The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-03-28 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—Fatimi

members suggested to
the' prorinety of os!pboing the- second
)6pg- e1;(.,.1i.iie../ttessed the second'
nide time fur coiiiider:in'g-the bill beforb•it

S. Wtintr,Ev and other

ould assent to the se-
educational
imnittee until after Easter. The right lion.
baronet then moved the second reading.

oild not move tl

Mr. Ecir;kier said th'at the dissenters generally were dis-
satisfied with the education clauses of the bill, even from the
Wesleyans to the Unitarians. He thought that the theolo-
t to be established by the bill was bused

sj stem roc

r•
itted the liberal spirit which
injusticeonT he
Earl
ot of wAa rnd so
Ndpi sus n
at ed ras,
characterised the measure proposed by Government, though
there were clauses which, if not altered, would be disadvan-
tageous to the Roman Catholics.
Mr. G. KNIGHT said that a section of the Established
Church was as muoh opposed to the educational clauses as
all thoughtpatne
parties, and
dile h o Governmentped
the adopted
twheer were tgoldenhe dissenters.
mean
b ewe ilene
prin-
ciples on which the bill was founded would be extended to
the rural population of the country.
Mr. HAwas said that in his opinion the more known the
educational clauses became the more decidedly would they
be opposed by the dissenting portion of the community. On
the part of the dissenters he protested against a scheme
which vested in the Church of England power over a national
fund for the exclusive purpose of education, the effect of
which, he contended, must be to sharpen existing religious
animosities.
Sir J. GRAHAM had entertained a hope that the second
reading would have passed without any discussion on the de-
tails of the measure, and he regretted much the tone of the
remarks of Mr. Hawes. Lord Arundel had done more jus-
tice to the government plan, and he believed the fears of the
noble lord on the part of the Roman Catholics, as well as
those of the dissenters, might be ielieved by the reflection
that the schoolmaster was not intended to be a commentator
on the Scriptures, but merely a communicator of ideas. The
object in.view was certainly to promote the religious instruc-
tion of the young, and to rescue them from the practical in-
fidelity were at present plunged. It was im-
possiblewithout the assistance of the church ; and looking at the riots
in
to which
carry any extensive system of education into effect
of last autumn, which were chiefly carried on by youths be-
tween eighteen and twenty-two years of age, be felt confident
that if such a project as the one before the house had been
carried out ten years ago, those scenes would never have
taken place. Ile was prepared to give all due weight to every
objection urged , by the dissenters, and he hoped, therefore,
the houSe would not hazard the success of the bill by allow-
ing
egarfseeeloint. hegtsofd
Sir G. Gran- di I not entertain a doubt that the bill had
been brought forward by the government in an honest spirit
towards all classes, and if they had failed in giving satisfac-
tion it was owing to the defectiveness of the details of the
measure. As one instance of this, be referred to the fact
jealousyisciis discussion.
or anger, to exhibit themselves in the.
that the bill in its present shape excluded all schoolmasters
who were not members of the established church. The clause
relating to the selection of books was also susceptible of
improvement, by giving a controlling power to the Privy
Council, or by some other means.. ~
Sir R. Istous contended that the church of England had
the constitutional right of watching over and superintending
the instruction of the people, and his chief objection to the
bili was that it did not sufficiently recognise this right. He
could not see any reason for alarm on the part of the dissen-
ters respecting the management of the schools, for the trus-
tees of each union need not, necessarily be members of the
Established church. lie hoped that the house would make
no material alteration in this bill in deference to the threats
or taunts of the dissenters, whosezeal must he much less than
. it was represented to he, or whose numbers must be consi-
derably sMallei, for lie foisod that the entire number who had
availed themselves of the right of being married otherwise
than by the rites of the church of England was only 8,248.
Mr. HUME said that government should not suffer itself
to be overawed by the church, for the pecuniary benefit of
which it appeared as if the people of England were born,
married, and buried. He did not think the people of this
country would submit to the thraldom imposed upon them
by this bill. Every person in the country had, he contended,
a right to education, as well as food for the body, without
any reference to. religious distinctions. The cost of such
education to the nation would be more than counterbalanced
by the decrease of immorality and crime.
Mr. Aosasfo said that the success of a measure like this
must depend upon its being cordially supported by all par-
ties. He had no doubt but it would be honestly and zea-
