The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-02 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF Loi?DS,

Earl STANHOPE presented petitions from numerous places in the
county of Kent against the Poor Law Amendment Act. The Noble
Lord read a letter from a Clergyman in a parish in West Kent,
confirming the statements of the petitioners as to the unhappy
working of the Bill, and denying the statements of a petition re-
cently presented to their Lordships from the Chairman and Deputy_
Chairman and Magistrates of that division of the county. The
writer stated several instances of suffering, and even increased mortality
in the union workhouses, under the severe operation of the Act. The
clergymen in his neighbourhood all concurred with him, ir condemn-
ing the harsh and unchristian working of the Act. whey were unlike
a Right Rev. Prelate.—(A laugh.)
Earl HA RDWICKE asked—Was it the intention of the Noble Earl
to refer the petition to the Poor-laws Committee ?
Earl STANHOPE was understood to reply in the affirmative.
Viscount SIDNEY said that the petition presented by him from the
Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the West Kent Union, did not pro-
fess to be the petition of the Guardians.
Earl STANHOPE said that in the event of a Committee
being appointed to enquire into the working of the Poor-law
Amendment Act, he would produce before it, as a witness, the clergyman'
whose letter he had read, and who would prove more cases of the
cruel, unconstitutional, and unchristian working of the Act than
the House could get through in a Session.—(A laugh.) One of these
was that of a man who killed himself in consequence of the treatment he
suffered in the workhouse. A coroner's jury brought in a verdict of
temporary insanity, but it ought to have been wilful murder against the
oppressors of the poor, who drove the man insane.—(Laughter.) Another
case was that of a young woman, who was flogged like a soldier.—(Hear,
hear.) He hoped that the Committee would inquire into all these
facts, and that the Poor-Law Commissioners would assist the inquiry.
Voluminous as the motion was, it ought to have included many other
inquiries, and especially those which had become the subjects of public
notoriety. He moved that the letter of Thomas Smith Barnes be re-
ferred to the Committee.
Lord WIIARNCLIFFE, in moving for the appointment of the
Committee to inquire into this subject—the operation of the
New Poor-law—said that his only object was that a full enquiry
should take place respecting the truth or falsehood of all
stories that have been propagated relative to the New Poor-law Bill. He
believed the result of the inquiry would be to dissipate a great many of
the prejudices that have been created against the Act.
The Committee was then appointed.
On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, the Custody of
nsane Persons (Ireland) Bill was read a second time.
POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

