The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-25 00:00:00

LONDON,
SATURDAY EVENING. FEBRUARY 25, 1837.

In the House of Lords yesterday, the Royal Assent was
given by Commission to the Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill,
and to the Births, Registration, and Marriages Bill. The
Post Office Contracts Bill was read a third time and
passed. Petitions on the Church-rate question were pre-
sentel A Bill was laid on the table by Lord Go-
DOLPHIN, to prevent the reading of notices, or doing any
other. parochial business in churches during Divine Service.
The same Noble Lord announced his intention to bring
forward a Bill for the better regulation of the law of Divorce.
In the House of Commons, Mr. FARRAND, the new
Member for the borough of Stafford, took the oaths and
his seat.
The Licensed Victuallers' Assurance Company Bill, and
the Greenwich Pier Bill, were severally read a second time.
The Manchester and Tamworth Railway Bill was read
a second time, after a lengthened discussion, in which Lord
STANLIZY led in opposition, and Sir R. PEEL in support of
the Bill.

The Public Records Report was-brought up.
In presenting a petition from the medical practitioners of
Bucks, com,)laining of the state of medical treatment and
practice under the Poor-law as now administered, Sir R.
PEEL asked Lord JoHN RUSSELL if he was prepared with
any amendment to the Act with respect to medical treat-
ment. Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied that he would resist
any motion that would go to the repeal of the Act itself,
or to any extensive change in its machinery or its details.
He would therefore propose, as an amendment to the
motion of the Member for Berkshire, " That a Select
Committee be appointed to inquire into all the various
measures of the Commissioners, so far as the working of
the plan was concerned, and amongst others, the plan
adopted by them with respect to medical relief."
Mr. WALTER then brought forward his motion for a
Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Poor-
law Amendment Act, and to report their opinion to the
House.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved as an amendment, " That
a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the admi-
nistration of the relief of the poor under the orders and
regulations issued by the Commissioners appointed under
the provisions of the Poor-law Amendment Act."
The debate which ensued was protracted till past twelve
o'clock, whe❑ it was adjourned to Monday.

The world will shortly learn from authentic sources how
far the dismal prophecies of, the Hon. Member for Berk.
shire, and his official organ of Printing-house-square, are
fulfilled with respect to the working of the English Poor
Law Amendment Act. As external evidence is wanting
to prove the accuracy of the Hon. Gentleman's very small
powers of prophetic vision ; and as the Times is sadly puzzled
to refer to the Poor Law at all, without provoking general
ridicule, an inquiry into the working of the Act is demanded
at the very time when_ such an investigation is judged most
embarrassing to the Commissioners. Had the dire fore-
bodings of Mr. WALTER been realized—had the Poor Law
Amendment Act failed as signally as it succeeded—had the
disturbances consequent on its passing been such as to com-
pel Ministers to conic down instantly to both Houses of
Parliament and propose its repeal—the Hon. Gentleman
would have forgiven the Whigs the egregiousness of a
blunder in legislation which would for ever have esta-
blished his reputation as the Berkshire Seer. It is the
success of the Act that galls these who bawled loudest
in opposing it. They cannot forgive the Government
for having proved them as deficient in foresight as they
were impassioned in senseless vituperation. Had the Times
possessed but an atom of that second-sight for which it so
often takes credit in speaking of the fate of the Reformed
Government, we would, ere this, have read the agricultural
population's detestation and horror of this Act-in the blaz-
ing farm-yards of England and Wales. Our Contemporary
disdained then to contemplate dangers which could only be
investigated by a Parliamentary Committee. The Criminal
Judges of the land were the functionaries who Were to read
comments upon the New Poor Law Bill ; and to twelve
men in a jury-box was to be entrusted the conferring of the
last boon upon paupers, which Ministers -intended the
amended law should bestow upon them. There was to
have been burnings here, and robberies there, and insurrec-
tions in every place—with a numerous show of lamp-post
executions, and hangings in chains in the distance. Well,
instead of these horrible spectacles, we find, by reference to
Parliamentary documents, that, under the working of the
New Poor Law Act, the social and moral condition of the
pauper is gradually improving—that an effectual check has

