The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-05 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF June 4.
The house met to-day at four o'clock, and imme-
diately proceeded to public business.
Mr. Phillpotis, -Sir Oswald Mosley, Mr. Ruthven,
Mr. Tancred, and others from the Commons. brought
up the House Duties' Repeal Bill, the Conveyance
and Sale of Fish Bill, Scotland Point Harbour Bill, the
Civil Offices Compensation Bill, the Encouragement
for working Mines and Quarries in Ireland Bill, and
several private bills ; all of which were read a first
time.

Mr. TANCRED brought up a request from the
Commons, that the house would permit the Lord
Chancellor to be examined before the CoMmittee on
the Law of Libel.—Leave given.
STAFFORD BOROUGH BILL.

Lord ELL ENBOROUGH said as sevosal noble
lords who had taken great interest in the Warwick
Borough Bill would be absent from the house next week,
he should propose that the house should proceed
with the Stafford Bill during that period. From the
evidence which had been given before a committee of
the House of Commons on that bill, it seemed a clear
case for disfranchisement ; and such being the case, the
whole matter might probably be disposed of within
the week. _ _

The Earl of DURHAM objected to the adoption
of the course suggested by the noble lord, as he
could not consent to the postponement of the
Warwick Bill. He was as anxious as any noble
lord to leave town next week, but he considered
it his duty to attend his place in that house
to watch the proceedings on that bill. There was no
doubt of the two the Liverpool Bill had the prece-
dence of the Stafford, but whichever it might be, he
should object to the Warwick Bill being postponed.
_ _

Lord DNO Wconsidered that itvhad seen un-
derstood by every one that the house was not to pro-
ceed with the Stafford Bill both the Warwick and

Liverpool Bills were disposed of.
Lord ELL ENBORO LTG H assured the noble earl
that nothing but the particular circumstances he had
adverted to would have induced him to propose the
postponement of the Warwick Bill. If he thought the
consideration of the Stafford Bill would take more
time than the whole of next week he certainly should
not press it. He had mentioned the Stafford in pre-
ference to the Liverpool Bill, knowing. full well that
the latter would occupy a considerable time..

After some observtitions from the Earl of MULORAVE,
the subject dropped, Lord ELLENBOROUGH stating that,
since he had made the suggestion, he had been in-
formed that the consideration of the Stafford Bill
would occupy more than the whole of next week.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH gave notice that he
should to4norrow move the second reading of the
Common Fields' Enclosure Bill.

The Earl of ELDON presented several petitions
from different parts of Dorsetshire in favour of the
established church. .

Viscount STRANGFORD presented a petition
from Leamington against the bill for joining that
place with the borough of Warwick.
Earl BROWNLOW presented petitions from the
Under. Graduates of the Universities of. Oxford and
Cambridge against the admission of dissenters to the
universities, and in favour of the established church.
Also petitions from parishes in Lincoln against any
alteration in the corn laws.
On the motion of the Marquis of SALISBURY,
returns were ordered of the quantities of corn and flour
imported from the islands of Guernsey and Jersey
within the last year.

ford WYNPORD gave notice, that to-morrow he
should move that it be an instruction to the counsel on
the Warwick Borough Bill that they should not give
evidence of treating, unless it should be proved to
proceed from the candidate.
The Earl of WINCHIL SE A presented petitions
from the Isle of Sheppy against the admission of dis-
senters to the universities, and in favour of the esta-
blished church.

. The Duke of SUTHERLAND presented a pe-
tition from Bristol in favour of the act for encouraging
the refining of sugar.
On the motion of the NOBLE DIME, a select com-
mittee was appointed on the Climbing Boys' Preven-
tion Bill.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
The order of the day having been read for the com-
mittal of this bill,
The Marquis of SALISBURY said that previoustO
moving that the bill be committed, he wished to ask the
noble duke (the Postmaster-General) if he would permit
the letters to and from the barristers .who had the in-
spection of the laws relative to friendly societies to
pass through the Post-office free of charge ?
The Duke of RICHMOND said that though
at present he held the office of Postmaster- Ge-
neral, he should, before that time to-morrow evening,
have resigned it. It would therefore be improper on
his part to give any definite answer to the question of
the noble marquis. He admitted that the subject was
worthy the consideration of the government, at the
same time that he thought such permissions liable
to great abuse. He thought the noble marquis had
better wait till a new Postmaster-General was ap-
pointed, who, he had no doubt, would attend to his re-
commendation.

