The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1837.

hear, hear.) He had expressed himself strongly upon the
harsh enactments of the Bill, and stated his desire and
hope, if not for their repeal, at least for their amelioration.
He further stated that the bastardy clauses were a source
of great dissatisfaction ; and that he was informed that
in Sunderland alone two hundred bastard children were de-
prived of relief: He had in his hand a copy if resolutions
agreed to at a vestry at Sunderland in 1834, the fourteenth
of which declared that no relief would be afforded to bastard
children after that week. When the population of the Union
was taken into consideration, and coupled with this resolution
of the vestry, it would not appear that the information which
he received with regard to the two hundred bastard children
was an exaggerated one: and ho was of opinion that when
the requisite Returns were made, there would not be found
any great discrepancy between his statement and the truth.—
( Hear, hear.) With respect to the allusion as to the dark
rumours of the disappearance of several of the children, he
had only alluded to them as rumours, not as facts ; but if it
were true that the enactment of this law were followed by
harsh measures on the part of the parochial authorities, such
proceedings were well calculated to excite such rumours.
Mr. L A NIBTON thought the Hon. Member highly culpa-
ble in not instituting every possible inquiry before he had
hazarded such assertions. His statement with respect to
the two hundred children was one calculated to shock huma-
nity, and to excite very strong feelings in the poorer and
less educated classes ; and before it was hazarded as the
statement of a letter, of which the writer's name was
not given, the Honourable Gentleman should have written
for further information to the respectable individuals in Sun-
derland, from whom it might easily be procured.—( Hear.)
He should have written to the Bolrd of Guardians, stating
what he had heard, and requesting to know from them whether
there was any foundation for it.—( Hear.) Had he written to
the Board of Guardians, he would have found that, notwith-
standing the vestry minute, no parochial relief had been re-
fused to bastard children in 1834. Were the circumstances
such as stated by the Hon. Member, he (Mr. Lambton), re-
siding as he did within a few miles of Sunderland, and being
in communication with all classes, must have heard something
on the subject.—( Hear.) But, so far from any such rumours
being in existence, he had never heard of them, nor did they
make against him at the late election, though he was known to
be favourable to the new Poor-law Act. The Hon. Member,
however, now backed out of his statement of the " dark ru-
mours."—( Cries of " Order, order," and " Hear, hear.") Gen-
tlemen opposite seemed very sensitive and huffy on this point.
Why did not the Hon. Gentleman give his authority for the
statement respecting the 200 children, or for the dark ru-
mours 2—( Cheers.) The rumours, it appeared, were in some
provincial paper—surely the paper might be named. There
could not be that delicacy with respect to a newspaper which
actuated the Hon. Gentleman with respect to the writer of
this letter.—( Hear, hear.) As the Hon. Gentleman would
not give his authority for either the one statement or the
other, he (Mr. Lambton) considered him highly culpable for
having made them.—( Cries of " Order," and " Hear, hear.")
The inhabitants of Sunderland would perceive that the House
did not credit either the statement or the rumours, and they
would have no other effect than throwing ridicule or censure
on the Hon. Member.—(Cries of " Order, order," and
" Hear, hear.")
Mr. ING HAM deprecated any attempts at throwing un-
merited odium on the Poor-law Amendment Act.
After a few words from Mr. Alderman THOMP.FON and Mr.
WILBERFORCE,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that, whatever might be the
merits or defects of the Act, it was sot fair in parts of the
country where its introduction was looked forward to with so
much excitement and alarm, that statements so exaggerated
and so calculated to increase and swell the alarm should be
nightly made in that House upon such slight inquiry and with
so little foundation.—(Ministerial cheers.) Ile admitted the
candour of the Hon. Gentleman, but it was hard that,
putting forward such a rumour, a gentleman so influential,
and representing such a respectable constituency as he did,
would withhold his authority, and thereby give that rumour
the sanction of his name.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped there-
sult of the discussion woul•l make the Hon. Gentleman more
cautious in future not to make such catements without full