been pr,t upon abuses in the dizAributiori of the pauper funds,
which threatened to swallow up the entire rental of the conn-
try—that a decrease of agrarian outrage is everywhere observ-
able—and that, in short, while the cost of supporting the
poor. is greatly diminished in every Union and Parish
throughout England, the really deserving objects of national
and parochial charity are better provided for than they
were under the old system. The law as it stood before
the Amendment Act was passed was not so much a
Poor-law, as it was a Parish-Guardian Contract Act. It
' was not the paupers, but the guardians of the paupers, for
whom it provided comfortable guzzles, at the expense of
the parish. It was a law for the maiutenancc of parish
guardians, parish overseers, parish beadles, parish lawyers,
parish doctors, parish nurses, and parish busters, at the
expense of their more honest and more industrious neigh-
bours. The parish authorities under the old law treated
the paupers as certain Asiatic potentates treat the grandees
of their Court, when regaling themselves with the most
savoury dishes. Travellers assure us .that these monarchs
never eat but when surrounded by choice favourites, who
are each permitted in turn to lick their chops on the escape
of any part of the viands. The old parish guardians and
overseers maintained a state not less dignified, and at a cost
somewhat similar. Their favourites among the paupers
were suffered to lick their chops for six days in the
week, and on the seventh were invited to praise GOD
that the law allowed no man to starve in " merry England !"
The real object of Mr. WALTER'S motion is to prepare
the way for the repeal of the Poor-law Amendment Bill ;
and the adjournment of the debate upon it, over till Mon-
day, is intended to embarrass the Government with respect
to the Church-rates question. Had Mr. WALTER only in-
tended that a full and impartial investigation of the work-
ing of the new law should take place, he would at once
have
.agreed to the adoption of Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S
amendment. But the Noble Lord proved in the course of
his speech, that investigation, impartially conducted, would
not serve the purpose of the Hon. Member for Berkshire ;
and that in fact the Hon. Gentleman dreaded that impar-
tiality in inquiry which he affected to invoke. The follow-
ing extract from the speech of the Noble Lord admirably
illustrates this fact. We would be glad to see a commen-
tary upon it by some of the admirers of the Hon. Member
for Berkshire :

‘. Whenever any complaints had been made either to him
(Lord John Russell) or to the Poor-law Commissioners, he
or they directed an immediate inquiry to be made, to ascertain
the correctness of the representations made to them • and in
every instance it was required that the Guardians of the Union
to which the complaint related should return an immediate
answer to the inquiries made of them.--( Hear.) But when
the Poor-law Commissioners saw that the Hon. Member for
Berkshire was about to bring forward a proposition in the
House, they inquired of him whether he had any particular
statements of fact to make ; because, if ho had, they would
be ready to institute an inquiry for the purpose' of ascertain-
ing what the statements were on the other side.—( Hear. )
The Hon. Member for Berkshire declined to give the Poor-
law Commissioners any information upon the subject. The
Hon. Member said it would prejudice his case if his state-
ments were inquired into—(Cheers)—and he added, that ho
had no belief in the statements contained in the reports of the
Poor-law Commissioners, and therefore he was unwilling that
any statements of his should be sifted before-he brought for-
ward his motion in the House.—(Cheers.)
This solves the riddle. The Hon. Gentleman did not
want his statements of fact to be investigated, for he knew
that such an investigation would entirely defeat his pur-
pose. He wanted to make an inflammatory harangue, and
to ground a motion of inqui4 upon it, which would care-
fully exclude whatever related to the beneficial operation of
the New Poor-law Act, while as carefully collecting
whatever the passions of the most ignorant and interested
individuals would lead them to . urge against it. It was
well remarked by Mr. HuME, that if all the statements put
forth against the Bill were true, they would not in the least
affect the real question of its beneficial operation, -as hun-
dreds of such statements might be authenticated in the
transactions of every single week under the old
system. Mr. WALTEIt'S motion is for a partial
inquiry—Lord JOHN RUSSELL demands a full
and thorough investigation ; the Hon. Gentleman seeks
but to learn the abuses of the new law—the Noble Lord
is anxious that its uses and abuses should be made public
together, in order that all may be able to compare its ope-
ration with that of the lard as it stood before the passing of
the Poor-law Amendment Act. Lord JOHN RUSSELL em-
phatically stated that his amendment, if carried, would en-
able the Committee conducting the investigation, " to con-
vince itself of the minutest particular of the manner in
which the new law had been carried into operation." His
Lordship proceeded to state in detail, that it would he at
the option of the Committee to inquire into all that related
to the establishment of Unions—the regulation of work-
houses—the dietary system—the extent of medical relief—
the expenses entailed upon the country by the Commissioners
—and, finally, the parts of the country in which it would
be most advisable to establish or abolish the operation of
the Amendment Act. Now, if we are to have an inquiry
at all, this is the inquiry which is really wanted, and this is
the only one which Parliament will authorize. The grant-
ing of the Committee will redound to the credit of the
Government, for it will cost little trouble to show that the
operation of the new Poor Law has been highly beneficial
to the country. Mr. WALTER. has shot beyond the mark,
and may now consign his empty quiver to the keeping of
the Times.

