The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-12 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 12, 1842.

and if so, whether it did not consider the imposition of such
high duties were not at variance with the articles of another
treaty with this country, by which it was stipulated that Great
Britain was always to be placed in the position of the most fa-
voured countries.

Sir ROBERT PEEL replied, but his answer was but im-
perfectly heard in the gallery.
Dr. BOWRING said, that after the production of the docu-
ments he should call the attention of the House to the effect
of that treaty upon British interests.
THE, MOTION ON THE CORN-LAWS.

Lord .1. RUSSELL asked, whether it was the intention of
the Right Hon. Baronet to bring his motion, respecting the
Corn Laws, forward on Monday ; and if it was not his inten-
tion to do so, then he hoped he would name an early day,
that his intentions might be known on the subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they
were quite prepared to go on.
A conversation took elace between Mr. BARING and the
CHANCELLOR of the;ExcHEQuEa across the table, which
was inaudible in the gallery.
An HoN. MEMBER asked if it was the intention of her Ma-
jesty's Government to produce certain papers relative to the
Caledonian Canal?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
their intention to do so.
POOR-LAWS.

Mr. FARRAND said he understood it was the intention of
her Majesty's Government to consider the Poor-law Amend-
ment Act, and he therefore wished to ask a question of the
Hon. Baronet. In March next the election of guardians for
the different unions would take place. The mode in which
those guardians were elected was by ballot, and the ballotting
papers were taken by a clerk appointed by the guardians,
and whose duty it was to decide the election.—
( Hear.) He wished to ask the Right Honourable
Baronet to use his influence—ha hoped that influence
was great in Somerset-house—to induce the Poor-law Commis-
missionerr to issue an order restricting any paid officer of the
union from taking the voting papers.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM, who was very indistinctly heard
in the gallery, said that an order had been issued from the
Poor-law Commissioners, requesting that the clerk of the
union (as we understood) should refrain from taking the
voting papers, and being returning officer. If the Hon.
Member -.could point out any instance upon which to ground
a complaint, he could assure him the punishment would imme-
diately ensue._

Mr. SHAW begged to ask his Right Hon. Friend the Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department, a question with
respect to the administration of the Poor-laws in Ireland. Con-
siderable excitement had been produced in the city of Dublin
by the unusual mortality amongst the infant children in the
Dublin North Union Workhouse. He begged to ask his Right
Hun. Friend whether he had directed any inquiry upon this sub-
ject, whether he had received any report from the Poor-law
Commissioners as to the result of that inquiry, and if so,
whether he would have any objection to .ay the result on the
table of the House.

Sir J. GRAHAM said the moment his attention had been
called to the subject, he had directed inquiry to be made into
the facts ; a report had in consequence been received, and he
had not the least objection to its being laid on the table of
the House.

Mr. ROEBUCK begged to ask the Learned Attorney-
General when the Municipal Corporations Act would be
printed for the use of the House.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied that it would be
ready on Monday next.
Mr. HAWES begged to ask the Right Hon. Baronet the
Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he in-
tended to pr3pose any measure for the better regulation of the
medical profession?

Sir J. Gil AHAM said, if the Hon. Gentleman meant to
him whether he would pledge himself to lay a Bill on the
table of the House during the present Session, his reply
was that he could give no such pledge. On the other hand he
begged to state that, considering the question was of great
importance, he had directed his attention to it with a view to
the proposal of some alteration.
Dr. BOWRING inquired of the Vice-President of the
Board of Trade when the returns which had been ordered of
the land tax of the other States of Europe would be laid before
bile House.

Mr. GL ADSTONE said the returns being obtained
through the Foreign-office there was necessarily some delay in
procuring them ; but he hoped that they would shortly be laid
on the table.

The House then went into Committee on the Loan So-
cieties' Bill, and the report was ordered to be brought up on
Monday next.

