The Sun. — London, England, 1834-08-09 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS We have a great dislike to whatever wears the appear ance 0f tri ckcrY, and we must own that ther e i s somet hi ng Billeerly.like t r i c k ery in the treatment of the County Coroners, ,like the discussion on the amendments made by the cm's on this Bill in the House of Commons, on Wednes day night, Mr. Warburton objected to that which. struck oe;turttls7 clau se , t h at all Coroners ' Courts should be open " Th e groun d ( sa i d Mr. W.) on which the House °I Lords thought proper to strike the clause out, was that, i n_ the op i n i on of their Lordships, Coroners' Courts were :rFade open courts "P ,according t o th e p resen t l aw .' Mr. es said " he had int ro d uce d th e c l ause i n t h at H ouse , ;led it was a,ereed to, and sent up to the House of Lords, ii;here the clause was opposed as unnecessary, first by Lord e eu nlan, who, as L or d C h i ef Justice, was himself the ch i ef Co r onere of England, an d w h o d ec l are d i t as hi s op i n i on t h at ners Courts were open. In that opinion the Lord `' ch ancello r an d other legal Lords agreed ; and the Hon. 1 ; t 1 Learned Gentleman who held the office of Attorney ,',,eneral previou s t o th e present Attorney-General, as well as Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, concurred in the d'a:lelieopinion. The doubt h a d ar i sen i n con sequence of a e 'ion giv on b y t h e late Lord Tenterden, in the Oldham as e , in 1819, on w hi ch occasion the Coroner had excluded somepersons whom he considered improper, and Lord Ten le,rden held that lie had a r i g ht t o d o so . The House of o, ° . rd s s was aware o f t hi s d ec i s i on, yet t h ey cons id ere d t h e e u nnecessary, as they still thought the Court an open one, though the C oroner h a d a r i ght to exc l u d e i mproper persons• In s h ort, i t was the universal opinion that the urt was an open Court. " There seemed, indeed, to be no doubt whatever, in the opinions of the Lords, that Co snTrenee Courts were open ; but to make assurance doubly e i e, r it was tho ug ht a d v i sa bl e to d eman d a con f erence, i n i 1 ( 0 1 e! to have the ma tt er put to rest b y statutory enactment . Althorp sa id h e thought " that the House of Lords, e ,„ 11 e matter bei ng represente d to t h em i n i ts proper li g h t , old yet alter the clause to meet the wishes of the Coin ' and, therefore, he thought that the better course •woeuld be for the House to disagree with the amend ent of the Lords.—(Hear, hear.) It was of im _rtanee that Coroners' Inquests should be open, and if the quest did not agree to the clause to that effect, then the ten est icin must be again taken into consideration." The ealeindment was accordingly rejected, a conference was de in ded and took place • and last night the subject. was gr oun d g ought under the ' consideration of the Lords. The iinnof opposition to the clause at first was, that it was Itlr ec e, es , sa rY—Corone rs ' Courts were already open ; and f -111) Ps , in simplicity of heart, believed that the clif- Znee between himself and the Lords was merely ideal. ease that after ed, therefore (he said), this being the state of the the b., at after the numerous debates which took place on eute°olll--after the unanimous opinion given by the ideal, 0110 ities, and seeing that the objection was merely House would agree to the Bill as amended in the other ci s e s e. Ideal ! no such thing, good Mr. Cripps. It was Ive 'led that you should believe the difference to be ideal ; but djuir matters came to the push, the Lordslet you see that the last er a ee was any thing but ideal. The Lord Chancellor Cor n " t said " he was of opinion that in most cases the iei g e e t ne _ rs : Courts should be open to the public ; but cases justi ce 'lse where such a course would defeat the ends . of f ore l -- ( Hear.) It was only a preliminary inquiry be be itne Coroner, and if the doors were not sometimes to for e t ; i 3 : e d , the inquiry as to the offender would be useless, of s e who were suspected of the crime would be aware fe e eeesliseicions against them, and would take care to . be • ourt lf this clause was continued in the Bill, d o e -°r °ner would not have the power of shutting the aon any occasion. The murderer might st t n htt e c o rt :; f a t a n t t n e t l d l h leV e w aCy hat an opportunity it would give him of hear suspicions were ; and if he thought they were m ove might get out of the way. He should therefore the ela resolution that their Lordships could not agree with op en a r ,U 3 o of the Commons making the Coroners' Court an e, dr Court, and then for the appointment of a Committee With aw ,"o the reasons of their Lordships in not agreeing of wtitle Commons." Lord Wynford, the Duke e e ' Llu gton, the Earl of Falmouth, the Duke 4 et iinberland• all sang the same song. The of ar gee o f Worcester alone took a different view " had questi on . " The greatest abuses," he said, he w scnhetitries taken place in the Coroners' Courts ; and ee te a t s of opinion with the House of Commons, that those kilt: ou ght on all occasions to be thrown open to the of ex b ee lf ; however, the Coroner was to have the • power ihtrode tiding the public, he trusted that a clause would be of t h e ne ed to compel that officer to publish a special report i n Pri reaS nnS which induced him to carry on the inquiry to the Va te We believe there can be but one opinion as t o th e Veantage of having the Coroners' Courts open. A . s formation a nger of murderers availing themselves of . the in if , Purelythe Court were open, we believe it to be i ng C -- sularY ; whereas the evils resulting from allow- It i s, ° . r °nrs to exclude the public, are many and great. th e d in f act, notorious that nothing contributes more to by eteetion of murde r than the interest excited to a case ereit t n li itY: The whole population may be said to be iestc" ny the publication of the report on the side of l ead 'e t. , and circumstances apparently the most trifling often Dor t tur ongh publicity being given to them, to the most imhe doo ant d iscoveries. But once allow the Coroner to shut t er e I ' s of his Court when he sees occasion, and the public see e ei ent iTely at his mercy. One Coroner will never l e .asion t o open his Court, while another will always tl: re e ' a us Court open. The decision of Lord Tenterden, in ag a i ns se of the proprietor of The Manchester Guardian th e e t the Coroner of Oldham, places the Coroner above Core esi en ge ; f or , accor ding to Lord Tenterden, though a es,her or ot h er f unct i onary m i g ht err, he ought never to th e "e ; and if he were liable to be called to account for h m anner in which he exercised his functions, he might is 4 a lo ss h ow to act. The dec i s i on o f L or d T enter d en eeu.nw sanctioned by the House of Lords. But what is Aar 0 ° ,7 - this view is only produced as a dernier resource. et e `'"APs and th e ot h er M em b ers o f t h e H ouse o f Corn erues Who took interest in the bill, have either been ar e n g i i an ° uslY stupid, or been egregiously duped. Now we hot a loss t o see w h y a s i mple matter o f t hi s ki n d cou ld th e 've been t reate d i n a p l a i n an d s i mp l e manner. If the Cods who gu id e t h e P eers rea ll y saw ev il s i n open i ng old oners Courts, why allow it to be believed that they h ee Y a nisagreed with the clause in the bill of the Commons, texseist,:cienlCoroners' Courts being already open, there was no leleo'n declaring by a new law what was law already ? lead .e thing, fill the minds of people with suspicion, and to suspect improper designs where none really • Morning Chronicle. Th e B . Bishop of Exeter's amendment, for the omission t ti l l! Bastardy Clause of the Poor Laws Amendmen 13i,j a s rejected last night by a majority of eleven. The that Made an eloquent speech, and there is no question , eiti l s ? justic e a bastard child ought not to be a burden cre e l on the mother. That the change in the law ee; re l ong, materially diminish the number of bastards is , 1111 Y believ e ; because at present a breach of chastity in N r eftmended to the female as the surest means of obtain not a h e b ' l ot r and. At present, in the agricultural districts, it is th e ii?e,4.°ned disgraceful to a female to have a bastard ; and th in l e s n°l) of Exeter was probably not far wrong when he said as Aemales who erred before marriage became generally etil..unnd b e esiv as oth ers . N ow t h at a b reac h o f c h ast it y 4 h e i ° 3 t o as the best means of obtaining tishos and, th e females who yield will probably, as the tvh eie p of Ex e t er o b served, be more corrupt. Upon the k ar •' however, th e goo d w ill great l y prepon d erate. ]'here will not be f orce d as they, are at present. alee t e 0 1 no need to add to the strong natural induce- ' a la w Young persons to marry, the stimulus of th e s to young th e f ema l e to a d eparture f rom c h ast i ty as tha t t tl i" r , e st means of obt a i n i ng a h us b an d. Whil e we a d m it alt oe ,„ e law will be productive of a d van t a g e , we cannot Tee reconcile ourselves to a departure from the do e , P i es of justice, from views of expediency. It certainly l ee rent unfair that a female should be debarred by the tot ee ° ;_, England from all legal claim of and from the father ovvQ,,.the support of their common offspring. The Duke Parisof edieet_ n ° ton proposed several clauses securing the relief c ilari be s from fathers, after the mothers shall become heo e r t a l nle to parishes. The mother is in no case to li ke th the contributions of the father ; and something peternit principle of the Scotch law of evidence as to the ni ent Y is adopt e d . Th e D u k e o f Wellington's amend they s e r e mate r i a l i mprovemen t s . We are m i sta k en i f ho le s not tend mater i a ll y to c h ec k th e s y s t em o f per j ury, antie;e° co mmon with loo s e females. On the whol e , we gre at ' e t e much ad vantage t o th e community from thi s clate,: na enge in our P oor L aws, aga i ns t which so muc h oetTr has been excited, sometimes from weakness, but Che eizie i . wo fear, from a much worse motive.