The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-04-03 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS, TUESDAY.

The Duke of WELLINGTON stated, that reference having
been made by the noble • and learned lord opposite to the
execution of a man, by mistake, in Ireland, he had made some
inquiries on the subject, the result of which he should now state
to the house. The individual in question was tried before Judge
Torrens. He was indicted by the name of Savage for the mur-
der of his wife nine years ago, on account, it was supposed, of
jealousy. The murder was committed by the husband ma most
barbarous manner. He cat tied the body out on his shoulders,
and threw it in the river, and a trace of blood was clearly dis-
tinguishable from the place where the murder was committed to
the river. That the murder was perpetrated by the husband
was never denied or questioned. The murderer was never seen
in Ireland or England afterwards, excepting, once, about two
}eats ago, when he was met on a mountain by the brother of
his deceased wife, by mere accident. The brother was horrified
at meeting him, and reproached him with the murder. His an-
swer was, that he was sorry he had not killed more of them. He
was never seen afterwards. The individual who suffered, and
whose real name was Pyne, was subsequently arrested, under
the impression that he was the murderer. Judge Torrens di-
rected an attorney of the name of Wheeler, and a counsellor
named Hazard, to defend the prisoner, and to communicate
with him on the subject of his identity; but the prisoner main-

n

tained a dogged silence, and the fact of identity was the sole
question for theconsideration of the jury at large. The pri-
soner's, identity was sworn to by his two:brothers-in-law, and
by another person who was not connected with him. On the
other hand, a witness swore " that if he was the man named in
the indictment, he was so altered that he did not know him
then." Some other individuals were ready to swear to his iden-
tity, but the learned judge thought that the previous evidence
was quite sufficient. The prisoner never brought forward any
evidence to show who he really was.. There was not, therefore,
the smallest doubt as to the proprie,ty of the conviction, br as to
the conduct of those who were cohcerned in the proceedings.
This, he believed, was a true statement of the case. (Hear.)
There was a paragraph in the letter which he had received of a
private nature, but which he would communicate to the noble
and learned lord, if he desired it.
Lord BROUGHAM said, nothing could be more satisfactory
than the explanition of the noble duke, or could more clearly
show that nothing had been done rashly or precipitately in this
case. It turned out, as he thought it would, that the question
submitted to the jury was one of fact, on which they haddecided
according to the evidence laid before them. Hie had been
on the jury, he must have arrived at the same conclusion.
One of the witnesses, it appeared, had said, that if the prisoner
were the person named in the indictment, he was very much
changed in his appearance. It was very probable that a man
who had committed murder nine years before would be con-
siderably changed;- therefore, it was not surprising that this
doubt, when opposed. to positive evidence, did not carry much
weight with it.
The Earl of RIPON presented a petition from a -lace in
Leicestershire against the illicit importation of corn from the
Isle of Man.
The Earl of MarssYtEl presented petitions from Scotland
in favour of the established church in that country.
The Earl of ROSEBERY moved that the reports relative to
the state of gaols in Scotland, which had been made pursuant
to the act of 1822, should be laid on the table.—Ordered.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from Lie master
bakers of Henley-upon-Thames for the better observance of
the Sabbath.

CHURCH REFORM.