lously carried out by the clergy of the established church;
and he deprecated raising any questions which might give
occasion to feelings of dissatisfaction. towards a bill, the
general principles of which he agreed in, and which he hoped
to see generally supported.
Mr. F. BARING said that in the trustees of each union
there should be a representation of the ratepayers, who
ought to have some share of control over the expenditure of
the money which was drawn from their own pockets. It was
of great importance certainly in a large scheme such as this
for the government to carry with them the good wishes of
the Established Church, but it was also of vast importance
that it should be carried out also with-the favourable wishes
of the ministers of the dissenting population throughout the
country.
After some obse?vations from Mr. HARDY,
applied
f onlyiitns ..effectsmtoa kai
kg would
andan d cottono bet to
her
Mr. M. GIBSON said he could almost bring himself to
dr
one r
‘las feared.would
u thed hilta
sent
e ro
to op-
posepin-making
the second reading of the bill, there wese so many ob-
jectionsdnilsil stal et; to
obihot
manufactures to which tlie bill did not apply. The lion.
member also stated other objections to the bill, to which he
entreated the attention of the government.
Mr. M. SUTTON did not think that the effect would be to
drive the children from the cotton mills to other employ-
ments; on the contrary, lie thought the bill would hold out
a premium to parents to take their children from other ems
ployments in order that they might have the advantage of
the schools.
Mr. CossrpEts was of opinion that, uncles all the circums
stances, the pro pled meaapre Was the most practicable that
coold be adopted. • --
Lord 'AsttLEY said that his not having called the attention
of the house to the condition of the agricultural population,
was not because he did nos think it required improvement as
regarded education, but because he had pecolis,rly directed
his attention to those places where there were vast masses of
people plunged •.in the lowest state of vice and ignorance.
• He hoped that this bill would be discussed throughout with-
out crinsinatiOn or recrimination, and he still further hoped
that the house would avail itself of the present most blessed
opportunity of removing' a blot upon our character as a
civilised nation. They must expect to call down the Divine,
vengeance upon their heads if they .neglected to remove'this
abomination from the land.
Mr. COBDEN was of opinion that the difficulties of laying
down a general plan of education were considerably increased
by giving"a dominant power to the Church. ofltgl«ntl.
contended that there was more vice; io4delity, and im-
morality of every descriPtiOtti In the parish in which that
house sat, than las tti '4le f9ttntlin Manchester. This should
be known injustice to the dissenters, for Manchester should
not be singled out as a specimen of immorality when the
very spot in which they were assembled, in which the Dean
and Chapter of Westminster exercised their functions, and
to whom belonged a great proportion of the property of the
parish, was in a state than which nothing could be conceived
worse. By this bill it appeared they were providing for the
education of children in employment; but they were pro-
viding no education for the thousands of children who had
no employment; and yet they Professed to call this a system
of national education. What was the objection to g;ving
some instruction to those children who, haviog nothing to
do, were idling about the streets. 'The church did not run
after those children, 1).14 the moment an attempt was made
to give the some education at the expense of the nation, at
once the church throws difficulties' in the way by making
claims which ought not to be conceded. He would not ob-
ject to the second reading of the bill, because it would give
some additional education, and discarded for the first time
the use of the catechism ; but in the committee he would do
all •be could to have those clauses , altered which were so
execrable that. they must interfere with its Iscoefiicial opera-
tion. • •
Mr. DARBY did not t 14111; a secular education any guaran-
tee for moral conduct.
• After a few remarks from Mr. HOPE,
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the good temper with
which the bill was discussed in that house would not be
without its beneficial effect upon the public. The noble lord
threw out a variety of
,suggestions for the consideration of
the government, amongst which was one for the establish-
ment of a normal school for which he was sure. the house
would readily grant an additional vote.
After a few words from Mr. Ross,
The bill was read a second time, and the committee was
appointed for Friday next.
• A discussion then took place upon the third reading of the
Dogs Diu, which was at length .carried by a majority of
6G to 43.
Another division took place on a motion for the omission
of the second clause, which was carried by a majority of 57
to 30; and a third on the question that the bill do pass, which
was agreed to by 50 to 31.

