24 MAY 1834, Page 1

NEWS OF THE WEEK.

THE House of Commons met again on Wednesday; and the Ministers had scarcely time to take their seats before they found themselves outvoted, on a bill introduced by Mr. LYALL, for

transferring the contributions of sailors engaged in the merchant service from Greenwich Hospital to an institution for the relief of their own families. On this subject it is strange that there could be two opinions. Nothing is more clearly unjust, than to tax seamen employed in trading vessels for the support of an establish- ment from which, except in very rare instances, they can derive no benefit, until after they have been pressed into the Navy and disabled by wounds or sickness. As merchant seamen, they are not entitled to admission into Greenwich Hospital, and therefore should not be compelled to pay for its support. The arguments by which the exaction was defended were flimsy and unfair. It

was said that the wages would be reduced, and that the masters would pocket the money taken from Greenwich Hospital ; whereas the express object of the bill is to transfer the payments not to the coffers of the shipowners, but to the funds of a valuable and useful charity devoted to the relief of the distressed families of the con- ' tributors. We consider the strenuous opposition which Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Lord ALTHORP, and Mr. POULETT THOMSON made to this equitable measure, as very disgraceful. Not a single Independent Member aided them by his voice ; though we are sorry to say that 57 persons voted with them. The bill, however, was supported by 94 Members; and thus Ministers were defeated by a majority of 37. The bill for the removal of Jewish Disabilities was read a second tune on the same evening, by a majority of 123 to 32. In the de- bate on this subject, Sir DANIEL SANDFORD distinguished him- self by a display of bigotry, which was as ill received by the House as it deserved to be. Sir DANIEL may have been mak- ing a speech for Paisley,—though we are unwilling to believe that any considerable portion of his constituents can be pleased 4by such superannuated intolerance. In the House of Commons !nothing excites a stronger feeling of contempt than an ostentatious ; claim to religious superiority : even the old House had the virtue ;!. to discountenance this cant, and the Reformed one retains it. I The wisest course which Sir DANIEL SANDFORD can take, will be :to remain silent for the rest of the session, and afford his country- Then time to forget the unfortunate and ill-judged commencement of his Parliamentary career. Another Sabbath bill has received its quietus. Mr. HESKETH FLEETWOOD'S attempt to legislate on this delicate subject was as unfortunate as those of Sir ANDREW AGNEW and Lord WYNFORD. It is singular that none of the Sabbath legislators obtain the as- sistance of some person of experience in drawing up acts of Par- liament; for, to do them justice, neither Sir ANDREW, nor Lord WYNFORD, nor Mr. FLEETWOOD, Could have intended to commit all the absurdities which their respective bills would, if passed, most assuredly enact. Thus, Mr. FLEETWOOD declared that he had no wish whatever to prevent travelling or innocent amuse- mentson the Sabbath ; while his bill prohibited every man from following his ordinary calling, business, and occupation on that day—how then could people travel ? A majority of 77 to 45 re- fused to read a second time such a medley of absurd contradictions. Mr. POULTER had better luck—thanks to the deserters; but his abbath bill is intended only to prevent the payment of wages and the opening of shops on Sunday. It will be quite as inope- rative, we doubt not, as many other laws, now in existence, which nterfere with the habits and convenience of large communities. Lord BROUGHAM, not content tvith his vivd voce exposure of poor Lord WYNFORD'S measure, has entered a protest against it ; thus leaving a record of an attempt at legislation of which even the House of Peers may be ashamed, Another unsuccessful attempt was made, on Thursday, to in- duce the House of Commons to condemn the " taxes on knew- ledge." Mr. E. L. BULWER moved a resolution declaring the ex- pediency of repealing the Newspaper Stamp-duty as soon as pos- sible. Mr. BULWER was wrong in the form, if not in the essence of his argument, when he maintained, that, owing to the continuance of these duties, the leading newspapers enjoyed a monopoly, which would be broken down by their repeal. It has been clearly explained in the Morning Chronicle, that the great expense of establishing a newspaper, which deters competitors ac- cording to Mr. BULWER, does not arise from the necessity of per chasing stamps, but of procuring intelligence and original matter of various kinds. This outlay would not be diminished by the re- peal of the Stamp-duty. The business of the leading Metropo- litan journals is not, in the strict sense of the word, a monopoly : 495 they are not favoured by any exclusive protection—the trade is open to all. To enable any person to compete with them, a large capital is necessary ; but capital is equally necessary to a mer- chant engaging in the Canton trade or the manufacture of cottons. The real reason why there are not more newspapers is simply this—the present supply is equal to the demand. Once make it appear that money may be profitably expended in establishing a new daily paper on the same scale as the Times, and in London there would be abundant sums forthcoming immedi- ately. We see continually that capital to an immense amount is laid out on rai!ways and other speculations,from which no return at all is expected fur several years. But then, it is believed that they will eventually be profitab!e; and if Mr. BULWER can only persuade some City capitalists that profit will arise from establishing a newspaper, he will not find any obstruction from the monopoly of the existing journals. In a word, it is not the amount of money, so much as the uncertainty of its investment to a profit, that deters people from setting up a rival to the Times or Herald. For these reasons, we do not think that the well-established papers would be injured by a repeal of the Stamp-duty. On the contrary, the re- duced price at which they would be sold would have a tendency to increase their circulation. The question should be argued apart from any consideration of advantage to be derived from breaking down their fancied monopoly.

