The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-25 00:00:00

he powers that were to be conferred on those Commissioners.
As he before said, he admitted that there were sense abuses in
the old system, but he should wish them remedied by some
other means than this Bill. He should make no motion ; he
had struck out no plan ; but he had no doubt that a plan might
be formed upon the principle of including in it those who at
present managed the Poor Laws of the country that would
give satisfaction.—( Hear, hear.)
•
The clause was then agreed to.
On the 2sl clause being read,
Lord WYNFORD rose to oppose it. Ile objected in
the strongest manner to the powers given by this clause to
the. Commissioners of examining witnesses. They had a most
inquisitorial power given to them, and the clause giving these
powers was worded in the most loose and ill-defined manner.
He should therefore propose to strike this clause out altogether,
and he hoped he should be able to show sufficient grounds for
doing it, if his Noble and Learned Friend would not object to
it.. The clause went to say that the Commissioners should
have the power to summon under their hsnds and seals any
witnesses they might think proper upon any matter relating
to the Poor. Laws, or to the administration of them. Now
if this power was to extend to every part of the Bill it
would become extremely dangerous. The Commissioners
might put questions of such inquisitorial and galling cha-
racter as to be actually oppressive; for these queStions
were not merely confined to the relief cf the poor, but might
extend to the whole administration of the Poor Laws, and
everything relating to them. They might even call for the
production of title deeds if they in any way had application
to the Poor Laws. Indeed this was, he believed, the first
time that such an extraordinary clause was ever introduced
into • any Act. They could examine all rateable property.
Then, again, he objected to the power they had of administer-
ing oaths. They might call any Peer of that House to ac-
count on oath for the value of their property, and of the dif-
ferent leases they held. He was sure that few of their Lord-
ships would be disposed to submit to this inquisitorial power.
The Commissioners might even examine as to the value of
stock in trade, for that was liable to the rates, although hither-
to it had not been acted upon. He wished to know how the
affirmations of Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists were to be
examined, for this clause only spoke of oaths.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the 100th clause
explained this, for it made an exception in the cases of the
sects to which his Noble and Learned Friend had alluded.
Lord WYNFORD said this was the first time he heard of
the exception ; but that made rather for than against his argu-
ment, for how then were the members of the Church of
England to he situated? Must they be compelled to take
an oath as to the value of their property while others were to
be exempt from that oath ? The House ought to take care
that nothing that was not absolutely necessary should be given
as powers to those Commissioners. He should move their
Lordships that this clause do not stand part of the Bill.
. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he was sure this
Bill would not be considered as a party measure. His Noble
and Learned Friend having been set right as to the clause
that referred to oaths, and the explanatory clause, he hoped
his Noble and Learned Friend would be equally disposed to
hear explanations on the other parts of the Bill to which he
objected. He denied that the Bill would enable the Com-
missioners to put improper questions. The party might refuse
to answer, and all the Commissioners could do was to prose-
cute him for his refusal, in which case the Court, if it thought
fit, would acquit him. He had no objection to modify the
clause so as to meet the wishes of his Noble Friend, by pre-
venting any parole evidence being exacted upon the subject of
title deeds.

Lord WYNFORD contended that his objection to the
clause remained untouched by what had fallen from his Noble
and Learned Friend. The Commissioners under the clause
bad a right to put any and all questions to any man relative to
any property in the parish which they might deem liable to be
rated for the poor. Questions unnecessary and excessively
vexatious might be put under the clause.
'I he Earl of WINCHILSEA did not read the clause in the
sense in which the Learned Lord had read it.
The clause was then put and carried without the amend-
ment, and without the House dividing.
Clause 3 was carried.

Clause 4 was carried with an amendment moved by the
:Duke of WELLINGTON, to the effect that the Commissioners
should lay a record of their correspondence and proceedings
once a year before the Secretary of State, or oftener if re-
quired by him.
Clauses 5,6, 1, and 8 were carried.

On the 9th clause being proposed,
The Marquis of SALISBURY suggested that the autho-
rity of the Commissioners should be made to exist for ten
years.
After a short conversation (at the instance of the Bishop of
EXETER and the Duke Of WELLINGTON),
The Noble Marquis abandoned his suggestion, and the
clause, without alteration, was agreed to.

