The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-02 00:00:00

PUSEYISM.

The Bishops have become alarmed at the ex-
citement caused in the public mind by the great
progress of the new Popery sect, and have re-
solved to hush up business for the present. The
attempt to bring back the English people to the
bosom of old Mother Church is premature, but
from the tardy notice of these Popish tracts, in
the mildness with which the Bishops treat them,
it is evident that they only bide their time. The
following is the letter of the Rev. Mr. Newman
to the Bishop of Oxford on the subject, an-
nouncing his determination to discontinue the
Tracts :

" My dear Lord—lt may seem strange that, on receipt
of a message from your Lordship, I should proceed at once,
instead of silently obeying it, to put on paper some le-
marks of my own on the subject of it; yet, as you kindly
permit me to take such a course, with the expectation
that I may thereby succeed in explaining to yourself and
others my own feelings and intentions in the occurrence
which has given The to your Lordship's interference, I
trust to your Lordship's indulgence to pardon me any dis-
cursiveness in my style of writing, or appearance of fam'-
liarity, or prominent introduction of myself, which may be
incidental to the attempt.
" Your Lordship's message is as follows :--That your
Lordship considers that the tract No. 90, in the series
called the Tracts for the Times, is objectionable, and
may tend to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the
Church,' and that it is your Lordship's advice that the
Tracts for the Times should be discontinued.'
" Your Lordship has, I trust, long known quite enough
of my feelings towards any such expression of your Lord-
ship's wisties to be sure I should at once obey it, though it
were ever so painful to me, or contrary to tbe course I
should have taken if left to myself; and I do most readily
and cheerfully obey Sou in this instance; and at the same
time express my great sorrow that any writing of mine
should be judged objectionab:o by your Lordship, and cf a
disturbing tendency, and my hope that in what I write is
future I shall be more successful in approving myself to
your Lordship.
" I have reminded your Lords's)) of my williogness on a
former occasion to submit myself to any wishes of ycur
Lordship, had you thought it advisable at the time to sig-
nify them. In your Lordship's:charge in 1838 an allusion
was made to the Tracts for the Times. Some oppo-
nents of the tracts said that your Lordship treated them
with undue indulgence. I will not imply that your Lord-
ship can act otherwise than indulgently to any one, but cer-
tainly I did feel at the time, that in the midst of the kind-
ness you showed to tee personally, you were exercising an
anxious vigilance over my publication, which reminded
me of my responsibility to your Lordship. I wrote to
the Archdeacon on the subject, submitting the tracts en
tirely to your Lordship's disposal. What I thought about
your charge will appear from the words I then used to him.
I said, A bishop's lightest word ex cathedra is heavy. His
judgment on a book cannot be light. It is a rare occur-
rence.' And I offered to withdraw any of the tracts over
which I had control, if I were informed which were these
to which your Lordship had objections. I afterwards
wrote to your Lordship to this effect: that I trusted I
might say sincerely, that I should feel a more lively plea-
sure in knowing that I vas submitting myself to your
Lordship's expressed judgment in a matter of that kind
than I could have even in the widest circulation of the
volumes in question.'. Your Lordship did not think it
necessary to proceed to such a measure, but I felt, and al-
ways have felt, that, if ever you determined on it, I was
bound to obey. _ _ _ .

" Accordingly on the late occasion, directly I beard that
you had expressed an unfavourable opinion of tract 90, 1
again placed myself at 'our disposal, and now readily
suhmit to the course on which your Lordship has finall3
decided in consequence of it. lam quite sure in so doing
I am not only fulfilling a duty I owe to your Lordship, but
c 'nsulting for the well-being of the Church, and bcnefi'.-
ing myself.

---‘1 And now. in proceeding to make some explanations
in addition, which your Lordship desires of rre, I hope
shall not say a word which v.ill seem like introducing discus-
sion before your Lordship. It would ill become tee to be
stating private views of my own, and defending them, on a I
occasion like this. If I allude to what has been maintained
in the tracts, it will not be at all by way of maintaining it
in these pages, but in illustration of the impressions ard
the drift with which they have been written. I need
scarcely wry they are thought by many to betray a leaning
towards Roman Catholic error, and a deficient appreciation
of our own truth ; and your Lordship wishes me to show
that these apprehensions have no foundation in fact. This
I propose to do, and V•rat by extracts from what I have
before now written on the subject, which, while they can
be open to no suspicion of hiving been provided to nerve
an occasion, will, by being now cited, be male a second
time my own."