The Friendly Societies Bill then went through com-
mittee, and was ordered to be reported to-morrow.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented peti-
tions from Carhampton and several other places, in
favour of the established church.

Lord TENTERDEN presented similar petitions
from Cornwall.

-The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented
a number of petitions praying for an effectual support
to the established church. _

On the motion of Lord AUCKLAND, the Royal
Navy Pay Bill went through a committee of the house,
and was reported without amendment.
Lord SUFFIELD presented a petition from the
Baptists of East Rexford, praying for the better ob-
servance of the Sabbath.

The Earl of WICKLOW gave notice, that on
Friday he would move for a copy of the com-
mission issued for an inquiry into the property
of the Church in Ireland. In so doing,
he would take the opportunity of explaining to the
house, why it was that he had even let one day pass
before giving that notice. He came down to the
house last night with the full intention of giving
the notice, but was prevented from so doing by
the sudden manner in which the house was ad-
journed. He did not wish to impute blame to
sabneynoldneb;eallein
heeewatnet,edaswatseth,a,tbant really were theclear understanding
rules of the house. He had been a member of
that house for a very considerable time, and he
had always understood that public business should
commence at five o'clock. He knew that, according
to the forms of the house, it ' met for appeals,
the
&c., at ten o'clock in the morning, and at three
o'clock in the afternoon, .but from
time
o f one r
Lord Liverpool till within a very short time, he had
never known any noble lord shut out from
making a motion on giving a notice
by the house being adjourned before five o'clock.
( Hear, hear.) He knew that there were many noble
lords in the same situation as himself last night, for
the further
Woolsack believed
wtithwatut the
anqyue instniotnien
in walking, away at 20 minutes before 5, he met
several noble lords coming down in the hope of
presenting their petitions at five o'clock. He
was
ba v puting b
from
n
made ; he was aware that the Lord Chancellor
had the same right as any other noble lord to make
the motion, but then if he did so, according to
the rules of the house, he ought to have left
the Woolsack, made the motion, and then put it from
the Woolsack, when noble lords would have known
what was going on.
The LORD CHANCELLOR begged to be al-
lowed to set the noble earl right in- one or two par-
ticulars. He (the Chancellor) had twice most
audibly put the question whether any other peer had
any petition to present, and was answered in the
negative by six or seven voices. He then
asked whether there was any other business be-
fore the house, and was again answered in the nega-
tive. . Now, the noble earl was in conversation with
another peer, and might not have heard him, but that
did not signify. He (the Chancellor) was not bound to
find either ears or attention for the noble lord. (Laugh-
ter.) He had certainly learned that evening, for the
first time, that there was any rule which made it impos-
sible for noble lords to bring on any business before
five o'clock. He had often, when he learned there was
no business to be proceeded in, adjourned the house at
a quarter after four, and would, till better advised,
contiiiue to do so, for he was not of opinion
_tohonit,
it formed any part of his duty to sit there and took
and
till they arrived at five. He, however, mmusatkir such a
deny that he had not as good a right to
he ought
house, and certainly
and watch the slow progress of the hands of the clock
motion as any one in the
could find no other fault whatever h him than
to be one of the proudest of men whe.n noble lords

that he had not made one step to the left before he most
audibly, as he had ever done, announced the adjourn-
ment of the house on the previous night. He was not aware
what injury had been done—what possible injury the
noble earl had suffered, for surely a notice for FridaY
was quite as well if given on the Wednesday as on the
Tuesday. He had asked a noble friend of his, then
present, to move the adjournment, and even then
believed it had been done ; but every nO3lB
lord must be aware that such a motion visa
so much of course as to be done in two words, or verl
frequently by a mere nod of the head. However, if
the noble earl would wait every night till that
ceremony was performed. he (the Chancellor) would
take care that he should know all about it.
Earl WICKLOW said the question was not'
whether any injury had been sustained, but wheher,
some might not have been done. He still believed that',
the proceedings had been irregular, and that the boon
had been adjourned without any question being put. t
The LORD CHANCELLOR repeated that no
only had he asked whether any noble lord had other
petitions to present, but he had put the question as
distinctly as he had ever done, and it might have been
heard in the very back of the gallery. •

