The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-02 00:00:00

1454
&254

Due.

LONDON,
WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 2, 1834.

The Tories must now, we think, be satisfied of the

ruth of the declaration we have often made, that they

can gain nothing by any change which would render
a new appeal to the country necessary. The present
Parliament is far more conservative than a new one
could by any possibility become. If the Duke of
WELLINGTON and Sir ROBERT PEEL were to
sacrifice the last shilling of their fortunes, and Lord
ELDON and Sir J. SCARLETT were to add all the
rewards derived from their long and estimable services
in the Courts of Equity and Law to the contributions
of the Conservative Club ; and were they to have a
thousand such active agents as those employed by
Sir E. SUGDEN and Mr. HAWES, distributing money
to bribe the electors, the whole of the money and energy
would be thrown away. A Tory Parliament can
never more sit in this country, and therefore there can
be no Tory Government. His Grace of WELLING-
TON must turn a Reformer—a Church and Corpora-
tion Reformer—if he would again preside over the
destinies of England. Neither his military character,
nor the debating powers of Sir ROBERT PEEL, even
though they should be joined to those of Mr. STANLEY
and Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Will serve to secure i

the restoration of Tory misrule. The Reform Bill
has, and will, destroy all their bright prospects, and
every new election will, like those of Edinburgh, Cam-
bridge, Chatham, and Finsbury, increase the power of
its framers. All they have to do is to use it well.
The Church must be thoroughly reformed—the cor-
porations thrown open, and the surplus revenues of
both, made serviceable to the nation.

We congratulate Mr. DUNCOMBE on the result of
his election. It is a great triumph for him, but yet
greater for the electors of Finsbury, and the amended
government, which the people of England have now
proved their determination to support.

As we anticipated yesterday, the Poor Laws Amend-
ment Bill was read a third time in the House of
Commons last night, and passed without a division.
Those hon. members, who, like the lawyers rebuked
by the Redeemer, will neither do good themselves, nor
suffer others to do it, were, as usual, loud and deep in
their denunciation of a measure which, according to
them, will have the effect of reducing the labourers of
this country to the condition of the pauper population
of Ireland. These gentlemen must either not have
read the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, or
their only reason for opposing the Bill must be a desire to
embarrass the Goveinment. Looking at the Report, we
find that such was the degraded, demoralized condition of
the labourers in various districts in Kent, Essex, Somer-
set, and Gloucester, that they were regularly herded
together in the market places, and their labour for
weeks and months subsequently put up by public
auction, and sold to the highest bidder, as if the
beings who were to be employed were mere beasts of
burden. In other places the burden of poor rates
had become so oppressive, that the lands were com-
pletely thrown out of cultivation, and the agricultu-
rists obliged to emigrate, in order to preserve the
wreck of their property. Much of this misery was
doubtless occasioned by the dishonest practices of
farmers and manufacturers, each of then regarding
the other as a hostile interest, and endeavouring to
fix upon each other the burden of supporting their
own workmen : but the real source of the evil was—the
out-door relief system. Thus, for example, for several
miles round Nottingham and Coventry, and other
manufacturing towns, it was the constant practice of

the wages of artisans to
the manufacturers to lows. seek relief from the
such an ebb as to oblige them to
parish, well aware that the burden won.
1 fall on the
agriculturists, who would be compelled to make the
minimum of wages by paying the poor men a few
shillings weekly out of the rates. By this scheme,
the manufacturers in these towns were enabled to un-
dersell those of Leeds and Manchester, who were
themselves constrained to pay their workmen the whole
of their wages out of the profits of their labour. On
the other hand, wherever a village of shopkeepers had
the misfortune to be located within the vicinity of
three or four extensive fanners, the latter were sure
to discharge their workmen or lower their wages, after
the fashion of the manufacturers, certain that by
so doing the charge of keeping them, or of making
up the deficiency of wages would inevitably be wrung
from the shopkeepers. Such dishonesty could not
fail to pollute every spring of moral action, to poison
every principle of justice. Immorality prevailed to the
most frightful extent ; and such was the extent of
recklessness that many respectable witnesses avowed
that perjury and fornication could not be dispensed
with under such a system I Now, good heavens, if
all this be true, how is it possible to reduce the peo-
ple•of England to a worse state ? Is it proper, or is it
not, to put an end to a system which enabled the ma-
nufacturers at Coventry to ruin the manufacturers at
Leeds, and the agriculturists in Hampshire to starve
the same class of persons in Essex ? As to the poor
themselves, can they be worse off—can they be more
degraded,—can they be more injured in their feelings
by being obliged, when compelled by want, to seek
shelter in the workhouse, than they were
by being driven like cattle into the human-labour
market, and there put up and sold by auction at so
much a head, a dozen, or a score, as suited the con-
venience of the purchaser ? For our part we have but
one answer to the question—we think the thing im-
possible.

