The Sun. — London, England, 1834-06-20 00:00:00

vantage of fashion, all of which was on the side of France. He maintained that prohibition was the only emedy that could be applied to this article of manu facture, which was merely a fancy one. He hoped that whenever the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. P. Thomson) sent out a special commission to France again it would be to inquire about and treat with the French milliners, and he should have no objection to see the right hon. gentleman (and most likely the right hon. gentleman himself would feel no repug nance) proceed thither at the head of that commis sion. ( A laugh.) Against whom was he urging the principle of prohibition ? Was it against any parti cular class, or was it against any particular power that had shown any special desire to treat England as Eng land had treated them, and enter into a fair, free, and open competition in trade with us ? No, it was not. Did France treat England as she treated Belgium ? Did the same relations in trade exist between England and France that existed between the latter country and Belgium ? There did not. Why, the n, should England - extend any favour towards France ? Was it reasonable or just, he would ask, to - keep up the ne cessaries of life while the manufactures of the country were in a state of such lamentable depression ? The prices of the necessaries of life should, he contended, be either so reduced as to enable the manufacturers of this country to compete with the foreign manufacturer, or else prohibitory laws should be passed by which both parties could enter the home market upon an equal footing. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to protect the ribbon trade by means of prohibition. Mr. DUG DALE seconded the motion. He could assure the house that the ribbon weavers of Coventry were in a state of pitiable distress, and the severe de pression under which the ribbon trade laboured, was, he was satisfied, the consequence of the system of free trade which had of late years been adopted in this country. Such were the advantages which the French ribbon manufacturer possessed over the ribbon manu facturer of this country that competition between them was entirely out of the question, and therefore, unless actual prohibition were resorted to, the French manu facturer must, as at present, enjoy almost exclusively the monopoly of our markets. . On the motion having been put, Sir E. WILMOT could also bear testimony to the depression under which the ribbon trade laboured, and he entirely agreed with the hon. gentleman who had just sat down that proper protection ought to be af forded to it. • Mr. E. ELLICE stood in a peculiar situation with respect to this motion. He, in common with his hon. friend who had just sat down, and the other gentle men who had spoken, felt the deepest sympathy for the distressed situation of the poor persons whose case had been so ably represented to the house by his hon. colleague, and he was bound to say that in no one particular had their unfortunate condition been exag gerated or over coloured. .If he thought that sup porting the present motion could contribute in the smallest degree to avert from them the misery in which they were plunged, and restore to them the prosperity which he wished to see them enjoy, it should willingly have his vote ; but not believing that it could lead to any such result, he certainly felt bound to object to it, although he did not intend voting against it. His hon. colleague called upon them to revert to the old system of prohibition that existed prior to 1825 as the only means of relieving these poor people and as an induce ment to the house to permit the introduction of this bill, the hon. gentleman opposite ( Mr. Dugdale) told them that while prohibition existed the ribbon trade was prosperous. Now he (Mr. Ellice) would not deny that such was the case, nor did he mean to contend that the home manufacturer had not been injured by foreign competition. But although he admitted this to be the case, he would put it to the good sense of the house whether a return to prohibitory laws was the means by which alone relief could be afforded to these distressed artisans ? Without being able to discrimi nate between the manufactures of this and other coun tries, prohibitory laws would be of no avail, and con sequently, unless his hon. colleague could surmount these dif f iculties, their constituents could receive no relief from his meacure. At the same time that he stated this, lie begged to say that he was as much dis posed as any hon. gentleman to do all that lay in his power conscientiously, and in accordance with good sense, to elevate the condition of the ribbon-weavers, and the reason why he did not feel justified in giving his support to the present motion was, not that it would do no good, but that, on the contrary, he firmly believed the only thing that could result from its adop tion was injury. He had stated the grounds upon which he objected to this motion, and looking at the period of the session at which they had arrived, and the empty state of, the house, he had only in conclusion to hope that his hon. colleague would not press the question to a division. Mr. ROBINSON admitted that the question which th e y were called on to consider was one of very great complexity and difficulty. Having abandoned the pro hibitory system, he did not see exactly how they could return to it, but he must at the same time complain of the line of conduct which the right hon. gentleman opposite had adopted with respect to this motion. The right hon. gentleman said that relief could not be obtained through the medium of this motion.; but although it was his duty, as the representative of the parties complaining of distress, and more parti cularly his duty as a member of the administration, to watch over their interests, not one single word had escaped him, from which it could be inferred that he 'was prepared to show how that object could be at tained. He therefore contended that the ribbon weavers of Coventry had a right to complain of the right hOn. gentleman ; but they need not wonder at the line of conduct which he had pursued, when it was known to them that he was connected with a govern ment who had one and all expressed a determination to resist a repeal or any relaxation of the corn laws. ( Hear, hear.) He would, however, tell that house, and tell the government, that the time was fast ap proaching when they must relieve the people from the burdens under which they laboured, when the people would, in spite of them, have cheap bread. The mo nopoly of the corn* laws could not last much longer. ( H ea r.) Although it was not his intention to bring the 'subject of a revision of taxation forward again during the present session, he begged to assure them that it was far from his intention to abandon that ob ject. The mind of the noble lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had undergone several changes on this subject. He held one opinion in 1819 and another in IMO, and therefore he (Mr. Robinson) did not despair of finding the noble lord's sentiments altered again. (Hear, hear.) • The