EMIGRATION.—TabIes, showing the amount of emigration
from the United Kingdom, in 18424 have just reached us.
They give the number of-emigrants who have embarked from
each of fir thrcp kingdoms, which is as follows :—From
England 14,x03; from Scotland, 13,108; from Ireland,
4&;553: total, 128,344. The parts of the world to:which
they went'were the following :—To the United States, 63,852
Texas, Central America, and Buenos Ayres, 363 • Canada,
4L375 ; New Brunswick, '
Nova Scotia, Prince Edward's
&c. 12,748 ; West Indies, 813 ; the Cape, 517 ;'West-
ern Africa, Mauritius,. and Falkland Isles, 72; Sydney,
1,450 ; Port Philip, 864 ; Van Diemaa's Land, 2448 ; South
Australia, 145 ; Western Australia, 563 ; Zealand,
3064: total, 128,314. Four-fifths of the. Irish emigrants
went,to the British North. America!; colonies the largest
proportion of the Scotch. Nyent caeada and Nova Scotia ;
and five-sevenths- of the Unglish to, the United States. • Of
the emigrants, 1058 were assisted from the poor-rates' 2341
from funds supplied by the Commissioners of Colonial Lands
and Emigration; and 982 from Bounties paid in New South
Wales and Van Die Man's Laud.— In 1841 the number of
emigrants was ;—From England,' 72,104; from Scotland.
14,060; from Ireland, 32,428: total, 118,592.. The number
of emigrants in 1842. was greater than in 1841 by 10,000, and
exceedsr in a much higher proportion that for any previous
year, Its extent is, indeed, unparalleled and astounding,
amounting to no less than 400 souls per diem, excluding Sun-
days. Its direction, also, has undergone a material change.
In 1841 theemigrants to Australia and New Zealand amounted
to 32,500,; in 1842 only to 8500. The removal of so great a
numbes of persons, most of tbern belonging to the working
classes, must-have had a considerable effect in lightening the
pressure on the market for labour; but the return does not
enable us to state what proportion, the women and children
bore to the men.—Scotsman.

,11hteAret.Ttito.,day. MARCHAI6it.ti
Ae
TILE
dreadfulMultpE veßeopn has Dn.
aMI
AtatiPTpirellne.—d
amrnofotooetijmr moment
a2ltno'
attention
iCfltoCleoutl
to it
n d
.dimt
but
hearde
that nhta the
tprDe
lyingsre.no. report orinstrlitybn
aoscuf a
servant
rayswaTs: musket,hti n
iont.came
b e
Te into
p net r
anext
• of Sir John Louis's house, and Captain Robinson near him.
Captain Robinson ltati•already called to the Hecate, lying
close by, and the surgeon of that ship was with us immedi-
ately ; he examined the wound, and saw at once that it was
mortal:- Poor Martin asked what had happened to him ;
and the surgeon said it Was his duty to tell him that the ball
had passed through the intestines and that nothing could be
tiapndto.
hit.'
marsh, done to save his life. The poor sufferer said he knew it well.
I sent in all directions for other doctors, and for the chap-
lain of. the Monarch: • Sir John Louis' had a bed directly
predared in his houie, andand Dwirt.4llll4:.:tli:;trwriaedtt
him,tlhaeSitsfisotnedarienhntiho:iilnegame: he said, " Gently, gently and
these are all the words 1 heard him speak. The chaplain of
marBh, and Dr. Martin's son (an- aSsiswii taiiiite-stuhregeon)pie
•sufferer was sensible, but speechless, clergyman
prayed: lie died within the hour. • This frightful murder
was committed by the sentry at Sir John Louis's door as
Dr. Martin was passing front the house to the admiral's
steps. Had his visit been a little earlier his life would have
been saved, for the sentinels were changed at 12 o'clock.
The soldier was not two yards from Dr. Martin when he.
tired. The ball went'in at the lower part of the back and
came Ournear or arthe naval. haye examined all the sol-
diers of the guard, and irappears by What they say that the
man did not' know Dr. Martin • he had never been on duty
In the hospital,- he was not drunk nor Mad, but is an ill,
cotiditioned turbulent man. He has been 11 years in the
regimeUt, and they-now'say betas been always doing mis.
chief and exciting others to do it. As. sOO.O as he had done
this fatal deed lie walked quietly to •the guarib.rooni, • where
all the soldiers of the guartl,-were, put down his_ musket and
• ioolciefr his hats: • Th-e' ibrjeant asked' hint what had induced
him to do such a thing, anp his antwer was, " It's a good
job it was not for you." Another man heard him say, "He
meant it for sonic nob," meaning a fientlenian ; as if it had
been the sudden working of the devil,' who prompted him to
slay the first person having the appearance of a gentleman
who came in his way.