•,,* The pamphlet alluded to is the last paragraph cf
this preface colitlias about 50 pages.

INCORPORATED SOCIETY OF LICENSED
VICTUALLERS.— YestcrJav a Quarterly General Couit,
numeroutdy attended, of the members of this Society, was
held at the Licensed Vietutill.rs' School, Kennington-
lane, fur the purpose of electirg by ballot, from printe.l
li-ta of quaitial Membi:re, new Trustees, Committe:-
men, and Auditors, in lieu of those going out of office by
rotation ; to transact the otuer routine business of the
Court, and to elect by ballot one member to serve on no
Audit Comnittea, in lieu of Mr. Evan Vaughan, late of
Lower East Smithfield, deceased.

We believe that the New Poor-law is a change greatly
for the better ; we believe that it has atrealy effected
much good ; and that it will effect much more if fair
play be given to it. Let its champions stand between
it and prejudiced assailants, but not between it and im-
provement, and from whatever quarter a grounded com-
plaint proceeds, let it hare a sea-thing examination and
impartial judgment.
We believe that the faults and miscarriages in the
existing s)stem are incomparably less than in the old,
but that is no reason that they should not be still more
reduced in amount, and the friends of the new law
should rejoice in the opportunity of weeding it of de-
fects, and showing that they arc not inherent in its con-
stitution.

Errors are more conspicuous in the new system than
they were in the of I, but because they are more con-
spicuous we are not to shut our eyes to them, or to re-
fuse to correct them. Mr. Hawes, in a most manly and
sensible speech, truly remarked—
" A degree of intense interest attached to the ad-
ministration of the Peor-law, compared to the interest
that it excited when its administration was scattered
among many thousands of irresponsible persons. The
ground on which he defended the Poor-law Commission
was this, that for the first time the administration of
an enormous fund, amounting to between five and six
millions, was placed in the hands of responsible officers ;
and from the moment it was placed under the control
of persons responsible to Parliament, it had been cleared
of the abuses of the large number of persons who had
an interest in the old system, and lived upon it. Under
the old system there were 14,000 or 15,000 indepen-
dendent bodies with whom the House had no means of
dealing, and what was the result ? The Right Hon.
Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had read a most
striking statement to show that increase of relief caused
increase of distress ; and in one particular parish, such
had been the effect of an increase of Poor-rate, that
they had swallowed up the whole rent of the pa,ish,
causing, of course, general destitution. The Hon.
Member for Finsbury had stated that no practical
benefit had been derived from the new Poor-law. Was
there no improvement in the condition of the people ?
Was there nothing in the attention now given to
education of the people ? Was there nothing in
the attention now given to the dwellings and
the sanatory state of the poor; matters that had
never been meddled with until the admin.istra-
lion of relief was entrusted to responsible officers.—
(Hear.) He believed, for his own part, that under the
new New Poor•law wages had risen, and that more at.
tendon was given to the moral and physical condition
of the poor, than at any former period of history.—
(Hear, hear.)"
Gross is the injustice of the enemies of the New
Poor-law in representing it as productive of a worse
state of things than before existed ; but, on the
other hand, because it is an improvement on the
former system, it will not do to neglect improve
ment on the improvement, or to argue that we
should be content with what is faulty, because, under
the old law there was something far more faulty. Tic
best friends of the new system will be most eager and
anxious to correct all defects and remove all canes of
reasonable complaint that can be found in it. Acting
in this wise spirit, we rejoice to see that Lord John
Russell has declared his intention to consent to some
changes in the law, one of which is to entitle paupers
in urgent distress, brought by constables to the work-
house, to instant relief ; another is to extend out-door
relief to the aged and infirm, and widows with families.
The Chronicle justly observes on the latter alteration—
" It is a cruel mockery of the labouring poor of this
country to assume that they can save wherewithal to
support them in their old age. It is as much as they
can do to maintain themselves, and bring up families
without relief ; and at a certain titre of life they should
be considered as emeriti, and entitled to aid from the
property of the country, which they have contributed
to augment. An old agricultural labourer loves to be
doing something to the last. To immure such a person
in a workhouse is the height of cruelty. After sixty
he cannot wholly support himself, and the aid ought
tq be increased as he becomes more infirm. These are
not the parties for whom the workhouse is designed as
a test."

