The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-22 00:00:00

POOR LAWS,

Mr. LENNARD presented a petition, signed by 34 medi-
cal practitioners, against the practice of farming out patients
under the new Poor Law Bill, He had also another petition
to present, relative to three Bills introduced by the Attorney
and Solicitor-Generals—the Bill for the Enfranchisement of
Copyholds, the Law of Escheat, and the Lords of Manors,
against particular clauses in which the petitioners complained.
Mr. WAKLEY said, with reference to the petition from
the medical practitioners of Essex, it was well worthy the at-
tention of the House. These gentlemen, whogovere of the
highest respectability, complained of the manneiin-which the
contracts with respect to medical attendance on the ttoor were
conducted. Was it, he would ask, right or c(Asiitent•that the
pOor should be farmed out to the lowest bidder?_ (Hear.
He trusted there would shortly be a change in the entire
system.

Mr. HUME said the lion. Member for Finsbury would
have an opportunity, and he hoped he would not lose sight of
it, of bringing the subject before the attention of the House,
when the Bill for correcting some defects in the Poor Laws
Amendment Bill was before the House.

11r. WA KL E Y wished to mention one fact.—(Loud cries
of " Order, order," " Spoke," and " Chair.")
The SPEAKER said notice had been given that the ques-
tion was to be brought forward in a substantive form. It was,
therefore, not now in order to mention any fact which would
be controverted.

Mr. WA KLEY would like very much to know what rule re-
gulated the presentation of petitions in the House. Only a few
nights ago an Hon. Member presented a petition from three
officers in the East India Company's Service, the debate on
which lasted one hour, and now he was prevented, from mention-
ing one important fact, which would not occupy one minute.
The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member had not at-
tended to the matter, or he would have found that
there was no irregularity in his being called to order.
Notice had been given that the matter was to come be-
fore the House in a substantive form ; therefore, if the Hon,
Gentleman now mentioned one fact, other Members would
have the same right, and a debate would spring up. On the
occasion referred to, the petition was relative to a personal
matter, and there would be no other opportunity of its being
debated, as there would be no opportunity for a motion on the
subject.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented petitions from Dromin
and Richardstown,.county Louth, praying that a similar ex-
tent of Municipal Reform should be conceded to Ireland as to
England and Scotland. This prayer, said the Hon. Member,
might be too late, the House of Commons having already de-
cided that Ireland shall not have the same extent of Corporate
Reform as England and Scotland. The petitionci s also prayed
that the obnoxious, murderous, and blood-stained impost of
tithes, being beyond human endurance, should be abolished,
not only in name, but in substance.

Lord HENNIKER presented petitions against the Turn-
pike Consolidation Act.
Colonel THOMPSON presented a petition from the
Radical Association of the Borough of Kingston-upon-Hull,
signed by 1,400 persons. The petitioners were rough, un-
cultured -men; and there were words in the petition, which,
if his opinion had been asked, he should have advised the
substitution of other words in lieu of; but, neverthele”, he did
not think the language was such as to prevent its being received
by the House. The petition complained of the corn laws,
the poor laws, and the imposition of taxes, which were im-
posed twenty times as much upon the poor as the rich. The
petition prayed that the poor laws might be repealed, and also
that some enactment might be made, to prevent persons from
roguishly applying cha4table bequests to any other than the
specific purposes for which it was given.
The SPEAKER put it to the Hon. Member, whether he
thought the House could, consistently with its own dignity,
receive a petition containing such language.
Colonel THOMPSON considered that he had two duties
to perform, the first was to present the petition, and the next
not to disguise from the Ilouse the expressions used in it—
( Hear, hear.) With the permission of the House he would
read the prayer. _

Mr. WYIiN interrupted the lion. Gentlemen by saying,
that certainly nothing could be more desirable than that
the people should state their complaints to the House,
but then their petitions should be couched in decent and re-
spectful language. He would put it to the Hon. Member
whether the obnoxious expression should not be modified
before the petition was accepted, which he had no doubt
would be done upon the Hon. Gentleman communicating to
his constituents.

Mr. HENRY G ATTAN said the petition mentioned
the words " Charitable Bequests " as totally distinct from
tithes. The Corporation of Dublin had had a charitable bequest
made to them, which it had been proved was most " roguishly
misapplied."—( Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. HUME would prove to the Right Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Wynn) opposite, by the Reports on the table, that many
charitable bequests bad been " roguishly misapplied." The
Attorney-Gcnerai had instituted proceedings against many in-
dividuals for having roguishly misapplied charitable funds,
and therefore he should submit to the House that the petition
was a proper one to be received.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WYNN said that the words of the petition were
" roguishly misapplied by the clerical and lay aristocracy,"
which was pointedly alluding to a particular class of persons.
Mr. E WART would as lion. Gentlemen opposite how
often had he presented petitions in which the words " ty-
rannical and sanguinary" were used and applied to lion.
Members on his side of the House. The term which the pe-
titioners had used might not be very acceptable to " ears
polite;" but could Hon. Gentlemen opposite deny that those
funds had been misapplied ? There could be no doubt that the
allegations in the petition could be proved ; and he thought
that, rather than restrain the language of petitions, the House
ought to encourage them to speak out.
Mr. GOULD URN thought the petitioners were not cor-
rect in imputing roguishness to a class of persons because
certain individuals of that class might have done wrong. The
Hon. Member opposite, who had just spoken, no doubt would
feel it to be very unjust, if, in consequence of a crime baying
been committed in Liverpool by certain individuals, the whole
of the inhabitants of Live-pool were to be stigmatized with
disgrace.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HAWES said the House would not be worthy of the
name of the representatives of the
people, if they refused to
receive that petition, and for his part, he had no hesitation it,
saying that the charitable trusts had been abused.
Sir J. GRAHAM would not quarrel with strong or vigo-

rous leiguage, bit be would quarrel with disrespectful a t
guage.—(Cries of " Hear, bear, hear.") He was su
if the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last opposed the rec( ptio
of the petition, after the opinion expressed by the Speaker
he would act in accordance with the wishes of his constituents.
Mr. HAWES, in explanation, said he was not awa:c that
the Speaker had given his opinion that the petition ought not
to be received.