As to the bill itself, we consider it, on the whole,
as perfect as a measure so complicated can be made,
previous to our having any experience of its working.
That it may require some alterations in its application
to certain districts, we are prepared to admit ; but its
general principle is sound ; and if there be anything
which, together with a liberal system of national edu-
cation, will raise the moral feeling of the British
labourers to that height which induces men to look
forward to the fruits of their own industry for inde-
pendence, it is the Poor Laws Amendment Bill. How
it will be received in the Upper House remains to be
seen ; though we feel confident that their Lordships
will adopt it without materially altering any of its
provisions.

The appointment of the Irish Church Commission
has, as we observed in a short article yesterday, roused
the religious zeal of our northern neighbours—the
Tories beyond the Tweed—who are preparing to de-
monstrate the fraternal feeling which exists between
religious legitimates, united in nothing but hostility
to the present government. We should be very sorry
to detract one iota from the real merits of the respect-
able portion of the inhabitants of Scotland ; we ac-
knowledge ourselves under obligations to them for
services innumerable, in clearing the great charter of
our liberties of some of the foulest blots with which
Time and Toryism had defaced it ; we admire their
prudence ; respect their love of order, industry, and in-
telligence; but notwithstanding all this, truth obliges
us to confess, that in all questions respecting the
sacred or civil polity of the Church of England, we
regard their interference as singularly inauspicious.
We may be wrong ; but in our opinion the members
of the kirk must have most accommodating con-
sciences, if a desire for the greater glory of GOD impels
them to wage war against the Government in defence
of a system in Ireland, which it would be an abomi-
nation in the eyes of the " Holy One of Israel" to
dream of extending across the Border. In taking any
steps relative to an institution wholly secular in its
nature, we would listen with respect to whatever
the canny cautiousness "o' the guid fo'k o'
Edinbro' " would suggest ; but when the question
is one deeply affecting the interests of the Pro-
testant Church a church which our Northern
neighbours had no compunction in driving, sword in
hand, out of their country—we cannot help think-

ing that there is either a great deal of hypocritical in-
sincerity, or an abundance of political time-serving,
at the bottom of all their movements.

But the Scotch Conservatives are not the only per-
sons who rail against the government for the appoint-
ment of this commission ; and say our contemporaries,
who side with them, " The ministry must be wrong,
for their measures are detested by both parties,"—
meaning the disciples of Messrs. SHAW and O'CoN-
NELL. Whenever we hear of any measure which
the two great opposition parties in Ireland unite in
denouncing, though we may not have paid the least
regard to it before, from that moment we are all but
convinced of its being beneficial to the country. Talk
of conciliating either party, indeed I Why, yes, the mini-
stry might certainly do much to conciliate one of them ;
but entire success would only follow the extermination
of the other. Let the government beware of the
praises of Mr. SHAW and Mr. O'CONNELL. When
Mr. SHAW rises in the house to pronounce an eulo-
gium on-the Irish Secretary, we recommend the right
hon. gentleman to ask himself what injury he has in-
flicted--what insult has he heaped on the Catholic po-
pulation ; and in like manner when the learned mem-
ber for Dublin hails him as a pattern of liberality, we
suggest he would act wisely in consulting with his col-
leagues as to whether he has not taken some step
which threatens the overthrow of Protestantism in
Ireland. The opposition parties in that country are
the Scylla and Charybdis clear of which Ministers
must steer, if they would save themselves, and increase

the prosperity of the people ; the majority of whom
neither look to the Council Chamber of Dublin, or
the state-rooms in Denynane for a redress of grievances.
On the whole, the appointment of the Irish Church
Commission is only denounced by a clique of disap-
pointed place-hunters on the one hand, and an equally
disappointed faction of fierce demagogues on the
other. Moderate men, who desire our institutions re-
formed without endangering public tranquillity, and
without injustice to any party, see in the appoint-
ment of the commission an admission of the great

principle That Parliament has a right to deal with the
revenues of the church, conjoined with a scrupulous
regard to the rights of the present incumbents.

We have received a return made by the House of
Commons, on the motion of Mr. TENNANT, of the
number of Acts of Parliament passed from the year
1800 to the year 1833, both inclusive ; and the gross
total, public and private, is eleven thousand one hun-

dred and eighty,A—.-;7• wfiese 10i7117--.----than four
thousand one hundred and forty-six are public ; leav-
ing seven thousand and forty-three entirely belonging
to places and persons. Here, then, we have
in the fruits of thirty-three years legislation as many
Acts of Parliament alone, as would occupy nearly a
whole life were it spent in their perusal. Now what
is the use of four-fifths of these proofs of the industry
of our representatives What are they but mere in-
cumbrancies—rolls of waste paper, which would be
twice as valuable without them. In the whole
science of legislation there is nothing more puerile
—nothing more puzzling—to plain men, desi-
rous of making themselves acquainted with the
law of the land, than a bundle of subsequent acts,
passed to amend and explain a statute which ought
either to have been abolished or embodied, as far as
might be judged necessary, in the one recently passed.
There must be an end put to the system of piling laws
upon laws ; as if, like the Titons, we intended to scale
the heavens by means of them, whereas, in reality, we
are in danger of being crushed beneath a mass of shape-
less, unintelligible rubbish.