—Morning L a l lle defeat which we hoped the whole of the new Poor best,l;easure would have sustained by the rejection of the t oeetZeY,.clause last night in the House of Lords has no a gain st 4,, After an able speech from the Bishop of Exeter th e ti L that clause, and certainly an able one also for it by moo Teet ee sll °P of London the clause to the great regret of all and we , h . ad almost ' said . to the shame of man t •nally carried by a majority of 11. Still the 0 , th e is not dependent on this clause ; it comes down 'hoo -omr nons again for the sanction or rejection of those telles which have been made in the Upper House. And e fe 'lli ti a r ll; l o ' e a u se th o e whole Bill has passed, if it do pass, will it be eotpereateintne.xecution? We look with heavy hearts to its The chancres which it will produce in what kij,l l : ern -led social life —for the poor surely - make a part of e;heth)Tc-•-er of the most Fearful and ominous kind. The poor, N u , • nen ne • d,aod ho or in need of employment, are to be fed, localtriarvis.ra used,by strangers. It is said that the aid of the e e, eee and other residents of opulence, will be Lak e , o ,_Lo Larry the Bill into full effect. Why, the Bill waY Larry the local magistracy and opulent residents all their influence and power ; Government commissioners work " over their heads," or in a manner totally distinct from them ; the connexion between the poor and their neighbours is broken,—the alien, the foreigner, comes in. It is with pain that we cease to hope that the House of Commons will reject so monstrous a Bill, or at least transfer the final consideration from this closing session and a few exhausted members, to a new session and a full house, after the members shall have had opportunity to consult with their constituents, and talk with their neighbours ; for it must be recollected that no such measure as this was ever expected or conceived as likely to be brought in at the beginning of the session.—Times. The Poor Law Bill, notwithstanding all the attempts of a certain portion of the press, Tory and non-descript, to destroy it, has, at last, all but passed the House of Lords. The Bishop of Exeter's amendment on the bas tardy clause was negatived, and we are glad of it, in one respect, and, in some measure, sorry in another. As a matter of feeling we do not, and never did, like the origi nal clause in the Bill on this subject, and we trust that in another Session it will be so modified as to meet the feel ings, as well as the principles, of all parties ; but, at the same time, we are bound to confess that all the evidence, both foreign and domestic reported by the Poor Law Com missioners, is in favour of it, and that we have advocated it precisely on the same ground that a Jury would give its verdict for, or against, a culprit. We have been guided by the evidence ; but now that the Bill has been carried, we think we may fairly enough, and without any imputation of inconsistency, state that we think the clause may be most beneficially altered. It is, of course, after this declaration, unnecessary for us to add that we approve of the amend ment of the Duke of Wellington, which was carried, and we hope will be made part of the Bill.—Morning Advertiser. WriNGS: this exhibition, imong them " ph of Cha rle y . is in England' the bold outline. 111 . 6 of Chari t Y' 15 light and buoy . a warm, sunny Pa illt4 all its Most L preservation. lepth and t ell : t h e be st neans artist. ia"a: It i 5 -n. and mad!' by L uc retia , its flesh tints as in g pictures!. ourselves Ow xcellenee. M. de Moe • de he Marqu , : ao we nee yes' 'eign""iffice; the yesterday a tvor of Shre o ' i. )rd Aylmer, ,ibet) yesterday w` James's Park °ffice on Lower Cao'era' vernor of I:Pr riscount AlthlP Pal s° James's iort Herbert 5. Col oel ma anc, .n town• e a s t suite, arrii• • sty' t to his iviaJ e ~f r isg6 took a `.-; to ad, retarnieg rincess Me t ,: eseace• er pr on. dustry at .ard, whi ch tr y of ty and gel l 0 131 oo n at the the the weather' Lord and L ivid ° with the 'HIS PAY') it rong John ships sell ee ica; anci ve any sign ) a l f s. ;oo l vecc his o k , ' h fr' nl last ilig - ", t „ t at shore, . " strong broke:` rd t the Ilei port froo Baldwin?we ; Jena pith st, Head, frV a rb)" , Cherub , fro l° 11, Pearson' .usitania, 13r°° s, Hunter, 11" Church, 1141 st. r, from Back, fr° l3 t e bo Quebeeio,, fruit' bee. 9 Qat' • Lgg, from Joe .vne, Taylo r, / r ot , ' bank, Bo "'lO l, ; Nest 7,1e 0 L St, John?,001 Castle, zabeth, from Stn)c, o r n Messina ; Stettio• I , o o' nnell, frou l ' f A ber ' ,ar l 0 00 0 ' Ltb, from ;t. - ers, trou' ia ,o s ; At Byron, . , sv in swiek fry v Griffit hs ' fro ' len Wh ite ' IV 'and A r° ' treat, fr°ll3 seice nce, from 00 e ssel s o 5 e that v a • I Newert • ion for aeL e o tl o winding '" reland. [CE. NG. 0 01' 1 . ork, Thll_,,ol or two-Y r "" C. 7 stibg.l .......... 9 .......... obej r the c hair , ar ts y by thre e d by th e b s, sst , 41; s h ail , Mile o'l .......... • ' 4 0, .......... .• 1, 4 J, and 3 to i Y,l ;abella 1 0 00 a, lee Was g C. turn tog e di e( , came 40 this tim e es el ° s e tt )wever , length yrs . _old. 15 subs . ' 1 .......... , .......... - 1 1ye....•• 4 0 1 ............. to t be otillon s otb t Oft - t l lO 3 nd, ° "%th speed °Steletli° efeating tiis rter e s ,., s `;it t p t id Led " — t i g e " e of way 0 0,5 ec 5 carwilg w orking'l o ie PI t e b e re 1 ✓ e ko o , excess' $S ,e , ing bY * R io. eo e o ver the id t e , (wr ref er ter 19 , le ft• res t s• eogat, 10 ej , s§l , S 6 y• rS P 4 0 1;0 wees ••• ‘l , ''' ..••• s e, ••. ...... • • •,; 1 4 1 : - c 4 , uaj or' s length' e e the 51b 'st 8 ' ...... ' 4 ..... ..... 3 i‘ b,..••• ) 1d I°'. 1 •• • 3 ----- 4 11 , kes • • • 'tort )1 . to Ftess'r FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE. ST. JAMES'S PALACE, AUGUST 6, 1834. This day had audiences of his Majesty, the Prince de Talleyrand, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary from the King of the French, to take leave, pro tempore ; and the Count St. Martin D'Aglie, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from the King of Sardinia, to deliver a letter from his Sovereign : To which audiences they were respectively introduced by Lord Viscount Palmerston, his Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and conducted by Sir Robert Chester, Knt., Master of the Ceremonies. FOREIGN-OFFICE, AUGUST 4. His Majesty has/been graciously pleased to nominate and appoint John Samo, Esq. (in the room of John Henry Lance, Esq., re tired) to be his Majesty's Commissary Judge to the Mixed British and Netherland Court of Commission, established at Surinam under the Treaty concluded on the 4th of May, 1818, between Great Britain and the Netherlands, for the. prevention of illegal Slave Trade, and pursuant to the Acts of Parliament which have been passed for carrying that Treaty into effect. CROWN-OFFICE, Aucvsz 8. MEMBER RETURNED TO SERVE IN THE PRESENT PARLIAMENT. BOROUGH OF CIRENCESTER.-The Hon. Sir Robert Edward Henry Somerset, Knight of the Most Howurable Military Order of the Bath, co mmon ly c a lled Lord Robert Mdward Henry Somer set, in the room of the Right Hon. Henry George Bathurst, com monly called Lord Apsley, now Earl Bathurst. OFFICE OF ORDNANCE, Auc. 6. Royal Regiment of Artillery—Lieut-Col. A. Bredin to be Co lonel, vice Cary, deceased ; Capt. and Brevet Major S. Kirby to be Lieut.