THEATRE-ROYAL, LIVERPOOL

UNPRECEDENTED COMBINATION OF FIBST-
BATE _DRAMATIC TALENT.

The Public is respectfully informed that arrangements have

been made with

MADAME VESTRIS and Mr. CHARLES MATHEWS

FOR FIVE NIGHTS ONLY;
And, in order to give every possible effect to the Dramas in
which they will perform, a re-engagement has been con-
cluded with

Mr. WILLIAM FARREN
for the same period, being positively the only Nights these
distinguished Artists can appear in Liverpool, previous to
the commencement of their engagement at the Theatre-
Royal, Ilaymarket, on Easter Monday.

Till IS present TUESDAY, March 28, the Entertainments
1. will commence with the Operetta of

NO!
After which, a new Farce, written by Charles Dance, Esq.,
called
_

NAVAL Etid2:GEMENTS.
Admiral Kingston .. Mr. William Ferren,
Lieutenant Kingston Mr. Charles Mathews,
Miss Mortimer Madame Vestris,
As originally performed by them in London.
To Nvltich will be added, the favourite Drama, written by
Mr. Charles Mathews, called
PATTER VERSUS CLATTER.
Captain Patter.. (his-original character) .. Mr. C. Mathews,
To conclude with the Musical Drama of a
LOAN OF A LOVER.
Peter Spyk Mr. Charles Mathews.
Gertrude.. (her original character).. Madame Vestris.

