The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-21 00:00:00

IRELAND.

POOR LAWS.—We publish to-day the letter of Mr.
O'Connell on the Ministerial measure. On Thursday the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman will meet his constituents
fot the purpose of discussing this question as well as the
Irish Corporation

" TO MY CONSTITUENTS.
" Merrion-s-qoare, Dee. IS.
" Fellow-Countrytnenr—l never in my life was so
anxious to arrest public attention as I am on the subject
of the Poor Laws.
" Poor-lawn will certainly create a species of social re-
volution in Ireland. It will necessarily create a new and
heavy charge on property—a charge which, when once
COTTITIMICed, can never be remitted.
" Ireland is the poorest country in the world, and the
English Legislature proposes to relieve our poverty by a
heavy taxation on the actual occupiers of our hous"s and
lands.
It may, perhaps, seem to others as it does decidedly
appear to me, to be a singular mode of affording relief to
Ireland, to charge the occupying inhabitants of the houses
in her cities and towns, and of the lands in her counties,
with a new and heavy tax.
" I could understand the conferring a favour or bounty
on Ireland by the people of England or of Scotland con-
tributing to the relief of our poor. But the taxing of the
Irish to enrich the Irish is a process of a new kind, of
which one cannot well see a satisfactory result.
" Poor-laws, therefore, do not augment or increase the
property of the Irish. Poor-laws do no more than to alter
the mode of distribution of the property already existing.
" The question, then, simply is this—will the new distri-
bution be more beneficial to the poor than the old ?
" I admit at once that if this new distribution of pro-
perty, to be directed by the Poor Law Bill, be more
useful to the poor than the old, Poor-laws ought to be
adopted at once.
" My own deliberate opinion, an opinion anxiously
formed, is, that in no shape ever did a general Poor-law
(I mean a Poor-law including able-bodied paupers), and
that it never can, diminish the amount of poverty in any
country however favourably circumstanced for the expe-

riment.
" My own fixed opinion also is, that a general Poor-law,
instead of diminishing, does, on the contrary, augment the
mass of poverty, and that this augmentation of poverty is
an inevitable consequence inherent in the nature of a ge-
neral Poor-law, and not to be obviated by any, however
skilful, system of management.
" For the present I do not intend to argue that I am right
in these opinions. So far from doing so, lam quite content
that every one of those who read this address should deem
these opinions erroneous.
" The reason I abandon my objection to the abstract
principle of poor-laws is simply this—because the Ministe-
rial Poor-law Bill for Ireland is so fallacious as a measure
of relief for the Irish poor, that even those who approve of
general poor-law must, if they will but reflect on the de-
tails of the proposed Bill, condemn it as emphatically as I do.
" Now, let us understand one another on this subject.
It is of the last importance that we all should clearly under-
stand what the proposed poor-law is—attend to these facts.
"1. The new poor-law is to do this and no more—to
erect 100 poorhouses in Ireland, and to provide for 800
persons in each poorhouse, that is 80,000 persons in all.
" 2. These 80,000 are to be confined as prisoners within
the poorhouses. They are not to be at liberty to go
abroad and return.
" 3. In these poorhouses the husbands are separated
from their wives, and, in many instances, the mothers from
their children. The internal discipline will necessarily be
rigid, and the food rather below that which a labourer in
agriculture can procure by his labour, if it be possible to
have it lower.
" Such is the proposed plan for the relief of the poor.'
It consists of confinement—separation of families—rigid
discipline, and low meals—untempting diet. The number
of persons to be relieved not to exceed 80,000 in the whole
island.
" Such are the objects which the proposed Poor-law
purports to attain.
" It certainly was not for such a plan as this that our
Irish advocates for Poor-laws contended. I will do them
the justice to say, that their intentions were of a more be-
nevolent and extended description. All the arguments they
used in favour of Poor-laws for Ireland' are totally inap-
plicable to the new Bill. Let us, I pray, go over these ar-
guments candidly and dispassionately, and then we shall
perceive how utterly inapplicable they arc to this Poor-law.
"1. It was insisted that a Poor-law would find employ-
ment for the poor, either by a labour-rate, to be expended
in wages, or by the cultivation of waste lands, or the fabri-
cation of manufactured goods.
" Everybody remembers the talent, and zeal, and fervour
with which the Rev. Mr. O'Malley—the most able and
distinguished supporter of Poor-laws—advised, and power-
fully advocated, some of the modes of employment thus
alluded to.
" Well, all their modes are thrown overboard. There is
to be no labour-rate—no expenditure in wages—no cultiva-
tion of waste lands—no manufacture of goods.
" The framers of the Bill lay it down as a principle es-
tablished by the clearest proofs, arising from experiments
actually made in several counties, that pauper labour can
never be made profitable. lam afraid—indeed lam con-
vinced—that this assertion is perli:etly true ; but, at all
events, the principle is adopted by the framers of this
Bill. There is to be no employment in the poorhouse,
save in the nature of punishment, and to test destitution.
" Let, therefore, those who advocated Poor-laws on the
ground of their affording employment or wages, or profit
of any kind,come forward now honestly and oppose this Bill.
" So far from giving employment or wages, this Bill will
diminish both, by taking away, in the shape of a rate, from
the resident occupiers of Ireland that which they would
otherwise have to expend as wages and in employing la-
bourers.
" 2. It was stated, indeed, principally by flippant writers
in English newspapers and reviews, that Poor-laws would
eradicate pauperism in Ireland, or at least greatly diminish
its sphere.
" But the framers of this Bill tell us distinctly that a
Poor-law can never eradicate pauperism ; in fact, they
should candidly admit that it must increase the quantity of
poverty by the direct amount of the tax or rate payable
under the Poor-law by the class of persons who are only
one degree removed at present from pauperism. Those
persons, by paying the rate, will be reduced to the level
of the paupers, and thus augment the number of persons
requiring relief.
" Observe this distinctly, that the framers of this Bill
tell us that its design and object are not to eradicate po-
verty; these are their words, but to relieve actual desti-
tution'—destitution tested—that is, proved to exist by the
party looking for relief submittiag to the confinement, se-
paration, discipline, and diet of the poorhouses.
" 3. The advocates of Poor-laws told us that a Poor-
law would sompel the Irish landlords to attend to the in-
csests of their tenants, and not to turn them adrift off
their estates ; because, if they did so, they—the land-
lords—would be compelled to support such tenants as pau-
pers, as they would have a right to be supported by the
parish in which they had resided before expulsion from their