-Colonel, vice Bredin; Second Capt. G. Pringle to be Captain, vice Kirby ; First Lieut. B. Cuppage to be Second Cap tain, vice Pringle ; Second Lieut. C. Bingham to be First Lieu tenant, vice Cuppage, July 20. Commissions signed by Lords Lieutenant. Shropshire MilitiaL-W. W. T. Bayntum, Esq., to be Captain. Hereford Militia—R. B. Phillipps, Esq., to be Deputy Lieute nant. Royal South Gloucester Light Infantry Regiment of Militia— M. W. Merryweather, Gent., to be Ensign. DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY. DONALISVA:EIZINNON, wine-merchant, Fitzroy-street, Fitzroy-square. BANKRUPTCY ENLARGED. FREDERICK MESSENGER, corn-merchant, Liverpool, from Aug. 19 to 27, at two, at the Clarendon-rooms, Liverpool. BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED. WILLIAM CROWTHER, apothecary, Sans-buildings, Is lington. JOHN DRAGE, horse-dealer, Northampton. BANKRUPTS. SAMUEL MASON, ;Ictialie;, - AshbY-de-la-Zouch, Leicester shire, August 27, and September 19, at Leicester Castle. Emly and Sanger, Essex-court, Temple, London ; Robinson and Ingram, Leicester. ROBERT THOMAS, potatoe-salesman, Wapping, August 21, at half-past eleven, and Sept. 19, at half-past t welve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, Abchurch-lane, official assignee ; Madox, Austin-friars. WILLIAM TARRANT, coach-maker, Bathwick, Somerset shire, August 26, and S e pt e mber 19, at eleven, at the Castle and Ball Inn, Bath. Dax and Bicknell, Lincoln's-Inn-fields, London ; Drake, Bath. FRANCIS ALVEN, ostrich-feather merchant, Walbrook, Lon don, August 18, at twelve, and Sept. 19, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Willis, Watson, Bower, and Willis, Tokenhouse yard ; W. Whitmore, Basinghall-street, official assignee. WILLIAM SKEATH, saddler, Davies-street, Berkeley-square, August 19, at half-past one, and Sept. 19, at twelve, at the Court of )ankruptcy. J. F. Groom, Abchurch-lane, official assignee; T. Randall, jun., Castle-street, Holborn. RALPH THOMPSON and JOHN DIXON, iron-founders, Bolton-le-moors ' August 30th, at ten, and Sept. 19, at eleven, at the Bridge Inn, Bolton. Johnson and Weatherall, Temple, Lon don ; Pendlebury and Maychell, Bridge-street, Bolton. MATTHEW MILTON, horse-dealer, late of Brick-street, May-fair, Piccadilly, August 18, and Sept. 19, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Byles, Cateaton-street ; Turquand, Cop thall-buildings official assignee. WILLIAM STOCKWELL, jun., lodging-house keeper, Bris tol, August 22, and Sept. 19, at two, at the Commercial Rooms, Bristol. White and Whitmore, Bedford-row, London ; Short, Corn-street, Bristol. DIVIDENDS. James William Aughtie, jeweller, Cheapside, August 29, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy—Richard Pullan, merchant, Leeds, August 29, at ten, at the Court of Bankruptcy—Edward Jacob, Llantrissent, Glamorganshire, September 2, at eleven, at the Three Salmons Inn, Usk—Richard Bugler, innkeeper, Clutton, Somersetshire, August 30, at one, at the Castle and Ball Inn, Bath —Jeffery Woolston, toy-seller, Kingston-upon-Hull, August 30, at twelve, at Dee's Royal Hotel, Birmingham. CERTIFICATES—AucusT 29, Richard Longworth, cordwainer, St. Michael's-upon-Wye, Lan cashire—John Graham, linendraper, Burtt, grazier, Southcoates, Yorkshire. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. J. Phillimore Hicks and Charles Edward Hicks, dealers, East ington— Thomas Ogden and Thomas Boyes Simey. ship-builders, Deptford, Durham—Thomas Hutchinson and John Clark, curriers, St. Ives, Huntingdonshire—Benjamin Higgins Woodward and Henry Widnell, carpet-manufacturers, liidderminster, Worcester shire—Thomas Langsdale and Edward Langsdale, timber-dealers, Liverpool—Pierre Adolphe Langlois and Louis Joseph Henri Jacque mart Asch, dealers in French goods, Brighthelmston, Sussex—John Bilton and John Pitfield, blacksmiths, Heasle, Kingston-upon-Hull —Joseph Corbett, Maria Corbett, and Adam Murray, hosiers, New castle-upon-Tyne--John Roberts and Isaac Wright, wool-staplers, Bradford, Yorkshire—James Cochrane and John M'Crone, book sellers, Waterloo-place, Pall-mall —Edmund Reynolds and George Horsesnail, grocers, Dover, Kent—Henry Appleton Alfred Anstie, lace-manufacturers, Long-acre—Thomas Hart and Henry Hart, tailors, Cheapside—Thomas Binney and Richard Binney, corn factors, Wakefield, Yorkshire. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. HUGH MACKAY, merchant, Glasgow, Aug. 12 and 27, at one, at the Black Bull Inn, Glasgow. WILLIAM JAFFRAY, grazier, Letham, Fifeshire, Aug. 13 and 27, at one, at the Salutation Inn, Perth. FASHIONABLE INTELLIGENCE. ARRIVALS AT BATH. Marquis of Headford, Sir John Campbell Hamilton, Col. Gore Langton, M.P. ; Captains Aylmer, Fuleher, Adams, Jervis, Patch., Lieutenant Young ; Majors Masters, Kinner, Slade ; Rev. Messr ; Whist, Gauntlett, Hogg, Shackleton, Whightwick, Edinonstones James, Thos. Methuen, Patterson, Robinson, Maberley ; Monsieur Van Dennis : Messieurs and Mesdames Atkinson, "Hutchinson, Daniell, Fox, Edwards, Holcroft, Jacob, Norris, Purcell, North over, Vaughan ; Messieurs J. Codrington, Harland, Walker, Evans, Fryer, Travers, Budd, Denby, Goddard, Gilbert, Alison, Olive, Cockburn, Fairfax, Collingwood, Garbett, M'Adams, Per cival, Palmer; Rogers, Partis, Lovell, Hobson, Nagrom, Clift, Holder, Bishop, Todd, Heath, Gohagan, Seymour, Townshend ; Mistresses Shackleton, Beach, Manners, Arthur Veale, Duncombe, Bristow, Dowse, Kerley ; Misses Gaynor, Price, Andrews, Daw son, Freere, Gardiner, Ruthven, Wilkinson, Smithson, Neilson, Buston, Townshend, &c. ARRIVALS AT CHELTENHAM. Lord and Lady Doneraile, Lord H. Bentinck ; Lord and Lady Rodney, Bishop of Sodor and Man, Lady Franks, Lady Probie, Lady Grandville, Hon. Mrs. and Miss Childers, Hon. Henry More ton, M.P., Major-General Sir J. Hanbury, Sir J. and Lady Cham pagne, Sir James Wood, Sir William Dunbar, Sir Willoughby Cotton, Sir John Campbell, Sir William, Lady, and Miss Robert son, General Capel, Lieutenant-General Morris, Colonel O'Hal loran, Colonel, Mrs. and Miss M'Leod, Lieutenant-Colonel Blacker, Majors Tinling, Abbey, Smith, Obday ; Major and Mrs. Gillum ; Rev. Drs. Hare, Baggs ; Rev. Messrs. Leinster, H. Liddell, J. Kirby, R. Barrow, W. Card, W. Giles, Pritchett, J. W. Shackle ton ; Rev. W. C. and Mrs. Hall ; Captains Molesworth, Mitchell, Bayne, Bower, Agnew, Ross, Wade ; Captain and Mrs. Webster, Messrs. and Mesdames Slater, Stedman, Faulkner, Roe, Hanbury and f amily ; Capper, Guest, Littledale, Goldsmid , Grang e, W. Collings, Franks and family, Livesey, Tuam, Stevenson ; Signor Masoni ; Me ssrs . W ares , Turnbull, Wilson ; Mesdames T. Naylor, Lillistone, Nooth, Mansfield, Grant, Boultbee, Burke, Ormsby, T9dor, , Lavie ; M rs. an d Mi ss M a l co l m ; Mi sses H en l ey , L ucas , Rickett s, Nooth, Bourne, Boultbee, Team, Agg, Townsend, Lilli stone, Anna Lilli stone, Newbold, Barker, &c. FASHIONABLE CHANGES. Colonel and Mrs. Coghlan, from this town fur Bath ; Mr. Alex ander, from this town for his residence, Regent's-park, London ; Mrs. and Mrs. Hart, for Leamington, &c. Lord Alvanley, Sir G. FL Rose, Mr. Villiers, &c. took their departure for Rotterdam this morning, by the General Steam Navigation Company's Mail Packet, Sir Edward Banks. Viscount Melbourne, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Sir John Hobhouse, and a large party of Ministerial Members, dine to-day at the tavern, at B lackwall. The Duke of Rutland is gone to Longshawe Lodge, his shooting box, on the moors of Yorkshire, for the diversion of grouse shooting, which commences on Tuesday next. We hear that Mr. Holt Mackenzie has resigned his honorary seat at the Board of Control: the successor of the Right Hon. Gentleman has not been yet appointed. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1834. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, August 8. The House met to-day shortly after Three o'clock. The Almanack Stamp Duties Repeal Bill, the Forest of Dean Boundaries Bill, and the Insolvent Debtors (Ireland) Bill, were read a third time and passed. The Norfolk Island Bill, the House of Commons Offices Bill, the Exchequer Bills Bill, the Bridges (Ireland) Bill, the Civil Offices Bill, and the Pension Bill went through Com mittee. trusted that early in the next session_ they would be prepared with a measure of safety. The Bishop of DERRY would not let the discussion close without stating that the Primate of Ireland had set his face most firmly against nonresidence, and .had not granted one such application for years. Lord ELLENBOROUGH was sorry that the Session had been allowed to close without some means having been taken by the Government to settle the question of tithes in England. He trusted it would be one of the first measures of next Session. POOR LAWS AMENDMENT BILL. Upon the Order of the Day being moved for the third read ing of the Poor Law Amendment Bill, Lord KEN YON said he objected to the principle of this Bill, but of all the clauses of the Bill he objected to those most which separated the children from their parents. The Bishop of LONDON said that with respect to the children of poor in general, and perhaps even with respect to the children of paupers, if they could all be placed in schools in their immediate neighbourhood, or have such superintendence as that which had been bestowed by the Noble Baron who had just sat down, he might then perhaps be induced to modify the opinion he now entertained upon that subject ; but at present he begged leave to say that, generally speaking, when a person became a pauper, it was expedient for his children and himself that they should be educated apart from their parents, provided that education was on right principles. Although there was a great mass of feeling in favour of our na tional schools, yet of all the schools those most ad mired were those where the children were taken from the parents educated, clothed, and boarded in a district estab lishment. It was from those schools that the best servants came forth.—( Hear, hear.) He trusted, and indeed he took it for granted, that the schools in the workhouses would be such schools as they ought to be, and he hoped that the Com missioners would be able to make such regulations as to keep them not very far distant from that standard of perfection which abounded in those schools over which the Noble Lord opposite (Kenyon) presided. Lord TE YNH AM thought the Bill was a delusion from one end to the other. Indeed he had no doubt that the Noble Viscount himself at the head of the Government would very early . next Session move its repeal.