PORTUGAL.
wished,
the absence of the noble earl (Grey) to ask the ja
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY
nob
o
marquis opposite (Lansdowne), who last eveningso kind as to furnish him with the particula
of what he called the glorious news from ;14
P°uqbal.;
whether there would be any objection to lay"
treaty if ratified, on the table of the house.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, the 00b1°
earl (Grey) was then in attendance upon his Marl;
but would be in his place to-morrow ; and
did not doubt but that he would be prePnrhee
.to answer the question. As he was .on his iegnso'ble
was glad to say that he was able to gratify the ,e
marquis on a subject that it was well known D.
felt deeply.; it *as with pleasure hez-assured
Don. Miguel was sate on board a British man of war-
(Laughter.) 3
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS presented
petition in favour of the Established Church.
WARWICK BOROUGH BILL. „ 5
Counsel were thew called in, and their lordsinpil
proceeded with the examination of witnesses !.11.0,,
the Warwick Bill, and the house adjourned at hall
past eight o'clock. him thas

The SPEAKER resumed the chair at twenty
OUSE OF COMMONS, June 4.
H
past five o'clock.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
A message from the lords announced that their lord-
ships had agreed to the St. George's Hospital Incorpo-
ration Bill, the St. George's Market Bill, and some
other bills.
DUNGARVAN ELECTION.
The SPEAKER announced that he had received s
petition by that morning's post, from an individual
named Maurice Kennedy, complaining of the last re-
turn for that borough.
The petition was ordered to be taken into considera-
tion on Tuesday, the Ist of July.
Lord MO RPETH presented a petition from the
parish of Blackheath, Yorkshire, against the PaYrnen
of church rates, and in favour of the claims of the dis-,
unters ; a petition from another parish in Yorksibile.
in favour of the connexion of the church with t
in the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill ; and
state ; a petition from Ovenden against certain clauses
minutes
from Knaresborough to the same effect. from
Colonel LYGON presented two petitions .
places in Worcestershire against the claims of dissenter.s_
Lord G. LENNOX presented a petition from Out
magistrates of the western division of the county °1
Sussex, in favour of a labour rate. Sus"
Sir C. BURRELL presented petitions frome
sex against the Beer Act, and in favour of th La
bourers' Employment Bill. d
Mr. WIL KS presented petitions 'against Lord
thorp's Church-rate measure, from the dissenter% 1.
Wednesbury, Staffordshire ; Ringwood, 111.0:
Halstead, Essex ; and from the inhabitants of Dub
complaining;
mr.
LiT Te agriculturaIET o N
presented
a
against drunkenness. ( A laugh.) a petitio
Mr. E. BULWER presented apetition from Stowe?
petition fromW
verhampton, against the admission of the dissenters t°
the universities, and a petition from a place in Staf"
fordshire, against the coal duties.
Sir R. FF. RGU SON presented a pesat,on•fro
Nottingham against the Church Rates Bill.
Sir D. K. SANDFORD presented a petition from
Paisley against certain clauses in the Poor Laws
Amendment Bill. ol"
Lord G. SOMERSET presented petitions froth
Monmouth, in Hampshire, in favour of the established
church, and against the claims of dissenters.
Mr. BARING presented a petition from persons
professing the Christian faith in and near Londoli,
against the bill for relieving the Jews from the disabi-
lities under which they labour. .
_titian from
Dr. LIT S HINGTON presented a p
Shoreditch against the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill;
also a petition from the same place praying that the
dissenters might be relieved from the disabilities under
which they labour.
Mr. H. HANDLEY presented a petition from the
parish of Stickney, in Lincolnshire, against the Beef
Bill.
against the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill. The the
Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition from Bath
Mr.
and learned member said that he did not concur in