farms.
" This argument was founded on this assumption, that
there would be a right of parochial settlement established
by the Poor-law Bill, so that each parish should support
its own poor. But the new Poor-law gives no right of set-
tlement—no pauper will have the least claim, by any pos-
sibility, on his parish. If he have any claim at all, it will
only he on the district workhouse, and each district is to
be twenty square miles. So that, even if the pauper were
received into the district workhouse, the landlord would
have but a paltry contribution to make, as he would only
contribute in common with all the other inhabitants of the
district—and this contribution is rendered still more trivial
when it is recollected that the occupying tenants are to
pay, for their own share, one half of the rate, and the
landlord's proportion of the other half is to be as small as
possible.
" This Bill, therefore, will do nothing to prevent the
landlords from first ruining and next turning adrift the
tenants. The great evil o clearing estates, that is, driving
numbers of poor people to perish in the dikes and ditches
will be stimulated, not prevented, by this poor-law.
" It will not be prevented, because the landlord will in-
cur no penalty or charge by turning adrift the tenants.
" It will be stimulated, because the landlords will have
the excuse of the existence of the workhouse, as proving
that the tenants will not be as they are at present, de-
prived of all resource when turned out of their lands.
" 4. The fourth and great argument in favour of poor-
laws for Ireland was this—that the poor-law would serve in
the place of an Asentee tax, and would compel the absen-
tees to spend at least part of their rents in Ireland.
" Alas ! alas ! this argument fails altogether. Toe
New Poor-law does not touch the absentee scarcely at all.
It is made designedly to spare the absentee as much as
possible, and to charge and burden the occupier as much as
possible.
" Absenteeism, on a small scale, is said not to be injuri-
ous to a country. That may be true, because a small qua',
tity of several species of poison is not destructive. But
absenteeism on a large scale is like any other poison in a
large dose—it destroys vitality.
In Ireland every body now admits, and rational states-
men and economists have for more than a century admitted,
the enormous evils of absenteeism. The produce of the
coantry raised not to be consumed, or its price spent at
home, but raised only to be exported without any return in
money or goods—that produce might just as well be flung
into the sea for anything Ireland benefits by it. Absen-
teeism is, indeed, the great evil of our land. It creates pe-
nury amongst our operatives—misery amongst our la-