Last year, during the discussion on the Irish Municipal
Bill, Lord STANLEY told the Government that the Bill
might pass the Commons, but it would most assuredly be
rejected in another place. This session he repeats the as-
sertion in rather more insolent language. Mr. SliElL be-
lieved he used the words, "the Irish people never shall
have Corporate Reform," which the Noble Lord attempted
to qualify by clothing the idea in a paraphrase. "My
words," he said, " were, while the Irish Church was sub-
ject to danger, and while the General Association was using
threats and intimidation, the more these threats were used,
the more would the people of England be determined
that they should not have what they demanded." The
meanie g is in substance the same, with only this difference,
that he .would shift the blame from the House of Lords to
the people of England—that people, too, who under most
disadvantageous circumstanceshave returned representatives
who by large majorities have solemnly resolved that the peo-
ple of Ireland shall have Corporate Reform. But such an ex-
planation will be received as the explanation of the" Alien"
Baron was received last year—it will be taken for nothing. The
offensive words have sunk deep into the minds of the Irish
people, and explain and modify and deny the'words as
these Noble Lords please, that people will still be-
lieve that the majority of the Lords are resolved to treat
them as aliens. We wish that majority joy of their Leader,
and joy of their new ally. The imprudence of Lord L YND.
HURST created the General Association—the insolent
threat of Lord STANLEY, that the people shall never have
Corporate Reform while it exists, only increases its powbr ;
and the calumniated people of England will yet show that
they are determined to do justice to their fellow-subjects
struggling for their privileges, and demanding only what
they themselves, with great difficulty, obtained. The
speeches of the Members for Tynemouth and Worcester,
men not peculiarly attached to the present Government,
and the manly conduct of Sir GEORGE CREWE, are only spe-
cimens of what may be expected from English Members, if
the Lords only persevere in their passive resistance. What
a hopeful-prospect they have, if, by chance, the power
should be thrown into their hands, and they attempt to use
it in a crusade against the Irish nation !

It is with unfeigned satisfaction that we point the atten-
tion of our readers to the conduct which the Conservative
Member for South Derbyshire has thought it his duty to
pursue on the subject of the Irish Municipal Corporation
Bill. " Last year," says the Hon. Gentleman, in an ad-
dress to his constituents, " when the same measure was
brought forward, feeling the intricacy and difficulty of the
question, I yielded to the opinions of those who I thought
understood the matter at issue better than myself, and I
did record what I believed to be the sentiments of those
whose votes at the election sent me to Parliament as their
representative. Since that period I have deeply reflected
upon the subject, and examined it, under all its bearings,
with the utmost of my ability, and, as I always would do,
impartially. The result has been, that, as far as regarded
myself individually, I have felt dissatisfied with that vote,
and now, upon the re-opening of the question in this Session
of Parliament, after listening attentively to the arguments
and statements on both sides, I have decidedly felt that I
couldwhic h
In ot
have reconcile
honour tl e
generallyplan proposed
act by the party
withm yo w
n s tnh-
timents, either as to the Justice or the policy of refusing the
demand of Ireland to receive an equal participation in civil
rights and privileges, which had been. fully granted to Eng-
land and Scotland, Under this conviction, my first impulse