present oppressive amount of taxation ought to be diminished, and until that was done he was satisfied no permanent relief could be obtained. ( Hear.) Mr. ELLICE, in explanation, said that his objec tion to the present motion was that it called for a pro hibition, and such a proposition he certainly could not support. Mr. P. THOMSON said that the single question which they were called, upon to decide was whether it would be expedient 'to enact prohibitory laws for th e purpose of serving a particular branch of manufacture. There were two branches or parts of the question. The observation of the hon. gentleman who intro duced the motion would go chiefly to flowered and fancy ribbons, whereas the complaints of the lion. baronet the member for Warwickshire were addressed to the making of plain broad ribbons. Now the latter had certainly nothing to complain of from the compe tition of French ribbons, that kind of article not being -' m anufactured in France. The fact was that they had . lost th e market from the change of fashion. R ibbons of that v, description were chiefly worn by the middling classes ..0 had now left them off for the fancy ar ticle forxnerly gentlemen looked r . n only b . y the higher classes. If housemaids if they looked at the ribbons of their this change had taken A laugh), they would see that the old plac e . In the meantime the manufacturer of old article, instead of changing it, had suffered other m et a o nufactur,prs of the new article at Manchester, Congl competition Macclesfield to spring up, and it was the comp t r home, and not from abroad, which had taken from the supply of the market. In the other branch orthem fancy r bb01:1 he f ad mitted that those parties had suffered. Butsomethingthey from would have with the foreign article. h ave done the same if the most rigid h•,-• , pro ioition nau b een kept up. And in point of fact they had only suffered f rom th e ir own unwillingness to alter their a ckle of m anu f ac t u re adopting the improv ements of fered to them from abroad too late to meet success fully • Lieir competitors who had sprung up in the other Parts • 1 ° had mentioned and who had adopted those improv e from the von' To show that the competition was not returns, but e , i F n er he need not trouble the house with of manufactured silk refer to the fact that the weight comparison with the raw, imported into this country, in manufacturing, was iw material or silk in a state for upon the whole •; at present it might be four or five of the year. To conceive ti l' a n, but that was the average. f t proportion of foreign silks t the introduction of such could do any injury was really rating too low the manufacturing powers of thi country. Sir D. K. SANDFORD said it was unquestionable that in many branehe'of the silk trade; and especially in the manufacture of shawls very great disttess pre vailed. In Scotland be knew that large numbers of workmen were no discharged with famine staring them in the face... Ile had been informed that the amount of orders lately received was eighty percent. lower than the usual demand at thiS time of the year. He knew it was impossible ,to return to 'a system of general prohibition, but What was necessary to be done had been recognized in a recent speech of the right hon. gentleman, which had been received by the ma nufacturer§ with great plensnre. The right lion. gentleman had said that if France did not return the advantages of reciprocity which this country had prof fered, he would employ all the means at his command as a Minister of the Crown to compel her. All that lie asked was that the right hon. gentleman would fol low out this prinCiple, which Mr. Huskisson would undoubtedly have done if .he had lived. The first form of the experiment of free trade had failed, and the time was now come when they ought to try whe ther the other form would be more successful. Mr. P. THOMSON denied rthat he had ever ex... pressed any intention of resorting to retaliatory mea sures. The observation he made was confined to the point of the differential duties on articles imported into France by sea or land. He stated that if those unfair distinctions were not removed lie should advise the Crown to use all the means at its disposal to ob tain redress. _ _ _ Mr. HUME said that the distress felt at Coventry had been caused by the manufacturers themselves re fusing to adopt the improved machinery in time, and that alone had caused the ruin of their trade. It would be in the recollection of the house that when some of this machinery was first introduced by a few persons of more spirit than the rest it was destroyed by the workmen. ( Hear.) The Coventry men, of all others in the country, were most to blame, in having refused to admit raw silk for their own manufacture at a re duced duty. He hoped that prohibition would not be restored, but that they would go on and let trade be freed from all restrictions, and especially from the monopoly of food, which was the real cause of all its distress. Mr. T. A TTWOOD said it was absurd for the right hon. gentleman to attribute the distress of the country to such causes as a change of fashion. Was it change of fashion that had caused the distress of the farmer, the distress of the shipownet, the dis tress of the ironmaster, and of all the other great inte rests of the country now in a state of ruin ? No ; the distress was general, and the cause which produced it must be a general cause, and the cause which he stated to the committee who sat to inquire into it, al though his clear and unanswerable argument ( A laugh) was not attended to. The house might smile, but he repeated that his argument was unanswered and unanswerable, because it never had been attempted to answer it. There was a mercantile gentleman after wards brought forward to say what the causes of the distress were, and he produced twenty-six causes, and of course his (Mr. Attwood's) one . general cause had no chance. ( Laughter.) Nevertheless he contended that the general distress they . continued_to see around them proved that he was right, and that the cause which created it could have but one remedy. That cause he did not mean to say, as had been attributed to him by an hon. member, was the cause of 1/. notes, but he contended that it was the pressure of a metallic standard of value. That pressure, if persevered in, would ultimately overwhelm every interest in one common ruin, and would not leave one of the indivi duals now smiling in that house sitting in their places ten years hence. ( A laugh.) He was asked if he would return to a general system of prohibition ? He said, " Yes," and he would tell them why—he said that no doubt with the expectation and desire of doing good to the country. The gentlemen who had intro duced free trade had introduced nothing less than a system of free plunder. They had aggrandized the fundholdcr and the landholder, and all those who drew upon the labour of the country for their support, by giving them a monopoly, while the poor were called upon to pay them with free trade prices. This was a most enormous and gigantic robbery. Mr. CLAY could not but deprecate the horrible system of