movnaeom,mavyweesimmanscwrenrimgovm,NanaMi

TO CORRESPONDENTS

We are compelled to postpone even the acknowledgment of
several communications.
A correspondent states that the Leeds and Manchester Rail-
way Company have taken on lease, for a term of years,
the Calder and Hebble Navigation. ; •
The Mercury has, in its wisdom, thought fit to discharge his
little double barrelled pop-gun simultaneously at our de-
voted head, and that of our contemporary,. the Mail, his
ire having been strongly excited by our respective notices.
of Miss Stott's concert. Happily the- report failed to•
fright the country into another " quake," or the pellets to•
ruffle even a pinion of the assailed. "He 'had," he says,.
" received a letter from a correspondent, whose writing he'
recognised, complaining of the notices alluded to ;" and he.,
therefore, forthwith, sets about comparing (odious task !)•
the two accounts; and finding in them some differences of
opinion, arrives at the very courteous and logical conclu-
sion, that " little reliance can be placed in the discrimina-
tion, faithfulness, or impartiality, in either of the critics r
We must certainly succumb to the musical acumen of the
Mercury, who probably considers himself par excel-
knee the only legitimate judge in such matters, inas-
much as his head has, time out of mind, been filled witk
all kinds of crotchets—not omitting wind-mills, kites,.
spinning-tops, cork-collars, and the like. ,Nor must
forget his extensive practice and proficiency on .his own,
trumpet. Nevertheless, we do think we may now and.
then adventure an opinion of our own in this land of free
discussion, without provoking the jealousy of his godship..
or the ire of his correspondent, who is evidently an inte-
rested party, labouring under the soreness of finding- his.
merits not so highly appreciated by others as by himself-
, We are accused of stating that " the audience was nume-
rous and fashionable, and that the performances were re-
ceived with repeated plaudits;" and to this remark we
firmly adhere, without fear of contradiction from any one
who was present. On entering the room, we found the
back seats so far occupied chiefly by ladies, that until the
conclusion of the "`first part" we were constrained to re-
main, with a few others, in the recess, or ante-room, under
the gallery. The room had certainly the appearance of
being generally filled ; and the assertion of the Mail,
• that there was.a comparatively slender attendance, had re-
ference, we presume, to former occasions when the assem-
bly was crowded to excess. We are next accused of stating
that a song was sung by Mr. Lewis, while that gentleman
did not sing at all during the evening. On this point we
may have fallen into a mistake. The song in question was
announced in the hill as to be sung by Mr. Lewis, and as
we did not know that individual personally, we naturally
concluded .that it was he—a mighty venal offence truly !
The Mercury's correspondent also " complains " (poor
fellow!) that some of the pieces which were actually en-
. cored were not noticed by the critics at all. Perhaps so ;
but as we do not always consider an encore a proof of ex-
cellence, it is arrant impertinence to expect us, within the
narrow limits ofa paragraph, to notice every such expression
of popular approbation. Does the Mercury never omit,
in his brief and bald notices of concerts, a single encore?
Bah! He did not even condescend to attend or to notice
this concert at all ; yet he assumes to be perfectly compe-
tent to criticise the remarks made upon it by others ! We
differed from the Mail. too, it appears, as to the song of
" Sandy and . Jenny." Our •` critic " considered it
" prettily sung 1" the Mail (shocking discrepancy'!) re-
marks, without reference to the music. that " the singer's
attempt to imitate the Scottish dialeel would have been far
from gratifying to soutluirn eats," For ourselves, we never
expect from an Bnglish singer either the perfection of the
Scottish, dialect, or the peculiar expression and character
of the Scottish music, which no score can convey. The
song, nevertheless, was prettily sung, and the Mercury
will perhaps allow us to go " Scot free" in this particular.
when we remind biro that we did say that it was " warmly
encored," The opinion we expressed of the clarionot oh-
ligato, was also entertained by parties in the room. %trite
As competent to judge as the correspondent of the -X:10-vurY•
Our paragraph in fine was written in a friendly spirit, for
the encouragement of a talented and deservi% young lady ;
and we marvel that the Mercury, who Kofesses to be the
friend of rising genius, should, in his attack upon his con-
temporaries, display an animus calculated to injure her and
her musical friends in their futurcapneals for public patro-
nage, and which is as little. creditable to his " discrimina_. tion" as to his gallantry. lint he is a " liberal," and what
have we to expect Hewould do well to remember,however,
that thoso wh,o live in glass houses should not throw stones.
We ponld paint out in any one of his publications numerous
,ealsrepresentations of facts, and his eternal puffing of laina-
! self and thoie connected with him would be intolerable,
were it not so palpably ridiculous that all feeling of in-
dignation at such assumption is tntrged in ioesistibie
laughter. It is remarkable, too, that though he would
fain persuade the public that "no reliance- is to, be placed
upon us for discrimination, faithfulness, or impartiality,"
he daily appropriates portions of origina,t articles, and milsole
paragraphs, from our columns, with, such apparent implicit
reliance on their accuracy, that he deems it quito.uwaeees.-
sary to acknowledge the source from which they are
derived. We think this, has. unplatted the. Mercury's
tissue of misrema4ntittions.

tie Ettirrpoot gptantarb.

