The Sun.
London, England, 1851-10-10 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

although of matronly years; and that although they
might not admire her head gear, it was thought much
of in the reign of Queen Caroline— so much for
fashion. The lecturer herself was by far the best got
up of the whole. Her things fitted her, and she wore
them as if accustomed to them, which cannot be said
of her fair disciples, who really deserve some praise
for the courage they displayed in sitting to be
stared at. The lady who informed the audience
that she was an American and a mother, and had
come forward to advocate a change in the fashion of
costume on principle, said that although she appeared
before them on this subject, she had, previously to
coming to England, had no intention of thus appear-
ing publicly before them. She had come over for a
very different mission—as a delegate to the Peace
Congress. She was, however, too late for it ; but
another lady who had come over for the same
reason had not been received as a delegate. She
did not know whether in America this would be
called acting discourteously or net, but she knew
very well that if any one had come from England
on a similar mission they would have been perfectly
well received. She was also connected with the .A me-
rican press. Mrs. Bloomer had immortalised herself
by bringing out what was generally supposed to be
a new costume ; but instead of this it was an old one.
It had long been used by the Persians and lonians ;
but her (Mrs. Bloomer's) name was now associated
with it, and it would be handed down as one of the revo-
lutions of the world. A lady in the States has been fined
20 dolls. for wearing what she supposed was something
of this style of dress, but which was spoken of there as
a gentleman's dress. In this matter of dress an amount
of interference had been exercised by men that could
never have been expected. Why, she had heard
of an old woman going to Greenwich Hospital and
the porter would not admit her, because she had a
man's hat on her head. It was in vain she told him
that she had visited the Lady Mayoress in that head-
dress ; he would not let her in till she took off the hat,
and put on an old bonnet instead. She had not come
from America as an emissary in this cause, or to try
and get up a revolution—(Hear)—but being in
London, bad been requested to come forward and ad-
vocate the wearing of the costume. She mentioned
several people of note iu America who had advo-
cated the change, and then proceeded to describe
the dress. It had been said that the dress was
not delicate. It was very much the same as that
worn by the Swiss. The lower garments they wore
were very much the same as those she assumed. Per-
haps they were not always gathered in at the ankles.
But the grace and freedom of motion of the Swiss
girls had always been admired.—(Hear, hear.) The
Polish dress was much the same. If they were not
to dress in this way, why were the Catholic clergy
allowed to go about in long robes, so that they could
hardly be distinguished from women.—(Cheers and
laughter.) The clergy ought to take the lead in
every thing that was good. The " pantilette" had
always been worn among the female sex in some
form or other. Some might think it was not algo-
gather delicate to talk of these things in public, but
as they were speaking of them for the purpose of re-
form, it might pass. What was moral for a man was
also so for a woman, and conversely. If there was
any immorality in pantaloons, men ought not to wear
them. If it was only a matter of taste, and no
immorality could be attached to it, she thought
that men ought to leave women to exercise their
own judgment, and not to interfere. Was it
thought any immorality to appear with bare arms
and a low-necked chess? She did not know what
would be thought in a London ball-room, as she
never was in one; but in America, in her own
country, it.would be thought very improper if a girl
appeared otherwise. Was it thought indecent for a
girl to dance the polka with a man whom she hardly
knew ? He might throw his arms round her waist,
and she might return the embrace. She really did
not think there was much fastidiousness in the world,
when such things as these were allowed. After ad-
vocating the change on the ground that it was
a more convenient dress for the lower classes, she
said she hoped her using the term " women" so
constantly was not at all offensive to them. In
fact, in America they were all women—there were
no ladies ; there were no lords, and consequently
there was no need of ladies ; they were quite content
to be called women. The dress would have one re-
commendation to the elderly, for, according to the
accounts given in the papers of their last meeting, it
made them look very much younger. All who were
described as young misses of 14 were mothers; and
she herself, who was called 25 or 26, would be
delighted to see such a return of juvenility. The
men ought to be glad, for they would have to
pay much less for their wives' dresses, as there
would not be the soiling and draggling that now
took place, and although drapers said that owing to
its taking a much less quantity of material there
would be a diminution of their trade, she thought the
increased number of dresses would pay them. They
talked of the barbarity of the Chinese compressing
the feet of their daughters, but was it not a much
greater violation of principle to compress the waist
when full play was required for all the organs of re-
spiration ? Some lady had suggested that with the
new dress the feet would be as much pinched in
as the waist was before, in order to make them
pretty and small, but she hoped that they would
show that they (the ladies) possessed better sense.
