The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-25 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER -BILLS.
Lord WHAIINCLIFFE suggested to Lord Mona-
eagle the propriety of his Lordship deferring his
motion relative to. the Exchequer bills, in con-
sequence of the absence. of . the Duke of Wellington.
Lord Monteagle consented at once to postpone his
motion till. Thursday next, on the understanding that
the postponement took place not at his own desire, but
at the request of Noble Lords on the other side.
• CORN-LAWS.
t4Earl RADNOR presented petitions from the
inhabitants of the • royal burgh of Banff, , for
the immediate and total repeal of the Corn-laws ;
and similar petitions from the United Session. of Mon-
trose ; from Romford, in Essex; from Taunton, Kens ;
the printworkers of Crayford ; two from the county of
Lancaster ; from Leeds, signe by 3,000 or 4,000 indivi-
duals ; and many others from townships in the town of
Birmingham and. elsewhere.
Lord KINNAIRD presented petitions from Mus-
selburgh, praying for the total -and immediate.repeal of
the Corn-laws, 34 petitions from the Work-Men em-ployed in Dundee, another from the congregation of
Newport Chapel, Dundee, and various others from the
same neighbourhood With a similar prayer.
CORN-LAWS.
Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions from the in.
habitants of Perthshire, Stone in Staffordshire, Jethou,
aid St. Mary Whitechapel, in favour of the tOta:
repeal of the Corn Laws.
PRESBYTERIAN MARRIAGES.
The NOBLE LORD also presented petitions from' the
Ministers, Elders, and other members of the - C *)11 •
gregation of Presbyterians at Ballymuir, Dromore,
DOwnpatrick, and Alvanley, praying that some alteration
might be made in the law with reference to the marriage
of Presbyterians. Since the Noble Lord last addressed
their Lordships on the subject, he had seen an accurate
note .of the decision of the Judges in Ireland upon the
subject. He believed that great doubts were entertaired
upon the subject, and those doubts were not confined to
himself. He greatly regretted that there was no firm
of proceeding competent to that House of reviewing
that decision; he deeply regretted that, though he would
not venture to suggest what the result of that revisal
might be.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE, in presenting two
petitions on the same subject, said that this was not the
first time this question had been mooted, because so long
ago as the year 1815 a petition was presented by Sir
Samuel Romilly on the subject of Presbyterian marriages.
Lord CAMPBELL wished to call the attention of
his Noble Friend on the Woolsack to the subject to
which the petitions which had just been presented to the
House referred. His Noble Friend was aware of
the intense anxiety which was felt by a large class of per-
sons upon the subject. He (Lord C.) had lately received
several communications relative to the painful situation
of parties nffected bsethe decision of the Irish Judges.
No doubt had existed for many years but that marriages
contracted under the circumstances in question were per-
fectly valid. Now he wished to express a hope .not
Only that the Government might at the earliest opportu-
nity introduce a Bill to remedy the evil, but
that his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack
would introduce the Bill-into that House in the first in-
stance. It appeared that the House of Commons were
engaged, night after night, with subjects of great public
importance, which prevented them from turning their
attention to the subject. He was of opinion that it would
he found much more convenient to introduce the Bill
immediately into that House, and he earnestly hoped
that. his Noble Friend would adopt that course.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he wished to unite with
his Noble and Learned Friend who had preceded him,
in recommending to his Noble and Learned Friend on the
W oolatick, to introduce the measure of Go sernment imme
dia.:oy into that House. He would remind his Noble Friend
that he had often joinel him in expressiag his disappro-
bation of :the late period at Which measures-of import-
ance were brought under the consideration of that House.
Daring the first part of the session, no business came
before'' their -.Lordships, while they were - after
wards compelled to hurry over matters of.
the greatest. moment with inconvenient expedition.
He was sure that there never was a subject more appro-
priate fir the consideration of the House than the sub-
ject to which lie was then referring ; and he thought that
it came peculiarly within the range of their Lordships'
deliberation. •
The --LORD CHANCELLOR said that it was
not Ids intention to say a single word in re-
ference to the. observations thrown out by his
Noble and Learned Friends with respect to the law
upon this question. All he would say was this, that
the Irish Bench was never filled by lawyers more emi-
nent for their legal knowledge, than those who filled it at
present.. The questidn had been deliberately argued be-
f.)re them, anti at i•ery great length ; much consideration
was given to the .subject, and he was therefore bound to
entertain the greatest respect for the decision which had
been come to under those circumstances.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) With respect to the question put to him
by his Noble and Learned Friend, the Bill of -the•
Government had already been prepared under
his directions, and it was now before the
law officers of the Crown. The Government had not
turned their attention to the comparative convenience or
inconvenience of bringing the measure before their
Lordships in the first instance. But for his part he
should have had no objection to follow such a course.
Etrl CARLISLE presented • a petition from Carlisle,
complaining of the distress of the town, and praying for
the repeal of the Corn-laws.