TUESDAY MORNING, MARCH 28, 1843.

Our contemporary, the Manchester Gtardian, af-
fects, on \Vednesday last, to have discovered--and the
same discovery was announced, on the same evening,
at a meeting of the League, at Drury Lane, by the
chairman of that body—that tho objections urged
against the existing corn-law are, by Conservative
journalists, " more and more feebly repelled ;" thus,
according to the Guardkie, " shewing the conscious-
ness of the writers that, even amongst their own
friends, the sliding scale is becoming exceedingly un-
popular." -\s an evidence of this assumed defection
of the Conservative press, our contemporary quotes
largely from a recent article of the LIVERPOOL STAN-
DARD—and quotes somewhat Wairly, inasmuch as he
leaves out of view the fact, that the article in question
was not at all an article upon the broad subject of
the corn-law; but merely professed to point out the
defect of the speech of Lord Monteagle, as one calcu-
lated, or directed, to throw light upon the main ques-
tion at issue, as between a fixed duty and the existing
sliding scale)—, from which he derives the conclusion
that the STANDARD, taking its cue from, and ex-
pressing the opinions of, the merchants of Liverpool,
is becoming more and more dissatisfied with the prin-
ciple and working of the present law. We have
already disposed of the inference made, that we watch
the opinion:; of any man, or any set of men, before ex-
pressing publicly our own sentiments with respect to
public questions. If the press of this, or any other
country, is to be of use—and to he of use it must be
respected—that powerful organ should lead, not follow
in the wake of public opinion, still less follow in the
wake of particular bodies of the community. We, for
our own part, throw behind us the notion of consti—
tuting ourselves either "farmer's friends," or "friends
of the mercantile interest," peculiarly, convinced as
we are that no man is entitled to either term who is
not the friend of both. Passing by, then, the Guar-
dian's misinterpretation of our position and feelings,
let us come to the points at issue.

In the article referred to, we admitted that, Tinder
the operation of the act of last session, " vast losses
had been sustained by the importers;" that the intro-
duction of foreign corn into the British market, last
year, had been " very similar to its introattetion under
the act of 1828—viz. a siinultaneousittroduction of
nearly a year's importation in one month, and that the
month of harvest." We maintained„ however, that
" a fair and dispassionate enquiry into, tlle working of
the act of 1842"—tvhia Lord Monleagles was not--
would establish tho following facts, palliatory of the
admitted mai-operation of the present act;
that the importer last year bought under the appre-
hension of a deficient harvest ;". secondly, that " he
bought part of his stock amid uncertainly as to what
would be the corn-law determined upon ;" thirdly,
that " he bought under the impression that combina-
tion could still work up the averages;" and fourthly,.
that " in addition to these circumstances, and as a con-
sequence of sotne of them; he bought in a dear market."
The whole drift of our remarks tended to this—viz.
that the existing law had not as vet received a fair
trial—one by which its legitimate future operation
could be determined upon.
The Guardian's reply to these positions is as
follows •

" That parties who bought wheat for import did so under
the apprehension of a deficient harvest, there can be no
doubt; and there is just as little doubt that under a fixed
or'a free trade,.the same aPprehension would also cause
.purchases for the.sarne purpose, The amount of these latter
purchases, mwever,—the manner in which► they would be
made, and the cOniequenees resulting from a miscalculation
of the produce of the harvest,—would he entirely different.
Under the• exist'Ang law, or any law imposing a greatly flue-
tuating duty, the purchases of corn for import, whenever
thM, is a prikability of considerable foreign supplies being

needed, will almost of necessity be made, as they were made
last year ;—that is to say, suddenly and hastily, when the
apprehensions of a late and deficient harvest begin to be
entertained. every importer is well aware that the best
chance of meeting a low duty will be just before the harvest
is reaped; and each, consequently, will rush into the nearer
foreign markets, buying every parcel that is ready for imme-
diate shipment, and caring less about the prime cost than
the prospect of avoiding the duty. No doubt the temptation
to do this has been diminished, but it has not been removed,
by the modification of the scale, introduced by Sir Robert
Peel; and a 'slide' in the duty from 20s. per quarter to is.
per quarter is quite sufficient, as the events of last year
proved, to indrce the merchants to buy in the same manner
as they have previously done."