prayer of the petition. War-
t Bill.
cester, against the Poor Laws' Amendme°
LABOURERS' EmPLoymENrt, 13
ILL.
- second
the
Colonel D A VIE S presented a petition from
On the order of the day being read for
reading of this bill,
Sir C. BURRELL rose to move the
on of the
ing, and appealed to the kind consideratt
apians,
house, while he offered a few observations ' iv
sincere./
tory of the object of his motion.
lie
wasthreatened
sorry to find that some obstacles were
sideratioo
to be thrown in the way of the further cont_e sbnehi
of this bill. He regretted extremely that n osition,
have the misfortune to meet with any °PrPnteentg
but it was his duty to offer such
be gthought
in support of his views of this subject, as -e that he
would promote its success. He was in hopes d _lc, his
would be able to induce the noble lord to with r:d.ding.
opposition,so far at least as to allow of the second re.'wzinee
He was not without some hope that he mix'''. t lirably
the noble lord so far to regard the measure'tav°' into
as to allow it to pass a second reading and g° into
committee. If the noble lord would suffer it to Patissetails
a committee, it could there be modelled in its if the
as to any parts that were objectionable. (Hear. )this it
sec.ond read-
noble lord would intimate his concurrence in /,01
would save the time of the house, sir C.
Althorp shook his head, but said nothing.)
~,d felt
Burrell took that as a direct negative,
.a" into
therefore under the necessity of enteririf. .to
the subject- .In the outset he certainlyefiat
c(cit nnot
be distinctly understood, that i
the least merit to himself for
e was due to a
measure. Whatever merit waswith which the sub-
district in Northamptoilasnhirein
part to those pa
ject had originated, d
speedily
joined that district
rishes which had , • h the
laudable undertaking, by which bringi°gl
be"
in this most
had already been
of those parts lot
population
lands cultivated in a very sillier a
nefitted, and the
He would next refer .t° d
degree. (Hear, hear.)_ forward this
great number of pett ,dly to
-tons that had been presente
to by all the aistra
• tes ex-
one that had been signed mat, . _s ; that
ceptone assembled at the Westminster Sessions' and
barrister of considerable 'standing,' did
one was a
that he
his reason for refusing to sign it, also, was _o,nest
not understand the subject. He would nosy ‘-i
the house in favour of it. ; and more especi—
cober
that the petition should be read, and the h°,,nd of Fern-
then presented a petition from the hundriZtoendrnent
been productive of great V°
ham ( Surrey), against the Poor Laws labour rate.
Bill, as far as it was opposed to The plan had
The honourable member resumed The The saving
293 paupers
effected was a diminution of no t monthly dimi-,
in the course of one month, and a which woulta
notion of 4131. in the poor rates,
r, hear.) The
amount in the year to 4,8071.
d(11-weoauld not
re;
bill proposed by the nobles
hleosr,
i for it did not prorso
lieve the paupers nor the
tPbauf t to send them to their ovtof
to find them employrnne,ne;
ber would refer to the act
places. If any liTi-
i all the laws relating to the P",§
Elizabeth, on wine 1
would findpoor-b°tO
they that no ~iocl
were based, .
existence, but
were then in employment was
.1,1,,er",
forthe poor in a general way. ( Hear, hear.) Pr_ e 5
one must acknowledge the
talents of Mr. Stilt."
Bourne, and he alone of all the commoners refuseos
agree to the abolition of the labour rate, and that vt the
strong argument in its favour. With respect t01551f
bill now before the house he would take upon, hilt' re;
to say that if it was suffered to pass as a Oeolu
porary bill for one or it could
two years, i 4
not fail to operate very beneficially, 1111%40 '
render unnecessary the provisions that were '
"'ban '