- Ty
r•t4",',l'
oi
bourers—poverty amongst our farmedistiesS.,,amclgig
our manufacturers—and spreads widelv itaiune4tlithe
commercial men.
" The most horrible consequence of , c t
was that it enormously increased absentel
" A thousand benevolent schemes were .; ktirtgAlp
your to encourage landlords to reside amongst-VS
thousand plans were thrown out to prevail on them to do,
their duty to their native country, by spending at least part
of their rents amongst us—all in vain.
" Well, here is an Act of Parliament in the direct reverse
sense—here is a law which offers a bonus to every landlord
to become an absentee. It actually pays him—that is,
gives him a sum of money, for becoming and continuing an
absentee.
" Tlis Bill also punishes occupation of lands in Ireland.
It leans heavily on every occupier of lands in Ireland. It
leans lightly on every landlord who receives rents front Ire-
land, and spends them in England or elsewhere. it is
mpbatically a landlord's Bill.
6' I have o!ten imagined the Union had nothing worse in
s:ore for us. But evil has no bounds. The neglect and
ontemptuous disregard of Ireland by the leading Englisla
Radicals—the Spottiswoode gang conspiracy to ruin by
litigation the popular representatives of Ireland—and now
this Poor-law, punishing occupation or residence in Ireland,
and encouraging absenteeism, comes to crown the entire,
and caps the climax of mischief.
For the present, I will draw to a close. I have briefly
sl.o.vn that this Poor-law does not meet nny one of the
great objects which the advocates for Poor-laws contem-
plated. Not one.
" It does not attempt to give employment to any human
being.
"It does not purport to cure pauperism. It disclaims
any attempt to eradicate poverty.
It gives no right of settlement, nor does it hold out
any penalty or pecuniary punishment to the desolating
landlord who depopulates his estates. On the contrary, it
actually encourages such a landlord, by affording him an
excuse for his cruelty.
"It does not check or punish absenteeism. On the
contrary, it affords a direct bonus and reward to the ab-

sentv.
" It punishes by a heavy pecuniary charge the occupiers
of lands and houses in Ireland.
" The only relief it affords is the locking up of 80,000
men, women, and children in 100 workhouses ; and this is
called a provision for the poor of Ii eland !'
" My next letter, which I hope to publish on Wednes-
day, will point out the iniquitous mode in which the Poor-
rate is to be levied. This will demand the most serious
attention.
" The public are totally ignorant of the oppressive mode
in which the Poor-rate is intended to be levied. We did not
last year arrive at that part of the Bill, so that no discussion
has as yet been had upon it.
" For the present, I will only state the fact—that one-
half the rate is to fall absolutely, and without any allowance
or abatement, on every occupier of land. More than one-
half of such occupiers have no profit whatsoever.
" That the whole rate will fall without any allowance
upon every occupier of a house in every town and city
almost without any possible exception.
" 1 beg of my constituents to hold this in mind. Let
them not blame me if they suffer this Bill to pass without
remonstrance.
" The plain sense of the thing is this :—lf we are to
have a poor-rate, let it be paid out of rents, not by occu-
piers. Let those who receive the rents pay the poor-rates.
This will meet the absentee, and be something of an ab-
sentee tax. Rents in any country, but especially in Ire-
land, ought to be the source out of which the burdens on
the landed property should be paid. I shall return again
to this subject.
" I have the honour to be, fellow-countrymen, your ever
faithful servant,

" DANIEL O'CONNELL."