trades' unions, which had of late years been introduced under the specious preience of protection, but having the real effect of trammelling and enslaving the labour of the country. ( Hear, hear.) He admitted that the silkweavers were in a very depressed state at the present moment. But that being the case, they should either abandon that business for some other more congenial to the genius and natural opportunities of the country, or strive to improve the quality of their fabrics so as to rival those of foreign nations. There were two branches of silk manufacture, viz., that of sarsnet ribbon and the gros de Naples, which had been so improved in this country of late years as to rival both in quality and price the produce of foreign ma nufacturers. Yet it was strange to compare this ac tual state of things with what had been predicted some years ago before a committee of that house—that un -INs a protective duty of 501. per cent. were put upon those articles the English manufacturers would be entirely put out of the market. (Hear.) He had been very much gratified by what had that evening fallen from his right hon. friend over the way upon this sub ject. He could not but regret, however, that no mention had been made by him of one duty, that on thrown silk, which was still suffered to remain a clog upon the manufacturing industry of the country. He had hoped that some intimation would have been by this time given of the intention on the part of his Majesty's ministers to take off that oppressive impost. Lord D. STUART said, that with respect to the present motion, if Ministers had been prepared to pro pose any other measure for the relief of the grievances complained of, he would not vote for the bill proposed to be introduced; but as he could not understand that any such means of relief was in the contemplation of the Government, he should certainly feel it his duty to support the motion. Mr. FINCH, notwithstanding he had been re quested to support the present motion, should feel it his duty to vote against it. Mr. BUCKINGHAM made a few observations which were inaudible in the gallery. Mr. FORSTER said that silk manufacturers were not in a worse state now than they had been in 1818, which had been referred to as a period of prosperity. An HON. MEMBER thought the house would do the cause of the silk weavers most service by leaving them alone. Mr. CLAY explained. Mr. FRYER made some observations against the oppressive nature of the corn law system. Mr. H. BULWER said a few words in reply, and the house divided; when there appeared— For the motion 22 Against it Majority -106 THE RIVER SHANNON. On our re-admission, Mr..J. TALBOT was addressing the house on the subject of his motion relative to the present neglected state of the navigation of the river Shannon. The hon. member, as we understood him, dilated on the great advantages that would result, not alone to the country adjacent to the Shannon, but to all Ireland, nay to the empire, from the improvement of the navi oftheofexthp ption of that noble river, by encouraging manufacto ries, commerce, and agriculture along its course. An the 'To g a rd estimatewash of Public . u c p under lvo rk s the n r su perintendencee-land, and the estimate of the 1 naviga tion of the river for 1-- mile improvement of s was only 153,0001. It would be desirable th a t a committee should be ap pointed to investigate the value of the lands adjoining the river, and through- which some of the improve ments would be made, together with many other cir cumstances necessarily attendant on the object, andtocarry the full purposes of the motion into effect. The hon. member then moved for a committee. .Mr. W. ROCHE seconded the motion. Mr. LITTLETON said the motion would have his cordial support, and it deserved the entire support of Parliament. (Cheers.) Yet what he said did not pledge government. He thought it right that in the committee should be included the names of those gen tlemen who had property near the Shannon. Mr. M. O'CONNELL thought that the River Fergus, which branched off from it to the town of Ennis, should be concluded in the proposed im provement. Mr. HUME did not consider it prudent to have those inetrested gentlemen who p o ssessed property on the banks o f th e river nominated an the committee. No jury would be appointed on such a principle. Mr. LITTLETON said a few words which"did not reach us. Mr. TALBOT said it was not the interest of indi viduals that was concerned, but that of the whole kinOoni, and even the empire. Mr. LYNCH supported the motion. Mr. L I TTL E T 0 Isl was not prepared to support the additional proposition. It were better that the previous motion should be agreed to without any in cumbrance. .. Mr. O'CONNELL said it was better to refer it to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Mr. LYNCH. then withdrew his motion, and the following committee were appointed:— Tx11))t, J. Sandon, Viscount French, F. Littleton, E. J. Martin, T. Lefroy, A. Duncannon, Vise. Lynch, H. H. Jephson, C. D. O. Parnell, Sir H. Loch, J. Walker, C. A. Rice, I'. S. . Fitzsimon, N. O'Brien, C. Kerry, Earl of -. O'Connell, Maurice Perceval, Colon I Oxmantown, Lord Lennard, T. B. Waterpark , Lord ' Clements Lord Ebrington, Lord Clive, R. H. Herbert, Hon. S. Chapman, A. Fergusson, Sir Ron. Roche, W. Ilallybui ton, D. G. Conolly, E. M. Roche, D. Torrens, Colonel Potter, R. Sheil, R. 1.. Nagle, Sir R. Guest, J. J. O'Callaghan, C. O'Connor Don Wason, R. Mr. PENDARVES obtained leave to bring in a bill to facilitate the taking of affidavits and affirmations in the court of the Vice-Warden of the Stannaries of Cornwall. - - Mr. HUME moved for a return of the account of all moneys belonging to bankrupt estates now lodged in - the chartered banks of Scotland, in terms of the bankrupt statute, and stating the amount remaining there unclaimed. Motion granted. Mr. HUME moved for a return of the amount of the British army ; and for a return of the corporeal punishments in the army from 1825 to 1833, inclusive ; together with a return of the number of naval punish ments in the last 'eight years. The hon. member made a few general observations' on the cruelty and impolicy of corporeal punishment in the service. Captain ELL TOT would not object to the returns up to 1831. The returns since, we understood him to say, were not prepared. Motion agreed to. Sir T. WINNING TON moved for leave to bring in a bill to extend the provisions of an act of the first year of his present Majesty's reign, giving an effectual protection to the public land carriers against loss or injury of packages to the carriers upon canals or other inland navigation. Mr. P. THOMSON would not oppose the bill, but lie thought it desirable that a clause should be introduced into the bill rendering carriers responsible for lace and other profitable and valuable articles, if they did not show that the loss did not result from their negligence. After a few words from Mr. PEA SE in support of that suggestion, leave was given to bring in the bill. Mr. F. SHAW asked leave to bring in a bill for effectuating the service of process of Courts of Equity on persons residing abroad. The hon. member