EASTERN AFFAIRS.
Sir CHARLES NAPIER then rose, in pursuance of
notice, to ask the Right Honourable Baronet whether
he had any objection to lay before the House a
copy of the instructions given by Sir Robert Stop-
ford to General Mitchel, General Jackson, and Captain
Stewart, after the submission of Mehemet Ali ; also, the in-
structions given by Lord Ponsonby to General Jackson and
Mr. Wood ; likewise, if any correspondence had taken place
b. tween the British and Turkish Governments, relative to the
amelioration, of the inhabitants of Lebanon, as was pro-
mised by the Allied Powers? The Honourable and Gal-
lant Officer said, he had been induced to ask the last
question in consequence of having received from very high
authority, a statement that the condition of the inhabitants of
Lebanon was one of increased distress. Application had, he
understood, been made to the Turkish Government to send
assistance to that country, and that they refused to do so.
Sir 11. PEEL said he would reply to the several questions of
the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman opposite in the order in
which they occurred in the Paper of Notices. First, As to
whether he had any objection to lay before the House a copy
of the instructions given by Slr Robert Stopford to General
Mitchel, General Jackson, and Captain Stewart, after the
submission of Mehemet Ali. In reply to that, he (Sir
Robert Peel) had to state that those instructions hail
been sought for in the Record-office, but they were not
forthcoming, and consequently could not be produced.
With regard to the Gallant Officer's second question, respect-
ing the instructions given by Lord Ponsonby to General
Jackson and Mr. Wood, he (Sir Robert Peel) regretted
to say that the papers on this subject were also
not forthcoming. As to the third question, if any
correspondence had taken place between the British
and Turkish Governments relative to the amelioration of the
inhabitants of Lebanon as was promised by the Allies,
he ( Sir Robert Peel) would state that frequent corres-
pondence between the respective Governments had taken
place on the subject.—( Hear.) The Porte had been
urged to comply with the assurances that had been given on the
question. Since Sir Stratford Canning had left this country
as Ambassador to the Ottoman Court, instructions had been
given him to urge upon the Porte the necessity of complying
with its assurances of making every effort to prevent disorder in
Syria, and ameliorate the condition of its subjects there. He
(Sir Robert Peel) did not think it would promote the
object the Gallant Officer had in view, if the
correspondence applied for were produced, and he should
therefore be permitted to exercise his discretion in withhold-
ing it. However, he would state that application had been
made to the Porte to fulfil the engagements it had entered into,
both by the present and the late Government. He (Sir R.
Peel) might take that opportunity of referring to an ordinary
impression that existed, bt,th in Syria and Europe, as to certain
portions of the population of that country being under the pro-
tection of certain European Governments. What we had to
do was to see to the amelioration of all the
subjects of the Porte in Syria generally, without referenee
to religious principles. He would assure the Honour-
able and Gallant Officer, that every effort en the
part of the present Government would be made
to cause the Porte to fulfil its engagements with respect
to the amelioration of the condition of its subjects, and
granting the papers moved for would be but defeating the
object whirls the Gallant Officer had in view.
Sir CHARLES NAPIER very much regretted that the
Right Hon. Gentleman had come to the conclusion which
he had lust mentioned on this subject, the more as he had
heard that the officers of General Jochmus had destroyed
between twenty and thirty thousand persons after Mehemet Ali
submitted (as we understood. )—( Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL moved that this House at its rising do adjourn
to Monday.—Agreed to.
METROPOLITAN IMPRROVEMENTS.

Mr. RIGBY WASON moved for copies of all
memorials presented to the Lords Commissioners
of her Majesty's Treasury by Mr. Rigby Wason, relating to the
plan of improvement in the parishes of St. John and St.
Margaret, in the City of Westminster, which was recom-
mended by the Select Committee of the House of Commons
on Metropolis Improvements in 1840, and to effect which a
certain sum of money was recommended to be allocated by
the said Committee ; and also of any proceedings the-eon :
also, Copies of any Correspondence between the Dean and
Chapter of Westminster, or any person on their behalf, with
the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, or any person in
that office, upon the subject of obtaining such sum of money,
or a portion thereof, for the benefit of the private property of
the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, contrary to the public
interests.—Agreed to.

LORD ASHBURTON.
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS said that when he had yesterday
given notice of his intention to move for a copy of the letter
from Mr. Amory to Lord Palmerston, dated August
28, 1841, together with its accompanying papers, and of the
Correspondence which followed thereon between Lord
Aberdeen, Lord Canning, Mr. Amory, and Mr. Kinder,
he was not aware of the absence of the Noble Lord to whom
that motion referred ; and as he was the last person who would
wish to take any unfair advantage, he would, with the consent
of the House, not now press for the production of the papers.
He hoped the House would allow him to state, in jus-
tification of his conduct, the reasons which had induced
him to bring forward the motion. He had seen in the Cir-
cular to Bankers, a paper most widely circulated, certain
statements calculated as he thought to prejudice
Mr. Kinder. That gentleman was a friend of his
late colleague, and in company with his colleague,
he had last year waited on the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, to lay a statement of the case before
him, because he thought that Gentlemen had received treat-
ment of which he had a right to complain in Mexico. That
was the reason why he had given notice of the present
motion, which as the Noble Lord was absent, he would for the
present withdraw, and should he find it necessary to renew
it, he would take care that the relatives of the Noble Lord
should have ample time to consult with him, so as to be pre-
pared to meet any statement he (Mr. Phillips) might bring
forward.—( Cheers. )
THE SCOTCH JUDGES.
- -

