The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-06 00:00:00

FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE.

CROWN-OFFICE, MARCH 5.
MEMBER RETURNED TO SERVE IN TIIE PRESENT PARLIAMENT.
CITY or LONDON.—George Lyall, Citizen and Brolerer, in the
room of Robert Waithman, Esq., deceased.

DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY.
JOHN PAUL, baker, Houndsditch.
BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED.

CHARLES CUE, hatter, Gloucester.
THOMAS HAYNES, cabinet-maker, Great Yarmouth,
ABEL 'I'IMSON, draper, Dover.
BANKRUPTS.

JOHN PARKER, cork.cutter, Houndsditch, to surrender
March 15 and April 16, at one, at the Court of Bankrtiptcy.
Edwards, Pancras-lane, official assignee; Robinson, Queen.
street-place.
ROBERT and THOMAS WILLIAMSON, flour dealers,
Manchester, March 14, 15, and April 16, at nine, at the Palace
Inn, Manchester. Barratt, jun., Manchester; Hume, South-
ampton-buildings, Chancery-lane, London.
.1A MES SWIFT, white-cooper, Liverpool, March 14, and
April 16, at twelve, at the Clarendon-rooms, Liverpool. Jones
and Ward, John-street, Bedford-row, London ; Foster and
Lloyd, Liverpool.
THOMAS ROSSETTER, miller, Greatbridge, Southamp-
ton, March 15, and April 16, at one, at the Dolphin Inn,
Romsey. Holmes, Romsey, Hants.
GEORGE BYERS, hatter, Pal'-mall, March 13, at twelve,
and April 16, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Gregory,
Clement's Inn.

WILLIAM KEITH, merchant, Manchester, March 29, 30,
and April 16, at nine, at the Palace Inn, Manchester. Adling-
ton, Gregory, and Faulkner, Bedford-row, London ; Coates,
Manchester.

WILLIAM HARRIS, brickmaker, Castle Hayes, Tutbury,
Staftlirdshire, March 25, and April 16, at eleven, at the Three
Queen's Inn, Burton-win-Trent. Fowler, Burton-upon-Trent;
Hicks and Braikenridge, Bartlett's-buildings, Holborn, London.
GEORGE HESLINGTON, woollen-draper, Knaresborough,
Yorkshire, March 18, and April 16, at eleven, at the Elephant
and Castle Inn, Knaresborough. Hawkins, Bloxam, and
Stocker, New Boswell-court, London; Dewes, Knaresborough ;
Gill, Knaresborough.
DIVIDENDS.