Amongst the proposed changes are also authority to
the guardians to establish local committees in unions of
a certain size ; the transference of the ernieation fund
from the rate-payers to the guardians; and freedom to
the inmates of workhouses to attend the places of wor-
ship of their particular persuasions.
We feel that we cannot be accused of partisanship
on the behalf of the Poor-law Board ; though approv-
ing of the new system, and the general principles of its
administration, we have objected to the harshness of
some regulations, the objects of which do not appear to
us to be worth the irritation they produce. The ma-
chinery Las, we think, been worked without due allow.
twee for friction, and it has chafed against the feelin.gs
of the people in unaccustomed places. So great a
change bearing on the poor required more tenderness,
aye, and more temporizing in the management, thee
this measure has been in &I cases guided with. A ver)
stringent system was too abruptly substituted for a very
relaxed one.

This is an opinion we have repeatedly expressed, and
which we continue to boll ; but though we do not pre-
tend that the Central Board has exercised a faultless
discretion, experience has only strengthened our convic•
tion that the central control is essential to the Poor.
law administration, and that without it there would 1 c
a relapse to a chaos of abuse•
Indeed it is significant enough that almost al the
cases adduoed to support charges against the Board

The primary evil of the system is in the law, which
declares, no doubt, that the poor shall be provided for,
but gives no machinery for enforcing the rule. A dis-
abled widow is entitled to be supported ; but to make
good her right she must prosecute in the Supreme
Court. The parochial authorities are virtually the im-
posers and appropriators of the tax, and in remote dis-
tricts there is one simple ruling principle on which they
act, as easily comprehended as it is efficacious in opera-
tion. It is that of "seeping down the assessment."
In the town parishes, where the poor infest the streets,
this desirable object cannot he so well accomplished,
and public opinion there produces the shilling a-week
(in cases where there is a family of paupers there is
sometiaies as much as 3s. a-week given) already men-
tioned. So munificent an allowance acts as a general
magnet through the country, and the wretched of the
rural parishes congregate in the towns, where, by a
three years' residence, a settlement is obtained. The
paupers best provided for are those in the workhouses,
which have only been established in Edinburgh, GI is-
gow, and Paisley. Of these the Edinburgh St. Cuth-
bert's workhouse gets the character of best performing
the functions for which it was e,tablished. We have
before us the rules of that institution, includ-
ing the dietary, which is as follows :—Break-
fast, 4 oz. oatmeal porridge and 2 gills butter-
milk ; dinner, broth made of 2 oz. ox head and
hough and 11 oz. barley, and 61 oz. bread ; sup-
per, the same us breakfast. There is no solid
animal food. This gives a weekly allowance of 56 oz.
oatmeal, 14 oz. ox head and hough for broth, 45 oz.
bread, 101 oz. barley, and 28 gills of butter milk. -The
lowest of the scales issued by the Commissioners for
England shows a weekly allowance of bread, 84 oz. ;
meat, 15 oz. ; cheese, 8 oz. ; potatoes, 24 oz. ; suet
pudding 14 oz.; broth 9 pints ; gruel, 101 pints. The
amount of solid foodjn the former cue is 1011 oz.—in
the latter, 145 cz. Yet to nine-tenths of the poor of
Scotland the provision of the St. Cuthbe:t's workhouse
would be a Clewed change.
The most harrowing details of the sufferings of t!:e
poor of Scotland under this system have been brought
forward in the various pamphlets of Dr. Alison, in the
late discussion before the British Association, in two
elaborate ortichs in Taa's Magazine, in Chambers's
Journal, and otherwise ; but with the means of infor-
mation thus in their hands, the great champions of the
paupers in Parliament are dumb ; and why ?—because
the poor of Sectlaod are the really destitute, oppressed,
and needy, whose cause offers no better inducement for
its support than the great claims of humanity and so-
cial order. It affords no means of wielding a great en-
gine of political faction, and has therefore no charms
for the Waklers and the Sibthorps. It is not asso.
ciated with physical force--it has not been the war-cry
of armed and torch-lit mobs; it would have in view the
feeding of the hungry and the clothing of the naked—
not the restoration of the sturdy labourer to his idle
ease. It will be when the hounding on of fierce pas-
sions, not the relief of destitution, is the object to be ob-