The 10th clause was agreed to.
After some discussion the 11th clause was agreed to, ox the
understanding that if the 19th clause should not be agreed to,
it (the 11th clause) should be omitted.
On the 12th clause, relating to wilful false evidence, being
proposed,
The Bishop of EXETER complained of so heinous an
offence as that of giving wilful false evidence being mixed up
with comparatively trivial offences.
The LORD CHANCELLOR admitted the justice of the
remark, and the wording of this clause was so altered as to
constitute giving wilfully false evidence perjury, and to subject
the offender to all the pains and penalties of perjury.
Clauses 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 were agreed to.
On the 18th clause, providing that no pauper should be
obliged to attend divine service in opposition to his religious
•principles, being proposed,
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY expressed his
astonishment at such a provision being in the Bill at all, unless
there had been other clauses providing for religious instruc-
tion in the workhouses. It appeared to him of the utmost
importance that there should be such provisions, for at pre-
sent there was no clause for affording religious instruction
at ail.
Lord ELL ENBOROUGH thought it quite unnecessary
to insert any such clause, for it was the duty of the clergymen
to attend to the spiritual wants of the poor.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY perfectly agreed that
it was the duty of a clergyman to attend to the wants particu
larly of the poor in as far as he was able. There were parishes,
however, so large that the clergyman could not attend the
workhouse. Such was the case in Lambeth for instance. Now
the Bill made- a new system. It caused the union of parishes,
and therefore rendered it absolutely necessary, if the poor were
to be attended to, that some such clauses as he had alluded
to should be inserted.
The Bishop of EXETER pointed out that the Bill con-
templated many districts ; for it provided that the poorhouse
should not be more than ten miles distant from a parish, and
therefore he contended that the view of the Most Rev. Pre-
late :was fully justified. He had prepared a clause to meet
the difficulty, and at the proper time should be ready to
propose it.
Lord SEGRAVE contended that the Dissenter was as
much entitled to consideration and regard as the Churchman.
He would divide the Committee rather than see the clause
omitted.
• After a few words from Lord WINCIIELSEA, WIIARNCLIFFE,
and SALISBURY,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that by the 14th sec-
tion of the 43d clause, they were empowered to provide for
the education of the inmates of-the workhouses, and so had
the power of providing for their religious instruction in the
most suitable way.
Lurd STOURTON was of opinion that the condition of
the inmates of workhouses should be made better than that of
the inmates of gaols. He agreed with the Right Rev. Bench
that the comforts of religion were of great importance. But
considering the influx of Irish labourers, and that children
-were to be separated from their parents, he thought the system
should be made as mild as possible. The plan would be looked
to with suspicion by the country, and to attempt to enforce the
religious attendance of any particular sect on a form of wor-
ship opposed to their conscience, would be attended with bane-
ful effects.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that while he
thought religious instruction should be provided for the in-
mates,_and that no one should be deprived of the benefits of
religion, merely because lie or any one else said that he be-
longed to this sect or to that, yet he'did not maintain that
Dissenting Ministers should not be admitted when required.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the fur-
ther consideration of the clause was postponed, and the
• House adjourned at Twenty Minutes to Twelve.

There are no alterations to notice in the prices of
colonial produce, except a slight advance of 6d. per cwt.
in brown Mauritius sugar. The last advances in both coffee
and rum are maintained, and tallow is gradually advancing.
Though there is abundance of disunion among us,
we live in an age of unions. At our late sessions it was an-
nounced, that the gentlemen of the bar have decreed amongst
themselves that two counsel must be employed in each appeal.
A similar determination, we understand, has been come to by
the sessions bar at Warwick. At the last Warwick Assizes
• there was an absolute " strike" among the gentlemen of the
'long robe : the fees allowed by the county magistrates were to
counsel with brief on each prosecution 1/. ls. ; and to ditto,
with ditto, where more than five witnesses are necessary, 21.25.
- In all prosecutions the barristers demanded two guineas, and
would take no briefs under.— Worcester Journal.
• A WAGGON BURNT.—On Tuesday week, Daw-
son's fish waggon, which travels between this city and Shef-
field, caught fire on its road from the latter place, under the
following- circumstances :—A man, from Sheffield, who rode
behind the waggon, indulged himself on the road with a pipe
of tobacco, and was desired by the driver to desist, and when
at Ferrybridge, he was strictly prohibited from smoking either
in or near the waggon. Regardless, however, of all that had
been said to him, it appears that at the village of Towton, near
Tadcaster, he contrived to light his pipe unseen by the driver,
and it is supposed that on jumping up to retain his seat, some
sparks fell from his pipe among the straw, as a very short time
afterwards, on passing through Towton bar, the keeper gave
the alarm of fire, and less than five minutes the vehicle and
its contents were enwrapped in a blaze. The passengers were
get out, some of them with difficulty, and no time was lost in
overthrowing the waggon, by which means two joiners' tool
chests, some bedding, and a small. portion of other property,
were rescued from the flames. No water could be obtained,
consequently the waggon, (with the exception of the wheels
and axles, and some part of the lower frame,) together with
the way-bill, and the greater part of the goods and parcels
were entirely consumed. The extent of the loss is not yet
ascertained, nor can it be, till the unfortunate sufferers by the
property consumed be fully ascertained.— York Courant.