was to declare, in my place in the House, the course which
I should pursue, and the reasons which induced me to take
it ; but here I felt that I should be purchasing, perhaps, a
little popularity in opposition to those wl-mm I am proud to
call my friends, and this, in courtesy to them, I wished to
avoid ; I therefore left the House without voting at all.
Upon any convenient opportunity I shall be prepared_ to
give you any explanation )ou may require of the reasons
and arguments by which I was guided in my decision upon
the question itself ; but, in the meantime, allow me to re-
quest, that if you consider my conduct in this business re-
prehensible, you will tell me so at once, and permit uvr to
resign into your hands the trust. committed to my care?'
Sir G. CREWE has here acted a manly, independent part ;
and so acting, must of course be prepared to receive the
abuse of those purblind Conservatives, whose policy, on the
particular question of the Irish Corporation he has,
from the most conscientious motives, abandoned. Ilis coL-
duet on this question reflects on him the highest credit,
and stands out in marked contrast to that of the majority
of his party, who, in their votes and speeches, art influenced
solely by factious feelings.

A discussion of considerable interest took place last
night in the House of Commons, on the motion of Lord
F. EGERTON, for the second reading of the South Union
Railway Bill. The merits of the questiOn at issue appear to
us so simple and clear that we are really surprised they
should have been made the subject of debate. The par-
ties who oppose the proposed Railway are acting most in-
consistently, as well as most selfishly. They are, in fact,
standing up for a
.monopoly, and that too in an article
which is now no longer a luxury, but an absolute necessary
of life—railway transport. " We" say they " have fixed
upon a particular line, and have laid out upon it immense
sums of money, for which we expect an adequate return—
no one must interfere with us—no one must trench upon our
vested rights." This is the substance of their argument, and
it is precisely the argument which monopolists in all ages have
had recourse to in order to benefit themselves at the ex-
pense of the public. Now such a doctrine comes with a
peculiarly bad grace from a Railway Company, because, if
we are to believe the statements made in the prospectuses
issued by these Companies, and in the preambles of their
Bills, we must suppose that the public good is the sole
moving principle which induces the promoters of such un-
dertakings to embark in them, and that if any private ad-
vantage should accrue to them it is merely a sort of col-
lateral circumstance which they had not at all in contem-
plation. The greatest efforts are made to convince Parlia-
ment that the districts through which Railroads pass will be
greatly benefited—that the means of cheap and rapid com-
munication being afforded, the resources of the country
will be called forth to an incalculable extent, and
that no other species of transport can bear any compa-
rison with the Railroad. Now all this is perfectly true,
and it is because it is so that we condemn those who,
having obtained the sanction of the Legislature to their
undertakings, on the ground ofpublic utility, afterwards turn
round and endeavour to prevent others from embarking in
similar undertakings, because it would hurt their private
interests. If public utility is to be the criterion in one
case, let it be so in all ; or if Railroads are to be consi-
dered as private money-getting speculations, surely that
field in this country is equally open to all. No one has a
right to say to another, " I have built a factory in this
place, or endowed a school in that—you must not come
near me." Why, then, should those who have constructed
a Railroad presume to say that no others shall construct a
similar one that shall compete with it, however advantage-
ous to the public, or to individuals, such competition may
be. The thing is ridiculous.
NOw let us apply these principles to the South Union
Railway. The object of this
.Railway is to connect
Manchester with Birmingham by a shorter and more con-
venient line than that which has been proposed by another
Company. The distance saved is upwards of twenty miles,
and the public advantage is a point which the opponents of
the plan have wisely refrained from Mooting—it is beyond
question ;, while so profitable is the new undertaking likely
to turn out, that they are, or pretend to be afraid, that it
will greatly curtail their profits, if not upset their concern.
The line embraces in its course several towns of consider-
able importance, and what is of perhaps still greater moment,
it opens up a most ample and valuable channel of traffic from
the towns of Nottingham and Derby. The promoters of
this new line, be it observed, come not to Parliament with
a bolstered-up case. They have no weak points which they
wish to conceal. They have complied with the Standing Or-
ders of the House of Commons—they have done everything
that the laws of Parliament require. They can show a sub-
scription list such as perhaps never was exhibited in any
similar case. Out of twenty thousand 1001. shares they
can shew 14,000 subscribed for in one town—in Manchester
alone ! This is as strong a proof as can well be given that
the people of Manchester consider the South Union Rail-
way as likely to be highly beneficial to their interests ; and
after this it is surely too much to say, as Lord STANLEY
said to them last night, " You shall not be heard on
this question—the House of CoMmons will not listen
to anything you have to urge in defence of your pro-
posal—your application shall be refused instanter." This
was really the Noble Lord's language. He opposed
the second reading of the Bill. He resisted as far as he
could the motion of Lord FRANCIS EGERTON, which
really decides nothing—it merely gives the South Union
Railway Company an opportunity of proving before a
Committee of the House of Commons, that they have
sufficient grounds for the application they have made for
a new line. If they cannot prove this—if they cannot show
good reasons why the inhabitants of Manchester should
not be compelled to go half-way to Liverpool on
their road to London, in order to put money into the
pockets of the shareholders of the London and Bir-
mingham Railway Company, then, as a matter of course, the
Committee will report to that effect, and the House will
decide that the new line is not wanted. But to
attempt to stifle all inquiry at this incipient stage of the
Bill is, to say the least of it, not very creditable either to
those who are making it, or to those who lend their Par-
liamentary influence to render it successful.