—( Laughter.) As he was sincerely and strongly opposed to the Bill, he should move as an amendment that the Bill be read that day six months. . . ...... Viscount STRANGFORD was opposed to the principle of the Bill. The Earl of FALMOUTH said there could be no doubt that the Bill would now pass, but he considered it to be wholly unnecessary, because it was perfectly well known that very great exertions had been made by most parishes so as to restore' the administration of the Poor Laws in some degree to its proper state. He should liked to have seen the result of those exertions before the passing of the Bill, which proposed what he must call very violent measures. He thought the House of Lords had done itself great credit in the manner in which it had passed the Bill, and certainly in the Committee he had not seen even the tincture of any party spirit. The Bishop of ROCHESTER said, that although he did not object to the principle of the Bill, yet that he objected to several of its clauses, and more particularly that which separated man and wife. Lord NV YNFORD supported the amendment. The Duke of RICHMOND was not aware of any clause alluded to by the Right Reverend Prelate which went to separate man and wife. If there were such a clause in the Bill, he should like to know whether it was in troduced in the Committee. when, and by whom. The Bishop of ROCHESTER said there was a clause in the Bill, which went to place the husband in one workhouse, and the wife in another. The House then divided, when there appeared For the third reading 45 For Lord Teynham's Amendment l5 Majority for the third reading —3o On our entering the House, we found the LORD CHAN CELLOR putting the question that the Bill do pass. Lord \VYNFORD moved two amendments to the 40th clause, which were agreed to. SOUTH AUSTRALIAN COLONIZATION BILL The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented a petition in favour of this Bill. The Marquis of SALISBURY would take the opportunity of the noble Marquis presenting the petition to state that the Bill had only just been put into the hands of their Lordships, and he therefore trusted that the Noble Marquis who had the charge of the Bill would consent to the second reading being postponed until Monday or Tuesday next. Lord Ellenborough, the Earl of Falmouth, the Duke of Wellington, and Lord Wynford, thought the second reading of the Bill should be postponed until next week. After a few observations from the Marquis of LANS DOWNE, The Marquis of CLANRICARDE postponed the order of the day for the second reading of the Bill until Monday next. The petition was then ordered to lie on the table. COUNTY CORONERS' BILL. The L ORDCHANCELLOR wished to draw their Lord ships' attention to the result of the conference between their Lordships and the House of Commeffis on the amendments proposed by their Lordships to the Bill. As the point was one of great importance, he could not but consider it his d u ty t o bring the subject further before their Lordships. He depre cated anything like a difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament ; but upon the best consideration he could give the subject, he was clearly of opinion that the course their Lordships had adopted in amending the clause introduced by the House of Commons into the Bill was the right one, and he (the Lord Chancellor) thought, if he had an opportunity of stating his reasons for that opinion before the House of Commons, that they would arrive at the same conclusion. He was sure that in proposing that clause they had not before them a full view of the subject. He per fectly agreed that a Coroner's Court ought generally speak ing, in almost all cases, to be an open Court; that it ought to be so in 99 cases out of 100 ; but he was equally agreed that there might be cases in which it ought not to be a public Court. In stating that, he alluded to cases where with out the probability of furthering the ends of justice, matters were exposed to the public which decency would not allow to be revealed. No Courts, certainly, were more public than the Courts of Chancery and the Ecclesiastical Courts, but in cases where public decency was outraged, it was the practice always of the Judges of those Courts to hear the cases in private. In the next place, the Coroners' Court was not a Court of final resort, and the greatest injustice might be therefore done in keeping it open in any instance. It was like a Police Court— that, it was true was usually open, but in many instances it was closed, because the keeping it open might de feat the very end for whick it was established. If the examination of particular individuals in many cases were made public,' the party committing the offence might know what course to pursue to prevent being taken, whereas, if the in dividual examined had been kept secret, the culprit might be taken unawares, and justice might be go t a t. If the present clause was permitted to remain in the Bill, the coroner could not keep the door of his court shut upon any occasion, and the man who had committed murder might by that means escape. Under such circumstances, he would first of all move that the House should not agree to the clause introduced by the House of Commons, and he would follow that up by a motion for the appointment of a Committee for the purpose of drawing up the reasons why the House did not agree. Lord WYNFORD fully concurred in all that had fallen from his Noble Friend on the woolsack. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER thought it desirable that both Houses should come to some understanding without rejecting the clause. He thought that although the Court was described as an open Court, the Coroner might have power to close it when occasion required, making a special report, to be communicated to the public through the public Press, of his reason for doing so. The House of Commons might be a little sore upon the subject, and upon the conduct of their Lordships towards the other Bills which they had sent up for their concurrence, as there was scarcely a Bill which had come up from them that had not either been thrown out or altered.—( Cries of " No, no.") With respect to the Dissenters' Bill, that had been agreed to by a large ma jority of the other House, but their Lordships had thought proper to throw it out. He was the last man in the world to wish their Lordships to abandon their privileges, but he thought it would be better to come to some such understanding as he had pointed out. The Duke of WELLINGTON said he must express the regret he felt upon hearing the observations th a t had fallen from the Noble Marquis. That House was an independent House of Parliament, and had a perfect right to reject any Bill which came before it, if their Lordships conceived that it deserved it ; and in so doing he did not see that the other House had any right to feel offended. He must protest most strongly against the principle contained in the few remarks that fell from the Noble Marquis. The Earl of FALMOUTH was most surprised to hear them, and was obliged to add his protest to that of the Noble Duke. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that allusion having been made to the Warwick Bill, he would take that oppor tunity of noticing a most false statement that had been made with respect to his conduct upon that Bill : it was stated and put forth to the public as if he had been the means of rejecting that Bill, when, as their Lordships knew, he had done no more than his duty upon the occasion—he had summed up the evidence, and as his duty dictated, he had stated his opinion that the evidence laid before the House did not justify or bear out the preamble—he had fearlessly done his duty upon that occasion, and notwithstanding such attacks, he would do so again. It was most strange how.. ever, that one very material fact was omitted (he would not say wilfully, though it was very like it, because the accusation was founded upon the omission) which was that his Noble Friend who had the conduct of the bill in the absence of Lord Durham was present, and not only seconded his motion, but stated that he perfectly concurred in every word that had fallen from him (the Lord Chancellor)—that fact, however, was most carefully suppressed, and that for the purpose of stating that he had thrown out the Bill for the purpose of spiting Earl Durham, who it was almost need less for him to say, was one of his oldest friends, both political and personal—it was altogether most absurd. The Duke of CUMBERLAND complained of such re marks, coming from the Noble Marquis, because he (the Duke) had attended the House every day . when the Bill was before it, and he had no recollection:of seeing the Noble Marquis even one day. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER denied that he had made any reflection upon any one individual, but considered he had a perfect right to allude as he had done to the rejection of former Bills. All he had meant to say was, that it was pos sible that the House of Commons might feel sore upon the occasion, and he implored the House, if possible, upon that Bill, not to widen the breach. The Committee was then appointed, and the subject dropped. THE CHURCH. The Marquis of TA VIST OCK said that his Noble Friend near him (the Marquis of Westminster) had upon a late occa sion pressed upon the Government the necessity of proceeding with reforms, in order to meet the demands of the people ; he would also press the same thing upon them, and must say that he had before that expected they would have introduced some safe and salutary reforms with respect to the Church, in order to clear away those great abuses which had crept into her government. In his opinion, it was absolutely necessary that those abuses should be done away with even for the well-being of the Church herself ; he alluded more particularly to the great grievance of non-residence; for, notwithstanding all that had been said, he must say there was no greater blessing that could be given to England than a well-educated and rightly minded clergyman resident in every parish.—( Hear, hear.) He had great confidence in his Noble Friend at the head of the Go vernment, but unless he well considered the subject during the recess, and early in the next session introduced some measure upon the subject, that confidence would be greatly shaken. Having briefly stated his views upon the subject, he begged leave to ask the Noble and Learned Lord on the Wool sack whether it was his intention to proceed with his Bills re-. lative to Pluralities and non-residence, in the next session. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he agreed in every word that had fallen from the Noble Marquis, and for his satisfaction, and for the information of their Lordships and the public he might say that the subject would be seriously consi dered by the Government during the recess. He had bee n pre vented from proceeding with his Bills in consequence of the pres sure of other business, that in the first place ; and in the next, he had had a very active correspondence with clergymen upon the subject, and was anxious to give others time to for ward him their suggestions in order that the Bills might be rendered as perfect as possible.—( Hear, hear.) He was most anxious, as a friend to the Church, to have the question settled, and would be most happy to receive and consider any amendment in the details of the bills, but he believed that no thing short of the principles contained in them would satisfy the just expectations and wishes of the people. In answer to the Noble Marquis's question, he had to say, that it was his in tention to resume both Bills immediately upon the reassem bling of Parliament. The Duke of CUMBERLAND protested against the use of the words ," great abuses " in speaking upon the subject of the church—they were misapplied. If their Lordships made it requisite to have a resident vicar in every parish, what then would become of the poor curates? The Bishop of LONDON must enter his protest against the words as applied to the Church in their popular sense : he held that pluralities were a great blemish to the Church, but it was a system handed down from their Popish ancestors which could not be got rid of in the present time without also putting an end to another great abuse, derived from the same source, viz., the system of lay impropriation, with which the Noble Marquis was as well acquainted as any of their Lord ships.—( Hear.) He did not think that the two Bills alluded to could possibly pass with safety without some very great modifications. Viscount MELBOURNE said, though not personally asked any question, still their Lordships would expect him to say a word or two upon the occasion.—( Hear, hear.) He professed himself a warm friend to the Church which he considered was in some danger in the present day ; to avoid which it was necessary to remove the evils which had crept into the system from time. The whole question would engage his attention, and that of his colleagues during the recess ; and he BASTARDY CLAUSES-POOR LAW BILL. The Bishop of EYE TE dsaid that pursuant to the notice he had given, he rose to move that the 55th clause of the Poor Laws Amendment Bill, one of the clauses affecting the law of bastardy, should be removed out of the Bill. The pur port of the 55th clause was to make any person who married a woman who had had a child by another maintain that child. That was the meaning of the clause ; but he should beg to be permitted not to confine himself to that clause, but to trespass upon their Lordships with observations upon other and subse quent clauses upon the same subject, as the course of proceeding more convenient to their Lordships, and best calculated to save the time of the House by confining him to one address.— ( Hear, hear.) He could assure their Lordships that his in tention was anything but that of offering a vexatious opposition to this measure. He entreated them to take the opportunity of deferring until another session the very important questions involved in the branch of the Bill to which the clauses relating to bastardy belonged. After the large majority given in favour of the general principle of the Bill he should not have pre sumed to trouble their Lordships further, were it not, that the clauses to which he entertained objections formed a distinct part. of the measure, and that the main business for which the Commissioners would be appointed would go on without inter ruption whether those clauses were inserted or not this year, or gave place to others of a more desirable nature next session. He had had the satisfaction to receive a letter from an Hon. Member of the other House, the Member for East Somerset ( Mr. Miles), a gentleman with whom he had never before had any correspondence or intercourse, earnestly entreating him to persevere in the attempt to postpone until next year the bastardy clauses, in order to prevent the mischief conse quent upon letting the fathers of bastards escape. That Hon. Gentleman stated that a clause proposed by him, having that object in view, had been very favourably received by the other House. If therefore their Lordships were to send this Bill down to the other House denuded of these clauses, it would not be in the predicament supposed by the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack to be so inconvenient at this of the Session. The Noble and Learned Lord had last night said most truly that it was undesirable at this late period of the Session to send down to the other House Bills so ex tensively altered as to require more time for consideration than could at present be given. The late period of the Ses sion at which clauses of so much importance were brought up to their Lordships for consideration and adoption brought this measure fully within the scope of the observations so forcibly addressed to them on the previous night by the Noble and Learned Lord; and their application would be still stronger if the motion to be made by the Noble Duke oppo site (the Duke of Wellington) should be carried. He con tended then that in order that these important principles in they Bill might have a fair discussion th e y s h ou ld b e r e ferred to another Session. What would be the consequence of suc h a postponement? Only that the present Bastardy Laws would remain for another six months in force. They would not, however, be allowed to produce the same extent of mischief as heretofore he fully ad mitted they had produced • for they would be admi nistered by me n of great ability and great research, the Commissioners to be appointed to carry into effect the general provisions of this Bill. They would take care that the Bas tardy Laws in the interval were administered carefully, ably, and effectively. He would remind their Lordships that the Bastardy Laws, as they had been represented to be, had been effectively administered in a few parishes. When their Lordships returned after the recess, they would be prepared to deal with the measure coolly and calmly; and, after having become practically acquainted w ith the opinions of that wise and e xperienced part of the community, who, from having more to do with the administration of these laws, were even better qualified to judge of the proposed alterations than their Lordships could be. He hoped, therefore, that their Lord ships would adop t t h at course ; and if he thought he might be permitted to encourage that hope, he should stop here, and not detain them with any renewed discussion upon the details of the Bill. But he feared he could not do so, and must therefore proceed to say a few words upon the clauses to which he particularly objected as they now stood. One of the first objections that he opposed to the measure was, that it was founded in injustice. He believed that it was on all hands an admitted injustice. He apprehended that no Noble Lord would venture to say that the clause in Ines tion was otherwise than unjust. If there were any single Noble Lord who thought it otherwise than unjust, he would be heartily obliged to him to signify his opinion. He saw no signs, and he therefore took it for granted that the principle of the clause was admitted to be unjust.