NATIONAL TRADES' POLITICAL UNlON.—There was
a numerous meeting of this body last Monday, at which
Mr. O'Connell attended, principally with a view to point
out the evils arising from combination. In the first place
however, he took a glance at political affairs, and declared
that day by day he became more and more convinced of Ilea
necessity of a repeal of the Union, a conviction, however„ .
which was not to be supposed as intimating the remotest
dissatisfaction with Lord Melbourne's Government. His
conviction had rather to do with the English Ultra-Radi-
cals, of whose sympathy with Ireland the Learned Gentle-
man does not appear to have a very deep impression. In
his remarks upon the evils of combination, whether it was
distinguished by the lawful though sometimes unwise regu-
lations of trade, or those sworn confederacies known by the
name of the " Billy Welters," &c., to whom he` traced the
murder of the unfortunate Gamley—in these remarks
he experienced some decided, though not general, ex-
pressions of disfavour. One was heard to exclaim, " Then
you must do without my vote," and other tokens of disap-
probation found utterance. Several of the journeymen
spoke, and there is to be another meeting on Friday.
The Dublin Eveiling Pust, referring to this meeting,
says, " We defy the bitterest enemies of Mr. O'Connell to
gainsay the assertion, that he is rendering the most valu-
able, the most substantial, and, we trust, the most lasting
services to the working men of the community, and, of
course, to the community itself. With all our experience
of Mr. O'Connell's powers—with, as we believe, a thorough
knowledge of his capacity to wield masses of men, and to
maintain a stand-tip fight against a host of antagonists—his
success yesterday, and the powers he brought into action
to insure the victory over a body of his own constituents,
passionately opposed to his object—these, we say, have been
to us, who have accompanied Isis career so long, not merely
topics of admiration, but surprise."
TRANQUILLITY OF THE COUNTRY.-Our anticipation of
the speedy restoration of tranquitiity in the county of
Limerick, through the exertions of the police alone, has
already been fully verified. The following is from a Tory
journal—the Limerick Chronicle :—" We are happy to
announce that there has not been this week an outrage
perpetrated in this county. The military in this county
have got orders not to parole by day, which they were
in
the habit of doing."
RIOTING IN OUTERARD.—By the Connaught Journal,
which reached us on Saturday, we learn that there has
been some rioting, touching a question of boundaries, be-
tween the tenants of Mr. Martin, the Member for the
county of Galway, and those of Mr. O'Flaherty, of
Lemon-t4dd. The affair occurred in the Barony of
Movcullen, near Outerard. We have received from
another quarter some farther particulars—which we shall
state in our next. In the meantime, we learn the matter
is considered of such a nature as to warrant Government
in sending down a gentleman to investigate the circum-
stances of the case. The curiosity of the case is this :—lt
seems that Mr. O'Flaberty disputes the bounds laid down
by the Government sum vevor, and that a Mr. VignolesL-
not the ci-devant Carlow Magistrate of the name, but his
nephew—has recommended that informations should be
sworn against Mr. Martin, and that the Member for the
county should be held to bail. Your Vignoleses, it would
seem, are a valorous generation. We have heard that
there is some party feeling in the transaction. Of course
Mr. Vignoles is not influenced by any such cons.:deration.
But, in our next, we shall endeavour to make the matter
intelligible to our readers.—Dublin Evening Post.

LOVE, A NOVEL, BY LADY CHARLOTTE BURY.
—There is, we think, an attraction in this announcement,
which few will be able to resist. A novel, not merely in which
love takes the leading part (for in what novel does it not ?) ;
but one, the sole subject of which is la belle passion; and from
the pen of one who for years reigned undisputed Queen of
that possession which is at once the parent, the food, and the
object of that passion. The loveliest woman of her day giving
to the world a histwy of which Love is the theme, is a circum-
stance which cannot fail to excite an extraordinary degree of
curiosity among our fair readers, and we doubt not that they
will be gratified to their heart's content,
THE DUCHESS OF MARLBOROUGH'S PRIVATE.
CORRESPONDENCE, illustrative of the Court and Times of
Queen Anne, (now first published from the originals), with
with her sketches and opinions of her contemporaries, iy two
vols., Bvo., with portraits, is published this day, by Mr. Col-
burn, of Great Marlborough-street, and may now be had of
all Booksellers. Mr. Colburn has also announced for publi-
cation on Saturday next, the notes illustrative of the Times
of George IV. and Queen Caroline, and Lady Charlotte
Bury's new Novel, entitled " Love."
In a rare quarto pamphlet, preserved in the library
of the British Museum, entitled " The Reading of M. Ser•
geant Brook, Recorder of London, upon the 17th char.
Magna Charta," printed 1641, we find the following A
man that is n...ither physician nor surgeon, and taketh upon
him to know'physick and surgery, and talreth upon hint the
cure of men, and one dycth for the insufficiency (impropriety)
of medicine—This is murder."

DR. LEE'S CAsE.—lt appears from the public
prints that the R-V. Dr. Lee has been threatened with depri-
vation of cffice for an alleged contravention of the Act of
Assembly anent union of offices," passed on 28th May 1817.
LIGHTING OF LONDON IN TIIE TIME OF
GEORGE. L—On the 18th of December an Act was posed:
repealing all former laws upon the subject, and ordering that •
for the future every housekeeper should hang out a light be- •
fore his door, " with sufficient cotton wicks to burn from si*
o'clock in the evening until eleven of the same night." Thus
at midnight the streets were left totally in the dark. But, even
this miserable supply of light was thought too extravagant to
be provided all the year round, and the COurt of Common
Council, with a praiseworthy spirit of economy, retiedved that
the fair moon should net shine in the heavens in vain, and'th.st
the inhabitants should not be burdened with supplying oil and
cotton wicks between the seventh night after the new moon and
the third night after she had arrived at the full. The houae-
keepers who were careless enough to trust always to the bene-
ficence of the moon, and neglect to hang out the necessary
glimmer on the " dark nights," were to forfeit a shilling for
each offence.—Mackay's History of London.