Our contemporary proceeds, in continuation, to re-
mark upon the course of business last year; and
maintains that nothing but " the sudden and glorious
change in the weather" prevented the importers intro-
ducing their stocks, as under the old law, at the lowest
duty.

There is a singular indecision, apparent in the mind
of the writer of the above passage, as to how many of
the imperfections of the act of 1823 lie will admit to be
applicable to the act of last session. It is conceded, in
the lines printed in italics, that, by the new law, " the
temptation" to rush into the foreign market on every
apprehension of a deficient harvest " has been dimi-
nished." It is admitted, too, at the outset, that "un-
der a fixed duty or a free trade, the same apprehension
will also cause purchases for import,"—of course, to
some extent, the same "rush" to purchase. But
we must profess we cannot see how it follows, "ex ne-
cessitate" that the purchases, under the preSent
must continue to be made,"as they were last year," or
that the same results must'follow. We maintained, in
the article to which the Guardian's remarks are put
forward as a reply, that thin, stocks' of importers last
year were laid in under peczi,),'iar circumstances, and this
position the Guardian has riot denied. We stated, too
,
that importers had mistaken tneir power over the ave-
rages. As an answer to thiS the Guardian only gives
us his opinion that it was soh ly the early andabundant
harvest which rendered that -power insufficient for the
object—the introduction of stocks at a nominal duty.
It is proof that we want, wpm these points, not mere
speculative opinions or assertions—proof, how far the
present scale combimes the mercantile facilities af-
forded, or said to be :afforded, by a fixed duty, with thei
protective operation of a sliding scale; and for this
proof, which can 0n1,,r be afforded by a fair experience
of the working of thi present act, we wait.

The Guardian, as we have 'shewn in the above quo-
tation, admits that ti le present law has " diminished
the temptation" to op erate suddenly in foreign markets,
with a view to the introduction of corn at nominal
duties at the month of harvest. And yet, whilst ad-
mitting also that a : fixed duty would, to some extent,
involve in practice ti le same simultaneous, and conse-
quently clisadvantl.ge aus, purchases, he proceeds to
state that, "as the sa me circumstances"—an improvi-
dent rush into these markets, and the risk of subse-
quent glut and I.osse3 in the home market—" would
have equally defeated a speculation under the law of
1823, its .failure last year) will not deter parties from
engaging in aim' Jar speculations hereafter." Here he
assumes one of the -very things which have to be
proved, and in „oreover contradicts his own admission.
The cases of 12 Est year, and any other year under the
operation of tl- le act of 1828, were not parallel. The
same circumst antes which occurred last year would
not have " defeated the speculations of our corn mer-
chants, if tho re spec !ulations had been made under the
operation of the of d "jumping" scale. Every man
familiar with, the :trade in past years knows that the
minimum d'aty has. been attained under more disad-
vantageous circumstances (the provisions of the law
itself excepted) than any which occurred last year;
and we believe we an: correct in maintaining that, had
the old law beery in operation last autumn, we should
have had every Iguartcr of foreign corn in the country
released at the day of ls.• a quarter ! Nor will "simi-
lar speculations*" to those of last year be readily en-
gaged in again hereafter, for the Guardian's own
reason that ":the temptation is diminished" to run
risks whiih the experience of last .year has proved to be
so hazar dons; and because the trade has learnt, from
that, orperience, that the effect of-the present scale-is to
pattaiCe the efforcs of combination.

