The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-27 00:00:00

NEW POOR LAW.

Earl STANHOPE presented a petition from the rate-payors of a
township near Sheffield, for the repeal of the New Poor Law Bill. Also
a petition, which was regularly worded, from the Rev. Mr. Morris, de-
nying that he had ever excited the labourers of his parish against their
masters. The player was that the petition might be referred to the
Committee.

The Earl of RADNOR said that no charge whatever had been
brought against Mr. Morris. He hoped the House would not refer the
petition to the Committee.

The Bishop of NORWICH said, that as the petition came from a
clergyman of his diocese, he would take this occasion to rebut that 11ev.
Gentleman's evidence by the testimony of a most respectable and religious
gentleman residing in the next parish to Mr. Morris. This gentleman
stated that the condition of the labourer was much better under the new
law; anti he further stated, in the most unqualified manner, that it had
tended not only to their temporal but to their spiritual welfare.
Earl STANHOPE presented a petition from a gentleman of the name
of Roberts against the New Poor Law Act.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM said he thought he had a right to complain of
the course pursued by the Noble Earl (Stanhope.) He had looked at
the petition from the township near Sheffield, and he found that its sub-
stance was this :—The petitioners stated that the rates were formerly
managed by the overseers and a select vestry, and that, in 1837, in con-
sequence of an order from the Commissioners, the township was in.
corporated in the Sheffield Union. He (the Noble Earl) said that the
petition was for a repeal of the Act. Now, it merely prayed that the
poor rata might again be managed by the overseers and the select vestry.
Earl STANHOPE said that the feeling respecting the Act in
Sheffield might be estimated by the expression in Mr. Roberts's peti-
tion, that there was a spirit of revenge lurking within the minds of the
people, which, if once kindled, would cause a conflagration which nothing
on earth could subdue.

Earl FITZWILLIAM said that Mr. Roberts was undoubtedly a gen..
tlernan of great benevolence, but he did not think he was very much
under the guidance of reason. He had stated to him that he had never
attended a public meeting in his life, and therefore did not think lie
could be the best authority es to the state of public feeling in Sheffield
or anywhere else.

The Marquis of BUTE presented a petition from Glasgow against
the selling of spirits on Sunday (luring the hours of Divine worship.
The Bishop of EXETER said that at this hour he did not mean to
bring forward the petition of which he had given notice.
POOR LAW (IRELAND) BILL.

On the report being brought up.
Several verbal amendments were agreed to.
On one of the clauses (5 we believe),
The Earl of WICKLO W proposed an amendment to the effect, that
the words " Town lands" should be inserted in the Bill instead of the
words " Electoral districts."
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 9
Against it .........
Majority against it —ls
Several verbal amendments were agreed to, after which the Bill was
ordered to be read a third time on Friday, the 6th of July.
The Irish Municipal Corporations Bill was read a first time.
In answer to a question from the Duke of WELLINGTON,
Viscount MELBOURNE said he would name the day for the second
reading on Monday next.
Their Lordships then adjourned to Friday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 26.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'Clock.
Mr. GRAXT, of Grant, took the oaths and his seat for the county of
Inverness.
Mr. PARKER presented returns from the Poor Law Committee.
Sir M. WOOD brought up the Westminster Improvement Bill,
which was read a first time.
On the motion of Lord G. LENNOX Gray's Estate Bill was read a
second time and ordered to be committed.
General JOHNSTONE brought up the Report of the Committee on
the Oldham Gas Bill.
Mr. M. PHILIPS presented a petition from the hand-loom weavers of
Manchester, signed by 2,746 persons complaining ofdistress, and praying
that some plan might be adopted for increasing their wages. The
petition also prayed for the repeal of the Corn-laws. The petitioners con-
sidered that the Corn-laws tended to reduce their wages and to increase
the price of their food, and prayed the House to take into considera-
tion the distress under which they had laboured. He had lived
among this class of individuals during the greater part of his
life, and he was bound to say that notwithstanding the deep
privations they had suffered a more peaceable and orderly set of indi-
viduals were not to be found. He sympathised greatly—
Sir R. INGLIS rose to order. The Hon. Member was snaking a
speech, and thereby trenching on a rule that had been laid down by the
Speaker.
The SPEAKER believed that the Honourable Member was only
stating the contents of the petition.
Sir R. INGLIS--He is expressing his own opinion.
Mr. M. PHILIPS believed the forms of the House would enable
him to say that he cordially concurred in the prayer of the peti-
tion--(Hear, hear)—that there should be a repeal of the Corn
Laws, to which the petitioners attached so much importance.
Annexed to the petition was a certificate signed by several merchants,
stating that the hand.loorn weavers, who had signed that petition, were
suffering greatly from their distress. The Hon. Member recommended
the petition to the serious attention of the House.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
Mr. BROTHERTON hail been requested to support this petition,
whirls he did most cordially.
Mr. FIELDEN also supported the petition.
GLOUCESTER ELECTION.
Alderman WOOD presented a petition from electors of the city of
Gloucester, complaining of improper interference on the part of clergy-
men and others at the late election, and praying for enquiry. Ile moved
that it be printed.
The SPEAKER said, unless the Hon. Alderman meant on au early
day to bring the subject forward, the petition could not be printed with
the votes ; but it would in the ordinary course.
Mr. HOPE said the Hon. Alderman could not name the clergyman
referred to, and he (Mr. H.) denied the truth of the petitioners' allega-
tion in that respect.

MEDICAL CHARITIES' BILL.
Mr. BEAMISH presented a petition in favour of this Bill.
Mr. GILLON presented a petition very numerously signed from
Edinburgh, complaining of the inconvenience and degradation to which
they are subjected by the mode of granting licences, and praying for a
revision of that system.
Sir DE LACY EVANS presented a petition from the Westminster
Reform Society, praying for an abolition of the system of plurality of
voting, and voting by proxy in parochial matters. Also, a petition from
the parish of St. Clement Danes, on the same subject. And two peti-
tions from the parishes of Westminster in favour of the Westminster
Improvement Bill.
Mr. LEADER supported the prayer of the two last petitions.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN presented a petition from a person at pre-
sent confined in Whitecross-street prison, praying far an alteration in
the law regarding execution for attorney's costs.
Mr. HUTT presented a petition from Hull, stating that the pilotage
of the River Humber was, under a Local Act, invested in the Trinity
House at Hull ; that this body had exercised their functions in a manner
which had given almost universal satisfaction; and expressing their disap-
probation of the Bill which had been recently introduced into the House.
Mr. HARVEY presented a petition from the Guardians of the Poor
of the parish of St. George-the-Martyr, in the borough of Southwark.
The petition Came from persons thoroughly well-versed with the
subject to which the petition related, and perfeetly competent to give
an opinion. The petition unfolded, in a striking degree, the defective
working of the Poor-lawregarding the point to which the petition referred.
The petitioners complained that they were now, with the high rating,
many thousands of pounds in debt mere than before, and yet the poor
were not so well satisfied. Dr. Arnott, a man dear to science, mid
whose name was well known in that House, had examined and re-
ported upon the insalubrity of the proposed site for the new
workhouse: yet the Commissioners had insisted upon its being there
built at a vast expense. The petitioners therefore prayed that in any
future dealing with the Poor-laws, the rate-payers may be secured in a
control over the funds they contribute to.
Mr. LIDDELL was very anxious to have said a few words upon this
petition, but he was aware that the rules of the House forbade him. Ile
trusted another opportunity would occur.