On the motion of Earl GREY, a Bill for the re-
newal of the Irish Coercion Act was read a first time
in the Lords last night without opposition , and from
the mildness with which it has been enforced, and the
omission of one of its most objectionable clauses, it
will probably not meet with any serious resistance in
the Commons. That clause, allowing trial of of-
fenders by courtsmartial, which, in the discussion
on the Bill of last session, was most generally op-
posed, is to be withdrawn, and all misdemeanors
are to be tried by the ordinary tribunals. It is credi-
table to the Government and to the Lord Lieutenant,

that though this Act gave them such extraordinary
powers over the whole of Ireland, not more than four
districts have been proclaimed, and in these the law
has been executed in such a way as not to have called
forth one complaint, as far as we are aware, from the most
violent opponents of the measure. In all these districts
a great decrease of crime has taken place. In Kilkenny,
for instance, which was first proclaimed, and when the
disturbances were greatest, the number of offences in
1834, as compared with 1833, had decreased from
1,550 to 331. In King's County, the number of
crimes committed in the month of March, this year,
had been 73, and in the following month after those
baronies were proclaimed it was reduced to eight,
though the number afterwards rose to 29 ; and in

Westmeath the decrease had been nearly in the

same proportion. No returns had yet been
made from the two baronies in Galway, proclaimed
at the beginning of last month, but there was reason
for believing that the amount of crime had there
also materially diminished. This is all satisfactory,
and little opposition will be made to the bill as applica-
ble to nightly outrages and riotous assemblages of the
people. The great bone of contention will be that
clause of it which applies to agitation, which gives
the government the power of putting down as-
sociations, and empowers them to prevent the
formation of such a society as that called the " Cen-
tral Association," the objects of which are to commu-
nicate with branch associations, and in some measure
assume the functions of Parliament. This, indeed,
was the only sound reason advanced by Earl GREY

for the renewal of the act, and the author of such a
plan have themselves only to thank for it. However
much the people of this country are disposed to remove
every grievance, and place Ireland on a similar

footing with England and Scotland, they will ever
oppose any measure which may lead to a repeal of
the Union, or the establishment of any society which
may interfere with the rights and privileges of the
Imperial Parliament. It might be well, therefore, for
the concocters of such plans to consider whether they
are the friends of Ireland in taking such steps
—steps which only have the effect of exciting an
unanimous feeling against them, and forcing on the
Legislature for the adoption of measures of extreme
severity. That is not the way to obtain redress, and
Mr. O'CoNNELL and his party are much mistaken if
they think they can effect their object by such means
of Intimidation as was resorted to in 1829. The eman-
cipation of the Catholics was advocated generally by
one half of the Cabinet—by a large majority
of the !louse of Commons, and by a vast pro-
portion of the people of Great Britain, and with such
a general feeling in their favour, no Coercion Bill
could have passed the Legislature. The Duke of
WELLINGTON knew that well, and he yielded to
necessity. But between Catholic Emancipation and
a separate Legislature----in other words, a repeal of
the Union, the difference is so great, that it is only a
waste of words to describe it. The Government have
shown every disposition to redress the grievances of
Ireland, and have been stopped short, or thwarted
only by the Tories. Is it prudent, therefore, by end-
less opposition to increase the power of a party .ho
say that concession has been carried too far ?

The clergy will feel great obligations to his Grace
of CANTERBURY for his late exertions on their behalf.
lie is for a strict conformity with the provisions of the
bill to prevent non-residence. He will not accept the
boon offered by the LORD CHANCELLOR. The ninety
days absence, not one less, not even a night spent at
an assize town is to be deducted from the number

(of which the farmers will, -of course, keep a strict ac-
count) specified in the bill. This is doubtless as-
cribable to the full conviction which must by this
time have been firmly established in the mind of
his Grace, that the LORD CHANCELLOR'S bill
is not at all too severe ; that those who receive the
state-pay are bound to do the work, and that they
ought not to claim an exemption, which neither the
judges of
the land, nor its generals, would ever think
of claiming when the service of their country ,re-
quired their unceasing energy. That the Church
needs the services of its ministers, cannot be denied ;
and we
hope to see the day when the Lords Bishops
themselves will feel the necessity of residing constantly
on their sees, that they may set as good an example to
their clergy, as the LORD CHANCELLOR does to the
lawyers who belong to his Court.

In the House of Commons last night, Lord PAI.
NtEnsToN mentioned that he had found, among his
official
papers, the letter which Gen. MORENO de-
spatched to Torrijoz for the purpose of betraying
him. In a note sent a few days since to the editor of
an evening
contemporary, MORENO expressly denies
having ever sent such a letter. These are his own
words—"
You accuse me of having been the decoyer
of Torrijoz and his party, adding that a letter of mine
informing them (in the way of encouragement) that

the district of Malaga was ready to rise with them
was in existence. You are wrongly informed. I never
wrote such a letter, and fearlessly challenge the pro-