The Sun. — 1838-07-23 (London, England)

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, JULY 23, 183 S.  apartment in the workhouse, and had the society of his wife and children, with sufficient food and clothing, how many men would be fourd to support themselves ? or who would eventually be fcund to support them P  ........_ . The diet tables have been stated to be at the starving point, and insufficient to support life long together. That that is not the intention, or the nrce,sary consequence of the law I run perfectly sure; what other Unions may do I know not, Int let any person examine the workhouse at Lincoln ; let him compare the food, in quantity and quality, with that in which very many of the rate-payers live. Let him compare the condition of the inmates, with an equal number of persons in the same situation of life elsewhere, indiscriminately taken. Let him examine the paupers themselves, and ascertain whe. ther any well-founded cause of complaint exists. My conviction, from strict personal examination, is, that they live much better than many of the rate-payers can atnrd to do. Statements are made of the rate of mortality in the workhouse, compared to that of the convicts in the hulks. The parties making them forget to mention that the convicts are generally in the prime of life. The inmates of the workhouse are almost all children under fourteen years of age, or old and infirm people. It is quite evident that victory, not truth, is the object on those occasions. Great complaint has been made of the medical treatment of the pau. pers. The impossibility of their having proper attendance has been argue,l, front the price paid for it, and instances have been given where lives might have been saved by better attendance and more expensive medicines. Are those who think the paupers soneglect;.d acquainted with the habits and circumstances of the cottagers and artizans, who are struggling hard to pay their poor-rates, to prevent their becoming pau. pers themselves ? Where and how are they to obtain the attendance afforded to paupers? Where are they to get the port wine, bark, sago, and other articles, which we are told we ought to find for paupers ? Can it be tree charity or justice to wring another shilling front the hard earnings of these poor and industrious people for such a purpose ? Is it likely to encourage industry, and discourage improvidence ? But I will not stop here, I will look at small farmers occupying or owning forty or fifty acres of land. Let us consider what medical attendance they can afford for their wives and 'amities. 'I hey constitute a class which has quite escarted the notice of the wealthy and the charitable, as they never 1 esk assistance, and do not come in contact with them. I will venture 1 to stete, from my own knowledge, that we are finding better medical re. lief for the paupers, in the Lincoln Union, than many of the rate-payers are able to find for themselves. What we pay for it rests between the guardians and ourselves. Neither the poor nor the opponents of the New Law have any thing to do with it. Many lives may be loot amongst the poor, which alight have been saved by daily attendance and expensive medicines, but that is not confined to the class of paupers. 1 It is one of the evils assigned by Providence, in some degree, to all  classes, who aro not opulent, and one to which the very class of sual  farmers I have mentioned are liable. And a parish pauper has no more right to expect daily attendance, and expensive medicines for his wife or family, than a clergyman with a small income has to winter at Naples or Florence. The consolation in e,.ch case must be that the remedy is out of the reach of the party requiring it. .  The Bastardy clauses are considered cruel and iniquitous, as punishing the victim, not the seducer, and as lading to infanticide. In this case, as in all others, the law must be regtrele as applying to the many not to the few, Let any active Magistra'e be asked, how many of the women brougl.t before him undrr the old law could property be considered as the victims of unprincipled men ? Would the answer be one in ten, or one is twenty ? Women who have, as it is said, lost their characters, are excluded from ; encral society in the upper classes. Punishment might as far as possible to be proportioned to the guilt of the parties upon whom it fa:ls ; and many instances of this kind may be found where it would be almost reduced to nothing by particular circumstances : and in those cases it must be cruel and unjust in its operation. If some women should commit infanticide, or even suicide, to avoid such disgrace, would it be a good argument that society were wrong and cug,lit to admit such women to prevent similar calamities ? Surely not: but you must admit all or none ; you cannot institute an inquiry into each case. Nero again, what may be very hard upon the few, may he positively ne. cessary for the welfare of the many. Lord Wynford considers that where a woman must be very uncertain who is the father of the child, it is a great hardship that she should, be obliged to take an oath upon the subject, or at least, that it should be put to her to the best of her belief. Can there be a person found who could deliberately object to any woman in such a situation being compelled to maintain the child herself? The expence of rnaintainance applied as a punishment to the putative father, is of all method a the worst and most ineffectual.  We have received the whole of the Paris Journals of Friday and Saturday. They contain some statements of considerable interest. It was reported and believed in Paris that King LEOPOLD, who was to leave that capital yesterday for Brusseli, bad been prevailed upon to consent to the cession of Luxemburg and Limburg to Holland. His MAJESTY, however, positively refused to grant any indemnity to King WILLIAM, though strongly pressed by Louis PHILLIPPE to sign the twenty-four articles, and leave England and France to take measures for guaranteeing the honour, independence, and pecuniary interests of Belgium. Sir GEORGE VILLIERS, the British Ambassador at the Court of Madrid, arrived in Paris on Thursday evening, on his way to London. On the same day the Duke de NEMOURS arrived at the Chateau at Neuiliy. The Royal dinner-table was graced on Thursday by the presence of every member of the Royal Family—including those branches by affinity, the King of the BELGIANS and the Duchess Of