Sherborne, Shaftesbury, Cowes,
Gosport, Leamington, Southampton, Portsea, Penzance,
Bradford, Tunbridge, Devizes, and Andover. They
were referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
MAYNOOTH,

The Duke of CLEVELAND presented a petition
from South Shields, in the county of Northumberland,
in favour of the grant t. Maynooth; and from several
places in Scotland against it.
The Bishops of Down, Connor, and Dromore pre-
sented several petitions from Leitrim, Tipperary, and
several other places in Ireland, against the grant to
bi aynooth.

UNION OF THE SEES OF ST. ASAPH AND

BANGOR.

Earl POWIS presented—petitions from Coventry,
from towns in Devonshire, Dorsetshire, and Wiltshire,
and from several places in Wales, against the union of
these two sees.

MAYNOOTII.
The Bishop of EXETER presented several petitions
'rom Silverton and several other places against thegrant
o Maynooth.

TREATMENT OF CRIMINALS—NEWGATE.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE wished to bring
before their Lordships' notice a matter which, in his

opinion, involved a gross disgrace to the judicature of the
country. His authority was only that of a newspaper, and
he thought that it was not only calculated to excite an irre-
ligious impression, but to induce that which would be dis-
creditable to the law, and injurious to the administration
of justice throughout the whole community. He alluded to
a matter which had occurred at the gaol of Newgate
only yesterday. In referring to this case he felt
bound also to refer to a circumstance which had oc••

curred at the offices of public justice at the town of
Aylesbury only the other day, and in doing so he was
anxious that the authorities of the great city of
London would imitate so good an example. He

6,rnd by the newspapers that the public yesterday were
admitted to what was called the condemned sermon in

Newgate. The report stated that in consequence of the
arrangements of Mr. Cope, the governor, the public
were admitted by tickets, and that not the slightest con-
fusion had ensued. The public were admitted at a
quarter past ten, and at fifteen minutes after that time
the prisoner 'locker was admitted and conducted to his
seat. Shortly after that, Connor, who stood charged
with a similar offence, was conducted to a seat opposite
to that of Hockey. He was happy to find that the
au-
thorities at Aylesbury bad acted with a much more
judicious discretion, in abiding by the terms of their in-
structions. They had not been willing to pander to a
prurient curiosity; and he was grieved to observe that
the same discretion had not been exercised in the pre

sent instance. It appeared that Connor, who was Com-
mitted for a similar offence to that for which locker was

about to suffer, was conducted to a seat opposite to that
occupied by the convict, and near to the pew of the
Ordinary, the Rev. Mr. Davis. In the course of that
Rev. Gentleman's discourse, to whose observations he

meant not to offer the slightest objection, and upon the
fulfilment of his duty he could make no remark which
was not commendatory, Mr. Davis had stated that, since the
crime for which the convict was about to suffer, another
crime had been perpetrated, for which another young
man stood before them, committed upon the oaths of
several individuals. Nov, he was far from assuming
that the Rev. Gentleman had intended to exceed his
official duty. He was far from saying that
he had any sympathy with the detestable
crimes with which these unfortunate individuals
were charged, but he must say that the implication con-
veyed in the observations of the Rev. Ordinary of New-
gate were calculated to be of great prejudice to the pri-
soner, who, by the law of England, at any rate, was
presumed to be innocent. He had no objection to public
punishments. Such punishments might be necessary for
the general welfare, but he did object greatly to those
exhibitions which the report of the newspaper said were
more like theatrical spectacles than solemn ceremonies of
the judicature. For these reasons he should, therefore,
feel it his duty to bring the matter formally before the
House.

Lord BROUGHAM would beg to thank his Noble

Friend for having brought this matter before their Lord-
ships. He thought there was nothing more detestable
than that the infliction of justice should be anticipated by
a shameful and prurient inquiry into the conduct and
the feelings of the individuals who were placed in that
dreadful position to which his Noble Friend had alluded.
He quite agreed in the principle that the trial should be
as public as it was possible it could be. He quite agreed
that the sentence should be carried into effect, if it were
possible, before the eyes of the whole world ; but it
formed no part of the sentence—it constituted no part
of the punishment, that the dark cells of the prison
thouli be invaded, and the privacy of the prisoner should
be intruded t.pon during those solemn hours which
elapsed between his sentence and his execution. There
was no necessity for this violation of feelings ; it was
necessary neither for public justice nor private satisfac-
tion. It was requisite to no end, and was in no way
called for by the import of the sentence. And what
made it worse was, that where it was meant for a pu-
nishment it operated as a reward upon that class of cul-
prits to which this unhappy man appeared to have be-
longed ; inasmuch as it gratified the morbid thirst for
notoriety, which appeared to: have almost amounted to
madness, in the case of the unhappy man who suffered
that morning. As a member of the Corporation of the
City of London, he would take the liberty of giving a
warning tb that Corporation of the risk they run of en-
dangering their charter by allowing persons to be ad-
mitted to these condemned cells.
Lord STANLEY said there could be but one opinion
with regard to the extreme impropriety and indecency of
the proceeding which the Noble Lord had alluded to.
On the part of the Government there could be no objec-
tion to the motion of the Noble Marquis.; but he must
remind their Lordships that the Noble Marquis had made
his statement upon information which was not authentic.
He would, therefore, suggest the propriety of his post-
poning the motion until the Government had
had an opportunity of communicating with the City
authorities. Nothing could be more indecent than
this collection of persons to witness the appearance
of the convict during the deliverance of the condemned
sermon, and so far from its having been an act of reli-
gion, it appeared to have resulted in a matter of display.
Two years ago, his Right Hon. Friend, the Secretary
for the Home Department, felt it to be his duty, on a si-
milar occasion to the present, to make a representation
to the authorities of the city of London. Upon that oc-
casion he understood his Right Hon. Friend received an
assurance that such scenes would be put an end to. If