—( Some cries of " No, no.") It was not admitted. Well, then, he must. be permitted to enter into the diicussion of that ques tion, and to establish what some Noble Lords would not admit, What he had asserted upon a former occasion was, that the duty of providing for their offspring by parents, by the laws of nature and by the law of God, belonged equally to 'either parent, or to both proportionably. What he then and now con tended for was, that the laws of God laid upon the father as much the burthen of maintaining his child as upon the mother. He also felt`himself warranted in saying that he might go fur ther, and assert that the law of God imposed those duties on the parent in the case of his bastard children as much as when they were legitimate. He thought in saying this that he was speaking on no light grounds, m spite of certain indi cations of doubt which he saw from others. Whatever doubt others might have he had none, for he knew this doctrine to be founded upon the Holy Writings ; for, while he admitted that there were no express laws or words laid down for the govern ment of suai cases, yet he would maintain that there were Principles frequently and clearly repeated from which such a regulation of man's duties must necessarily flow. He alluded, amongst other passages, to those which exhorted all parents to train up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and which in his mind referred alike to all children, bastards as well as those legitimately born ; and, while he drew this conclusion from Scripture, he was happy to think himself fortified by the highest human authorities in the opi nion that the same laws had been recognised by them as founded upon the law of nature.—( Hear, hear.) For this pur pose he should be content to refer to the laws of his own country. He should not say anything of the law of France or the law of Italy upon the subject, for in truth he did not know anything of them, and was perfectly contented , esp e c iall y on such a question as this, to abide by the principles of British law. Th e great commentator upon English law said—" Let us next see the duty of parents to their bastard children by our law, which is principally that of maintenance. For though bastards are not looked upon as children to any civil purposes, yet the ties of nature, of which maintenance is one, are not so easily dissolved." The same great authority said again—" It is a principle of law that there is an obligation on every man to provide for those descended from his loins. He then went on further to explain the principle in detail—" The duty of parents to provide for the maintenance of their children is a principle of natural law ; an obligation laid on them not only by nature herself, but by their own 'proper act in bringing them into the world, for they would be in the highest manner inju rious to their issue if they only gave their children life that they might afterwards see them perish. By begetting them, there fore, they have entered into a vcluntary obligation to endeavour, as far as in them lies, that the life which they have bestowed shall be supported and preserved. And thus the children will have a perfect right of maintenance from their parents." This was the law of England. With regard to the other portions of the empire he found in " Erskine's Institute of the Law of Scotland" the following recognition of the same principle : " Parents are bound to maintain their issue though the rela tions should be merely natural ; not only the mother who is always certain, but likewise the father, if he hath either ac knowledged the child for his, or may be presumed from other circumstances to have begotten him." While these were the principles of British law, which had long prevailed both in England and Scotland, he rejoiced to say that the same prin ciples had been recognised by all the great jurists who had instructed mankind in their civil rights and duties upon these important points. They were clearly stated by Montesquieu in his " Spirit of Law ;" and the most eminent jurists, such as Grotius and Puffendorff, were all found confirming him in the same views. But in truth, he could not bring himself in an English assembly, such as that which he had the high honour to address, to appeal to any foreign authority, or to any other than their own sense of justice and of right, to establish the principle that a father was bound to main tain his child.—( Hear, hear.) He would not so degrade himself, or insult their Lordships.—( Hear, hear, hear. ) He had no necessity for doing so, because he had the highest authority at home for the principle he was maintaining, in the names of his two Right Reverend Friends as subscribed to the Report on which the measure was founded--names which had unquestionably a far greater weight with him even than the names of the intelligent individuals which followed theirs in the list. In this Report their Lordships would see that both his Right Reverend Friends had fully concurred in the prin ciple for which he contended, in that passage in which they referred to the passing of the 18th of Elizabeth, of which they said " the object of this law was to force the parents"—parents in the plural—" to maintain their bastard children, which be fore had been done by the parish." Now he would appeal to his two Right Rev. Friends instead of to Grotius and Puffen dorff. And after having done this, and having so unanswer ably established the legal and the moral duty of the father, he thought it would not require much to convince their Lordships that it was wrong to take that duty from him and lay it upon the helpless shoulders of the poor woman.—( Hear, hear.) He said the helpless shoulders of the woman, and he would not shrink from the task of showing that she was far more helpless to bear the burthen thus to be thrown upon her than the man. Although it was true she could do much for the care and rearing of her offspring which a father could not do, yet in bringing her offspring into the world it had pleased God to show her utterly helpless and dependent upon others for sup port, and in this extremity of her suffering and distress she was to be cut off from all claim to help from every human being. In this state the woman must be helpless, and for a long time after nature disabled her from supporting either her child or herself. Why, then, it was a mockery of nature, and, as lie thought, a mockery f something which ought to be still more sacred, to cast upon the helpless shoulders of the woman this undivided burden. It was plain that the woman was not made by nature to bear it all, and upon whom did the sharing of it fall, if not upon the other parent ? The only plea which had been advanced to justify this departure from a principle thus plainly engrafted upon the law of the land, as founded upon the law of nature, was the necessity of putting as strong a check as possible upon the woman, to preserve her chaste. Here again he would take leave to say that in the Holy Scripture there was nothing in the law which God himself had given to man, which recognised a difference in this respect between the man and the woman. In the reference he formerly made to the divine laws imparted to Moses he had never contended, and could not be supposed to have contended, that all the Mosaic laws ought now to be carried into effect. But he contended that the principles of those laws were to be recognised as most wise and just, and to be taken as the foundation of all Chris tian legislation. He said, then, that God, to prevent the incon tinence of the Jewish people, did not inflict penalties and re straints solely upon women ; but, on the contrary, addressed them to the men, and where the parties had been equally guilty, where the woman had consented to the solicitations of the man, imposed upon qim a penalty, and, in order to deter others from the offence, he was made to marry her, and because he had humbled her by defiling her, he was never again to put her away. Now he contended that the reasons given to justify this departure from the principle so laid down was necessarily vicious, because contrary to the law of God. Another of the reasons advanced with the same object was, that only one of the parents of the illegitimate child could he ascertained. That was a principle which had been contradicted by almost every other authority, including that of both Houses of Par liament, in their proceedings upon this very measure. The clause introduced in the other House, and which had since been struck out, recognised and proceeded upon the possi bility of finding the father. Thus the authority of the House of Common; distinctly acknowledged it.