The impolicy and injustice of laying any restriction on the dif- fusion of political information among all classes, is manifest; and unless men are prepared to go the length of saying that it is better for the great mass of our population to be ignorant of the mea- sures of Government and of the political history of their times, they ought to remove every difficulty in the way of communicat- ing that species of information. The stamps upon newspapers and the tax upon paper render that dear which ought to be cheap. These taxes, both of which are properly called " taxes on know- ledge," tend more or less to perpetuate ignorance, and all the vice and misery springing from ignorance; and therefore they ought to be repealed, even at the expense of laying on a tax of equiva- lent amount, but less objectionable in its effects on the mora!s of the masses. This is the broad view which statesmen ought to take of the question, leaving newspaper proprietors to take care of themselves.

But this is not the mac in which Lord ALTHORP deals with the subject. If he ever had enlarged views respecting the dif- fusion of knowledge, they are such as he would disown if he could. His speech in reply to Mr. ROEBUCK'S charge of incon- sistency was pitiable. He admitted that he was privately hostile, and that out of the House lie had not scrupled to avow his hostility, to the taxes sought to be repealed. But he consoled himself with the reflection, that in the House he had never committed himself upon the question. His Lordship's memory is extremely frail. The very first Budget he opened contained a proposition for re- ducing the Newspaper Stamp-duty to twopence. He clunet' to this part of his financial arrangement for some time after he was obliged to give up his tax on the transfer of Stock, his Steamboat tax, and other portions of his Budget. And yet Lord ALTHORP now comes forward and maintains his consistency as "a public man," because he never advocated the repeal of the Newspaper Stamp-duty in the House of Commons !

Mr. TOOKE'S motion for an instruction to the Committee on Public Business to take some means of providing an authentic re- port of debates in the House of Commons, was rejected on Thurs- day, by a small majority—the numbers being 117 and 99. The motion itself was certainly not objectionable; but it seems to have been only the cover to a project fur assisting the proprietors of the Mirror of Parliament with a grant of public money to make good the loss sustained in their private speculation. If this was the object, it was right to reject the motion. "All the rest was leather and prunella." A bill to abolish Imprisonment for Debt, in certain ;eases, was brought in by Mr. POLLOCK on Thursday. It is moderate measure, and reserves the right to arrest for debts secured by promissory notes, bonds, &e. We hope that Mr. Poramen will be encouraged to go further, and extend the pro- visions of his bill so as to put an end to all imprisonment for debt except in cases of fraud. He expressed his willingness to adopt this course, if supported by the House; though he thinks, as many others think, that the Government ought to introduce some effectual measure for that purpose. Last night, the House of Commons agreed to some of the most important clauses in the Poor-law Bill, beginning at the second and ending with the twelfth. The only alteration of consequence yet made in the bill, and that in nowise affecting the principle of the measure, Lord ALTHORP adopted on the suggestion of Colonel TORRE rvs,—namely, to restrict the duration of the powers invested in the Central Commissioners to five years. This we think an im- provement. The Tory Opposition in the House of Peers made a violent as- sault on Lord BROUGHAM last night, in revenge for his having in- troduced his Pluralities and Non-residence Bills without the sanction of the Bishops. The assailants resembled a number of dogs attacking a powerful and active bull, who tossed them one after another into the air, and gored them when on the ground with merciless fury.