PRICT4S OF STOCKS
Ban kStock
' ACV, 6' India Stoeit _
3 per Cents Red. ;
99;
,i% ~i %, I)itto Bonds . 23 ;26 Inn,
....
3 per Cent-Cons.
vi Ce ...• South
; sea Stock .. ...... ••••••••• ....-....
3% I.l' re .........-...... . 897:4 Old '\ urinates ......... ~. .....-„, i%
.113it''.0 Red.
....IQ% 7i, % New Ditto ..... ........... .......... •
New Sii per Cent
• New 5 per Cent
.... Exen. Biltfi, £1,0nu.....17 45 47 am. Bank "%ongAnnuitiest 'expire
Jam. 5, 1560........--.-14 1:!--4674 Ditto Small .. ...
Oct. 10. 185'J....................n 11-1 k Ditto Commercial ...... .., pm.
Jan. 5, 1860 —..................--• Dir.o Advertised. — —pm
Jan. 5, 1,44' ........... .-- Bank vtock for Account.. —
April 5, I ;',4 L ........ ....... ! Ind Stock for Account— 2634
J.>, ": lo'"'. . -......— Cnrto:,, fel Account ...... 93,5.

PRICES I t',]-‘1,4,5-„ FUNDS
Austrian lO-,%
Belgian 80ne......
D'tto Acc.Ar it.
Br Bo') AS
Ditto Acr s•IT c
Buenos A- e.s Bonds
Ditto .i.cre int
80l is .........-•-.
ruto Acr aunt ......... .....
C ilurnbian ..toods
Ditto ..........
Colur dis a Bonds, IK2 i
tcrount
ttoods
Aeentiat
Cruk
Ditto Bonds, 1525
Ditto Account . .....
Mexican Bonin, fi per cent
atto Account
Cato, 6 per cent 27 1,6
Pitt.
...... --
Neatiotican

~~~ ~~

IHIS U 4 AT ONE O'CLOCK.
l'ertromt Itorot. ..........
Ditto Account ......
Porn tr-u roe
Ditto Account
Pitto New
Ditto Account
D•tta, 3 per cent. 2O
Prttisian Bonds
itthotan Ren.is, IS.ht
Di*.to Amount .........
D,tte Metallic ..... ....—...
Spanish Bends ..........

'Ditto
trig° BMUS. I Rik
Ditto :Iccoant
French, 5 per Cent-- —f. _c.
------ 4 lacy cent.......... —t. —c
---- 3 per cent —f. —c
Exchange f. —c.
Dutch, c;54 per cent............ 544
D.tto Account
Ditto. 5 per cent ..........« lOl,,
Ditto Account

PRICEi OF SHARES THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK.
Paid. Per Shar e
Bllanos slininr :lornoanv...
British Iron Co*.ap,iny
United Mexie2.n
,issued at U. pm.)
Dublin and ".tlkenny Railway Company
(neat Wes, ern Railway Company 55 66 5%
Rrighton A!iiiwa,, Univipanr
5 3% ki
Brightor.ltailway (Rennie's)
—19 s. 16s.
LA n'tir.anit Birmingham Railway Company 9O 1,5 6
iiten. •14 Shares
Lm.lor and southampton Railway Company 5O 354
Londe.. i and Southampton (New) Railway 5 16. ii
Nnitt
Colo aial Bank ...... 25 24%34
Fiat() Scrip —241 i
Itif.tional Provincial Bank of England

PRICES 01.' IRISII STOCKS. DUBLIN, DECEMBER 19.
3 per Cent. Consols ---iGran.l Canal I)ebs. 6 per cent. 901.;
l Mt° Reduced
--1 Ditto, 4 per cent. ...
3!4 per Cetr. Stock. --iHibeinian Bank .... ---
Oitto New, 14:30 ..... -
3t4 per Cent. Debentures -
Bank Stock - City Debentures, 4 per cent.... -
Royal Canal Stock - Ballest Office Debentures, 4 per
Gra-ad Canal Stock 9.7% cent -

MAILS.
Arrived. Due. Arrived. Due.
to America..."..... 0 0 France........„.. 1
0 Brazil.-- ..... II 1 Guern. & Jersey 0
014 nenos Ayres.. 0 0 Hamburg....„.. 0
0 Carthagena...... 0 1 Holland ...... .... 0
I Dub1in........... 0 tl Jamaica ...... -- 0
0 Fianden ..—..... 0 0 Leeward Islands It

Arrived. Due
0 Lisbon.. 0
0 Malta n
o Mexico 1
0 Ostend li
o Sweden ..
1 Waterford

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE TO-MORROW.
Morning 3 minutes after 91 Evening.. ..... ..32 minutes after 9.

The publication of Tux SUN NEWSPAPER commenced this day
at 10 minutes past Three o' Clock.

491