Let us see how the act worked last year, as some
test to judge 'by with respect to its operation hereafter.
every one knows that, under the operation of the old
law, with its sadden leaps downwards from 13s. 4d. to
the shilling duty, the efforts of speculators, once COM.
menced, were.persisted in, and (we rather think) were
invariably
,successful: The stocks were heremeticolly
sealed in the w arehouses until the issue of the adventure.
Last year, hou 'ever, under the new law,—and this will
take place mo re generally hereafter—importers came,
week after weel c, at every reduction of a shilling in the
duty, to market: with their stocks. The pressing de-
mand for consul nption was met, sparingly as the duty
approached 12s. r. more freely at I is.; more fully still
at los. and 95., rintil at Bs. the market was supplied
and the average commenced a retrograde movement,
thus indicating that the most favourable moment for
-paying duty had arrived. - The Guardian says it was
the early and abruidant harvest which checked prices;
and to some -extent, no doubt, such was the case.
Such a circumsnce, as an unexpected good harvest,
*ivill4erate upon speculations made even under a fixed
duty. But the working of the act itself—the gradual
oozing out of stocks, in sufficient quantity to meet im-
mediate demand, and sustain it, if necessary, until the
event of the harvest wa s decided--was, we contend, the
main obstacle interpO sed, to prevent the success of
speculation being corn plete ; and the past experience of
its tendency thus to :interpose will, we venture to say,
retard, most effectuall) any rash and headlong specu-
lation in years to corm •

We have confined ieurselves thus far to an examina-
tion of the operation of the present law, as compared
with that of the law of 1828. This point must be
cleared up first, before we can arrive at a correct judg-
ment with respect to its merits as compared with a
fixed duty. It is obviously unfair to argue the ques-
tion as berseen a fixed duty and the old law; and,
from suck premises, condemn the present law. It is
unfair to assume, without proof, that the defects of the
old law are the defects of the present; and deduce
therefrot a th 6 conclusion that we must come to a fixed
duty or free trade as the only safe and valuable prin-
. The question to be decided, now, is one as to
the co. mparative advantages of the present law and of a
fixed. duty ; and this question we shall he able to ap-
prow :It in our next, our remarks having already run to
au "Inconvenient length. In the meantime, we trust
we have disposed of some. of the objections of the
Gut trdian—such of them, at least, as are created by the
use made, by reckless speculators, of the facilities af-
forded to their wild and hazardous operations to &feat
the law, by the act of 1828; and presume that we may
no w argue the matter without reference to any more
"-rushes to purchase" or " clearing out of markets at
any price" than are fairly traceable to the two measures
'which, alone, are under discussion.

. .
. .
When we consider that the movement in our Church
to which the names "tractarianistn " and "puseyite"
are applied, has been the work of a body of " learned,
pious, and exemplary men, residing in Oxford," and
devoting themselves, in the seclusion of that university,
to the task—whether judiciously or not, we have not
now to decide-==-of strengthening the fabric and illus-
trating. the doctrines of our venerated establishment;
when we consider that one of the assumed objects of
that movement is to infuse more zeal, more vitality of
religion, into the practice of
.her clergy, and a greater
amount of sacred interest and rigid decorum into her
practices and formularies; it. Would have been only
reasonable to expect, in thOe-adVocating that move-
ment,a
Vine somewhat in -accordance with the charac-
ter of the design which they profess to have in view.
From men sincerely labouring in what they believe to
be a righteous cause, the evidence of a feeling of
Christian charity, towards those who conscientiously
might haVe been looked far; ac-
above all, language
differed from them,
ac-
companied by an earnestness for truth, a disposition to
bymalice," thef4lll' consciousness of a
iornsley:'''epdr:erd7pnoasn•jej.7 restrainedgli3)tuit,i- a s we look for these qualities
party in vain. We
oga
e
careful truth-
fulness ono
tct 1
ft eo i
.charityooff:ft:ei;nig',rac,rtacraia:o-1,1.4nd
of statement, for unembittered language; and
iind . only rancOrOus enmity displayed towards that
portion of the Church which has not bowed the knee
to Oxford, accompanied with disregard atiii perversion
of the truth, conveyed in language which, always be-