The Sun. — 1841-03-24 (London, England)

PUBLIC JOURNALS  FRODI TILE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. (From the Globe.) We think it right not to leave unnoticed one or two points in the discussion of last night upon the Poor-law Amendment Bill. To the principle of the amended Poor-law we have always been favourable ; and, indeed, it would seem that no parties adventure to avow themselves host le to it. We say this; because we observe that every critic of the present system takes care to disavow any ilea of sever:lag to the old one. Now the principle of the amended law is, in fact, nothing else but a negation of the abuses that inhered in the unamended one. Those abuses were inseparable from the unch:cked machinery of relief; and in fact that machinery was framed to facilitate those abuses. It was no venerable immemorial system ; it was no older than the Pitt Ministry ; and the years of high prices at the commence:nest of the last war. The absolute power of rebel' entrusted to a single unpaid Magistrate ; the Mrgisterial allowance system, pauperising the whole mass of the peasantry—these were abuses, it is now said. Yes— but abuses carri,d on systematicaly. Any Ma istrate (and there would always be one or more such characters in a district) who was ambitious of the title of the poor man's friend, by the cheap and easy process of putting his hands in the pockets of the provident and industrious, to supply weekly donatives, wlthout discrimination or scrutiny, to all who applied for them—any such personage could buy popularity, et the cost of otters, wi host restraint. The consequences arc notorious to every one in his own Le'ghbourhood. It was a matter of indifference to many to seek, or deserve, employment. Others, fully employcd, and well paid, Isere see( ivera cf parish allowances ; and that, in many easei round London, unknown to their employ era. All this, be it remembered, was at the charge of the prudent and well disposed; not only the great land-owner, but the small tradesman, and even the labourer, were taxed, and often stinted in the honest wants of their own families, to pay the path pension list of able-bodied idleness or improvidence. We are told, indeed; that such a cha,aeter must not be ascribed to pauperism—that the condition is involuntary; and must not be treated as criminal. We say, that neither must it be treated as the regular andnormal condition of any large masses of the British people. It must not be erected, as some " poor man's friends" seem to desire, into a recognised status in society, to be made  as comfortable as possible. And for this simple reason— every comfort you afford, without labour, is a temptation to become an applicant fur gratuitous maintenance. (From the Standard.) The division upon Mr. Easthope's amendment may be taken as a notice to the Poor-law Commissioners tl at their reign approaches its terminati,m. They have ind, ed obtained, ostensibly, a respite for five years, by a majority of 39, in a House of 314 Members; but they have obtained it upon terms which leave them but tenants-at-mill in fact, and through the influence of supplications almost abject. The new law, or the Commissioners—for practically they are identical— have been now tried for seven years; and the resuit is (to use the words of Lord John Russell's very well guarded adrrii=sion) "It cannot be denied that a very strong feeling against the continuance of the law by the Bill before Parliament pervades the country." The feeling is strong, and it will be stronger. The division of last ❑ight proves its force already, but the whole strength of the feeling will be imperfectly appreciated from insulated divisions. We must look to the period during which this feeling has been progressively advancing. The New Poor-law Bill was carried in 1834 by ttiumpeant majorities ; the law has beer, nearly :even years in operation, and the vote for its continuance is obtained by a majority cf no more than thirty-nine. We are not of the school who oscrile absolute wisdom to the decisions of any people ; but there is this distinction to be taken ; though the people of England may tan, and often arc, deceived in their estimate of the merit of untried measures, they rarely are mistaken in the judgment they form upon measures which they have seen tried for so long a period as seven years. It cannot be disputed that the New Poor-law has been steadily advancing in the extent of its unpopularity. It is very true that from the first many persons denounced the law as angrily, perhaps more angrily, than any one denounces it Et pi esent ; but their number was far less than the number by whom the law is now condemned ; and this was the natural course of an oppressive system. Men cf clear foresight and strong feelings see through the character of such a system almost intuitively, and as promptly expose it ; but the many arc less far-sighted and mere apathetieal, and they wait for practical testimony. If that practical testimony prove favourable, or even if unfavourable testimony be absent, the result is sure to be to the advantage of the mt asure upon its trial, and the earlier accusations re-act to its honour ; but where, at the end of seven years' experiment, the public feeling against the system is seen becoming progressively stronger and more diffused, there can be no doubt that th© practical testimony has demonstrated its oppressive character. (From the Courier.) The new Poor-law discussion was resumed in Committee last etesing, and as the discussion proceeds so also Is at interminable succession of new Poor-law h srrors consccu ively evo.ved. Nay more, as if the thousalsas of hideous cases, already matter of history, were not sufficient cr appaliing enough to open the eyes wad move the hearts of the Members of the House to the exterminatory principle of the new law, and the accordant practice of the commission of administration, not one day passes over their heads in which the everlasting processes of new Poor-law murder are not repeated and gazetted, with, however, loathing repugnance by the daily press, in all the frightful varieties of death by new Poor-law starvation ia the workhouse, suicide out of doors rather than submit to it, and infanticide by heart-stricken, desperate mothers, f antic with the pangs of want and the refusal of even new Poor-law relief. We hold the present occurrence of such cases to be almost an especial interposition of Providence, by way of warning to the hard of heart, and the wilfully blind of understanding, that resistance to new Poor-13w barbarism may be policy as well as mercy, for it is not in the nature of things that innocent life wantonly sported with and slaughtered should long cry out for vengeance in vain. The people may one day arise in their wrath and sweep away both the odious Jaw, its authors and abettors. To be just betimes is to be wise to salvation.