W. Wright, cook, Southampton.row, Queen-square, March
21, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy—T. G. Fanson,
woollen draper, Aldgate, March 28, at eleven, at the Court of
Bankruptcy—G. Scott and J. Tomkinson, stationers, Binning.
ham, March 26, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy—J. H. Davy,
coach wheelwright, Parker-street, Drury-lane, March 26, at halt.
past one, at the Court of Bankruptcy—G. King, jeweller, Lud-
gate-street, March 26, at ten, at the Court of Bankruptcy—H.
Mould, grocer, Chertsey, Surrey, March 26, at eleven, at the
Court of Bankruptcy—J. Rowbotham, hat-manufacturer, Great
Surrey-street, March 27, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy—
T. Hudson, cattle-sale,man, Northbrook, Godalming, Surrey,
March 27, at ten, at the Court of Bankruptcy—S. Douthat, mer.
chant, Liverpool, April 2, at twelve, at the Clarendon.rooms,
Liverpool—R. Squires and R. Thompson, corn-dealers, Liver-
pool, April 4, at twelve, at the Clarendon-rooms, Liverpool—
J. Sellers, jun., cotton-spinner, Burnley, Lancashire, April 3,
at nine, at the King's Arms Inn, Manchester—W. F. White,
furnishing ironmonger, Norwich, March 2S, at twelve, at the
Office of Mr. P. Day, Norwich—J. Muirhead, innkeeper, Bux.
ton, Derbyshire, March 26, at eleven, at the Royal Oak Inn,
Cheadle, Staffordshire—J. Harrison, cotton-spinner, Manchester,
March 29, at nine, at the Palace Inn, Manchester—J. Glover,
draper, Wigan, Lancashire, April 4, at three? at the Buck-i'-th'-
Vine Inn, Wigan—J. Painter, innkeeper, Liverpool, March 28,
at twelve, at the Clarendon-buildings, Liverpool—E. Marshall,
grocer, Liverpool, April 1, at two, at the Clarendon-rooms, Li-
verpool—W. Moore, cheese-factor, Thorpe Constantine, Staf.
fordshire, March 27, at two at the Three Crowns Inn, Lei-
cester.—H. Wood, innkeeper, Bristol, March 27, at two, at the
Commercial-rooms, Bristol—V. Dove, victualler, Bath, March
26, at twelve, at the Elephant and Ca-tie Inn, Bath—W. Wrang-
ham, silversmith, Louth, Lincolnshire, March 22, at eleven,
at the Blue Stone Tavern, Louth.
CERTIFICATES.—MARCH 26.
T. Taylor, tallow-chandler, Egham, Surrey—W. Hall, bobbin-
maker, Nottingham—H. Stephens, stone-mason, Aldersgate-
street—J. Wilson, linen.draper, Leeds, Yorkshire—J. Porter,
cheeemonger, Carnaby.street, Regent-street—A. H. A yck-
bowni. surgeon, Wendover, Buckinghamshire—F. W. Davis,
silk-mercer, New Windsor, Berkshire—W. G. Fearnside,
agent, Hayden-street, Hayden-square—W. Buckmaster, wine-
merchant, Sandy End, Fulham—T. F. Lucas, stage-coach pro-
prietor, Long Buckby, Northamptonshire—R. Allmand, vic-
tualler, Wem, Shropshire—S. Smith, victualler, Birmingham.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
"

T. B. Barclay and Co., Liverpool (so far as regards J. Jones)—
M. Franklin and S. Bath, coal-merchants, Swan-yard, Bishops-
gate-street--G. Edwards and J. Pinnington, carpenters, Tran-
mere, Cheshire—J. and J. 1 ebbutt, brewers, Sudborough, North-
amptonshire—J. Baxter and Co., woollen-cloth-manufacturers,
Avening, Gloucestershire—S. Williams and Co., coal-merchants,
Brecon—H. H. Williamson and Co., china-dealers, Portugal-
street—R. Walmsley and E. Threlfall, men's-mercers, Preston,
Lancashire—R. Taylor and W. Marriott, jobbing-smiths, Bir-
mingham—J. Scholes and E. Lees, size-manufacturers, Man-
chester—lt. goad and T. Morley, tea-dealers, Huddersfield—G.
and W. Thorpe, farmers, Londesborough, Yorkshire—G. Harris
and Co., clothiers, Dursley, Gloucestershire—W. Ward and G.
Goulding, iron-founders, Ittigley, Staffordshire—R. Fenner and
Co., engravers, Long-lane, Aldersgate-street—J. Hitchen and T.
Conway, clothiers, Woolwich—W. It. Deland J. Grubb, millers,
Colchester—H. P. Bird and B. F. Watson, attorneys, Lincolns
Inn-fields—W. Johnson and W. Jones, glove-manufacturers,
Worcester—C. Nossitter and G. Bennett, builders, Yeovil, So-
mersetshirc—F. Potter and Co., merchants, Manchester (so far
as regards W, D. Hall),

LONDON,
WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 6, 1833.

The first reading of the Irish Coercive Bill was
agreed to last night in the House of Commons, by
a majority, in favour• of Ministers, of 377,
the ?lumbers being for the first reading 466,
against it 89. Mr. O'CONNELL expressed his
sentiments at full length, and with conside•
rable force, on the subject of the Bill,
which, in common with many other well-
wishers to Government, we still hope to see consi-
derably modified. In its present form it contains, as
we have said all along, so many obnoxious features,
that we cannot but be impressed with the notion
that it will, to a considerable degree, fail of effect.