POOR- LAW COMMISSION.
The Bishop of EXETER said he was sorry to say that
the petition which he had the honour to present to their
Lordships was one of such length that he should not move
that it be read to their Lordships. He should, hem -
ever, attempt to give a brief abstract of it. The peti-
tioners having made most serious and grave charges
against the Poor-law Commissioners for England and
Wales, he (the Bishop of Exeter) had adopted that course,
which lie was sure their Lordships would have expected.
He had taken care that the petition should go into the
hands of the Commissioners, that they might examine
the contents. He had done that, and he was satisfied to
kno.v that their case in answer would be stated by a
Noble Lord high in office, and higher still in talent
and qualifications. It was a matter of satisfaction for (the
Bishop of Exeter) to think that public officers occu-
p3ing such a station as the Poor-law Commissioners, should be
sure of being protected as they ought to be by the Government.
When their conduct was called in question, it was the duty of
Government to presume beforehand that they had acted right,
and while he was sure that no Government would sustain them
in acting wrong, lie rejoiced to think that they would use
eve-y means to protect and defend the petitioner& Unless the
allegations contained in the petitions were contradicted, there
certainly was much that required investigation ; he, however,
would abstain from making any comments, and would con:e at
once to the facts. It happened that in January, 1810, two pau-
pers died in the workhouse of the Crediton Union, in Devon,
under circumstances which excited great public feeling. Ru-
mours of the most sinister kind went forth against the conduct
of the guardians of the Union. These reports had been widely
soread, had arrived at the ears of the guardians, and had
been considered at a meeting of the Board, ant were con-
steered to have been answered. The voice of the public, how-
ever, was still heard, and an attorney of great practice
ant probit3, felt. it his duty to inquire into the facts, and he
began by disbelief, but evidence came on him so thick, and
with such fore, as extorted from him some degree of cre-
dence. In April 1840 he addressed a letter to the Chairman
to the Board of Guardians, James Wentworth Buller, Esq., a
gentleman known to many of their Lordships as a most ho-
nourable, benevolent, and active friend to the poor. To him
Mr. 'canner addressed a letter on the 13th of April, 1840, in
the fallowing terms :—" A very serious report having been
much circulated relative to the death of a pauper by the name
of William Locke, who perished in a c&d, damp shed, belong-
ing to Crediton workhouse, where he had been placed whilst
labouring under severe illness, I have taken pains to look into
the matter, and I fear that the statement is true and can be
substantiated." He then proceeded in his letter to request an
I pen and impartial inquiry into the facts of the case.
Ibis letter, written on the 13th of April, was submitted
to the Beard of Guardians on the 3d of May, when it was
opened by the Vice-Chairman, and no notice was taken of it.
As he could not induce the guardians to pay any attention to
his complaint, or to institute any inquiry, he determined to ap-
ply to the higher powers, and accordingly wrote to theCommis-
smilers, enclosing the letter to the guardians, and expressing a
hope that they would cause a searching inquiry to be instituted.
This was on the 6th, and on the 9th Mr. Tanner received a
let ter stating that his communication would receive the imme-
diate attention of the Commissioners. On the 12th he again
wrote to the Commissioners to say that he understood, from
private information, that an investigation would take place in
the workhouse on the 16th, and he requested to be permitted to
attend there and bring forward the persons upon whose autho-
rity his statement was founded. On the 14th he received an
answer to the effect that the Commissioners had received from the
Assistant Commissioner depositions negativing his statements,
so that the Commissioners would not feel justified in pursuing
the investigation any further upon his general statements, bat
that if he should furnish them with any other specific facts,
they should be inquired into. Now what did they mean by
specific facts ? Had not Mr. Tanner communicated to them
specific
facts in the letter which their Lordships had just heard,
that people had died from cold, and hunger, and neglect ?
Hear, hear.) They were informed that this gen-
tleman could bring forward witne•ses to establish all the
cases which he alleged, and several others. But without
giving him the opportunity of substantiating his charges, with-
out communicating with the relations of the deceased, Locke ;
they allowed a secret inquiry to take place in the workhouse,
arid they rested satisfied with such a partial investigation.
Mr. Tanner again wrote to them. Ihe etter was dated May
20th, and stated that having received the Commissioners' letter,
he was of opinion that a further investigation of the subject was
necessary, and he feared, the depositions being on one side,
would not be considered satisfactory, or tend to allay the feelings
which the report excited previously to his first addressing them.
He (Mr. Tanner) further stated that not a single witness was
examined by the Assistant Commissioner, anti asked how it
could be known whether such statements could or could not
be substantiated, or how they could decide that the depositions
taken could not be satisfactory ; and he sincerely hoped that
the evidence would disprove the statement of Locke and his
wife. That was the letter of Mr. Tanner, and that was the
state of things up to the 20th of May. The next stage in the
proceedings was somewhat more startling. It appeared that
Mr. Tanner, in consequence of no notice having been taken