re marked on the injustice of allowing persons to set their creditors at defiance by merely residing abroad. Mr. LITTLETON moved for leave to bring in a bill to continue for a limited time the several ' acts for regulatinff turnpike roads in Ireland which will expire during the present or before the end of the next Ses sion of Parliament. Mr. FIT Z SIMON complained of the discontent and hardship produced by the turnpike tolls in Ireland and asked the right hon. Secretary did he intend, to introduce any measure to correct the evil? He knew of one man who was forced to pay 2s. toll for a piece of timber which he bought for is, Mr. LITTLETON thought something might be done hereafter ' • he could go no farther at present than to consolidate the Acts generally. Leave was then given to bring in the bills. Mr. O'BRIEN obtained leave to bring in a• bill to amend the Act .58 Geo. 111., c. 47, relating to fever hospitals, and to enlarge the powers therein given. LANCASTER COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BILL. • On the motion that the house resolve itself into committee on the above bill being read, - Mr. JERVIS rose to oppose the principle of the bill, which he denounced as got up by the Preston at torneys for their own selfish purposes, and as calculated to render law proceedings neither cheaper nor more expeditious. The hon. member concluded by moving that the bill be referred to a committee up stairs. Mr. STANLEY said that the object of the hon. and learned gentleman's opposition clearly was to abolish the county courts altogether, and to banish this sort of jurisdiction from the judicial world. The bill now before the house went very properly to draw a distinction between those courts as they had hitherto been conducted and those which it was considered pro per to establish for the public advantage. The oppo sition to the bill appeared to arise out of a conflict be tween the Westminster attorneys and the country attorneys. But the question for the house to consider was, whether or not the report of the commissioners who had 'been appointed to inquire into the constitu tion of those local courts was to be acted upon. The only professional persons in the whole county pala tine of Lancaster who were opposed to this bill were the attorneys of Preston. From every other town in Lancashire the attorneys had sent peti tions to the house in favour of the measure. The great object of the bill was to assimilate the practice of the county courts as nearly as possible to that of the courts of Westminster, which was in strict accordance with the .report of the commissioners. It was admitted the expense to suitors in those courts would be at least one-third less than in the Westmin ster courts. This was the very object at which the commissioners aimed to diminish the expense ; and would the house now refuse to act upon the report of those commissioners by not giving their sanction to ' this measure ? It could not be denied that the prac tice would be assimilated to that of the courts of Westminster, when it was to be conducted still under the same judges, but with much greater cheapness and facility. The clauses of this bill, to which so much objection had been made, were all taken from the bills that had been recently framed and passed for the future regulation of the Westminster courts, and it could, therefore, net be said that they had not been maturely and properly considered. He was not to be dictated to, and he was sure that house would not, by the clamour of the attorneys of Westminster, but that it would do justice to the county palatine of Lancaster by giving to that important portion of the country the means of attaining cheap and speedy justice. Mr. POLL 0C K said that it was admitted by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Jervis) that in proposing to refer this bill to a committee up stairs his object was delay ; but he (Mr. Pollock) could not conceal from himself that his hon. and learned friend had also the other object, which he did not avow, of abolishing the county courts altogether. Now, lie did not think that this was dealing fairly with the question. As to the prothonotary, he never interfered in any case in which he was employed professionally. He hoped the bill would not be sent to a select committee, as the same course was not pursued with respect to the alte rations introduced into the courts of Westminster. Mr. LLOYD said that if the county courts were to be continued this bill would be an improvement. The petitions, however, showed that the courts did not possess all the advantages attributed to them, fot they prayed that these courts might be assimilated to those of Westminster. No parties petitioned for this bill but the attorneys. What they ought to look to was the interest of the inhabitants of the county. Mr. P. THOMSON had been requested by many parties, not attorneys, to support this bill. The amendment was negatived without a division. The house went into committee on the bill, Mr. PRYME in the chair. The four first clauses were agreed to. On the sth clause being put, which outlaws anybody not found within the jurisdiction of the court in a cer tain time after the issuing of the writ, Mr. JERVIS objected to the clause on the ground of its unnecessary harshness. It was most unjust to outlaw a man who, living at York, might have con tracted a debt in Lancashire, and who, because he did not in a certain period appear before the court of that county, would suffer the above punishment. He should move that the clause be omitted. Mr. POLLOCK defended the clause, and argued that if they were not allowed to proceed in that way they would be obliged to have recourse to an action in the superior courts. Mr. LLOYD and Mr. PEASE said a few words against the clause. The committee then divided— For the clause Against it Majority -29 The other clauses up to the 16th were then agreed to. The house then resumed, the CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Tuesday next. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned. at two o'clock. CHEAP PROVISIONS.—A respectable shop keeper of Tewkesbury has announced that he is sell ing a quartern loaf of excellent quality, one pound of bacon, and one pound of salt, for Is. ; in 1812, the same articles sold, in the above town, for 2s. 10c1. At Malmesbury prime dry bacon is selling at 41d. per lb., and in Bristol fat pigs are selling at ss. per score. SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. Some months ago it became our duty to notice a meeting of Members of the established church in the west of England, whereat certain resolutions were carried of. a nature to call for even more pointed at tention than the avowed purpose and character of the meeting itself. 