The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented a petition from a
very large and respectable meeting of the vestry of Marylebone,
praying for an effectual reform of the abuses of the church esta-
blishment. The noble marquis said, as the present ministers
had set up as reformers, it was to be hoped that they would, ac-
cede to the wishes of the petitioners, by instituting an inquiry
into "the various errors, corruptions, and abuses which time
had engendered, or ignorance fostered, in the present state of
the established church,' and that they would, "by the removal
of the same, increase the stability of the church, the usefulness
of the. clergy, and the aatisfaction of :the people." The peti-
tioners particularly deplored, as fore Most among the crying
evils of the present church establishment, those of "pluralities •
and non-residence." They Contended, and very justly, that
residence where they had cure of souls should bd strictly en-
joined on the clergy They were anxious that the incomes of
the clergy should be to a certain extent equalized; and they
"besought their lordships to adopt such regulations and reforms
in the distribution of the ecclesiastical revenues as would better
apportion the emoluments Of the ministers to the duties which
they had to perform." To such a proposition he conceived there
could be no reasonable objection. Again,lhe petitioners stated
"that they were unfeignedly anxious that the revenues of the
deans and chapters, at the termination of existing interests,
should be appropriated to the maintenance and repairs of the
different churches of the establishment, and after that had been
accomplished, to the increase of small livings, or to other bene-
ficial purposes." In the propriety of pursuing such a course he
entirely concurred. The petitioners further proceeded to say,
that they would venture to remind their lordships "that the
revenues of the church were the property of the state; and as
the state had at various times altered their destination, it had
always been, and must ever be, its right as much as itsdutyto
apply them to any purposes which it might think mosteonducive
to the public good and to the moral and intellectual improve-
ment of the people." To that position he also subscribed. The
petitioners finally expressed their regret (and here, as we under-
stood, the noble marquis dissented from the opinion of the peti-
tioners) that the right rev. prelates should have seats in the
upper house of parliament. They suggested that it would be
better for the interests of religion if the right rev. prelates- with-
drew themselves from a scene of political intrigue, which was
quite unbecoming of their sacred character. (Cries of "Oh!
oh !" from the ministerial benches.)
Lord KENYON said that he happened to be present when the
petition which had been presented by the noble marquis was
got up, and he begged leave to state to their lordships what had
occurred on that occasion, and who were the parties most pro-
minent in forwarding the objects of the meeting to which the
petition was submitted. The noble marquis had stated that.-the
petition was-agreed to by a large majority of the vestry of Mary-
lebone. That vestry consisted of 170 individuals, and the peti-
tioners amounted ti} 56. That was what the noble marquis,
called a large majority: The petitioners complained of the.
great abuses io the church: 'But who were those, he would ask,
who made that complaint? The petition was moved by an
avowed dissenter, an unitarian, who could not be supposed to
have any very great reverence for the discipline or doctrines of
the established religion, however vehemently he might have ex-
pressed himself on the subject of the abuses of the church,
which, it appeared, he wished to have reformed, for the purpose
of benefiting an establishment towards which it was not likely
that he entertained any very friendly feeling. The person who
seconded the motion had been a clergyman of the church of
England. Some years ago he was in holy orders, but he had
retired from the establishment and become an unitarian. That

individual had abused the established church very much, and he
(Lord Kenyon) had felt it to be his duty to remonstrate with
him on the line of conduct which he pursued at the meeting.
He did not think it proper that the vestry-room of Marylebone
should be made a theatre for discussions of this kind ; and find-
ing that he could not induce the parties assembled to adopt a
moderate and respectful tone, he retired. What had happened
afterwards he did not know; but he believed that a great deal
of abuse was heaped on the established church. When those
parties asserted that the property. of the established church be-
longed to the state, and that it might be used for state purposes
(asropinion in which the' noble marquis coincided,) he at once
confessed that to such a conclusion he could never come. He
believed that 4-sths if not 9-10ths of those wha signed the peti-
tion were dissenters, and were not friendly to' the church • but
they ought not to abuse it merely because they ,held a different
opinion; and holding such opinions as they aid with reference
to the Christian Teligion, he did not think that their sentiments
on a question of this nature were entitled to much respect.
Their invariable course was to endeavour to convert the vestry-
room into an arena of
.political discussion, when they treated
the 'subject of religion in such a manner as showed that they
understood very little of its precepts and doctrines.
The petition was laid upon the table.
Ou the motion of Lord Ellenborough the Agra government
bill went through a committee, and was reported.
The bribery witnesses indemnity bill was read a second time.
—Adjourned.

'HOUSE OF COMMONS, TUESDAY.
The Worcester election committee was ballotted for.
Mt. HUTT presented a petition from the shipowners and other
inhabitants of Hull, complaining of the Stadt duties and the
duties payable to the Heligoland Lighthouse. The Stadt du-
ties amounted to £1 per ship, and were levied for the King of
Hanover on all British vessels (vessels of other nations were
exempt) navigating the river Elbe. The petitioners com-
plained that those duties were levied in a most vexatious man-
ner. They also complained that British ships alone were obliged
to contribute towards defraying the expense of the Heligoland
Lighthouse. That lighthouse was erected by the British govern-
ment in 1810, at an expense of £lO,OOO, and it was of the great-
est benefit to foreign as well as British vessels, though the for-
mer had nothing to pay for it.
Mr. CARRUTHERS supported the prayer of the petition.
Mr. ROBINSON thought it was a serious question how far the
King of Hanover bad a right to impose dutieb on British ship-
owners that were not paid by the shipwoners of Hamburgh.
After a few words from Mr. Hume, the petition was ordered
to lie on the table.
Mr. HuTT presented a petition from the unitarian dissenters
of Hull, on the subject of the dissenters' marriage act. They
approved of the act generally, but objected to the oath
.pro-
posed to be administered, and to the payment of a fee of seven
shillings for registration.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the bill had been altered,
and that the oath clause had been omitted.
LEICESTER ELECTION.

Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE called the attention of the house to
the Leicester election petition. On the motion of the honour-
able member for North Devonshire on Thursday evening
last, the house determined that leave should be given to substi-
tute the name of "Thomas" for "Samuel" Stokes, as one of
the sureties to the petition presented against the return of the
sitting member. Now, the house had acted in this manner, not
by virtue of a power inherent in them, but accorded by an ex-
press act of the legislature. He was sure, therefore, that the
house would see that unless the provisions of this act were com-
plied with, they would be assuming an authority to which they
had no legal claim. He wished particularly to call the atten-
tion of the house to the consequences that would flow from their
vote of Thursday, because he did not believe that those conse-
quences could have been in the contemplation of any hon. mem-
ber who had then been in the majority. The hon. member, after
stating the circumstances connected with the case, which have
been already before the public, proceeded to read the 7th section
of the statute 9 George IV., c. 22, by which a yower was given
to the house to change the name of the sureties:—" Provided
always, that seven clear days at the least shall intervene between
the day on which the names shall have been delivered in and
entered in a book kept in the office of the clerk as aforesaid,
and the day on which the stiffleientprf the-sureties shall be ex-
amined as hereinbefore directed: Now, he did not mean to
insist specifically on the number of seven, but it was enough that
the time allowed by the vote of Thursday for examining into
the sufficiency of the sureties was not long enough. There was
a clear distinction, however, between the vote of Thtirsday and
the motion which he intended to make. He must say that the
interpretation of the act on which that decision was wounded
was an interpretation of extreme liberality, hut the present
question was not one of construction. He stood upon the
ground of the simple ,declaration of the law, and from that
ground he was sure the house would not wish to recede. It might
be argued that there was no infraction of the law in permitting
the substitution of the name of Thomas for Samuel, but the con-
sequences of that substitution would be not so much a benefit
to one party as a penal infliction on another. He was far from
wishing the house to do anything unprecedented, improper, or
gratuitous, hut he wished to deliver the house out of a di-
lemma. He would not inquire how far the assumption by a
separate branch of the lee'islature of a power to dispense with
a law was justifiable. He would not enter into a discussion on
the consequences of such a course, on the infiniteness of its re-
sults, and the insensiblevdegrees by which such assumptions grew
too formidable to the constitution, but he should be content to
rest on the plain principles of common sense and justice.
( Hear, hear.) It was his intention to move that the order for
the consideration of the Leicester petition, on the 14th of ,May
next, should be discharged; but as a preliminary motion, he
should propose that the special report of the examiners be read.
The clerk having read the report,
Mr. GLA DSTONE moved that the order of the house for taking
into consideration the petition against the return of the sitting
members for the county of Leicester on the 14th of May be dis-
chat ged.
Mr. GISEOENE said that though the house did not on some
occasions do justice in point of form it did so in matter of
justice. The house frequently did what in a court of law would
be looked upon as injustice. (" Hear," and laughter.) What
he meant was, that the House of Commons did not suffer itself
to be hound by technicalities, or by the strict rules of evidence.
(Increased laughter.) He was speaking of the general habit
of the house. (Laughter continued.) It was well known that
this power was frequently exercised by the house in order to
effect substantial justice. *There were two parties in the town of
Leicester—the corporation, and those who were opposed to it.
Mr. Burbage, the crafty agent of that notorious corporation,
pretended not to know what Mr. Stokes was meant under the
name of Thomas Stokes, hosier, but they had been in constant
• collision on election matters fur the last 21 years, and filet e was
only one person of that paint in the town. The sufficiency of
Mr. Stokes might have been fully ascertained, and,ls the peti-
' tioners had not four sufficient sureties, he called qn the house
• not to reverse its former decision.
' After a few words from Messrs. Warburton, Roebuck, Glad-
! stone and Scarlett, the debate was adjourned to Friday (this
• r day.)