~~~
~ ~~
~ ..~

'Cribt auu.

LONDON :
THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 21, 1837.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS yesterday, after the Houses of
Parliament Bill had been read a second time, their Lordships
proceeded to the business of the evening, namely, the Civil
List Bill, which was read a second time, after two speeches
of considerable length from Viscount MELBOURNE and Lord
Bat:walla:4 ; the latter did not oppose the second reading,
but thought, nevertheless, that the Government were calling
upon Parliament to legislate in the dark and on extremely er
roneous principles. "It was," said the Noble and Learned
Lord, " a most unwise, improvident, and he would even add,
nnstatesmanlike mode of proceeding with such a subject, to
legislate at this time prospectively for possibly half a century.
What man could venture to predict—what limited understand-
ing could pretend to foresee—what audacity could inspire any
one to foretell anything relating to the state of our affairs
some fifty, forty, thirty, or even ten years hence ? Here were
their Lordships, in the year 1837, acting as if they could
meet every contingency which might arise in 1860 or 1870 ; here
were they venturing to decide what would be the proper
Court establishment for the Monarch of England at that dis-
tant day, to ts hick the eye of fancy alone could give the slight-
est size, form, or colouring 1 Here were they now in 1837.
venturing to foretell what the state of society might be in 1867
' —what expenditure, and what establishment might be neces-
sary in that year, which few of them would live to see, for the
decent, and necessary, and nothing more than decorous and
needful state of the Prince who at that remote period might
be upon the Throne."
The Municipal Officers' Regulation Bill was read a third
time, and their Lordships adjourned.
In the HOUSE of COMMONS, there being only thirty Mem-
hers present at four o'clock, the SPEAKER adjourned the House
till to-morrow (this day).

The Civil List Bill was read a second time in the
House of Lords last night. From the anxiety of
Ministers to carry this Bill before the holidays, we
suspect that they are fully persuaded that it would
not be safe to leave it much longer in abeyance. Not
that Parliament would hesitate for an instant
to make a munificent provisiols for the main-
tenance of the Royal dignity whenever called
upon ; but because Ministers are aware that stricter
inquiries would be instituted to ascertain the amount
of the revenues enjoyed by the Crown from those
sources of which it is not now cognizant—the in-
comes of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster.
With singular inconsistency, Lord MELBOURNE, in
moving the second reading of the Bill, proved at
great length, and with much acuteness, that the en-
joyment of hereditary revenues by the Crown was dan-
gerous to civil liberty. His Lordship said—
He need scarcely inform their Lordships, that in the times
before the Restoration the ancient revenue of the Kings
of Englani, not by any contrivance, not by any arrange-
snort, but oiling, to circumstances ccnnected with the na-
ture of society, and with the state of affairs in which
it had grown up, was partly territorial, partly feudal,
and partly arising from the prerogative of the Crown.
But that revenue was entirely the property of
the Crown, from which it was bound to provide
for the great military and civil services of the country,
ti'y coming to Parliament when the improvidence of the
Sovereign had involved him in difficulties, or when his am-
bition had led him to make aggressions on his neighbours,
or when a war, waged against himself, had plunged the
country into a state of necessity and danger, from which it
could not be extricated without Parliamentary interference.
Whatever other advantages this system might produce, it was
nit difficult to foresee a priori that no system could be worse
ea!eulated than it was to secure anything like constitutional
liberty to the country. —(Hear, hear.)

