The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-25 00:00:00

MPERIAL PA ITLIAMENT.

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordships' met at fiva o'clock.
ADMINISTRATIO-N OF OATHS.
Lord DENMAN presented a great number of peti-
tions from vallokis, parts a Scotland and England, pray-
ing that ilwoos ilaving conscientious scruples against
the OLkip.g of oaths should be heard upon their affirma-
tion in Courts of Justice.
EDUCATION IN IRELAND,
The Earl of WICKLOW presented petitions from
various parts of IrelaA irt favour of the Church Edu-
cation Society.
SiroilaTtf,etltions were presented by the Earls of CHAR-
LEvaix and MOUNTCASHEL.

PRESBYTERIAN MARRIAGES.
Lord CAMERELL, in the absence oS the Marquis of
Neadalbane presented a petition from Carthness, pray-
ing that caution should be used in altering the laws of
marriage a it affected Presbyterians.

COLLEGE OF -MAYNOOM
The Earl of WIFCHELSEA prgseatect a petition
from a place in Suffolk againq the grant to the College
of Maynooth.

RATING Or SMALL TENANTS.
The Noble Earl presented a petition from the
Guardians and others of the Union of Coiling.
bourn, praying that the landlords of cottages
should be rated for the same to the Poor Rates, instead
of leaving it to the parish to get the contribution from
the poor inhabitants as thex• could.
S 1 fl PLIES (IREL4.ND) BILL
Thsk P4.ke of WELLINGTON in moving the. thin?,
reading of the Irish Spirit Duties Bill said, •Viiati
from the inquiries he had made he wag *atisPed
' that the Bill would not increase illicit di,stl'ation, The
Noble Duke was ti uderstood to say that he would post-
pone for the present the consideration of the clauses
relatirld t,cl Oc (*whack upon spirits impraitd from
-Scotland..
Lord MONYAGUE believed that:4l'llth distillation
was rapidly on the increase, rqq,uiring, to one county,
(Donegal,) two-thirds of the police force to check it ; and
that increase would so cad over the Iv-hole of Ireland if
any further eneoarragement were givez.
The PP? of. WICKLOW Woi glad to learn that it
was the intention of the l`Zolde Duke to introduce his
measure respecting- malt, in another bill. The Noble
Earl saw the danger to which the noble Earl opposite
(Lord Illontegle) had allnded, but he hoped, however,
that the assurances given to the noble Duke would be
reclaimed.
The Marquis of CLANRIBADE felt the greatest and
the deepest regret that fhe Government were going to
risk an encouragement to the revival of illioit distillation
in Ireland; which, if once called into activity, would re-
quire an army to put
Lord CLONCIARY sajd, that the produce of the in-
creased tax would be but a poor compensation for the
evils which it would occasion by encouraging illicit dis-
tillalion.

The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
i a
EDUCAT/OR (IRELAND).
The Marctu.
o' LONDONDERRY presented peti-
,
4(1114 from places in the county of Down, in favour of the
Church Education Society.
IMPORTATION OF CATTLE.'
The Earl of ROSEBERRY presented a petition from
Kent against that part of the Tariff which relates to the
importation of cattle.:
THE QUEEN'S PRISONS' BILL.
On the reading of the Order of the Day for the
Committee on the qtteent. Prisons' Bill,
The Earl of DEN ON presented a petition, from seve-
ral peraana confined in the Queen's Bench and Fleet
Prisons, complaining that the Bill would deprive them
of the indulgence of the Rules which they now enjoyed.
Lord CAMPBELL thought it was desirable to continue
the indulgence of the rules ; but would not move any
amendment to the clauses on this subject.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE detbuded the rules. He said
that the persons who took advantages of those were
enabled to defy their creditors, and to refuse a settle-
ment of their affairs. It should be remembered that
these persons could obtain their liberty if they pleased,
and the rules-only encouraged them to continue in prison,
and put off the payment of their debts.
Lord DUNCANNON considered the rules a very
great excuse with the exception of the day rules, which
certainly did sometimes enable a prisoner to bring about
a more speedy settlement of his affairs.
The Bill then went through Committee, and was or-
dered to be printed.
DISSENTERS' AFFIRMATION.
Lord DENMAN presented a petition from a Baptist
congregation in Dunfermline, in favour of the Bill to i
enable those who have conscientious objeotions to take
an oath to be given on affirmation.

CORN LAWS.—THE TARIFF.
Earl STANHOPE presented a petition from a place
in Cambridge, against the proposed alteration of the
Corti-laws, and against the new Tariff. The Noble
Earl also presented a petition from a gentleman named
William Roberts, the inventor of an ingenious and va-
luable discovery in anatomical matters, complaining of
a refusal, on the part of the Commissioners upzainted
in February, 1840, by. the Secretary of State tr'r the
Home Deprrtment, for the purpose of investigating
the working of the Anatomy Act, to examine him upon
the abuses of that Act ; and praying that a Committee
might be appointed to take intoconsideration the serious
and permanent importance of the petitioner's allegations,
and that an opportunity might be afforded him of making
a statement on this subject, and supporting it by the
examination of witnesSes.
The Marquis of NORMANDY not having had notice
of the Noble Earl's intention to present the petition, or
to make the observations which had fallen from him, was
not prepaaed to answer them, He deprecatad themischiefs
which were occasioned by raising unfounded prejudices
in the minds of the people:(Hear, hear.) He admitted
that eery care should be taken to respect the feelings
of the poor ; but he thought at the same time,