—( Hear, hear.) But there were also two clauses to be moved by a Noble Duke to-night, and which, he understood, were to have the approbation of so many of their Lordships as would ensure their being carried, and these two clauses were to fix the maintenance of the child upon the father in certain cases. Thus, besides the authority of all the great jurists of all countries, and of the great commentator upon our own laws, there was that of both Houses of Parliament for the time being, and therefore he asserted that another of the main principles of the clause was struck from under it. But was it plain that the other parent could always be so easily ascer tained ? Was it so plain that under this law they should al ways ascertain who was the mother of the illegitimate child ? It would be well for their Lordships to consider this, for they might depend upon it that it would soon be tried. They might be sure that the ingenuity of woman would be taxed to its ut most to defeat this most iniquitous, this most oppressive, most cruel law. Their Lordships must be prepared to see the ap palling consequences in crimes for which he feared they would have the responsibility of having in some measure compelled their perpetration. He implored them to look at what would be the feelings of the wretched woman when beset with all the miseries and temptations of her unhappy condition. She would feel and be told that they had taken away from her the sup port of the father of her child, and in the time of her utter destitution and distress every temptation aggravated by misery would come upon her in its fullest might, and tell her that— " The world is not her friend, nor the world's law." These were strong temptations, and, when they had defeated the last expiring virtue in their hapless victim, he would not say that their . Lordships, when they passed this Act of Parlia ment, had tempted her to destroy her child, but he feared that in many cases its destruction would ensue. Besides this, many, he had no doubt, would be tempted to resort to other means of placing the poor babe out of their own hands into the hands of others. It would be taken to the doors of others in baskets, nicely wrapped up, and there left to the chances of the world. Frequently they would be taken to the door of the constable, of the overseer, or of the clergyman. He hoped they would be taken to the clergyman's door; for they had the satisfaction of knowing that he, at least, would take care that the poor child was placed in security from the world's storms. He wished that this might be the worst effect of the desertion of infants ; but he feared there would be far other scenes when every workhouse should become an hospital for foundlings. It was said by the supporters of the Bill, that by these terrors women were to be frightened out of leading unchaste lives. He admitted that they were terrible indeed ; but he had no confidence in them as a nostrum to be used for such a purpose. He earnestly prayed that the law might have the effect of deterring women from falling into unchaste lives, and if it did, it would have done something by way of compensation for the monstrous violation of the principles both of the laws of God and of nature which it would inflict upon the wretched victims of that sin. He prayed their Lordships to reflect upon the long train of evils and of penalties which it would inflict beyond the first hardship upon the woman of providing for the birth and support of her child. Let them remember that this measure would cut off from her all hope, and, amongst the rest, that first best hope of woman, an honourable settlement in marriage. As the law at present stood the woman who had once committed the sin of incontinence, and had had a child, had at least some refuge, and might go where her shame was unknown, and by a reformed course of life recover her cha racter, and the former station and. honourable settlement which she had lost. He appealed to the experience of their Lord ships, and he was sure that they must all of them, in the performance of their great duty as proprietors, when looking into the state of morals among their dependents, have seen that those women who in humble life had once fallen from chastity and were married, often become chaste and good wives. Indeed it was a remarkable circumstance that such women were very seldom found to be guilty of a breach of the marriage vow. Why, then, this clause took away from them at once the inducement and the means for recovering the stations from which they had fallen, excluded them from that last hope and left them for ever abandoned to a course of crime and misery. "It tells them," said the Right Rev. Prelate, tjiat they have nothing left to hope on earth. God grant that they may still be taught by others how they may be se cure of better hopes hereafter. But indeed, indeed, my Lords, the position in which you place them by this Bill must lead to the fearful consequence of lessening even that hope, for it will render them less likely to receive those lessons with effect. For as they will have little to hope on earth from the return to better conduct, so they will have little to fear from continuing in the paths of depra vity and vice. And though you will not suffer them to do better, you must remember that you leave the door open for them to do worse. You must not forget that if the woman is not permitted to hope to ascend the marriage bed she may let others ascend her bed without the sanction of marriage. She may have other children, and no law can enable the parish to compel her to maintain more than one. If she shall have a child every year after she becomes the inmate of the work house, she will not be compelled to maintain them, and there fore her situation becomes no worse. Why, then, my Lords, what shall you have done by the passing of this cruel, unjust, and atrocious measure? For the sake of a theoretical fancy you will have reduced a class of your fellow-creatures—ay, and even with yourselves the humblest of that class is equal in the sight of Him who is father of all—to a condition in which there will be nothing for them to hope or to fear in this world. Is that a state into which you would see them reduced ? If not, you will hesitate long before you permit this clause to be come the law of the land. lam afraid that if you do, the great majority of those who have once become mothers with out the sanction of the marriage vow will for ever be deprived of that hope as a stimulus to the reformation of their lives ; and that thus shut out from hope, and dead to every feeling of shame, they will abandon themselves to vicious courses, and run through every grade of crime until they reach its lowest t depths. We may be told that this is the penalty of the first departure from the purity of woman, and if it is in .t must be suffered. But, my Lords, amongst those who have to suffer it, let us remember that there must be some who, though fallen from their chastity, are not lost to all feelings of honour, who have not yet parted with the last influence of that charm of self-respect without which, in some minds--ay, even in the minds of these—life itself were hateful.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Nay, that in their breasts the last spark of that feeling is not yet extinct which places an inestimable value upon the respect of others. Why, my Lords, what will be the effect of your legislation upon minds such as these ? What but that all the terrible penalties of your laws will rise up in guilty conflict with the best instincts of their hearts, and I fear that in such cases you must expect to hear of the worst incidents having occurred. I fear that the hands of the mo ther—perhaps the unhappy victim of the arts of the seducer, who escapes untouched—will be raised against herself qr her poor babe, rather than meet all the miseries which you will have prepared for her bitter lot. My Lords, these are my views of the measure, and I say that, with this conviction or foreknowledge of its terrible injustice and cruelty, it is not that most monstrous and mischievous of sophistries, the pre text of doing evil that good may come, which can so reconcile me to it, but that I should shudder at being a partaker in the responsibility you are called upon to incur. And, while such will be its mortal effect upon the woman, have we not altoge ther lost sight of what is to be its moral effect upon men ? We have heard the supposed effect of the existing Bastardy Laws on the morals of men in this country from the Hon. and Learned Lord. I beg that he will consider me guilty of no want of respect to him when I express my hope and belief that the statement he had made was grievously unfounded. I confidently believe that there is no part of England in which that state of masculine morals is to be found of which an ac count was given by him the other day. I trust that it is not the case. I know it was not 30 or 40 years ago, and, whatever de parture from the standard of morals then observed by the youth of the country may have taken place, I do not believe that any thing like the immorality which he stated will be found to exist in any large portions of society. I believe that such a state will constitute the exceptions and not the rule. But, my Lords, its influence upon the morals of our young men will not be the only moral consequences which I fear as likely to follow from this Act. There are other moral evils which it must produce. My Lords, there is a direct tendency in this Bill to harden the heart of man, and to increase his feelings of selfishness to an intensity of which we have never yet believed him capable. Nay, further than this, it goes to confound his practical sense of right and wrong.--( Hear.) It tells him that an Act of Parliament may release him and has released him from his duty to his God.--( Hear.) This, my Lords, will be the effect of this Bill—of this moral Bill, for sooth—( Cheers)—of a Bitl which establishes the tyranny of man over that part of the creation whom it has hitherto been his first duty and his first pride to protect.