Mr. FOX 31AVLEnnrvedfOrs'a return of the number of
jury cases in the first division of the Court of Session, from the
Ist day of January, 1839, till the 31st day of July, 1841; spe-
cifying those in which the late Lord President of the Court of
Session presided, and those in which any other and what Judge
presided. There had last night been a difference in the state-
ments made by himself and the Right Hon. Lord Advocate
on this subject, and he therefore'moved for the return, for the
purpose of showing which was right.
Sir JAMES GTIAHAM had no desire to renew the debate
of last evening. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite and the
Lord Advocate had undoubtedly differed in their statements as
to the fact alluded to. No one who knew either the Right
Hon. Gentleman or the Lord Advocate, could for one mo-
ment impute intentional misrepresentation to either of them,
and therefore there could be no necessity for the present n.o-
tion. He must at once say that on his (Sir J. Graham's) side
of the House, they could not accede to the request of the Right
Hon. Gentleman for these returns, being most anxious to
avoid a discussion of such a nature. It would, however, be his
duty to oppose the motion if it was pressed to a division.
The Hon. FOX MA ULE, after what had been said by the
Right Hon. Baronet, would not press the motion.—(Hear,
hear.) But at the same time he must assert that he was not
wrong in the statement which he had made—( Hear, hear)—
and he did not think that the Right Hon. Baronet had taken
the course which would be most satisfactory to the minds of the
public.—(Hear.)
1 Mr. WAKLE Y could 1-1-A help expressing his astonishment