Lord ALTUORP last night made an allusion to the
application of poor laws to Ireland, which gives us
some hopes that it will not be long before his Ma-
jesty's Government bring the subject under the
consideration of Parliament. We had feared that
the idea of introducing any system of poor laws
into that unhappy country had been at once dis-
missed as against principle, which we admit them
to be, but it is evident, as well from the declaration
of Lord ALTIIORP last night, as that of Lord DUN-
CANNON the night before, that several of his Ma-
jesty's Ministers are favourably inclined to the
adoption of some measure which shall give the mise-
rable beings who are driven to crime by the reck-
lessness of starvation, something to lose by ill con-
duct, something to gain by peaceful and provident
conduct.

We will endeavour, in a few sentences, to state
the real question which now presents itself to his
Majesty's Ministers for their decision upon this
subject. We grant that laws which attempt to
insure to any one whatever—old or young, sick or
healthy, infirm or able-bodied—subsistence or la-
bour is against principle, because it interferes
with the natural feelings of charity and hu-
manity which would meet ordinary cases, and
tends to counteract the very checks which the
immutable laws of nature have placed upon
improvidence. Nevertheless, many exceptions
have been admitted to this principle, and had not
the exceptions been abused, as they have been in
England, good rather than harm might have resulted.
But how have the poor laws worked in England ?
The bad principle of undertaking to find work for
a man, whether it was profitable or net, which might
have been corrected by making it the hardest, the
most ill•paid, and most wretched that could be
found, has gradually degenerated into giving a man
relief without work, nay, of giving him relief
in proportion to the number of his children, thus
encouraging him to improvidence. The effect of
this has been to make marriage at eighteen and
twenty years of age common among the labouring
classes, to make an unmarried labourer of forty
unknown, whilst among the middling class marriage
is generally deferred five or six years later, and
unmarried men and women, of all ages, are
to be met with, in that class, in the
greatest abundance. Had there been a law in-
suring 4001• per annum to all the children of a man
at any time having had 4001. per annum, as there
has been a law insuring a subsistence to all the
children born to poor labourers, who can doubt
that we should have had all the restraints of prudence
broken down in the middle classes as they have
been broken down by the labouring population ?
Unless the present system be speedily checked in

England, there can be no doubt that we shall sink
into a depth of wretchedness surpassed only by that
of Ireland.