She then expatiated on her living models as ex-
amPlsa of the different styles of the dress that might
be worn, and drew particular attention to the ma-
tronly lady, as we have noticed above ; and made a
slight digression from her subject to apologize for the
treatment received by the great George Thompson
in his anti-slave rambles in her country. She then
returned to her theme, and repeated she had taken up
the advocacyshhaed hadnat nothee n
- of the dress on points of
convincedpossessed
of
of
principle. If
the
correctness the Yankee spent,
in
of the old motto, "Be sure h caseor
you are right, and then
go ahead," she would not have appeared before them.
She hoped, however, in future, to see more of the wo-
men of Great Britain, for as yet she had seen more of
the men at her two lectures; at the same time she did
not say she was not happy to see the men. After
strongly urging the dress for the adoption of the
English ladies, and giving a history of the public
education in America, she concluded, and withdrew
with her troopof d. •
• disciples, the matron solemnly
bringing, up the rear, and
,calling down much laughter
irom the audie
the lectur nee, who, however, behaved throughout
e most decorously.

the Berk 3 Union Banking Company at Newbury that from
It was yesterday announced
to the customers of
that date the business of the concern, including its branches,
would be transferred to the London and County Joint-Stock
Bank. The branches were aye— namely, at Reading, Abing-
don, Wallingford, Windsor, and `vantage, and, under the
new arrangement, these, as well as the head-office, will be
carried on as usual, with the exception that the branches at
Abingdon and \Vantage will merge in similar establishments
already possessed by the London and County Bank at those
places. The capital of the and County
Company was
36,7501., and the number of shareholders was 63. It was
formed in 18.11.
inlsli WIT.—" Molly," said a lady to her
" I think you'll'never set the river on fire." " Indad servant,
e,lma'am,"
" y
innocently replied Molly, «I'd never be afther doin an-
thing so wicked—rd be burning up all the little fishes
OCT.. 9.—Wiud W., fresh.Taganrog. Sid. grincess°
Francisca, Vera Cruz.
Lussiguano, 1 COLlA7L3iibTillia:

TIMES.—" Call again to-morrow. I know nothing
of your bill delivered. Give me the particulars of your
account. I shan't pay you till I find these particulars
are correct. I shan't have time to look at them for a
long time. Your charges are so exorbitant that you
can afford to wait. I neither can nor will pay you
a farthing." That valuable class of men to whom is
intrusted the agreeable task of collecting debts are
familiar with such and similar excuses when it is
their ill-fortune to wait on the Micawbers of the
metropolis, but it is something new to find an assem-
bly composed of peers, baronets, and members of Par-
liament resorting to the shifting tactics of Jeremy
Diddler, and exhausting in their different pretexts for
non-payment every phase of shabby inconsistency.
