The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-27 00:00:00

POOR-LAWS.

The Order of the Day having been moved for the Com-
mitlee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill,

Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE preented a petition
from the parish of St. Luke's against the Bill, and a peti-
tion from an individual, praying that the weights used in
workhouses might be subject to the same supervision as
the weights t f tradesmen. _ .

Lord MAHON presented a petition, numerously signed,
from the borough of Hertford, complaining of several clauses
of the Bill, and especially of those which related to the
continuance of the Commissioners, IA hose powers they con-
sidered excessive, and whose conduct they regarded as harsh.
Mr. HA WES presented a petition from the Guardians
,4.'' • ud, inftwant.of the Bill=
Mr. -TC s• • T and Mr. BROTHERTON also
presente • aon the subject.
Mr. SDITC H presented a petition from Mac-
clesfield against the Bill.
Mr. GORING presented a petition from the Union of
Staines, Surrey, against certain clauses of the Bill.
Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from Bingley in
Yorkshire, against the Poor-law Bill. The petitioners
stated that they viewed with horror the cruelties inflicted
on the poor under the new Peor-law Act, and were struck
with dismay at the proposition of the Government
to continue its tyrannical power for five years longer.
They stated that the Commissioners had exercised
their power with such severity as almost to excite a rebel-
lion in the country, and they earnestly prayed that the
House would not enact the Bill into a law, and that the
Poor-law Commission might cease. The Honourable
Member also presented a petition from Bucklebury,
condemning tho separation of relations in workhouses,
and complaining of the manner in which medical relief was
administered ; and they also prayed that the Bill might
not be passed into a law.
Petitions against the Bill were also presented by the
HON. NIEMBER, signed by 300 rate-payers of a place in
Leicestershire, and by three clergymen and twenty-five
rate-payers in Lane End, in Leicestershire.
Lord SANDON had a petition to present, which he
had been informed was signed by 40,000 or 50,000
persons. —(The Noble Lord did not state from what
place the petition came, but we presume it was from
Liverpool). The petitioners stated that they looked with
apprehension to the imposition of the provisions of the
Poor-law Act upon themselves—that they had been
exempted for seven years from what they termed the yoke
of the Poor-law Commissioners ; that they had been for
twenty years under the operation of Sturges Bourne's Act,
under which the rates had been reduced from ss. 6d. to
Is. sd. in the pound ; and they prayed the House to
introduce such a clause into the Poor-law Bill as would
exempt them from its provisions.
Mr. L ANGD AL E presented a petition signed by be-
tween nine and ten thousand Roman Catholic inhabi-
tants of Manchester and Salford, praying that the Roman
Catholic paupers in Union Workhouses might be per-
mittedto receive religious consolation from Ministers of
theirown faith. Also a petition, with a similar prayer,
from the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the metropolis.
Colonel G. LANGTON presented a petition from
some place in Somersetsbire praying for alterations in the
Poor-law Bill.

Mr. HOGG presented a petition from Beverley, praying
for alterations in the Poor-law Bill.
Mr. TURNER presented a petition from Blackburn
against the New Poor-law Bill.
Copt. PECrIELL said the Right Hon. Baronet, the
Member for Tamworth, had intimated to the Noble Lord
on Wednesday last that ceitain amendments would be
necessary in order to guard parishes which were under
Local Acts from the interference of the Commis-
sioners. By the present Bill the boat-ds of
guardians had the power to dissolve the union by a majo-
rity of votes. But the Right Hon. Baronet suggested
that there ought to be an equal power vested in the board
of guardians, to unite with parishes which had been
united with others. The town of Brighton was governed
by a Local Act. A neighbouring parish was under the
power of the Pocr-law Commissioners—it was joined
to a union. Now, that parish might be dissolved by a
majority of the guardians, and if the guardians of the pa-
rise of Brighton had not the power to refuse to be joined
with another parish, the Poor-law Commissioners might
bring the town of Brighton under their Government.
He hoped that the Noble Lord would provide not
only that the Gilbert Unions and unions so situ cod should
not be dissolved without the consent of the majority of the
guardians, but also that no parish should be added to
another parish for the sake of forming a union under the
Poor-law Commissioners.
The SPEAKER then left Chair, and the House
went into Committee on the Poor-law Bill; Mr. BER-
NALL la the Chair.
Mr. GRANVILLE SOMERSET begged to ask the
Noble Lord whether it was his intention to introduce a
separate clause with regard to the reduction of the number
of Assistant Poor-law Commissioners ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied in the affirmative.
On elam.,e 2 being read,
Mr. FIELDEN (who spoke from the Opposition side
of the House) rose to move the insertion of the words
" and are hereby repealed..' The object of his amendment
was to repeal the Poor-lacy Amendment Act, and he
should take the sense cf the House upon it.—( Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL understood that the Hon. Mem-
ber was going to propose an amendment to repeal the Poor-
law Amendment Act. He wished to know if that was the
object of his amendment.
Mr. FIELDEN hoped the Noble Lord would listen to
his statement. He was moving the introduction of words
1 which, if adopted by the Committee, would go to repeal the
Poor-law Act. —( Haar, hear.)
The CHAIRMAN understood the object of the Hon.
Member's amz,ndment was to repeal the Poor-law Amend-
ment Act. But he conceived such motion was irregular
under the title cf the Bill then before tine Committee.
After a few words from Mr. FIELDEN, which were
inaudible in the Gallery,
The CHAIRMAN said the object of the Hon. Mem-
' bet's amendment was to repeal e exiting Poor-
le,w, whereas V-ie WIL to to clauFe of which he
• moved thut amendment, was to continue that law. Such
ti "f"
Mr. FIELDEN said, that as to the irregularity
of the course of proceeding, he had nothing to do