tained, that the poor of Scotland will receive eham•
pionship from such a quarter.— Examiner.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM TUB DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
(From the Globe.)
The Bill to admit Jews to hell Corporate offices was
real ai I ird time last night in the House of Commons.
The majority in its fev3ur was more then three to one :
the numbers being, for the third reading, 108; against it,
31. As the words, on " the true faith of a Christian,"
in the declaration required to be taken by all persons
elected to offices in Corporations, and which, therefore,
excluded members of the Jewish faith from such
offices, were introduced into the Bill by the House of
Lords, we doubt whether the large majority by which the
House of Commons has passed the present Bill, ashish
goes to expunge these words from the declaration, will
induce their Lordships to adopt a measure which calls
upon them to review and rc3cind their former decision.
Mr. W. Gladstone led the opposition last night ; and
maintained the character he has acquired for uncom-
promising hostility to all whose creed is not squared
in strict conformity to his own. From an apprehension
scarcely consistent in an unshaken faith in the apos-
tolic succession chimed for his own Church, or with the
more enlarged and certainly more enlightened belief in the
divine origin of Christianity, Mr. Gladstone insisted that if
this Bill became law the Church of England would be en-
dangered, and our common country be tail- Christianized
Vain and impotent mortals, busily and laboriously employed
in raising molehills, as outworks to protect the cause of the
Omnipotent fallible creatures, pronouncing with the
arrogance of infallibility upon the mysterious truths of
revelation, while they violate its benevolent injunctions ;
assumieg the office of a judge, and pronouncing con-
demnation upon the professors of creeds other than their
own—your numbers are happily fast diminishing, and
your powers Pre almost extinct. Mr. Gladstone and Sir
11. leglis yeur 'carters in the Commons. We have ssen
what they' would have been, and what they would have
done, in another ago, by whet they are, and what they a'-
tempt in thi=. W'no will be found in the Howe of
Lords to repeat the intolerant dogmas which Mr. Gla !-
stone last night, and Sir R. Inglis on a former occasion, ad.
sauced against the measure which is now beyond their
before reach,
twheatmaauu
may
imagine,
aagsisneein and the event, when the 811 is
assembly, will disclose.
(From the Standard.)
The St. Alban's Election Committee having satisfied
their consciences that Doctor Webster, who brought Lord
Listowell to St. Alban's—who proposed Lord Listowell
at St. Alban's—canvassed arm in arm with Lord Lis-
towell at St. Alban's--administered large bribes on be-
half of Lord Listowell at St. Alban's—and remained
we say, who heard all
with Lord Listowell silent when both were
thattax we bane ed wit
ah bribery—the
stated
sworn
to, Committee,on
and
heard
no contradiction—
having
having satisfied their consciences that Dr. Webster did not
act, for Lord Listowell, that being the English' of " agency,"
h
it of course became useless to prosecute the petition fui then
When a few gentlemen choose to form a judgment
different from the judgment of every other man in the em-
pire, it is quite plain that they are not to be convinced by
the proofs that prevail with other men, and it is to compro-
mise the interests of truth and justice to carry on a farce
of reasoning with them. We are willing to put the
whole case to any man upon one issue. Dr. Webster,
in the presence of Lord Listowell, was publicly and so-
lemnly charged with bribery, and the actual bribe was pro-
duced. Dr. Webster was silent, and Lord Listowell was
silent, Now, what we ask is this—would Dr. Webster
have been silent if be had not been guilty, or would
Lord Listowell have been silent if he had not been
fully cognisant of Dr. Webster's crime. If Dr. Webster
had been innocent, would be not at once have given the lie
to his accuser ? Or, if Lord Listowell ha not been an ac-
complice, or rather, the principal, would he not have said
something like this—" I do not believe that my friend and
proposer has been guilty of bribery, but if be has I am sorry
and ashamed, and declare, with a clear conscience, that I
am no participator in his guilt." Such would be the course
of innocent men in the circumstances : but both Dr. Web-
ster and Lord Listowell pleaded guilty by their silence ;
and yet, forsooth, the Committee acquit Lord Listowell of
any connection with his bribing agent. If this proceed,
the flew Act for the trial- of eletions is waste Paper.