'Whilst all the world were contempla ting the temporal abuses of the church, and discussing the manner in which they might most fitly be got rid of by a well-considered curtailment of those powers and privileges which had hitherto been turned to selfish and corrupt account, and by giving a more con venient form and a purer administration to the reve nues appropriated to the general maintenance of the establishment, the meeting alluded to, composed in part, moreover, of laymen, disdained even to glance at the real questions which were occupying the great mass of the community, viz., those which concerned the temporal condition of the church, upon the princi ple of which most reflecting minds had come to the same conclusion, but with strange perverseness and little honesty of purpose proclaimed their alarm at a design which none except themselves were capable of discovering, yet with which they deemed it politic to charge the friends and advocates of church reform— namely, that of producing by clamour and violence some revolting change in the liturgy, doctrines, and discipline of the Church of England, against which accordingly they invoked the pious assistance of all sincere and conscientious churchmen just as if it had not been a fabricated accusation, got up from the foul est motives. The scheme we exposed at the time, and it was this : —When the plotters found that nothing was really intended by church reformers beyond a correction of temporal abuses, but when they were equally satisfied from the unanimous feeling through out the country that a reform to that extent was in evitable, if not prevented by some powerful and un usual means, they affected to believe that the real object of those whom they termed the "enemies of the church " was to violate its essence, not to readjust its incidents, and to overthrow it abso lutely, that on its ruins should be raised whatever edifices of superstition or heresy it might please the Papist or the Infidel to establish. New it is plain that if the nation generally could be cheated into a suspi cion that " Church Reform" means not a correction of temporal abuses; but a violent subversion of the spi ritual church itself, there would be nothing easier than to spread in all.quarters the terrible outcry that the " Church was in danger," and thus put an effec tual stop to every measure designed for the practical amendment of its ministers, and the rooting out of those unseemly and corrupt practices which prevail in it. Yesterday witnessed another " lay declaration," addressed by " noblemen and gentlemen connected with Ireland," to the Primate, Archbishop of Armagh ; and it is more curious than gratifying to observe how carefully these noblemen and gentlemen have got by heart the lesson of last year, and how skilfully they have applied to the case of the Irish churn the tactics of the meeting we have' already referred to. The signers of this declaration say not a single word with regard to tithes, pluralities, non-residence, or sine cures —not one word—no, hat would by no means suit them , ; they could not allege as a grievance on behalf of the church, or found a hue and cry upon it, any plan of reform which aimed no further than a com mutation of tithes, a better distribution of church Rro perty, or an abolition of pluralities, &c. They have, therefore, availed themselves of the precedent at hand, and absurdly signed a " solemn protest against any alteration being made in the Liturgy, formularies, rites, or ceremonies of our church," as " founded on the Holy Scriptures." Why here, as we have just hinted, is the same trick played over again. Nobody dreams of attacking or disturbing the Liturgy, "for mularies," and so forth of the established church. But it is convenient for these Orange Conservatives to insinuate such a scheme againit the reformers of the Church, and thereby to persuade the ignorant friends of the church of England that they ought to unfurl the episcopal standard, and sing out 'lustily, "The church is in danger ;"—a device which they arc conscious would be scouted by the people, if there were nothing whereon to rest it but a know ledge of the plain and simple truth, that the only mea sures recommended to Parliament, or meditated by any man whose counsels have the slightest influence, arc directed exclusively to a removal of admitted evils in the temporal administration of the Church, without in any manner touching its principles or spiritual cha racter. It is really painful, even to extreme distress, to look on while these solemn mockeries are attempted in the face of God and man, and in connexion with the most sacred subjects. From the nature of the opposi tion now preparing against the bills for purging the Church of her abuses, it is clear enough that the Liturgy, rites, ceremonies," and all the rest, might be shipped off to South America, if only the loaves and fishes were respected, if only fat sinecures and pluralities were still permitted, and deans and chapters, and non resident rectors were left undisturbed in their stalls. As the whole boroughmonger Parliament was sacri ficed for the preservation of East Retford, so is it easy to see the same madness working the ruin of the church, and the whole establishment of both countries in peril of being swept from their foundations, that the rotten livings of Munster and Connaught may still keep in unsanctified luxury parsons who never preach. It is unfortunate for the real interests of the church, that when the extravagance of some of its sectarian adversaries places it on such 'vantage ground in the eyes of the enlightened and upright, the benefit of that high and strong position should be lost through the folly of, to say no worse, our own self-constituted protectors. If churchmen would act with common prudence, the Dissenters would sink into insignifi cance : it is the absurd and extravagant defence of the shameful parts of the church system which encourages its enemies and alienates its friends. We are friends of the c hurch, and therefore obtrude a timely, though perhaps a disagreeable, warning.— Times. It would be difficult to find, in the whole range of stupid and mischievous legislation which has from time to time disgraced the legislature and afflicted the country, anything so abominable in principle, or likely to be so injurious in its effects, as the clauses in the Poor Law Bill, relative to the maintenance of illegi mate children. The subject is in itself one which we are reluctantly driven to discuss at all in a public journal, but the necessity of the case compels us to take it up—that necessity has not been created by us. It is the work of the disciples of Malthus, who have concocted the bill, and who have not been re strained by any considerations of decency, justice, or morali t y, from proposing that the law of England shall sanction the monstrous principle—that the liber tine who ensnares a woman from the path of virtue by the vilest arts of seduction, may throw upon her all the burden of their common guilt, and leave the innocent offspring to be supported by her, or starve ! Well might Mr. Robinson express his astonisment that such a principle should be presented for the adop tion of any assembly of men and of Christians ! A principle so repugnant to reason—to justice— to all manliness of feeling—must excite the surprise and indignation of every person who has a spark of christian sentiment or natural humanity in his bosom. And this is the principle consecrated in the legislation of the reformed House of Commons in the nineteenth century ! Then see how this