The original position taken up by the Earl of Lucan
and his brother guardians was blunt, downright, un-
sophisticated Pennsylvanian repudiation. The money
had been wasted ; the act was oppressive, and they
would not pay. They were the means through which
alone the debt could be paid, and they did not intend
to give any assistance towards its liquidation. Some-
what moved, however, by the calm and dignified re-
proof of the Prime Minister,the modern Lucanians have
determined to repudiate repudiation, with the saving
clause that they have not the slightest intention of
repaying. At a meeting presided over by Lord
Clancarty, in the Court-house of Ballinasloe, Lord
Lucan moved, in substance, that, though ready to re-
pay advances where value in public works had been
received, and such money expended in relief as could
fairly be charged against them, they would not strike
rates in the absence of particulars of ,the Government
demand. The second resolution, moved by Lord
Crofton, recommended an investigation before Parlia-
ment of the amount which could with justice be de-
manded with due regard to the interests and circum-
stances of the country. The third resolution, moved
by Colonel Knox Gore, objects to the guardians being
made the means of collecting this money at all. If
any one wishes to take a lesson in the art of shuffling
and paltering with a plain and honest obligation they
would find it here. First, the debt is denied altoge-
ther; then it is admitted that something ought to be
paid, that something being just as much as those
who have already given a specimen of their fairness
by refusing to pay any of it may choose to consider
due. Thirdly, Parliament is asked to consider the
question of repayment, with a view to the circum-
stances and interests of the country—that is, at the
instance of the Irish landowners, to enter into an
inquiry whether they can afford to pay their debts
honestly or no, and to apportion the exact amount of
dishonesty which is essential to their pecuniary well-
being. Lastly, they return to their old position, and,
after professing their readiness to pay, flatly refuse to
put in motion the only machinery provided by law for
enforcing payment. " Procrastination is," as Lord
Lucan truly observes, " the thief of time ;" and it
is therefore very requisite that those who are bent
upon thieving something else should be reminded as
speedily as possible of their own position and pros-
pects. The duty cast on the Irish Poor-law Unions
of making rates to repay the Government advances is
essentially a ministerial one. The claim which they
now put forth is to convert that ministerial into a
judicial act, and instead of levying the sums ad-
vanced, to sit in judgment on the method of their ex-
penditure, and only allow so much as they, the debtors,
in the plenitude of their equitable impartiality, shall
consider to have been properly expended. This mise-
rable dodge for obtaining delay without admitting the
existence of a debt, and avoiding the infamy while
securing the advantages of repudiation, will little
avail them. An Act of Parliament cannot receive two
constructions for their convenience; it was valid,
peremptory, and immediate, so far as it authorised
the advancement of the money of the United Kingdom
for the subsistence of the miserable peasantry whom
the landlords had ground down to starvation. It was
of indisputable efficacy when it charged on the con-
solidated fund one-half of the money so advanced,
and it is at least equally cogent when it demands from
the Irish unions the repayment of the remainder. It can
no more be allowed to them to suspend the operation
of an Act of Parliament till they are satisfied of its
propriety, than to set aside its provisions altogether.
The former is a refusal to obey the law, and the latter
is no more. We can imagine no subterfuge more
degrading than this bill of particulars trick. What
is the principle on which it rests ? That Ireland is
bound to pay no more than she has had value re•
ceived for in public works. Was it then primarily or
mainly for the purpose of making public works in
Ireland that this money was advanced, or were not
the public works entirely secondary and subsidiary to
the main object—the saving, to use Mr. Gregory's
words, the. lives _of the people ? Of course, it was
well known when the money was voted, that it was
impossible to expend it to the best advantage. Long
preparation, minute surveys, careful consideration of
local circumstances, would have been necessary
for this, but inexorable famine would not wait,
and the only choice was between giving away bread
for nothing, and requiring labour in exchange for it.
Thus it unavoidably happened that the labours which
ought to have occupied years were crowded into a
few months, and that the care and consideration which,
under any other circumstances, would have been im-
perative, were rendered impossible. One resource, in-
deed, Government believed itself to have in the local
knowledge and highminded integrity of the Irish land-
lords, in whose hands the relief of their starving coun-
trymen was at first reposed. It was because experi-
ence showed that this class could not be trusted
with the distribution of public money—because the re-
lief so humanely voted found its way to their children,
their tenants, their servants, and their pigs, instead of
the starving y--because they recognised every
claim,
ger and misfortune, and, true
o t
h ei
ituhhneld charity contributed by
t erx eveopcptaettaihosanatn, peasantry-.because
withheld
of
others from men4whom they would barely permit to
exist by the labour of their hands, that Government
was forced to adopt that plan of relief by public
works, of whose defects the Irish landlords, whose
misconduct called it into action, do well to remind
us. We assert deliberately, that if Government were
to furnish the bill of particulars, and if that bill should
show`that the sums claimed had been expended in
digging holes iii the sea-shore and filling them up
again, the claim of the Government against the
unions would he as valid in morality as it is in law.
