The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-15 00:00:00

POOR LAW BILL

Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented petitions for alterations in the
Poor Law Amendment Act.
CHURCH PROPERTY.

The lionLE LORD also presented a petition praying that any im-
proved value which might be given to Church property, should be
exclusively appropriated to ecclesiastical purposes.

IRISH POOR LAW.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a petition from some
place in Ireland against the Irish Poor Law Bill, which they submitted
might more justly be termed. " A Bill for grinding down the Irish Poor."
—(A laugh.)

Earl RODEN also presented a petition against the Bill.

SLAVERY.

The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition for the immediate
abolition of Negro apprenticeship.

POOR-LAW.
The Earl of CANDOR presented a petition praying for alterations
in the New Poor-law.

Earl STANHOPE presented several petitions from Suffolk and other
counties against the Bill. One of these petitions strongly reprobated the
new Poor-law.

Earl FITZ WILLIAM remarked that the petitioners did not explain
how, and in what manner the Bill injured them.—(Hear, hear.)
Earl STANHOPE said he had frequently stated the grounds on which
the labouring classes must, and did object to the Bill.
Earl STRADBROKE observed that the Bill had worked admirably In
Suffolk.—(Hear.) He also corrected a statement of the Noble Earl
(Stanhope) on a former occasion—that a great landed proprietor in the
Hoxne Union had expressed disgust at the operation of the Bill.

Earl STANHOPE said he was not answerable for the changes of opi-
nion of that landed proprietor, and he re-asserted the substance of the
declaration which he had represented that gentleman as having
made•—of disgust at the operation of the Bill.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) The Noble Earl also asserted that every person
whose signature appeared to the petition had given full authority for the
affixing that signature.

Earl FITZ WILLIAM observed that it was unfortunate Noble Lords
would testify to the correctness of petitions which originated in dis-
tricts with which those Noble Lords had no connection or acquaintance.
It was observable that all the signatures of the petition were in the same
hand writing.—(Hear.)
Earl STANHOPE explained. He made the statement as to the
authenticity of the signatures on the testimony of the person from whom
he had received it.

The Duke of RICHMOND considered the manufacturing of petitions
in this way highly improper, and tending to lower the character of pe-
titions to their Lordships.

Lord HOLLAND said a petition purporting to contain the signatures
of persons whose signatures it did not in fact bear, that petition was not
and could not be regular.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord DENMAN said the difficulty was in ascertaining whether any
signature was bona fide; if there was one such signature the petition
might be received.

After some further discussion, the question "that the petition be re-
ceived" was put and negatived.

. _
Earl STANHOPE presented a petitical from Chiehester against the
New Poor.law BilL

BEER ACT.

Lord MELBOURNE presented a petition from the Licensed Vic-
tuallers, of some place—the name of which we did not catch—praying
for au alteration in the Beer Act.
Their Lordships adjourned at Six o'clock.