abominable principle is followed out. The mother may be wholly unable to provide for the child—in most cases she will be un able, for in most cases her " poverty but not her will consents" to the crime ; advantage is taken of her de pendent condition when at service or working in a factory, &c., by a profligate master or a vicious young squire ; her livelihood depends upon her submission to criminal importunities or promises or threats ; and, then, gracious Heaven ! the whole burden of supporting the offspring of the sordid father is thrown upon her, or, if unable to maintain it, the innocent grandfather or grand mother are to be made liable to the maintenance of the guilty father's bastard ! We defy the Malthusians to produce from the annals of vicious legislation in any ci vilized country an instance of iniquitous absurdity equal to this 1 The calculating young capitalist Mr. Inhle sold his Yarico and her child in the slave-market, and pocketted the produce of the sale as a compensa tion for the time which he had lost in her company. But though a hopeful young devotee in the service of mammon and licentiousness, it never entered into his head to make her father and mother also pay him for the trouble which he had taken in seducing their child. This ingenious mode of punishing the innocent for the crime of having already suffered a grievous injury, by the seduction of a daughter, was reserved for the ge nius of th e aut h ors o f t h e Central Basbaw Bill to dis cover and propound. Truly may it be said that this is an age of discovery. The spirit of " free trade" grows apace. The Beer Bill identified the cause of wire strained drunkenness with the progress of political science. The Central Bashaw Bill opens a glorious prospect of a " free trade" in the destruction of female virtue to all the " chartered libertines" in the country, As supporters of the Established Church, which we wish to stand well with the country, we regret—deeply regret to find the names of • two prelates of the esta ' blishment, the Bishops of London and Chester, signed to the report, and recommendations on which the Malthusian Bill, of which Lord Althorp is the putative father, is founded. How those learned prelates can, reconcile to the pure morals of christianity the proposed change in the , laws rAative to illegitimate children we know not, but we are convinced that the increase of foundlings and the increase of infanticide will be the inevitable result, if this bill pass into a law. But this was answered lately by a Manchester paper, which said that the law against infanticide was still to continue the same. Thus the Malthusians offer to the sordid fathers, while they button up their pockets,' the consolation that if the seduced woman cannot support their common child, and in desperation should throw it to perish in a ditch, she shall be hanged. Thus the assistance of the public executioneer is called in to settle this knotty point. The law is first to tempt to crime, and then destroy with true satanic energy, and the Malthusian philosophy and the hanging system are to go hand in , hand to the reformation of the morals of the poor. It is alleged as a reason foi this violent, or rather outrageous, alteration of the law, that the laws of bastardy, as they at present exist, encourage perjury and imposition. That those laws are sometimes abused to purposes of fraud we believe ; but what laws are not abused ? If a vicious woman sometimes falsely. swears a child to an innocent person, it is an abuse which, we presume, is not greater than the commission of perjury,by false witnesses, to charge a man with felony or misde meanor. Yet the man who would propose that all laws against felons should be wholly abrogated, be cause it sometimes happens that innocent persons are convicted upon perjured evidence . of felony, would be justly accounted mad. The system of offering re wards for convicting offenders very often leads to the conviction of innocent persons., Yet the Secretary for the Home Department does not, therefore, abstain from offering rewards to procure convictions in certain cases of crime. We should like Mr. Pease to answer this argument, if he can, when he next declares his admiration of Lord Althorp's unjust, uncharitable, and unchristian bill. An able pamphlet has been lately published on the subject by Mr. Bligh, the Chancery barrister, called " The Bellum Agrarium, or, a Foreview of the Winter of 1835." We shall quote one passage relative to the subject we are upon. He says—" In the law of bastardy, the visi tation of the sins of the mother rather than the father, it is proposed, should fall upon the children. They are to have no legal claim by way of parish indemnity upon the father—nor is he to be amenable for his transgression to any law but that of God and his conscience. The begetter of bastards is to range with unlimited license over the domains of female chastity, and to procreate, ad libi tun, consumers of corn, without charge or conse quence to his own purse or person. The poor deluded mother is to support the wretched issue of her crime or her weakness. But is it not to be apprehended that when the fear of the penalty is removed (from the father) the temptation and the indulgence of the passion will be increased ? Will it not ensue that the mother, either being shameless, will trust to parish maintenance on the same scale as the mothers of lawful children, or, still retaining the natural or inbred sense of female delicacy and shame, will be tempted to resort to those unnatural means of averting publicity which the secrecy of the act and the hope of concealment may dictate ?" The fact is, that in many cases the child must come on the parish, either at first or last. The existing law has been sometimes abused by the overseer giving to the mother the money which the law orders to be paid by the father to indenzuffy the parish. Sometimes the mo ther is paid enough to enable her to make a profit of the consequences of her criminality. The proper re medy was to compel the money for the support of the child to be paid by the father to and for the parish, who should allow the mother just enough for the child's subsistence and no more. But we have ex hausted our space, not the subject—of this and the pension list another time.—ilforniug Herald. ' We can now congratulate the country that the most important measure, not only of the present ses sion, but of the present century, the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill has passed through its most mate rial stage, the committee. 