It is not often that we can compliment Sir ROBERT
PEEL on his speeches, but we are bound to say that we
never read a speech on a matter of business with more satis-
faction than that which the Right Hon. Baronet delivered
on this occasion. He left poor Lord STANLEY not a leg to
stand upon—perfectly demolished all his laborious so-
phistries, and frightened him from his intention of dividing
the House. osi sic oninici ! •

TIIE DIVORCED, BY LADY BURY.—The infor-
mation conveyed by the Noble Authoress, that the history is one
of real occurrence (a circumstance which, as the writer sup-
poses, will be recognised by most readers), neither adds to nor
lessens, in our judgment, the effect of the story itself. The
whole tone of it is real, the characters completely the people
of the nineteenth century, and the scene, its accompaniments
and decorations, entirely the representation of the " world " as
it now is

TILE DIVISION.—A word with respect to the ma-
jority of 80. It should have been 82 ; for two Liberal Irish
Members, Mr. Cornelius O'Brien and Mr. Fitzstephen
French, left town the very evening of the division, to attend
the Grand Juries of their respective counties. In our judg-
ment they would have better discharged their duty to their
constituents by remaining for the close of the debate. Their
votes here might have been of use; their presence at Ennis
and Roscommon could have been dispensed with._ Morning
Paper.—[ We agree with our Contemporary, and leave it to
the constituents of both Hon. Gentlemen, now that they have
them at the Assizes, to decide upon the urgency of the busi-
ness which, "at such a time," could induce them to absent
themselves from the division.—Evening Paper.]
IMPRESSMENT.—Government seem preparing for
the abolition of this inhuman practice. The Lords of the Ad-
miralty have ordered the flag-ships to enter 30 first-class boys,
of the age of 17, for foreign service, at a pay of 14s. 9d. per
month. They are not to continue in the class more than three
years. Line-of-battle ships are to enter ten ; fourth and fifth
rates, eight; sixth rate and sloops, six; and all smaller ves-
elss, four, in addition to their present complements. This mea-
sure cannot fail to prove beneficial to our navy.
We find, from the Votes of the Lords, that the Earl
of Fingal and Lord Gardner lave presented petitions claiming
their right to vote at the election of Irish Representative Peers.
We regret to add that the Marquis of Hastings, the Earls Fitz-
william, Egmont, andtLudlow, and the Lords Lyttelton,Walls-
court, Nugent, and Talbot of Malahide, have as yet taken no
steps to insure their votes at the next election. We trust they
will not allow the Session to pass without establishing their
right. It is the supineness of the Liberal Members of the Irish
Peerage which alone allows the Tories to obtain their appa-
rently great majorities.
A fire, attended with a 'melancholy loss of life,
broke out in tho High-street, Rotterdam, at two o'clock on
the morning of the 21st inst., at the house of a Jew haber-
dasher named Mugg. Tho fire is stated to have originated
from an escape of gas, which, upon the production of a light,
ignited, and speedily destroyed the house, with goods of con.
siderable value. Mr. Mugg, his wife, and some other in-
mates, narrowly escaped in a state of nudity ; but his two
daughters and a female servant unhappily perished in the ,

-t4't
,IkL!:'S‘ l'1,1•411141111,, n,kt"?.'
• ("sc.,
1/41, • .

Ziat