PRICE 5d

0 and deep regret that the motion was not pressed.—( Hear. )
The people of England paid for the salaries of the Judges, and
. they had a right to know how they did their duty. The sys-
tem pursued was pregnant with awful danger to the country.
What ! were the Gentlemen opposite, because they had a large
majority in that House, to throw their shield over the
Judges, and prevent their conduct from being investigated in
the Parliament ?—( Hear, hear.) In the present ease heavy
charges were made against certain Judges, that they were in-
capable of discharging their duty, and that they retained their
places for party purposes.—( Hear.) On the other hand it was
stated that these accusations were unfounded. Now, he would
insist upon the right of the people of England to know what
was the truth of those allegations. Ile was at a loss to know
on what ground the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for
the Home Department resisted the motion.—( H ear, hear. )
Was there anything in the terms of that motion that could be
objected to? Could there be a fairer or more candid motion ?
—(:dear, hear.) These Learned Judges might attend or not
attend to the functions which they had been appointed by
the Executive Government to discharge. They were sure to
find favour in this House, and whether they had heen guilty of
negligence or not there wes no fear whatever, if that motion
was refused, that they would meet with any reproach from
Parliament.—(Cheers.) It was admitted that the Learned
.Judge had failed in the due discharge of the duties of his
office. Under those peculiar circumstances, if the House refused to
comply with that motion, there could be only ono feeling with
reference to it; he was sure it would he said, at the least, that
all the truth was on his (Mr. Wakley's) side of the House, and,
to use the simplest allegation, all the errors were on the other.
--(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) He hoped and
trusted, therefore, that the Right Hon. Baronet opposite would
see the propriety of assenting to the motion.—(Cheers.)
Mr. ROEBUCK suggested to the House that, under the
peculiar circumstances in which it was placed with respect to
the administration of justice, and recollecting that Judges could
nat be removed unless by the consent of both Houses of Parlia-
ment, that motion should be assented to as a matter of course.
It was, therefore, the duty of the House to see that Judges
should be above all imputation, and, for his own part, he could
not understand how the Learned Judge alluded to, could retire,
and be above suspicion if that motion was refused.—( Loud
cheers)—nor, in his (Mr. Roebuck's) opinion, could the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite be above suspicion, more than the
Judge, if such a reasonable motion were refused.
Sir R. PEEL, who was heard very imperfectly, was under.
stood to say, that the grounds upon which the motion was op-
posed, was because it departed from the usual practice of the
House ; and the Ministry were of opinion that such a course,
if adopted uniformly, would be extremely inconvenient; be-
sides, if that motion were granted, it would be an unjust re•
Election upon two Judges of distinction, and unimpeachable
integrity—(Hear, hear)—for it imputed to them either a
want of ability, or a total negligence in discharging their du-
ties.—(Mr. Fox Maule made some observations in explana-
tion, but they were totally inaudible in the gallery.) The
Hon. Gentleman was bringing forward a motion calling for an
account with respect to the Lord President, but the Hon.
Gentleman was not inclined to press his motion to a division.
There was not an acquiescence in the statements that had been
made, but there had been a complete absolution from them. In
point of fact, the debate of that night had been unfavourable
to the Hon. Gentleman opposite. The lion. Gentleman, in
addition to the part he had already taken, was endeavouring to
recuscitate the case, owing, he believed to feelings of indig-
nation on the refusal of last night's motion. He must say he
could not conserlt to this m Aion. It would be acquiescing in
the reflections on the Lord President, who had retired from office,
and no longer performs its functions. Though he agreed with
the Hon. Gentleman that that House exercised a control over
the conduct of the Judges, yet he was certain that if they used
it on every occasion by calling for such returns, and in exercise
of the powers they possessed; yet the effect of that would be to
prejudice the administration of justice. Ile would take that
motion in connection with the one made last night. He be-
lieved acquiescence in this motion would involve an acquies-
cence in the reflections on the retiring Judge, which it would
be his anxious desire to protect him from, and which lie thought
he did riot deserve lie must object, under the circumstances,
from at all acquiescing in such imputations.
Mr. O'CONNELL had but one word to say on the subject.
Why did they not produce this correspondence ? Why, be-
cause they were afraid of the results.—( Cheers.) He was yet
to learn that they were to make the Judge's seats heritable,
and that the son of the Judge was to take his seat in right of
succession. Such was the case in the present instance, fovo
the Judge was succeedsd by his own sun. The Judge was
paid by the public, and they had a right to know whether he
earned their money. The Hon. Gentleman near him was jus-
tified by the facts in bringing that motion before the House ;
and he (Mr. O'Connell) hoped the House would insist upon
having the facts made known.---( Loud cries of " Divide.")
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no division took
place. On our return to the gallery, we found
Mr. H. JOHNSON addressing the House. We understood
the Hon. Gentleman to say, that his impression was that the cor-
respondence should be produced. He was well aware that the
venerable Judge of Scotland had never been absent in his judi-
cial duties except from illness, which every man was subject to.
—( Hear, hear.) He could, therefore, only regret the course
pm sued by the Right Hon. Gentleman below hint.—(Cries of
')
Sir R. PEEL could assure the Hon. Gentleman that he was
influenced in opposing the motion solely by respect to the vene-
rable Judge.
Mr. H. Johnston rose amidst loud cries of " Divide ! " in
the midst of which he sat down, and strangers were ordered to
withdraw.

On the House dividing there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority
The result was received with loud cheers from the Ministerial
benches.