(From the Courier.
action )
The absence of any decisive manifestation of in
CtrheCaleofMljStates ep d,faotres
by the Br
60thesilencip of the ady:ces
oni the United tannia
may bo
construed, appears, QA the other Aide of the water

Mr. Armstrong was then called to the bar, and exa-
mined by the Ea•l cf GLENGALL—Witness is a clerk
in the Order Department cf the Poor-law Commissioners'
Office in Dublin. It is his duty to copy drafts, minutes,
and letters. He was in that office in February, 1839,
wan not ordered to make copies of any minutes or
le:ters co:leveeing the officers in Clenmel. Was in
the office in May, 1810, and was ordered to copy
a return to the House in the early part of the
mot.th ; was dirt c:cd to make that return from
the original tables of the office. Did not copy
a rei Jute on the registry book to make it.
The chLf clerk, Mr. Wordsworth, generally gave him di-
rections. Thinks he did so on this occasion, but he is
not sure. Cannot say whether he received any instruc-
tions from Mr. Stanley. Does not know whether the
letter produced was the one he had copied ornot. Cannot
swear whether ho ever saw it before or not. No other
clerk except himself was employed in making cut this
return. They were made out from the original papers.
The Earl of GLENGALL—It has been stated by
Mr. Stanley that that letter was one of the original papers.
Witness—Then no doubt I made it out from that. Was
sure he bad not made it out from the registry book. There
were no other documents except that letter that he could
have made it out from that he was aware of. Mr.
Stanley gave him instructions as to making it
out. By Mr. Stanley's desire he copied the words
" Assistant-Commissioner " into the returns. Those
words were not in the document when he was making out
the returns, but Mr. Stanley inserted them in the body t f
the document before witness's face after the returns to the
House were ordered, and before he had made out the returns.
There were no other words interlined, Could not say
whether he received instructions to make any other
alterations. There were no other alterations in the
minutes then. lie copied the extract from Mr.
Phelati's report from the original. Did not make
out the returns presented in March, 1841 ; it.
would be the duty of any clerk to do so whom Mr.
Stanley directed. Had no communication respecting the
alterations, except with Mr. Stanley. Had had some
communication with Mr. Stanley since his return to Du! -
tin from the investigation. Mr. Stanley said, he (uitness)
might be correct in some part of his statement, and in an-
other part he was right.
By Earl RADNOR—Mr. Stanley thought be was
right respecting the words " Assistant Commissioner."
itness pointed out some inconsistencies in the papers to
Mr. Stanley, and then it was h 3 made the a'teration. Mr.
St tnley and himself were the only persons then in the room.
By Lord GLE NG ALL—The inconsistencies or dis-
crepancy was in the letters to Mr. Fennell and Mr. Bag-
well. Mr. Stanley did not say that it would not do for
such discrepancies to appear before the House of Lords.
To Earl RADNOR (the letter being put into his
hand)—He now observed that there were wary other
words interlined than the words Assistant Commis-
sioners, but these were the only words he could swear he
saw Mr. Stanley write.
By Lord REDESDALE—He should have copied the
whole letter if it had been given to him, and the date.
The head clerk gave him the letter to copy.
By the Marquis of NORMANBY—tie had had con-
versations with different individuals about the discrepancy.
His recollection with regard to it, was the same now as it
had always been.
The witness having been ordered to withdraw, the
House resume J.

On the motion of the Meryl's of NORMANBY, the
witness was discharged from further attendance.
The Earl of GLENGALL then gave notice that im-
mediately after the Easter recess, he should call their
Lordship's attention to the evidence that had been taken
at the bar.

Lord MONTE AGLE obsetved that it would be
very convenient if before the Noble Earl brought
the subject forward, their Lordships were in
formed exactly of what they would be called upon to
determine, and probably the Noble Lord would, after the
recess, inform the House of the specific motion he intended
to make,

The Earl of GLENGALL said that after the recess
he would lay before their Lordships the precise terms of
the motion he intended to submit. _

Earl RADNOR—Why put the matter off until after
Easter?

