The Sun. — 1844-04-20 (London, England)

APRIL 2(, 1844.  In the House of Lords, after the presentation of certain petitions, and the postponement of several Bills, the Bishop of EXETER presented petitions syclanat the Dissenters' Chapel Bill, and intimated his intention oc opposing the Bill. In presenting these petitio,, iv., took the opportunity of exhibiting a sPectllletn-.o'.laigh Cairch bigotry. It was stated thA sptikelytAena __ _ . _ . viilit the eZrom the Presbyterian Church orlre was no such Church in Ireland °OA , 1171 tliilri,w _ _._, ~.. , al. an express canon of the otrirrit iv, , , Church themselves mernbcrb r4-*j'--_,_tiq)..- -,,, 4., CaUrCh of England, Die . „ JE  canon was established in 1603 in England, and about thirty years afterwards in Ireland. The Marquis of NORMANDY gave notice that on Monday he would call attention to certain omissions in the papers recently laid on the table relative to G walior.  Adjourned at Half-past Five o'Clock. In the Commons several petitions were presented against the Masters and Servants Bill. Mr. T. DuxCOMBE presented thirty-six petitions of this description from some of the most populous towns in England, among others Manchester, Birmingham, Bolton, Norwich, Nottingham, and Rochdale. Dr. BOWRING gave notice that on Tuesday he should move for the newspaper stamp returns. Mr. BRIGHT called the attention of the Home Secretary to the conviction of an unfortunate woman at the present assizes in London, for the murder of her child. It appeared from the evidence that she had attempted to commit suicide and destroy her child at the same time, from the utmost destitution. The Judge in passing sentence held out no hope of mercy. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said his attention had not been called to the fact till that moment. He could not, however, enter into a discussion on such a subject, but the Hon. Member might rest assured he would do his best to exercise a sound and dispassionate judgment on all the circumstances of the case. It is singular that while this melancholy affair has excited general attention, the Home Secretary, who, above all others, should have known the merits of the case, had never heard of it. In answer to a question from Mr. Ross, Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he had every reason to believe that a Bill would shortly be brought into the other House on the subject of Presbyterian marriages in Ireland. On the motion of Lord ELIOT, the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on the 29th. The Committee on the County Courts Bill was fixed for Monday next. Mr. TUFNELL asked why a writ had not been issued for Horsham on the accessionof Mr. SCARLETT to the Peerage. Sir T. FREMANTLE presumed that the writ of summons to the House of Lords had not been issued, and consequently the Hon. Gentleman was still a Member of the House.  Lord J. RUSSELL blamed such a slovenly mode of proceeding, and intimated his intention of bringing the subject formally before the House, in case such negligence should again occur. On the Order of the Day being read for the House resolving itself into a Cornmitiee of Supply, Sir C. NAPIER moved for certain returns respecting the timber received into the royal dockyards during the  last ten years. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT did not find himself justified in giving the returns, but he was willing to give every information to the Gallant Member which he could, without prejudice to the public service. A discussion took place on the appointment of stipendiary magistrates in Ireland, and chiefly on the late appointment of Mr. O'BRIEN, but it led to no result. The House then went into Committee of Supply. Several votes for colonial establishments were agreed to. On a vote of 13,G801. being proposed for the civil charges of St. Helena, Mr. HUME moved as an amendment that the sum be reduced by 2,0001., when, on a division, the amendment was rejected by a majority of 45. Several other votes were agreed to, and the House resumed. The other Orders of the Da7 were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at twelve o'clock.  In the House of Commons last night, Mr. BRIGHT, greatly to his credit, called the Home Secretary's attention to a recent capital conviction at the Central Criminal Court, which has excited public sympathy in no slight degree. "The case," remarked the Hon. Member for Durham, "struck him as being one of the most extraordinary that had ever occurred. It appeared that a poor woman had thrown herself and baby into the water, being at the time in circumstances of the utmost destitution. Apparently her intention was to commit suicide, and not leave her infant alone and unprotected in the world behind her. Her own life was preserved, but the child perished. The unhappy creature bad been sentenced to death for her crime, and one of the newspaper reports stated that the judge gave her no hope whatever that mercy would be extended to her. Such a statement required no comment, and he now wished to he satisfied that the Right Hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to so distressing a case." Now, what was Sir J. GRAHAM'S answer to  this affecting statement ? "In point of fact," said the Home Secretary, " his attention had not been called to the matter until the present moment. In the very delicate duty which would devolve upon him, the Hon. Member might rest assured he would do his best to exercise a sound and dispassionate judgment; but beyond this, he could not then say anything, as the House must be aware of the inconvenience attending such discussions." Anything more cool—we might almost add, supercilious—than this reply we do not often remember to have met with, even in the records of Parliament. It exhibits all that free and easy indifference to human life for which SIDMOUTH and CASTLEREAGH were so remarkable. The whole town is just now ringing with the case of poor MARY FURLEY ; the judgment pronounced on her—legal though it undoubtedly is—is generally declared to be harsh and unmerited; yet the Home Secretary knows nothing at all about the matter ! The very Minister, who, from his official position,  should be perfectly cognizant with every case of moment that transpires in tho criminal jurisdiction of the country, boldly states that his " attention has not been called" to one of the most heart-rending trials that have taken place at the Old Bailey for many a year, " until the present moment !" Does Sir JAMES GRAHAM never read the newspapers ? If be is in the habit of doing so, he cannot fail to have read the whole circumstances of this distressing case, which have been detailed at length in the columns of the daily journals, wherein also may be found most unquestionable proof of the public sympathy for