--( Cheers.) I have but one more observation with which to detain your Lordships, and it is this :—Every law to be effective in this country must have the sanction of public opinion. I will venture to say, my Lords, that this Bill never will have the sanction of the British people. The British people do not respect the laws because they minister to their vilest passions, or make them the slaves of their grossest appetites. They respect their laws when they cherish the weak, assist the distressed, and relieve the oppressed. My Lords, if such be the case, I ask you will you pass this measure as it stands ? Remember it is impos sible to disgust the people with one portion of your legislation w:thcut extending their suspicions farther. If you once tell them to cast off their respect for one law, you will soon cease to have their respect for any of your acts, or for t'ae laws which your predecessors have established, and which have so long been the objects of their veneration and just pride. I will not now go farther into this measure, my Lords; but, casting myself upon your own hearts, I now call upon you to vote with me against this measure. I call upon you by your feelings of justice, by your bowels of mercy, ay, and by your sentiments of manhood, to reject this clause. And Ido now move that the 55th clause be rejected."—(Cheers.) Lord \%YNFORD and the Bishop of LONDON rose together; but the former gave way, the cries for the latter being loud and general. The Bishop of LONDON said that no one could appre ciate the able and eloquent address which his Right Rev. Friend had just delivered more highly than he did ; but, however powerful that address was, and no one could have listened to it without being sensible of its power, he did not believe that the effect anticipated to be produced by it on their Lordships' mind would result from it.—(Hear, hear.) He was fully aware at the time he undertook to assist in the un gracious task of inquiring into the state of the Poor Laws, with a view to their reform, and the removal of the errors which had crept into them, of the obloquy which he was likely to encounter ; but still he would not have risen at the present moment, if he had not been made the object of gloss and malignant attack by parties o u t o f th a t H ouse . Now, with respect to the part which he had taken, not only in getting up the report on which this measure was founded, but in facili tating its progress through their Lordships' House, he trusted that their Lordships would permit him to make a very few observations.—( Hear, hear.) When he was first applied to by the Noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to be come a Commissioner under the Poor Law Commission, he expressed the reluctance which he felt to enter upon a task which would subject him to obloquy, if he paid that attention to the duty which the importance of the subject seemed to him to require ; and it was not, therefore, without great soli citation that he consented to take upon himself an office in volving a responsibility so unpleasant to a person in his situa tion.—( Hear, hear.) This he had done, and therefore, if the result was that he now felt compelled to adopt opinions at variance with those entertained by his Right Rev. Friends, and other Noble Lords whose sentiments he always respected, he was not on that account to be accused of acting under the influence of unworthy motives.—( Hear, hear.) His Right Rev. Friend had charged the clauses now under their Lord ships' consideration as a piece of unkindness towards the most interesting part of the community ; but, so far from thinking this charge well founded, it was his belief that if the principle involved in them were properly followed up it would be the source of improvement and not of injury to the morality of the country—( Hear, hear)—His Right Rev. Friend contended that both the parents, the father as well as the mother, were equally bound, whether by the law of nature or the divine law, o support their offspring without regard to their legitimacy or illegitimacy. He (the Bishop of London) would admit that this was true—that the obligation to maintain the progeny of both parties was mutual ; but then he would deny that this was the issue which their Lordships were now called upon to decide. The question was whether the duty was one which ought or could be enforced by human legislation, and that was, in fact, the principle upon which this part of the Bill was framed.—( Hear, hear.) But was not his Right Rev. Friend well aware that various duties were imposed on men which no human law could by any possibility enforce ? There were, he would admit, delicate duties which were reciprocal in their nature ; such, for instance, as the duty which was due from a child to a parent; and he would ask their Lordships whether any human could be devised which would insure the right conduct of a child towards a parent ? His Right Rev. Friend said that if this Bill were passed the female would be reduced to the utmost extremity of want at a period when na ture cried out that she would stand most in need of relief, and that, instead of receiving assistance when she most required it, she would be told by the framers of this Bill, not intentionally, but by implication, that it was not the duty of the father, but her duty alone, to provide for the support of her child. Now he (the Bishop of London) must deny that this Bill pronounced any opinion of the kind. What it said was that the mode of enforcing the duty of the father led to results which were more detrimental to the morals of the community thin if the matter were left to the course of nature, and that was the principle on which this Bill proceeded. His Right Rev. Friend had said that these clauses were not in accordance with the principle laid down in the Holy Scriptures, and he refer red to the Levitical law to show that a penalty was affixed upon the seducer of female virtue, or rather the violator of female chastity. Undoubtedly such a passage was contained in the Scriptures, but then what was the penalty it enjoined? Why, that the man should be compelled to marry the female whom he had defiled. But was there a single one of their Lordships who would say that it would be right to effect such an object 4 1P by means of legislation ?—( Hear.) It was quite clear that there was not, and therefore it was that no such principle was to be found in this Bill. He would not now weary their Lordships by again referring to the painful, the disgusting il lustrations which he had adduced on a former occasion ; but, without repeating the statements which he had previously made, he would assert that the whole tenour of the evidence collected on this subject went to prove that the discovery of the real father of an illegitimate child was a matter of almost insurmountable difficulty. This Bill proceeded upon the as sumption that the actual father could not be discovered with any thing like certainty, moral or legal ; and although, as in a game of chance, the right person might now and then be fixed upon, still,as the fact was incapable of being satisfactorily ascertained, he thought that not only the authorities on which his Right Rev. Friend relied, but the arguments which he used in support of continuing the liability of the father, must fall to the ground. With their Lordships' permission he would read an extract from a letter which he had received from a magistrate of Warwickshire on this part of the measure. After alluding to what took place on the former occasion, and expressing his entire concurrence in the view which he (the Bishop of London) had taker., this gentleman said— " I feel persuaded that your Lordships will pardon my stating three cases which have very recently occurred in this parish, as they cannot but tend to confirm your Lordship's opinion, and fully justify your Lordship's sentiments. The first case has that of a young woman who swore a child to a person, who proved to our Magistrates that only five months had elapsed from the day he had first had an illicit intercourse to the birth of the child ; consequently the order was refused. The actual father escaped, and the child and the mother came on the parish for relief, ac cording to the existing Poor Laws. The second was an infamous girl in the -workhouse, who b ecame pre g nant. On being asked s t whe e ar ch h i e l r d c h h a il d d s t o o , m sh a e ny said, stkgrbeleahtadest notas- sl'u.hraonschee, would 'that yet fixed upon one.' At last she fixed upon a . roesopetchea witnesses having T ense that man, whose friends employed an a ttorney, and young gincur an consented to his the case order. The parish officers having resolve man co having been examined, the Magistratesd t r a o e f t u a s k e e d d e t ulties. The th paying one shilling per week . ratheriffi fathers, 'wth th t a h t e Quarter Sessions, the friends of the would involve them in pecuniary third and most and atrocious case was that of a artfulmostta b andoned girl, who the came before the Magistrate and had audacity to swear her child to the son of a beneficed Clergyman, a youth of about seventeen, of unblemished reputation. When she came into the Justice room he did not know her even sight, and it was clearly proved to the Magistrates that he was at school during the very time she swore he was at home, and being connected with her. The Magis trates refused an order. The parish officers a m s make an the sae carried it to the (Jeneral Quarter Sessions. The father of the young Gentleman engaged for his son special Counsel. The Learned Sergeant, having elicited from the girl that she had received money front. different persons not to swear the child to them, thought it unneces sary to call his witnesses. The girl's testi mon y receive d. and was J. an order made u p on t h e youth on the oath of a girl not"IF" better than a common prostitute, So deeply convinced rte.; the 1 MI MIMI UM