No stronger argument could be urged against the
retension of the revenues of the Duchies by the Crown
than is here set forth by the Noble Premier—a fact
which did not escape the vigilance of Lord BRO UG lIA m,
who in a masterly speech deprecated the conduct of
Ministers in voting a Civil List without suffering
Parliament to be informed respecting the actual wants
and resources of the Crown.

The insolent reply of the Dean of Westminster to
the application of the Home Secretary, for opening
Westminster Abbey to the public, holds out a fair pros-
pect of success. It has made an impression in the
proper quarter. Lord Joirx Russzu. feels indig-
nant, and the public, in whose behalf he was acting,
will feel indignant, that a building which has been
raised and adorned by the munificence of former So-
vereigns, and contains the monuments of so many il-
lustrious men, should be closed or opened accor-
ding to the caprice of the Dean and Chapter,
and his Lordship gives a proper warning to that
body, by informing theta that " they cannot ex-
pect the practice ;an continue without exciting the
attention of I`.'a MAJESTY'S advisers and the public."
If her
...'SIAJESTY's advisers act with vigour, they
will soon teach these " legal guardians of the pro-
perty" their duty. The shallowness of their preten-
mons to the sole guardianship of the Abbey, in op-
position to the wishes of the Crown, is only equalled
by their futile reasons for the exclusion of the public.
The history of the Abbey may be said to be little
elio than a history of the right and power of the
Crown to interfere in its management. It was founded
by a Catholic Sovereign ; rebuilt several times by
Catholic Sovereigns ; it was converted into a college
and afterwards into a Cathedral by Henry VIII.
The See was dissolved by Edward VI. It was again
M institution
was into an Abbey by _Mary, and that
Was dissolved by Elizabeth, who founded the present
establishment, consisting of a Dean and Secular and
petty Canons. If the advisers of the Crown consider
that it is not managed in accordance with the wishes
and wants of the people, and the spirit of the times,
they can have no difficulty in finding precedents for inter-

ferencc. As to the alleged abuses that would arise
from unrestricted admission, the hypocritical ftrguments
of these " legal guardians" Ott that point hardly re-
quire refutation. The Dean and Canons of West-
minster refuse to admit the public on account of the
injury done to the monuments, and the disturbance of
the daily prayers ; and the Dean and Chapter of St.
Paul's have resolved that the public shall be freely
admitted " during the prayers," and shall not be
driven out at the conclusion, but remain, if they
please, for the rest of the day. The latter body are
fully as religious as the former, and they show a great
deal more of Christian charity. The other reasons for
exclusion are, that " there would be indecorous beha-
viour, a constant noise, and that the Church would be
in a filthy state in wet weather." Are not the British
Museum, Westminster-hall, and Guildhall, infinitely
better aired and more clean than Westminster Abbey ;
and for this reason, that, by throwing them open
during the clay, the pure air is admitted ? Is there
any indecorous behaviour in the British Museum, or
in St. Peter's at Rome, or in any of the Cathedrals
on the Continent ? The conduct of the lower classes
in the Parks that have been thrown open, and in the
Museum, shows that they are just as much civilized
as their neighbours ; and it ill becomes the Clergy to
refuse them admission to our Cathedrals, on the ground
that they are so destitute of religious feeling, that they
cannot respect these sacred edifices.