Mary Anne Clarke re-called—This bonnet belonged to
Mrs. Jane Good; lam sure of it, because I made it myself.
I have seen the deceased wear it very often, every Sunday—this
gown I believe to have belonged to the deccwd. I have
seen her wear one of the same make, colours, and pattern.
Mr. HALL—Has any one looked into the box of Jane Jones,
alias Good, to see whit clothes were there? Witness-- The
wearing apparel i 9 all taken away, I believe, Sir.
At Mr. HALL'S request ?
Inspector Pearce recalled, and he stated, last Tuesday I saw
two duplicates from Alice Hackstone ; I delivered them to
Sergeant Stephens on the following day, and told him to re-
desm the property, which he did.
Police Sergeant Stephens A, 13—I received two duplicates
on the 20th inst. in the name of William Stanley, from Mr.
Pearce. I went to Mr. Soames, in Brick-lane, and redeemed
the property on the same day and left the duplicate's-
Mr. Maule—That's my case, Sir.
Mr. Pelham—l wish to know how you propose to deal
with this case, sir? If the deceased were the wife of Good,
the property would be his, and it would be no felony
on the part of the prisoner to receive it ; and
the female prisoner cannot be indicted as a re-
ceiver. If she was not his wife, and he stole the
things, and gave them to the female prisoner, then she cannot
be indicted as a receiver. Then if the female prisoner be his
wife, she cannot be indicted for receiving or harbouring him
after the fact, supposing him to be guilty thereof. Those are
the difficulties, and it rests with the Court to say how far they
are guilty, and of what offence.
Mr. HALL—How do you propose, Mr. Mettle, that this case
should be dealt with ?
_ _

Mv, Maule—l must submit to you, Sir, that there is abun-
dant evidence to prove that these persons are accessories after
fact, in harbouring and comforting him after the felony. There
is no evidence that either the female prisoner or the deceased
was the wife of Daniel Gnod. They very likely both of them
cohabited with him. The evidence is rather against the female
prisov,er being his wife, for it was known that he never went
there tiil very lately.
Mr. HALL—You Reed not mind that. I wish to hear in
whar way you propose to commit them.
Mr. MAtlt,k,, ft appears to me, Sir, from the evidence, that
they hared, and assisted, and aided him, knowing him to
havq committed the felony.
Mr. HALL.--There is but one conversation between them
you have.

1 .
Mr. AL:tux—There is one witness which heard a conver-
sattou between the female prisoner and another woman, which
rer gored that she was aware of it; and the conversation
between the two prisoners at the George and Guy,
shows that Gamble 'knew of it; and another witness, the
waiter at the Spotted Dog speaks to the same effect. It is
quite clear that both the prisoners are in possession of part of
the deceased's property; they deny having possession of them
at first; then [ say the possession of the deceased's property
pioves that, after the murder, Good hastened to London, and
carriedsoff the-property of the deceosed ; a great part of this he
took to' the house of Mary Good, and, through her instru-
mentality, a part of it is taken to the house of Gamble,
there it is concealed, and there it is found. If I am
right in the conclusions I draw, I say there is ample evidence
to put these prisoners upon their trial on the charge of being
accessories after the fact of the murder ; or if not that, the fact
of their having the goods and denying the possession of them
without being able to account fur it, is in my opinion quite
sufficient to warrant you in putting them upon their trial for
being accessories: after the fact.: No doubt if the deceased
were the wife of Daniel Good, there would be an end
of the case, and if Mary dood were his wife, she
could not be an accessory either with respect to
the murder or the goods. A wife may be concerned in a
murder jointly with her husband ; but she would be
considered in law sub protestati viri. There is not,
however, the slightest evidence of the deceased
being the wife of Daniel Good, or to show that
Mary Good is, or ever was, the wife of Daniel • Good. The
case must, therefore, be treated as if neither of them
were his wife. The ease against Gamble, with re-,
spect to his being found in possession of this property, is
very strong. He is' seen on the 11th in the house of this
woman, and that is the first time we find them together. On
the 12th, too, and on the 14th, he is, seen to go into her house
and to come out; and on the 16th the goods are found
under his bed. I do not mean to say that this
implies any attempt at secrecy, because there might have
been no other place of safety wherein to deposit the property.
I Cannot help thinking on the whole that, A should have no
hesitation in saying that he ought to be pat upon his trial as a
receiver of stolen property. Utter all the circumstances I
think I shall commit him on this part of the case. With
respect to Mary Good, the ease against her as .accessory after
the fact is much stronger than against Gamble.—
(The worthy Magistrate toen recapitulated the principal
1 points in the eridepce, and he then continued):—'these are
all very strong facts; but I think the best and safest course I
can adopt, is to commit them both as receivers of stolen pro-
perty, leaving it to the gentlen concerned in the prosecution to
prefer any other charge which they may think proper. -
Mr. BUrnalay, the Chief Clerk, then commenced reading the
depositions, which occupied a considerable time ; they were
concluded by six o'clock, when the w4esses were all bound
over to prosecute, and the primers were fully committed to
take their trial at the next Old Bailey Sessions on the charge
of receiving ..stelen property, well khowing it to have been
stolen;
Mary Good applied to know if she might have the money
which had been found upon her, and which the polite had taken
from her, for the purpose of procuring tome comforts for her-
self whilst in prison.
Mr. Haut granted the osppbeation, and also made as order
that the 1/. 10s. fond, on Gamble shoald be given up; to him.
The prisoners were then removed from the bar, and were
siaortly tter conveyed to Newgate, in the prison-van..