'During its progress it has received precisely that sort of opposition, and that sort of support, which its warmest friends could have desired. It has been supported' not only by over whelming majorities, but by majorities comprising all that is most independent, and honourable, and re spected in the house. It has been opposed by mino rities consisting . of that , contemptible Irish faction which is striving to justify repeal by showing how much trouble a few anarchists can occasion ; of others with whose names plunder and incendiarism are inse parably connected ; of demagogues who are endea vouring to transplant to an assembly of statesmen and men of the world the vanity and sophistry which pro cured the plaudits of a vestry ; and of a very few wrong headed, though well-intentioned theorists, with in tellects so constituted as to produce in them an invincible affinity for all that is puerile or impracticable. We were told, when it first entered the committee, that it would cone out stripped of all efficiency, and reduced to a mere ma chine for patronage. We are now told that it has been so changed as to have become in fact a different measure : as mischievous, indeed, as ever, but armed with mischiefs of a different kind. This general statement has about as much truth as has attended the particular statements, or rather misstatements, of the separate clauses of the bill. We will refute it in the only way, though rather a tedious one, by which such sweeping falsehoods can be exposed, that is, by stating shortly the different changes which have been made, and their real effect. The first material alteration is in the second clause. By that clause the commis sioners were empowered to commit for contempt. That power is taken away, and a contempt is punishable, under the 86th clause, by fine, on conviction before two justices. The second is the omission cif the 10th clause, which enabled the commissioners to act as jus tices of the peace. We have called these altera tions material, because they were considered ma terial by these who proposed them ; but, in fact, they are of no importance whatever. They were inserted because they might, in a few instances, have been con venient; and they were omitted because those instances would have been so few that the question was not worth a contest. Two new clauses are also proposed to be inserted in the beginning of the bill—one re stricting the commissioners from sitting in Parlia meta ; the other limiting their appointment to five years. The first became necessary as soon as it was decided that their salaries should be annually voted. Under such an arrangement they would have been excluded from the provisions of the statute of Anne, and the consequence might.have been that the office would have become a political one, subject to the fre quent changes which must be expected under our re formed constitution, and therefore subject to con tinual change of system. The other alteration is really unimportant. If the act works well the commissioners will be retained as long as their services are useful; and whether the clause in question had been introduced or not, they certainly would not have been retained after they could be dispensed with. The next alteration de serving notice is in the 19th clause. Under that clause, as it originally stood, the commissioners were enabled to order a sum not exceeding one-tenth of the average annual rates of any parish to be employed in enlarging workhouses. As it is now altered, the sum must not exceed 50/. This, again, is an unimportant alteration. First, because the benefits of a competent workhouse are so well known that few parishes will oppose its construction or necessary enlargement ; :1 111 1y stood parishes will he much and, secondly, because the number of parishes in which the poor-rates much exceed 5001. a year is small even s n m oi a v il e a r n . d underAs the 30th h cimprovedluase sYnsitorig were prevented from adopting - Gilbert's Act, Sturges Bourne's Aot, or Hobhouse's Act, without the consent of the commissioners. That consent is requisite, as the clause now stands, only to the adoption of Gilbert's Act. The object of the clause is to produce uniformity, and to prevent unions under the powers of the present bill from being interfered with by other contemporary changes. But as the inconvenience which might arise from the adoption and subsequent discontinuance of Sturges Bourne's Act is trifling, and Hobhouse's Act extends only to a few parishes, the change is inconsiderable. Under the 33d clause the votes lioth of owners and occupiers were to be taken according to the Vestry Act, which does not admit proxies, but gives addi tional votes, to the extent of six, in proportion to the assessment of the voter. As the clause now stands the occupiers have only single votes, and owners are allowed to appoint proxies. The alteration as to occupiers appears to have been made in consequence of representations that Hothouse's Act, in which the voting is single, had worked well. But with respect to owners, the effect of a similar alteration would have been, in fact, to deprive the owners,•who, indeed, are the real payers of the rates, of any real Matt ence. The number of owners is • always small com pared to that of occupiers. Many parishes are owned by one individual : a single vote would have been a mockery : it would have been almost an equal mockery if he had not been enabled to vote by )roxy. No such power is required by occupiers, as they are on the spot. But scarcely any man of landed aroperty has the whole of - if contiguous, so as to be the subject of his own residence ; he can vote, there fore, only by his representative. In the 38th clauss useful addition has also been made, by which over seers' accounts are to be passed quarterly. At pre vent they are passed at the conclusion of the year of ,fee, so that an overseer may discover that he has teen acting improperly only by the disallowance of "iis accounts. He will now be checked in time, to the idvantage of the parish and of himself. We now come to the 46th clause, which has been the subject of a really important change. That clause absolutely nullibited the allowance system after the Ist of June, 1835. It was not introduced in pursuance of any re ;ommendation of the report, but as a substitute for !-he workhouse ilystem, and was open, as it stood in the bill, to the • following objections :-Ist, That in many parishes nunibeks of paupers, who would have rejected the workhouse, , would, if allowance were refused; throw themselves on the less disagreeable alternative of parish employment, so as to occasion great immediate expense ; secondly, that the attempt to produce so great a Change on one day over 'the whole kingdom I might produce popular disturbance : thirdly, that where neither of these con sequences followed, several individual hardships might be inflicted on individuals by the abrupt and total ces sation of n long-established practice : and fourthly, that as the means by which the prohibition was to be enforced wero principally the disallowance by the magistrates 'of the overseers' accounts, it was to be feared that in many places there - would be collision, if it may be so called, between the overseers and the magiStrates—that it would be admitted by the ma ,tistrate that the prohibition was - impracticable, and the practicewould be sanctioned,notwithstanding its ille gality had' been declared by Parliament, just as it is now sanctioned, while its illegality, though not de clared, is generally suspected ; in short, that as no legal safety-valve was opened' by the act, the magistrates would supply one. To obviate these objections, a clause has been introduced; enabling the commissioners to sanction allowance in such places, for such times, and on such conditions as they may think expedient. It is obvious that this clause is open to many objec tions; but we agree with Lord Althorp in thinking them, on the whole, less formidable than the dangers to which the original clause exposed us. The next material alteration is in the 48th clause. That clause enacted that wherever there were in a parish guardians or a select vestry,-it should not be lawful for the over seer to give relief except under the direction and con trol, or in pursuance of the order, of the guardians or vestry. A previous clause had deprived the justices of the power of interference in such parishes, and the commissioners were expressly forbidden to in terfere in particular cases except- when applied -by the overseers 'to - sanction allowance. It appeared that the effect of these clauses, taken - together, would be to deprive the pauper of any legal means Of enforcing relief. Neither the justices nor the commissioners could interfere. 