These are the principles and undoubted facts
which Mr. O'CONNELL and others oppose to the
introduction of any poor law into Ireland, which
shall contemplate the relief of any but the
blind and maimed. Even this is against
strict principle, and in a healthy state of so-
ciety would be needless ; but perhaps would
be attended with little practical inconvenience, as
men are not likely to deprive themselves of their
eyes, or to maim themselves for the sake of being
supported at the public expense. Agreeing thus
with Mr. O'CONNELL, or even going beyond him in
the principle, it may naturally be asked, how we can
advocate, as we have long done, the introduction of
poor laws into Ireland ? Our answer is, that all the
possible evils which can result from poor laws, and
which are fast gathering round the southern coun-
ties of England, already exist in Leland, in the
most aggravated form. Prudence there is none,
foresight there is none, domestic comfort there is
none : reckless ignorance and misery produce and re-
produce each other; and even those of the peasantry
who see and feel that where food is difficult to be got
for one month, it will be more difficult to be got for
two, three, or four months, and who would in
quiet times, when the future can be calculated upon,
act upon this conviction, are now driven into mar-
riage as offering them the only alleviation of their
wretchedness. The difficult procurement of food,
then, the absolute deprivation of all that are usually
considered the comforts, nay necessaries, of life in
this country, being no check upon marriage (evi-
dently because marriage cannot make the condition
of the man who enters into that state worse), no
check upon improvidence of any kind, we do not see
what are the evils which can possibly result from the
introduction of poor laws into a society reduced to the
state we have described. Let us on the other.
hand, see the benefits that would result from them.
In the first place, they would at once put a stop to
all outrages that really originate in starvation, and,
in the next, they would give time for the introduc-
tion, by means of education, of the knowledge of
the true foundation on which the welfare of the
labouring classes must rest, viz., their own
providence. If there be only a chance of
accomplishing these two objects, we should say
that that chance would justify, in the present state
of Ireland, the introduction of a poor law into that
country. We know that, if left to itself, the ex-
freme wretchedness of Ireland must work its own
cure, that men will be taught prudence and foresight
by continued suffering, or at some season of greater
scarcity than usual be carried off by famine. So in
the same way every war carries with it the seeds of
its own termination, but that is no reason why we
should not endeavour to prevent war. At the same
time, knowing as we do, that poor laws are in them-
selves evils, acknowledging to the fullest extent the
principle that the labour market should not be
meddled with, dreading the consequences which
will ensue irr England, from our having violated that
principle, we are far from wishing to sow in Ireland
the seeds of future embarrassment and misery.
With a view, then, to meet the pressing necessity
of the case before us, we would insure work and
subsistence to the population of Ireland, but
it should be only temporarily. We would
make all who marry after the passi►►g of the
poor law forfeit all claim to work and relief,
as well as all children born of such marriages. By
this means time would be given for the introduction
of provident habits, the temptations of want would
be removed, and the poor law would of itself gra-
dually expire with the existing generation. The
relief we propose to afford might be so regulated as
to prove a pecuniary advantage to the landlords
of Ireland instead of a loss. What is to prevent
the whole of the labour employed at the parish or
county expense, being applied to the draining of
bogs, digging canals, and forming roads,--railroads
where practicable ? All experience proves the im-
mense advantages which the formation of roads
has produced to the countries which have
encouraged them. The evidence of Mr. TEL•
FORD, given before the Select, Committee,
obtained by Mr. SPRING RICE, some three years
back, to inquire into the means of employing the
poor in Ireland, completely establisha this fact. Our
mai►► object at present, however, is to impress upon
those who object to the introduction of poor laws into
Ireland, on the ground of principle, that the tempo-
rary violation of principle can do no harm, cannot
make the condition of that country worse, but, to
say the least, may do good, and may improve its
condition.

M. Pozzo DI BORGO had his last conference yes-
terday with Lord PALMERSTON, preparatory to his
departure for Paris. It is generally understood
that the subject of the conference was principally
the Belgian question. On this point M. Pozzo
DI BORGO professes to have great desire for a set-
tlement, and declares that the EMPEROR'S inten-
tions are decidedly pacific. It is indeed thought by the
French Cabinet that the Emperor of RUSSIA is more
anxious for the arrangement of the Belgian question
than he was; but the change is attributed to the
singular position of affairs in the East, which have
opened a new prospect to Russia—ambition and
spoliation. NICHOLAS would, we doubt not, gladly
abandon his ally, the King of HOLLAND, if the con-
sequence of his doing so were to be, permission
from Great Britain and France to interfere in any
way he might please between Turkey and Egypt.
It cannot, however, be agreeable, either to this
country or Fiance, to see the Autocrat of the
RUSSIAS extending his influence in a quarter so im-
portant to the mercantile interests of France, and
to similar interests as regards this country, as also
to our political greatness. It is asserted by M.
Pozzo DI BORGO, that M. DEDEL, the new Dutch
Ambassador, will be more tractable than M. VON
LUYLEN• We have reason to believe, however,
that his instructions are not at all more favourable
to the Belgians than those of his predecessors.

There are accounts in town from the vicinity of
Oporto, to the 9th of February. They are, on the
whole, rather favourable to the Constitutional cause,
but we are sorry to say,great sickness prevailed in the
Pedroite army as well as in that of the Miguelites.
The complaint is not cholera, but a malignant fever,
caused chiefly by the bad quality of the provisions.
Among the Miguelites the fever rages still more
violently, and the mortality is much greater than in
Oporto. There was a report current that the Mi-
guelites were about to retire upon Coimbra; and as
Don IVItauEL had ordered 2,000 mules to be sent
to head-quarters, for the purpose of transporting
stores and baggage, the report was probably well
founded. A few reinforcements had arrived at
Oporto, and others of a more extensive character were
hourly expected. Marshal SOUGNAC had announced
his intention to move forward early in April, but
there had been some difference between him and the
EMPEROR as to the course of operations which