inquiry.
Mr. LIDDELL did not think it fair of the lion. Member
opposite (Mr. Lambton) to allude to a speech he did not hear,
more especially when he ( Mr. Liddell) complained of having
been misreported.--( Hear. )
Mr. LAMBTON admitted that he was not in the House
on the occasion referred to, as he understood the debate was
not expected to come on.
Mr. HUME contended that the explanation of the lion.
Member for North Durham was not sufficient. He had re-
ceived a letter from the Chairman of the Board of Guardians,
requesting that he would endeavour to remove the impression
made by the Hon. Member. It was true the Hon. Member
for North Durham admitted that he did not make the state-
ment with respect to the two hundred bastard children of his
own knowledge; but he said he was fortified in the fact by a
gentleman better acquainted with the state of affairs in Sun-
derland than anybody else. Now, after what had occurred,
where was the candour of the Honourable Gentleman in with-
holding the name of his informant ?—( Hear.) Unless that
were given, the House would be warranted in drawing its own
csnclusions as to the matter, and the lion. Gentleman would
not do well if he did not produce his authority.—( Ministerial
cheer:.) Ten days had elapsed and neither the statements
or rumours had been corroborated, though there was a suffi-
ciency of time. This was the mariner in which all the alleged
cases of cruelty under the Poor-law Act ended. They all
failed, when traced to the source.—(Ministerial cheering.)
What was the result of these vague and unsubstantial ru-
mours? A letter bad been sent to the Chairman of the Union,
threatening that if the Act should be brought into force there
his property would be burned, and that not even his life would
be safe.—( Ministerial cheers.) What was it which created
the excitement at Bradford and other places but such ill-con-
sidered and erroneous statements ?—( Cheers.) The expla-
nation given to the House was anything but sati,factory.
There were only 142 bastard children in the whole Union,
and as the vestry resolution only applied to one of the three
parishes, it could include only 50 or 60. So much for the
gross ignorance of that authority which knew more of Sun-
derland than anybody else.
Mr. LIDDELL said, with respect to the facts of the case
he would move for the production of the vestry books, and
they would show whether any and what number of children
received relief after December, 1834.
Mr. A. WHITE said, if the Hon. Member did not give up
the author, he thought the House and the country would be
justified in the assumption that he was himself the author.
After a few words from Mr. G. F. YOUNG, the question
was put and carried.
EDUCATION OF THE POOR.
Mr. GOULBURN rose to move for leave to enlarge the
number of the Committee appointed to consider of the educa-
tion of the poorer classes in great towns in England and
Wales, by the addition of the names of Mr. Pusey, Mr.
Gladstone, and Mr. Acland. The Gentlemen whose names
lie proposed to add were perfectly unexceptionable, and pos-
sessed peculiar claims.
On the question being put,
Mr. P. THOMSON thought the proposal of the Right
lion. Gentleman was objectionable, inasmuch as it deviated
from the rule laid down that the Committee should be com-
posed of the Members for large towns. If this principle
could be got over he had no objection to other Hon. Mem-
bers serving, and would offer his own name as a sacrifice. Ws
name might be struck off, and one of the names proposed be
substituted.
Mr. WAKLEY thought the Committee ill-constructed,
and he thought also that 24 hours should be given after the
nomination of a Committee, for the purpose of affording the
House an opportunity of a scrutiny as to the parties selected.
Sir R. PEEL said that what had taken place only con-
firmed him in the opinion he had expressed the other night of
the policy of giving a short notice of the names of those who
were appointed to Committees. The appointment of Commit-
tees as at present regulated was likely to produce the impres-
sion that they were a sort of patronage exercised on the part
of the Government. He did not think the question before
this particular Committee partook at all of a party chtracter,
but be thought they would be greatly mistaken if they argued
from such a circumstance that it was one in which the country
took no interest. He therefore thought that the only remedy
against such inconveniences would be to inform the House be-
forehand by a short notice, of who it was that they proposed to
constitute the Committee, so that the House and the public
might be informed of the sort of tribunal before which the ques-
tion was to be judged.
After a few words from Mr. S. O'BRIEN, Captain Woon,
sad Mr. HAwEs,
Mr. HLTME would cm Monday or Tuesday—he thought
Tuesday would be the snore coavenient day—move a resolution
that the lames on Committees should be submitted to the
House before the Committee was appointed.
Mr. HARVEY agreed with the suggestion that the names
of a Committee should be mentioned beforehand ; but he
should be sorry if the House fell into the opposite error of at-
tempting the balancing of parties.
Sir R. H. INGLIS, with respect to the general question,
thought it one of great importance, and should suggest that
it would be advisable that each Member individually should
affix his name to the Report that he approved.
Mr. GOULBURN said that, as there appeared a great
disposition to accommodate, he should, with leave, withdraw
his original motion.
Leave was given for the withdrawal, and it was then under-
stood that Mr. Gladstone (the Member for Newark), and Mr.
Acland (for Berkshire), should be substituted fur Mr. P.
Thomson and Mr. Hawes.
Mr. BROTHERTON sail that the Committee had no,
now any of the Members for Lancashire upon it, nor of Mid•
dlesex.

The SPEAKER said that it would be advisable en all oc-
casions of nominating a Committee that Hon. Members should
ascertain previously whether the Honourable Members named
were willing to serve.
EXPENSES AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. HUME rose to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to de-
fine and regulate the lawful expenses at elections of Members
to serve in Parliament for England a'id Wales. The Bill was
founded on the Report of a Committee appointed to examine
into the expenses of contested elections. One of the principal
points with which it dealt was the expense r,nd conveyance of
returns, and by its provisions, if adopted, returns would be
transferred through the post, in place of the irregular manner
in which they were now conveyed, while the necessity of hav-
ing them on a 41. or 51. stamp, which existed at present, would
be obviated. But the principle of the Bill nas to transfer the
expenses of the erection of booths and others of that nature
from the candidates to the counties. It was his (Mr. Hume's)
belief that if the counties had to provide these matters at their
own expense, they would be done at considerably less than
half the cost they were performed for at the expense of the
candidates. In Middlesex, for instance, the cost of erecting
booths at a contested election was never less than six hundred