'The guardians or select vestry, acting as a board,; would not be re sponsible, and the overseer was expressly . bound to follow their direction. If, therefore, the guardians or vestry expressly commanded the overseer to refuse re lief to A. 8., and A.B. should' consequently perish, it did not appear that ally body could. be punished. .To obviate this, the words of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, of which the meaning has been ascertained by fifteen years' experience, and which appears to work well, were made lite Of; and the prohibition of relief, with out the orders of the guardians or vestry, was modified by the following qualification:-" Except in cases of .sudden emergency or urgent necessity, and to such .extent only of temporary relief .as such case shall require." . The effect of this .alteration is to leave the overseer indictable if he allow. any person to starve, since the orders of the guardians or ves try. are suspended •by a case of urgent necessity. A change, also, of some importance, has been made in the 50th clause. That clause was intended to prevent the abuse, by which the heads of fatuities have been in the habit of claiming and receiving relief in the names of their children. As it was proposed, it de clared that all relief given to children under the age of sixteen should be considered as given to the head of the family. The age of sixteen is now altered to twelve. This change' we regret. In fact we should have preferred the age of twenty-one to either ; but it was made in consequence of the prevalence of a cus tom by which children, in many of the ill-administered counties, were considered independent recipients of relief at the age. of ten. It was thought that the change to sixteen would be too great. In the 60th clause, the emigration enactment, the liability of an emigrant, returning within twenty years, to repay the expenses of his emigration, is struck out ; but that important clause is, in other respects, un altered. We now come to the settlement clauses, which are the parts of the present bill which vary most from the •original draft. The first impres sion produced on every one who has read the poor law evidence, must have been the necessity of abolishing settlement by hiring, and service, and apprenticeship ; and the other modes by whieh settlements may be changed—namely, renting or purchasing a tenement, estate, serving an office, or paying rates, though not equally objectionable, have little to recommend them. The commissioners advised their immediate abolition. They also recommended the substitution for them of settlement by birth. This view was adopted by the Government, and thus the bill stood. But ever since its introduction, earnest representations have been made to the Government, and to their principal sup porters that birth-settlement., however p ro p er as part of an established good system, would much impede the amendment of a bad one ; that under the terror which poor law abuses have created, and the determination to avoid making settlements, every parish would discharge all its unsettled married la: bourers, and that a very extensive dislocation of the labour of the country would follow, by which the aper(k tion of the measure, during the first year or two, would be much impeded—in fact, during the precise period of difficulty. Lord Althoff), therefore, was urged to dbolish the heads of settlement to which we have referred, but not to substitute settlement by birth. Compliance with these requests would, in fact, have reduced all settlements to marriage and parentage, a most convenient arrangement for the present., but a most inconvenient one fifty years hence. Lord Althorp adopted what appears to us the best eaurse that, under ther . difficulties of the case, could be taken. He abolished hiring, and service, and appren ticeship, required rating as an addition to renting a tenement, and introduced no new head of set tlement. The immediate effect will be most boa., cial. The whole labour market will be opon, and every man may carry his services to any place what ever, without the fear of being repulfted as a new settler. And if, forty or fifty years Uonee, any incon venience shall arise, and it eannet arise sooner, it wilt be easy to cure it by the adoption of a district QL• county settlement. We now come to the proceed'ascs of Wednesday night. Our objection to the bastardy clauses is well known. We approve, therefore, of the omission of the 73d clause, which expressly requireki: the parents of the female to contribute to the sawort of her offspring. Whether Mr. Miles's amendment, which, instead of abolishing, as ftse hill does, the pu nishment both of father anal, tuother, subjects the woman to imprisonment, and the man to a fine, will or will not be adopted, it is impossible, in the present state of the house, ts. determine. It will be considered on Satur day. The amendment proposed.by Lord Darlington, and amended by the Attornev-General, rating the landlord as to all tenements under 10/. a year,witl also be reconsidered. We believe that the adopt:An 'of this amendment will be most beneficial, aidaidihat it was interestedight endanger in (*posing it w ou ld ra i se th e w h o l e measure. a omitted in the original bill soleiy tind er t h e f ear that th It was probably on the sam e groun d that the commis sioners, though favou ra hl e to the change, and indeed clamour many persons% vhich m willing to extend it to all tenements of less annual value than la., did not advise its introduction into the bill. Such are the only important changes to which this great and complicated measure has been subjected. And we appeal to every candid person, whether be longing to the Whig or the Tory, or the vestry, or the pauper interest, whether any measure of equal ioagnitude and difficulty was ever debated, clause by clause, for a month, and escaped with less alteration ? —Morning Chronicle. LIVERPOOL COTTON -MARKET, JUNE 18. We have had a fair demand for cotton to-day ; about 3,000 bales have been sold at steady prices--viz., 204 Pernams, I 1 d. to 123. d.,; I4a Niaranbams, at I IN. to 110., 150 Bahian, li - 44 to 100.; rernaincke Amencan i front la. t..)