Lord WYNFORD, on rising to move for leave to bring In a Bill to
amend the Poor-laws, said, that if any measure was brought forward for
the total repeal of those laws, he should feel it his duty to oppose it.
One of the main provisions in the Bill which he had to submit to their
Lordships, was a clause to prevent the Guardians from refusing to afford
relief except in the workhouse. He proposed that the poor man, on
applying for relief, should be offered work in the first instance, and if he
refused that work, then that he should be taken up as a vagrant, and,
after a legal trial, sent to the House of Correction for three months.
But if no work could be provided for him, then that he should not be
obliged to go into the workhouse in order to obtain relief. The Noble
and Learned Lord next proceeded to particularise various cases of hard.
ship which had taken place under the present system, and which his
Bill was intended to remedy. He protested against the revolting prin-
ciple of separating the husband from the wife, and parents from their
children. With respect to the bastardy clauses, though he would not
restore the old law, yet he would remedy, as far as possible, the gross
abuses which existed under the new system. What he would propose
was, that a woman who had reason to believe that she was to give birth
to an illegitimate child, should go before three Magistrates, and there
swear, to the best of her belief, who the man was that was the father
of that child, and that he should be made to contribute to its support.
He would leave this child in the care of the mother for one year,
and afterwards place it in the workhouse, unless the parents gave
security to the Guardians that they would undertake to support
it. Another alteration of the law would be this, that in order not
to render workhouses places of punishment, every union should, at its
own expense, find beer forall old, feeble, and infirm persons. Another
p int was the establishment of sonic ward in which those who laboured
under an infectious disease should be separated from the others. He
knew that that was the case in his Noble Friend's (the Duke of Rich..
mond's) workhouse, but in many workhouses there was no such ward.
He was aware that there was a statute in the reign of George 111.,
which enabled magistrates to report to the Sessions, and the Sessions on
that report could order a proper house for the infected persons ; but he
was not quite sure that that statute had not virtually been repealed. He
had drawn a clause upon the subject, which might, however, be de-
ferred, if the Act should not be in existence. Another objection to the
present law was, that if a man applied for parish relief, his property
was taken from him. He (Lord W.) thought that part of the pauper's
property should be applied to his maintenance, and that after his death
the bulk should be restored to the persons who were his representatives.
He was not prepared with any clause at present, but should offer it in a
future stage of the Bill. He should move the second reading of the Bill
at some distant day, in order that any further suggestions of that sort
might be made, and he should be most happy to adopt every amend-
ment that would in any way tend to ameliorate the condition of thepoor.
The Bill was then brought in, and read a first time.
The Earl of HARDWICKE asked whether it was the Noble Lord's
intention to introduce into the Bill a clause to compel the letting of
lands in a parish to the Board of Guardians ?
Lord WYNFORD said certainly not.
The Bill was then ordered to be read a second time on Monday week,
and their Lordships adjourned.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, fifer I.
The gallery was not opened to-day till half-past four o'clock, in con-
sequence of there being three Ballots appointed for Election Committees.
None of the Ballots were etrective. Previous to the gallery being
opened, we understood that the Clerk of the Crown attended and
amended the return for Stirlingshire, and Col. Abercrombie took the
oaths and his seat.

EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW RAILWAY BILL.
Mr. GILLON presented a petition from the merchants and bankers
of Leith, in favour of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway Bill.
Mr. ELLIOT presented a petition from the Magistrates and Town
Council of Roxburgh to the same effect.
Sir C. ADAM presented a petition from Clackmannan to the same
effect.

Mr. HUME presented a similar petition from the merchants, manu.
facturers, and other inhabitants of Dunbar.
The ATTORNEY.GENERAL presented a petition also in favour of
the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway Bill, signed by 8,300 inhabitants of
Edinburgh.

GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY.
Lord A. PAGET presented a petition from a place in Lancashire,
against the Grand Junction Railway Bill.

An Hom. MEMBER presented a similar petition from Warrington.
Lord A. PAGET presented petitions from Methodist congregations in
Carnarvon and Anglesea, praying for the immediate abolition of the
system of Negro apprenticeship. Similar petitions were presented by
Sir 11. Parnell, from Dundee; Mr. James, from three parishes in Cum_
berland ; and Mr. A. White, from a Methodist congregation in the
county of Durham.

Mr. J. W. HOPE presented a petition from Cupar in Fife, praying
for a reduction in the rates of postage.
Mr. FLEMING presented a petition from Westbury, praying that all
money arising from ecclesiastical property be applied to spiritual pur.
poses.

Mr. LOWTHER presented a petition from the Medical Practitioners
of York, praying that no person be allowed to practise medicine or per-
form surgical operations without receiving a proper education.
Mr. ROBERT STEUAR r presented a petition praying for a re-
duction of postage.
Mr. COLLIER presented a petition from a dissenting congregation
in Plymouth, praying for the immediate abolition of slavery.
Mr. DENNISTOUN presented a petition, signed by 11,000 !oho-
bitants of Glasgow, against the junction of the two Glasgow Water
Companies.

VENTILATING AND LIGHTING OF THE HOUSE.
Sir F. TRENCH postponed his motion respecting the •entilating
and lighting of the Mouse tin Monday next, when Dr. Reed would be
in town.

EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW RAILWAY,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the Order of the Day for the
Hither consideration of the Report on the Edinburgh and Glasgow Rail-
lre7

The Lone CHAfftfliost took his seaten the Woolsack at Fite &Clock.
The 7'.'ttinouth Floating Bridge Bill wa; read a second time.
A Conversation then took place between the Earl of Malmesbuty, the
Earl of Shaftesbury, and the Duke of Richmond, relative to the Mode of
conducting business in Committees on ptiVate
Lotid KENYON presenter; a petition from ShrewSbury, paying their
Lordships to inquire into the nature of the instruttion to students at
Maynooth

HUSH POOR-LAW BILL,
A Message from the Commons, by Lord JOHN RVSSELL and others,
brought up the Irish Poor-law Bill,
Lord MELBOURNE moved that the Bill be read a first time, and
elt'e,gested that the second reading should be fixed for Friday, the 11 th.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought it would be wise to
adjourn the question of the Poor-Law until they saw what the House
of Commons did with regard to the Irish Tithes, because they ought to
know what burthen was proposed to be thrown on the land by tithes,
before they decid,d what burthen should be thrown on the land
. in the shape of Poor Laws.
The Earl of LIMERICK presented a petition from the Grand Jury
of Limerick, which stated that the Irish Poor_law Bill would be ruinous
to Ireland ; and he himself believed it would cause a separation of the
two countries.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said the principle of the Bill was
derogatory to the interests of the country. The Radical and Catholic
party in Ireland united with the Protestant and the Conservative party
in opposing the Bill. He hoped the Noble Viscount would postpone the
second reading to a more distant period, and he should certainly take
the sense of the House against the principle of the measure on its second
reading. The Bill was altogether different to the English Poor Law Bill.
The Dukeof WELLINGTON trusted the Noble Viscount would post-
pone the second reading till the Monday or Tuesday following the
day he had named, so as to give every Peer connected with Ireland an
opportunity of fully discussing it.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE was decidedly opposed to the Bill
passing in its present shape.
After a few words from Lord Lvsnuttasr and Lord GLENG ALL,
Lord MELBOUBNE said he was very desirous that the Bill should
have the most impartial consideration and discussion. At the same time,
he must say there was something inconsistent in the observations that
had been made this evening. Last year the ground for postponing the
Municipal Corporation Bill was that the Irish Poor_law Bill had not
been presented to their Lordships, and now that the Irish Poor-law Bill
was presented to them, it was suggested that that Bill should be postponed
until the other arrived. He, however, had no objection, if it would be
more convenient to some Noble Lords, to fix the second reading for
Monday, the 14th May.
The Bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be read a second
time on Monday, the 14th.
'THE CORONATION.
In answer to a question from the Marquis of LONDONDERRY,
Lord MELBOURNE said the procession would be precisely similar to
that which took place on the Coronation of William the Fourth, and
would be from the Palace to the Abbey.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY—And am I then distinctly to
understand there will be no banquet ?
Lord MELBOURNE--No, none.—(Great laughter.)
LIEUTENANCY OF MEATH.
The Marquis of LANSDO WNE laid on the table copies of correspon.
dente that had taken place between the Chief Secretary of Ireland and
the Marquis of Westmeath, relative to the removal of Sir Richard
Nagle from the Lieutenancy of Meath.
PENITENTIARY.
The Earl of RADNOR said the Noble and Learned Lord opposite,
whom he saw in his place, had given notice that he would call the atten.
Lion of their Lordships to the treatment of persons confined in the Peni-
tentiary. He wished to ask that Noble and Learned Lord, whether he
could fix the time at which he would make the motion, and what was
the nature of it ?
Lord LYNDHURST understood there was a Committee of the other
House then sitting upon that subject, and he intended to postpone any
remarks he had to make upon it until the Report of that Committee
was made.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE—Do I understand that the Noble and
Learned Lord does not mean to make a motion criminatory of any pub..
lic officer ?
Lord LYNDHURST—CertainIy not, nor did I ever intend to do so.
POOR-LAWS.