■

arother bill that had been lately brought before the
bouse. He was sure that if the house were to
pass the bill with the enactment which directed that
the labourers who happened to be out of employment
from sickness should be received into the poor-house,
it would create a prejudice against the bill that would
destroy all sense of the relief to be obtained from it.
He had no object in the bill he was now bringing
forward but the benefit of the pocr. ( Heart
hear, hear.) He wished to see good will and
contentment among the poor labourers, and that
the masters' property should be put into a corn-
- plete state of security, from the satisfaction
Which would prevail among the labourers. ( Hear. )
'There was one point to which he wished to allude—it
was, in his opinion, contrary to law to allow parishes
to employ the poor rates in pauper labour. He was
aware that necessity had led to a violation of the
law in that respect, and he could give an instance
of the demoralizing and injurious effects of such pro-
ceeding in his own parish. Some unemployed la-
-1-' bourers had been employed in raising stone, and
they got up about 80 load of stone, which a turnpike
overseer proposed to buy. He said he could get them
at the prisons at 4s. a load, and upon being pressed
for an opinion as to how much these stones cost the
parish, he stated his belief that they could not
have cost less than from 545. to 555. per load.
lie entreated the noble lord ( Althorp) to allow the
bill to go into committee. He concluded by stating
that he was.willing to leave the bill to the judgment
of the house.
Mr. LEECH ( Surrey) rose to second the motion,
and made a few observations which were totally in-
audible in the gallery.
Mr. SLANE Y gave the hon. baronet credit for his
good intentions, but he was convinced that his bill,
instead of being beneficial, would prove most injurious
to the poor. At present three-fourths of the rate-
payers might adopt the labour rate if they pleased, but
by the present bill the rates might be enforced on a
Parish provided they were agreed to by three-fourths of
the ratepayers in vestry assembled. Any body who
knew any thing of the manner in which vestries were
conducted in the country would at once perceive that
this would enable a few busy persons to impose their
views upon a whole parish. By the Pauper Bill which
was brought in, it was to be applied only to parishes
in which the poor rates were at ss. in the pound rack
rent, and this exempted from its operation all parishes
that were not so badly circumstanced ; but the present
bill was without any such salutary restriction. The
existing law enabled farmers to employ as many of the
paupers as they might want, but the present bill com-
pelled them to take certain numbers whether they
might want them or not. He was convinced that the
Proposed bill would have the effect of demoralizing the
Poor, by equally providing for all, without distinction
of conduct or qualification. There was not a county
in England that he would not be lc es d sp sed to take.
' as a precedent upon this subject than the county of
Sussex, to which so much allusion had been made.
Mr. DENISON said that he could support the
statements that had been made by the hon. baronet
who proposed this measure. from his own experience,
in the county which he represented, as to the great
saving which the system recommended by this bill was
likely
-to producein parishes, and likewise as to the
great improvement that it would produce in the con-
dition of the land. Landlords had hitherto been so
much pressed down by the rates that they were
unable to employ the number of labourers necessary
for the proper cultivation of the soil. He could not
see any objection there could be to letting the bill go
into committee, when any portion of it that might be
objectionable could be improved. It was only in-
tended as a temporary measure, and as he considered
that it was likely to produce much benefit amongst the
agricultural classes he should give it his most cordial
support.
Mr. HE ATHCOTE, having presented a number
of petitions to the house in favour of this measure
from the county which he represented, felt himself
called upon to say a few words in support of the bill,
which he considered well worthy the attention of the
house, from the many advantages that were likely to
arise from it. One great comfort that it would pro-
duce to the country generally was the application of a
taoch greater quantity of labour to land than could be
afforded to it at present. This would occur by the
removal of all the useless labour that was now thrown
away upon the roads to the cultivation of the land. He
approved too of the principle maintained by this bill,
that the rnajority in each parish was to bind the.mina-
itY, if they chose, to regulate the labour of the parish
under the provisions of the bill, or on the principles