The Earl of GLENGALL replied that it was very de-
sirable, more, perhaps, for the convenience of the paiti, s
concerned than for the convenience of ilimself or their
Lordships, that it should be put off until after Easter.
Mr. Fox MAUL& and others brought up the Popula-
tion Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be
read a second time to-morrow.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

Election, reporting that William Earl Listowell was duly
elected for the borough of St. Alban's and that neither
the petitioner of opposition were frivoloua or vsxatious.
Mr. H. SMITH presented a petition from Mile-end,
prayirg for Church Extension ; also petitions from va-
lions parts of Somersetshire, against any grant to the
College of Maynocth, and for the exclusion of Papists
from the House of Commons.
Mr. LANGDALE presented a petition from the Ce-
thclie Congregation of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, praying
that Rsman Catholic paupers might have leave to attend
their own places of public worship.
Oa the motion of Mr. M. PHILLIPPS, the Com-
mittee on the Importation of Machinery obtained leave
to report to this, House from time to time.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from
seventy-three individuals praying for an amendment of the
Anatomy Act, and greater stringency in its provisions;
also petitions from St. G Fields and St. George's,
Bloomsbury, against the Poor-law Amendment Bill and
the continuation of the Commission; also a petition from
different individuals in the metropolis praying for the
liberation of Ms. F. O'Connor; also a petition from the
Tower Hamlets' Association, praying for the Lberasion of
William Carrier ; also three petitions from individuals in
Shoreditch, praying for the lib ration of Frost, Williams,
and Jones; and two petitions to the same effect from
Manchester.
Mr. DIVETT presented a peti!ion from Exeter in fa-
vour of the Poor-law Bill, and against the continuation of
local Acts.
Ms. VIL LIE R 3 presented petitions from parishes in
Chester against the Corn-laws.
Mr. 0. GORE presented a petition from a prrish in
Salop, praying for Church Extension.
Lord SAN DON presented a petition from the
tents of Welington in Somerset, complaining of the diffi-
culty of esllestiag rates from the owners of small tenr-
nrients, and pra3isig that the House would take the subject
into its consideration.
M. G. KNIGHT presented two petitions from places
in Nottingham, praying for Church Extension.
Lord BARRINGTOI'J presented a pct:tion from the
13Gard of Guardians of Is?ewherry, against the rating of
union workhouses.
Mr. PA KINGTON presented ten petitions from
places in Worcester, in favour of Church Extension.
Mr. GROTE presented a petition from Devon, com-
plaining of the partiality of overseers in the rating of tene-
ments, and praying for the appointment of paid collectors.
Mr. R. STEWART presented petitions from places in
the counties of Haddington and Wigton, Scotland, against
Church patronage.
General JOHNSON presented a petition signed by
upwards of 7,200 inhabitants of Oldham, praying the
House to address her Majesty to grant a free pardon to
Frort, Williams, and Jones.
Mr. W. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from
Yorkshire, prayirg for Church Extension.
Mr. ELLIOT presented a petition from Kelso, pray.
ing for tie abol tion cf Church patronage.
Mr. Alderman COPELAND presented a petition
from a place in Rutland, for an amendment of the Anatomy
Bill.
ST. ALBAN'S ELECTION.

Mr. BLACKSTONE, seeing the Hon. Mcmbc.r for
West Sumcrsetsbire in his place, begged to ask whe-
ther he intended to produce to the House the evidence
taken before the St. Alban's Election Committee?
Mr. SANFORD said he had received no instruction
on the subject from the Committee.
Sir R. PEEL prevented a pe ition from a Board of
Guardians in Ladcashires praying for c.,rtain amendment;
in the Poor-law Bill. Also from a clergyman in the
county of Gloucester, praying the House to make a provi-
sion for enabling clergymen of the Church of England
to become Guardians of the Poor.
Mr. BLACKSTONE gave notice that to-morrow he
would move that the minute; and proceedings of the St.
Alban's Election Committee be printed.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE begged to give notice that he
would mcv,s, as an amendment, by way of addition, that
the evidence taken before the Canterbury Election Com-
mittee be printed.—( Hear, hear, )
RUM DUTIES BILL.
__ _