e People, and for the whole of that
payment, fiendstrthict justice, the land which ought to
maintain them is liable: We are not bound to find
for we suppose Mr. Disraeli would call
‘
of man. But those who are
o
what is due from them claim
t
half ?
Do they expect to strike off
up rs
ioyfi t apballyd
,ontl
revisehy leraeslrka aewndd t
h teoh
material"awpwtayho hlea . 1 f
more than If not, we may concede
them so much, and set off against the half which
spent the half which has
We only ask for the iutonre-
maining half. Let Use contribution of the public
be considered to have supported the children, the
has
sn
bgeerantu
rent-paying tenants, and the pigs, and pay us, ac-
cording to Lord Lucan's principle, for the money
which the Irish landlords have actually suffered to
find its way into the pockets of the people. Let us
admit, for the sake of argument, that one-half the
advance has been thrown away because we did not,
amid starving millions, pay sufficient attention to
engineering. Is that any reason why the other half
should be refused ? But it is idle to argue with
men who repudiate their debts in the same breath
they admit them; who profess obedience to the law at
the moment when they are openly disobeying it, and
who deny the benefits they have received in the very
same speeches in which they are compelled to admit
them. Unless, to use Lord John Russell's words,
they can prove that the sums thrown away exceed
four millions, they are, so far as any statements of
their own can bud them, on their own showing,
bound to disburse the remainder.

ATTEIVPTED POISONING.

BATH, OCT. 9,—The Mayor, F. Dowding, Esq.,
Allen and W. Hunt, Esqs., were
together with F,
yesterday engaged in investigating an extraordinary
case of attempted
l a d y
poison-.1 poisoning. The prisoner, who gave
her name as Elizabeth Slater, was a very respectable--
looking,woman,and she was charged with ad-
ministeringi to her child, with intent, &c. Upon
the application of Mr. Oakley, the chief of police, who
stated that a public examination would probably frus-
trate the ends ofjastic e, the proceedings were strictly
private. We are enabled, however, to give the fol-
lowing particulars :—About two months since the
prisoner took furnished lodgings at the house of Mr.
Searle, chemist and druggist, Claverton-street, Bath,
representing herself to be the wife of Mr. Slater, of
Bristol. A few days after she entered the lodgings she
was taken ill, and Mr. Lawrence, surgeon, having been
sent for, she soon after gave birth to a female child.
About this time an elderly gentleman, representing
himself to be the husband of the prisoner, visited her
at Mr. Searle's, but after remaining a short time
again left. After recovering from her confinement,
Mrs. Slater made an arrangement with Mrs. Searle
for the nursing of her child, and took her departure,
but continued to visit it occasionally, generally about
once a week. On several occasions she expressed a
wish to be alone with the child, and at these
times after she had left Mrs. Searle remarked
that the infant suffered from diarrhoea and vomiting.
Mr. Searle's suspicions were in consequence excited,
and he communicated with Mr. Lawrence, the sur-
geon, who ultimately informed the authorities of the
case, which by them was transferred to the care of
Police-inspector Norris. From inquiries made by
him, and circumstances which came to his knowledge,
he on Tuesday apprehended the supposed Mrs. Slater,
and on the following morning she was brought, as
stated above, before the magistrates, and remanded
for
further inquiriea. It has been ascertained that
the
prisoner is a single female of a respectable family,
an artificial and that an analysis of with • teat which
the infant has usually been suckled has resulted in the
discovery of some crystals.