the Noble Marquis would consent for the present to
withdraw his notice of motion, he would undertake that
his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home De-
partment should make a precise inquiry into the actual
facts ; and their Lordships might rely upon it that the
Government would exercise all the power it possessed
to put an end to such scenes.
The Duke of RICHMOND reminded the House that
the condemned prisoners were entrusted to the sheriffs
of the city, and they were the parties to blame if any
party was to blame in the matter. He would suggest
that an Act of Parliament should be brought in, pro.
hibiting the attendance at the chapel in Newgate of any
other persons but the prisoners and officers connected
with the gaol.
Lord DENMAN said it was a question of the greatest
importance, and remarked that when a condemned pri-
sonerattended the chapel at Newgate, to receive the last
admonition to be given him in this world, the attendance
should be as private as possible, and particularly when
a person charged with the crime of murder, and who
had yet to undergo his trial, was amongst the congrega-
tion. He could not altogether justify the expressions of
the chaplain. They all knew what effect such expres-
sions had on the mind, and frequently it made the
party to whom they were addressed give vent to feelings
which might induce a stranger to infer guilt, although
the party might be perfectly innocent. Now, for in-
stance, a juryman might have been present when the
sermon was delivered, and might ho not carry the im•
pressions which the scene and behaviour of the prisoner
had produced with him into Court ?—(Hear, hear.)
Lord CAMPBELL expressed his entire concurrence
with what had fallen from his Noble and Learned
Friend. But in his opinion such scenes as those were a
violation of the law ; and if the parties who exhibited
those criminals were indicted, they might be punished
for so doing. In the play of Hamlet the scene of a
murder was introduced, for the purpose of ascertaining
the guilt of the King, and it appeared to him that those
exhibitions w ere got up for a similar purpose.
Lord REDESDALE informed their Lordships that
what took place in the morning took place in the
evening. The Noble Lord adverted to an account which
had appeared in an evening paper, in which it was stated
that the reporters were admitted to the unfortunate
prisoner, who was told of their presence in something
like the following terms:—" Here are the reporters
present, if yon have anything to say to them." The
prisoner replied, " I do not feel collected enough to say
anything. If I had known they were coming, perhaps I
should have been enabled to say something. That was—
if he had been properly warned that these gentlemen had
intended to have paid him a visit, no doubt he would
have been prepared for another scene.—(Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE then consented to
withdraw his motion, and the subject dropped.
RAILWAYS AND THE BOARD OF TRADE.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDEmoved fora return,
showing the number of Irish railways the Board of Trade
had sanctioned, and showing whether the lines favour-
ably repored were the best that could be marked out, or
whether they were only the most favourable of those
that had been submitted to the Board of Trade. The
Noble Marquis took occasion to ask whether he was
correctly informed, that the Dublin and Cashel Railway
Company had violated an agreement which they had
entered into with the Irish Commissioners of Woods
and Forests, relative to the Curragh of Kildare ?
The Earl of DALFIOUSIE consented to the return,
and said that he believed that su di an agreement as thatthe
stated did exist, and that the Company had, withi
last few days, undertaken not to disturb or enter upon
the Curragh of Kildare.
The motion was agreed to, several Bills were advanced
It stage, and their Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 28.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
NEW MEMBER.

Colonel AUSTIN, who was introduced by Sir E.
Filmer, and another Hon. Member, took the oaths and
his seat for the western division of Kent.
On the motion of Mr. BARRY BALDWIN, the
Totnes Markets and Waterworks Bill was read a second
time.

On the motion of the same HoN. MEMBER, the Lords'
Amendments to the Sparrow's Herne Road Bill were
agreed to.
The North Wales Railway Bill was read a second time.
Lord PALMERSTON presented a petition from Sligo
in favour of the Dublin and Mullingar Railway Bill.
On the motion of Mr. TATTON EGERTON, the
Runcorn and Preston Brouk Railway Bill was read a se-
cond time.

Mr. GODSON presented two petitions frt.m Kidder-
minster against the proposed grant to Maynooth.
Sir T. HEPBURN presented several petitions to the
same effect. _ _

Colonel VERNER presented three petitions from the
county of Down against the grant to 11laynooth, and
complaining that the petitioners had no Protestant re-
presentative in that Muse.
On the motion of Mr. WAKLEY, the Clerkenwell
Improvements Bill was read a third time and passed.
Mr. AINSWORTH brought in the London, Bir-
mingham, and Sheffield Railway Bill, which was read a
first time.
The London and Norwich Railway Bill was also
brought in and read a first time.