Mr. ROEBUCK thought it would be lowet3ng the iignity
of that House if they recoivvd petitions containing expressions
similar to that now b:.fore Hear.)
Dr. BOWRING suggested that the Speaker should state
his opinion as to whether the language was unparliamentary or
not—as he was sure his Hon. Friend would at once bow to the
decision of the &air.
The SPEAKER had no hesitation in saying that, in the
exercise of a sound discretion, the Hon. Member should with-
draw it.—(Hear, luar.) That II Also could not act more
wisely or prudently, or do anything more calculated to raise
its own character tha i by observing strict and proper eecorum
within the walls of that House—( Hear, hear)—and by encou-
raging a similar line of conduct outside.—( Cheers. )
Colonel THOMPSON would at once bow to the sugges-
tion of the Speaker, and withdraw the petition.—Petition
withdrawn.

Mr. A. SMITH presented a.pctition from certa'n medical
practitioners, complaining of the mode in which the contracts
for the poor were taken.
Mr. GRATTAN presented a petition from Wicklow, pray-
ing for a full measure of Municipal Reform for Ireland.
THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from 34 architects, who
had sent in designs for the new Houses of Parliament.
Although the instructions received by them to guide them
did not specify any sum to which the expense was to be limited,
they had been induced to think that that should form one of the
considerations with the architects in submitting any practicable
plan. They complained, therefore, that the rules laid down by the
Commissioners had operated unfairly as regarded their plans.
The petitioners prayed to be heard by Counsel at the Bar of
the House—( Hear, hear)—in explanation of what they consi-
dered the injury they had received. He had informed them
that he did not think the prayer was likely to be granted; but he
thought the Committee ought to have fixed a sum of money to
which architects might have limited their plans. As soon as
the proceedings of the Committee were laid on the table, he
would feel it his duty to call the attention of the House especi-
ally to the subject—he would therefore move that the petition
be brought up:

Mr. BANBURY TRACEY rose to speak.
ame,

Bring very

The SPEAKER said, as it appeared the Hon. Gentleman
was labouring under considerable indisposition, he was sure
the House would allow him to sit down.—( Hear, and cries of
" sit down.")
The HoN. GENTLEMAN proceeded—As one of the Com-
missioners, he felt bound to say a few words upon this
petition. He did not think the petitioners were wise—they
had pursued a line of conduct which was most likely to frustrate
the views and wishes of both himself and the Hon. Member
for Middlesex, viz., that all public works should be thrown
open to public competition. The Commissioners were blamed
in the petition merely with a wont of judgment; but he was
aware that there were reports in circulation, stating that they
were not wholly guided by those honourable motives which ought
to have guided men placed in such a situation. They had been
accused of- having favoured Mr. Barry, from having some
personal feeling towards him. Now, as one of the Commis-
sioners, be must say that he never saw Mr. Barry but once in
his life, and that was when he had the pleasure of stating to him
that he was the successful candidate. Every means was used
to prevent favouritism; and he must say, the ground taken by
the competitors on the present occasion deserved but little at-
tention from the House. If it had affected the honesty of the
intention of the Commissioners, that would have been a good
ground, but it did not do that., Now, what was the fact? Why,
the question did not rest with the Commissioners alone, but
with the judgment of others; it was first to be sanctioned by
the King and then by the two Houses of Parliament. Therefore
the decision could not be considered the decision cf the Com-
missioners, but the decision of the Commissioners joined with
his Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament.—( Cheers.) He
must say that the Hon. Member for Mildlesex and himself
did not agree, not only upon points of architectural beauty,
but also upon the conduct of one man towards another. He
certainly considered himself entitled to some notice before the
lion. Member for Middlesex presented this petition ; but had it
not been for the kindness of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the
bead of the Board of Controul, he should at that moment have
been ignorant of the presentation of this petition.—( Hear.)
When he came into the House, he found that the name
of the Hon. Member for Middlesex was not ia the list of those
who had petitions to present. He inquired of the Hon.
Member if it was his intention to present this petition, and the
Hon. Member answered "Yes, it was," and instead of saying that
he was sorry that he had not given him ( Mr. Tracy) notice of his
intention, he (Mr. Hume) merely added, " Pray, Sir, can
you furnish me with a frank ?"—( Loud laughter.) He would
shortly enter into the different points contained in the petition.
Mr. WA KLEY rose to order. He was sorry to interrupt
the Hon. Member, but he begged to remind him of what had
passed with regard to himself that evening.
Colonel PERCIVAL was of opinion that tile rule ought
not to be relaxed.

The SPEAKER said the petition contained certain allega-
tions, and the only question was the fitting time for discussing
.those allegations. It would be most inconvenient to discuss
questions of this nature without notice.—( Hear, hear.)
DURHAM SOUTH JUNCTION RAILWAY. 4_

Mr. HUME said this Bill had been referred back to the
Committee to assign their reasons for coming to the resolution
that the preamble of the Bill had not been pros-el, but it must
be obvious to every one that they never could have come to the
resolution reported, upon the reasons assigned. He therefore
moved that the Committee be called upon to assign their rea-
sons in detail for coming to the resolution that the preamble
of the Bill had not been proved.—Motion agreed to.