Which it laid down. He had no doubt but this measure
would prove a most useful auxiliary to the Poor Laws'
Amendment Bill.
Mr. R. PALME Reonsidered it very desirable that
the inhabitants of a parish should be compelled to pay
the sums which they might agree to pay, for it was
Well-known that many persons in a parish, after having
Voluntarily agreed to pay a certain sum towards the
labour fund, had in less than a month after refused to
continue their payments. He approved of the general
principle of the bill, and, feeling assured that it would
also work well in practice, he should give it his
support.
Colonel TORRENS viewed this bill as most erro-
neous in principle and mischievous in practice. There
could be nothing just in compelling people to pay for
labour over and above what they required. A parish
might as well be called upon at once to support a thou-
sand or any other given number of labourers, although
it might not require half that number. This was
nothing better than an agrarian law, or at least was
e4leulated to lead to that. Nothing could be worse in
Principle than accumulating idle labourers in a parish,
and deducting from the productive industry of others
!o support thorn. If there was a surplus of labourers
in a parish the proper way to deal with them would be,
if they could not be employed on the land, to apply
them to the increase of the trade and commerce of the
country. Convinced that this measure would prove
to be practically injurious, he should give it his de-
cided opposition.
Mr. A. BARING would look rather to the manner
in which this bill was likely to work, than to any gene-
ral principle which it might involve. He had inquired
,much' into the subject, and found that opinions were
"gry various upon it in different parts of the country.
the of the witnesses who had been examined before
su committee had spoken most favourably of the mea-
sure, While others disapproved of its practical results.
rie entertained no doubt of its beneficial effects in
Other
that were purely agricultural, and where no
'ner species of labour was going on ; but he consi-
dered it oppressive to make small trades people pay
for labour which they did not want. He should have
been glad if his hon. friend had not for the present
pressed this bill, until the PoorLaws' Amendment Bill
that was before the house should be disposed of, and
they could see what they should be able to do with
that important measure. He could have wished that
his hon. friend had waited to see how that bill would
work, and in the next session the measure might be
Tnore fitly introduced as an auxiliary, if it should be
;teemed requisite. He had undoubtedly found, that
',ll some parishes in his own immediate neighbourhood,
tue Labour Rate Bill operated with a very beneficial
effect, although this might not be generally the case
hthr°llghout the country. He hoped, for the reasons
.: bill
stated, that his bon. friend would withdraw the
I tier
tilait:
Parishes present.
vERE Y said that there were many
where there was but little occasion for labour,
'4,11,(1 it would be hard to compel small annuitants and
-, others who did not require labourers to pay for their
pritirti. He was, however, favourable to the general
how
hp, eshoofultdhevo hill but he felt some difficulty as to
degree clash with the
had
lest this measure should in any
lord near him Poor Laws Bill which the noble
introduced, and which he hoped to
age brought to a successful issue.
Mr. HAL COMB said this bill would produce the
..,.
-teat advantage of compelling the application of k-
W. to useful purposes, instead of ng
emplo yi labour-
ers in filling up sandholes and other useless work.
~
.Alr. DI VETT said he considered the bill absurd in
t'lrlle'leiple and mischievous in practice. He should,
serefore, move as an amendment that it be read a
de ?NI time that day six months. He came to this
4 eisicql partly in consequence of the arguments lie
.ow heard offered in support of the bill. It would
greasincrease the evil complained of, as its tendency was to
e a s
tyas the fit time number of labourers in parishes. This
srderation a they had under con-
rne to reject it, when
If the en) bill to remedy the evils of the poor laws.
plcoln
good ; J ent of labour was voluntary, well and
to but this bill-made it compulsory on the farmers
,p,rnrploy labourers even when they did not want them.
,1.:1 • WARBURTON seconded the amendment.
• have Pr_epose such. a bill now was as absurd as it would
,been to introduce a measure for reforming the
rough of Gatton or Old Sarum, after the general
"form Bill had Been proposed. The principles of it
were admitted to bebad, and it was altogether so pre-
Pcsterous, that lie did not think the house could agree
to •
tk2t.. The tendency of it was to put the pauper and
—4O Independent labourer on the same footing. This