In our columns of to-day will be found a long letter
from Mr. O'CONNELL to his constituents on the im-
portant subject of a Poor Law for Ireland. The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman denounces the Ministerial
Bill as calculated to make bad worse—to augment
rather than to alleviate the misery of the Irish poor
—to encourage rather than prevent absenteeism—to
foster rather than to extinguish the passion of Irish
landlords for ejecting their tenantry, casting them forth
in the dead of winter naked, hungry, and houseless
upon the world : but it is evident from the nature
of his objections, that no Bill, giving to the poor
a compulsory right ,to relief, would be otherwise
represented by him. The plain English of the
matter is that Mr. O'CONNELL will not, and
never intended to support a Poor-law for Ireland
in any shape. We do not blame him for this
if he cannot bring himself to consider such a measure
necessary to the well-being of his native country,
whose interest we know he has truly at heart ; but we
would blame the British Legislature if, after being
persuaded that without a good Poor-law the social re-
generation of Ireland is impossible, it hesitated an
instant to adopt such a law, no matter by whom op-
posed. Mr. O'CoN NELL'S prejudice upon this ques-
tion quite obscures his judgment. For instance :
The Poor-law Bill assesses the rate-payers within
each of the hundred unions into which Ireland is to be
divided, to support the destitute poor belonging to each
union. By this assessing, a heavy tax will be imposed
on the landlords, who now pay no tax at all ; and yet Mr.
O'CONNELL asserts that a law so operating encourages
landlords to disinherit their tenantry--in other words,
taxation is so delightful to Irish landlords, that to in-
crease their rates they will do all they can to drive
their tenants into the workhouse ! Again, Mr. O'CON-
NELL complains that the Bill does not include a law
of Settlement, as if the absence of such a clause did
not take away from the depopulating landlord the only
security that he could have of deriving any advantage
from the oppression of the poor. But if a Poor-law
cannot prevent the oppression of tenants by their
landlords—if it cannot mitigate the misery that now
exists in Ireland—we beg to ask the Honourable and
Learned Member for Dublin what will do it ? A re-
peal of the Legislative Union cannot be expected by
its most sanguine supporters to give Ireland what the
Act of Union never deprived her of—namely, a protec-
tion for the indigent poor. What other measure then
will the Hon. and Learned Gentleman put forth calcu-
lated to secure this right to the Irish people ? We
are impatient to learn his panacea for Irish misery.
And as he denounces the ejection of tenants by their
landlords as a process the most cruel and unjust,
we should like to know why he does not bring
a Bill into Parliament for their protection, based on
the principles of Mr. SHA RMAN CRAWFORD'S
Landlord and Tenant Bill ? But we are attaching to
Mr. O'CoNNELL's letter an importance which it does
not deserve. In fact we never read but once before
such a feeble production from so powerful a pen.
Several of the assumptions contained in it—and upon
which Mr. O'CONNELL bases his strongest arguments
—arc destitute of all foundation. After referring to the
benevolent schemes had recourse to in Ireland since
the Union to prevent absenteeism, the Honourable
and Learned Gentleman, with an air of triumph,
thus exultingly points to the Poor Law Bill—" Well,
here is an Act of Parliament in the direct reverse
sense—here is a law which offers a bonus to every
landlord to become an absentee. It actually pays
him, that is, gives him a sum of money for be-
coming and continuing an absentee." Is the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman in his dotage to put forth such an
absurdity ? Does he know that in taxing the estate
of tile absentee to pay for the maintenance of the in-
digent poor upon it,'or in its vicinity, a penalty is in-
flicted upon such absentee for neglecting the means in
his power to improve the condition of the poorest class
of inhabitants ? It is a strange bonus truly, to be
obliged to contribute to thz, maintenance of eight hun-
dred paupers I
We are rather inclined to think that it it not the
Poor Law Bill that at present annoys Mr. ()TON-
NELL, and, chat in attacking it with so much bitterness,
his ob.j.ect is to make it a handle for agitating again the
Repeal of the Union. Now why does not the Hon.
awl Learned Gentleman go in a more straightforward
and manly way to work ? Why does he not tell his
z7ountrymen that the SPOTTISWOODE conspiracy has
deprived him of all dependence upon the impar-
tiality of an English tribunal--that British pre-
judices are not to be overcome by an appeal
to reason and common-sense—and that Ireland
to be free must have a domestic Legislature ? This
would be a course more worthy of Mr. O'CoNNELL,
than vainly attempting to raise a prejudice upon a
measure supported by nine-tenths of the people of
Ireland. We are confident that it is the SPOTTIS-
WOODE conspiracy, and not the Poor-law Bill, that
prompts Mr. O'CONNELL to agitate anew the repeal
of the Union ; and we respectfully submit that it were
better not to jumble and confound questions of such
magnitude—especially when writing upon them.

We quote the following significant paragraph from
the Advertiser, of this morning :--" The town of
Eltham and its immediate vicinity contain sixty-nine
registered freeholders ; of these, at the last election,
forty-three voted for Sir W. GEARY, and forty out of
that number split their votes in favour of Sir E.
FILMER, the other Tory candidate. That old and
tried Reformer, T. L. HODGES, Esq., M.P., who
brought the father of Sir W. GEARY (also a Re-
former) into Parliament for the county, obtained no
more than fourteen votes, only one of which was
split with GEARY ; thirteen freeholders, presumed to
be under some bias or fear of their Tory neighbours,
did not vote. Thus, it will appear, that near a
sixth of the freeholders did not exercise the elective
franchise 1 Since the election the people of West Kent
have felt convinced, that the franchise is a thing of no
force or meaning without the Ballot ; and not long
since, a petition was got up in Eltham, calling upon
Parliament and the advocates of Reform, to comply