COMPULSORY CHURCH ATTENDANCE.
Mr. M. MILNES said, at the close of last Session
he gave notice of a motion for leave to bring in a.
Bill for the purpose of repealing certain laws of Eliza-
beth and James the First in forcing the attendance on Di-
vine Worship under certain penalties. The reason why he
adopted the present proceeding, in order to call the attention
of the House to the subject, he should presently state. The cases
that had brought the matter under his notice were to be found
in the fifth report of the inspectors of prisons during the last
year ; those cases had attracted much attention ; the all vigi-
lant eye of the press had been attracted towards them, and it
was impossible, from the notice which had been taken of them,
but they must sooner or later come before Parliament. It might
appear upon a prima facie view that these laws were enacted
for a purpose beneficial to the Church of England, but he be-
lieved so far from that being the case, that these proceedings
had brought nothing but disgrace and scandal on the Church.
It was better, he thought, that this subject should be brought
before the House by one who, if known for anything, was
known as a humble and attached member of the Church.
rather than by an hostility or indifference to it. He would
now shortly state the cases to which he referred, to the House.
One was of a man named William Jennings, who was fined
Is., and adjudged to pay 10s. costs; and unless his case had
been brought under the consideration of the inspectors of prisons
he must have been confined for ever. But on the recommen.
dation of the inspectors this man was liberated by an order
from the Secretary of State. He found, on reference to the
prison books, that there were no less than eleven other persons
who had been imprisoned for the same offence in the same
House of Correction. They had been in confinement for
various terms, from 37 to 63 days, and fined from 4s. each to
30s. He apologised for so young a Member bringing forward
a measure of this kind, when others were so much better in-
formed on the subject ; but thought he was cleared from
all undue motives in doing it, when there was a Go-
vernment in power in whom he had full confidence.
At the same time that Magistrate was an excellent one. He
has expressed a desire that this law should be amended or re-
pealed. He (Mr. Milnes) would read what he said on that
subject, in a letter addressed to the Manchester Guardian.
Mr. Ashford stated " that the difficulties of the law were, that
when a man was brought before them charged with drunken-
ness, the Magistrate felt determined to repress such conduct ;
but how was he to deal with it ? He could not allow him to
escape altogether, and he was accordingly fined for some other
matter. This mode of proceeding he did not like. In truth,
the law wanted amendment—it was unsuitable to the present
age." Yet this had been the habit regularly adopted by Magis-
trates. He disapproved of the practice. He was most anxious
to secure the observance of the Sabbath. A Magistrate could
not refuse to inflict the penalty when the offence was proved.
He would be glad of a repeal of the law. It seemed some-
thing like presumption for him to speak of the legal points in-
volved, but he mentioned it on account of its great interest.
The law on which these persons were convicted was the Uni-
formity Act.—( The Hon. Member here read the clause under
which the convictions had taken place.) This law had after-
wards been modified so as to include all other places of wor-
ship, so that if the man attended any other place of worship
besides the Church of England the fine was not inflicted. The
immediate committal of these persons was under the Act of
James the First, by which a penalty of one shilling
was leviable by way of distress, or the offender
was committed to prison if the fine was not paid. He need not
say this law was now unjustly enforced upon these poor men. If
carried out in principle it might not be so totally objectionable.
If it were the habit in the parishes of St. George and St.
James to enter the Clubs every Sabbath, and inflict fines upon
them as they had been inflicted upon these poor men, there
would be much more fairness in the punishment. It was also
enacted, that if these persons were proceeded against by indict-
ment, they could free themselves by a promise to confoam, or
that any other persol except a Roman Catholic might do so
by taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy; but he doubted
Whether that was at all consonant with a summary conviction.
He would not trouble the House at any length on the absurdity
of these laws ; a great deal more might be said in their de-
fence historically than appeared at first sight when enacted.
When they were ffrst enacted, attendance on Divine worship
was considered as a test of good citizenship ; but those days
were gone by, and it was not proper that Magistrates
should be compelled to carry out literally such a law. He
did not think it necessary for his purpose to attack the
Act of Uniformity. He believed that that Act should be so
interpreted as to be consistent with the spirit of the present
time. Every person being considered as a member of the
Church of England, until by some act or word he had pro-
f(ssed the contrary, the Right Hon. Secretary for the Home
Department should take some decisive and effectual remedies
for the amendment and repeal of those laws ; for it must be
manifest that any attempt made in the present advanced state
of intelligence at which the public had arrived to enforce re-
ligion by violence, or means of that sort, must be attended
with little or no success, If there was any doubt upon that
subject, any ono who had read a page of history must see
how absurd. it was to use force to compel the perform.
ante of religious duties.—( Hear. ) Every one must know
howineffectual the terrors of the Inquisition were in Spain,
and qow ineffective the terrors of the penal code were to pre-
vent the spread of Catholicity, in Ireland. Believing as he did
that every such attempt was 'calculated to bring the Church
into scandal and disrepute, he (Mr. Milnes) called upon the
Right Hon. Baronat opposite to exert his Legislative abilities
in this case, which was so obnoxious to religion, and injurious
t,r the real interest of the people of England, the Hon. Mem-
ber concluded by reading the following motion—To call the
attention of the House to the cases of certain persons committed
to the New Bailey House of Correction at Salford, in the
county of Lancashire, in the years 1839 and 1840, for non-
attendance on some place of religious worship.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was disposed to do every thing in
his power to remedy the grievance complained of ; lie
could not defend the conduct of Magistrates in
reviving an obsolete Act to punish offences which
were not cognizable by law. Neither would he say that
he thought the penalties of the Act were suitable to such cases.
He did not consider that the infliction of. temporal penalties
was applicable to the non.performance of personal religious
duties.—( Loud cheers.) Dissenters were deterred by the Act
th&tCh u
triclstatee were
of Toleration, but members of
s. the
He Established
admitted
I still subject to these pro
of the law required alteration, but it required the greatest
caution on fhe part of the Executive Government in proposing