The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1834.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, August 8.

The House met to-day shortly after Three o'clock.
The Almanack Stamp Duties Repeal Bill, the Forest of
Dean Boundaries Bill, and the Insolvent Debtors (Ireland)
Bill, were read a third time and passed.
The Norfolk Island Bill, the House of Commons Offices
Bill, the Exchequer Bills Bill, the Bridges (Ireland) Bill, the
Civil Offices Bill, and the Pension Bill went through Com-
mittee.

trusted that early in the next session_ they would be prepared
with a measure of safety.
The Bishop of DERRY would not let the discussion close
without stating that the Primate of Ireland had set his face
most firmly against nonresidence, and .had not granted one
such application for years.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH was sorry that the Session had
been allowed to close without some means having been taken
by the Government to settle the question of tithes in England.
He trusted it would be one of the first measures of next Session.

POOR LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
Upon the Order of the Day being moved for the third read-
ing of the Poor Law Amendment Bill,
Lord KEN YON said he objected to the principle of this
Bill, but of all the clauses of the Bill he objected to those
most which separated the children from their parents.
The Bishop of LONDON said that with respect to the
children of poor in general, and perhaps even with respect
to the children of paupers, if they could all be placed
in schools in their immediate neighbourhood, or have such
superintendence as that which had been bestowed by the
Noble Baron who had just sat down, he might then perhaps
be induced to modify the opinion he now entertained
upon that subject ; but at present he begged leave to say
that, generally speaking, when a person became a pauper,
it was expedient for his children and himself that
they should be educated apart from their parents,
provided that education was on right principles. Although
there was a great mass of feeling in favour of our na-
tional schools, yet of all the schools those most ad-
mired were those where the children were taken from
the parents educated, clothed, and boarded in a district estab-
lishment. It was from those schools that the best servants
came forth.—( Hear, hear.) He trusted, and indeed he took
it for granted, that the schools in the workhouses would be
such schools as they ought to be, and he hoped that the Com-
missioners would be able to make such regulations as to keep
them not very far distant from that standard of perfection
which abounded in those schools over which the Noble Lord
opposite (Kenyon) presided.
Lord TE YNH AM thought the Bill was a delusion from one
end to the other. Indeed he had no doubt that the Noble
Viscount himself at the head of the Government would very
early. next Session move its repeal.—( Laughter.) As he
was sincerely and strongly opposed to the Bill, he should
move as an amendment that the Bill be read that day six
months. . .

......
Viscount STRANGFORD was opposed to the principle
of the Bill.
The Earl of FALMOUTH said there could be no doubt
that the Bill would now pass, but he considered it to be
wholly unnecessary, because it was perfectly well known that
very great exertions had been made by most parishes so as to
restore' the administration of the Poor Laws in some degree to
its proper state. He should liked to have seen the result
of those exertions before the passing of the Bill, which
proposed what he must call very violent measures. He thought
the House of Lords had done itself great credit in the manner
in which it had passed the Bill, and certainly in the Committee
he had not seen even the tincture of any party spirit.
The Bishop of ROCHESTER said, that although he did
not object to the principle of the Bill, yet that he objected
to several of its clauses, and more particularly that which
separated man and wife.
Lord NV YNFORD supported the amendment.
The Duke of RICHMOND was not aware of any
clause alluded to by the Right Reverend Prelate which
went to separate man and wife. If there were such a
clause in the Bill, he should like to know whether it was in-
troduced in the Committee. when, and by whom.
The Bishop of ROCHESTER said there was a clause in
the Bill, which went to place the husband in one workhouse,
and the wife in another.

The House then divided, when there appeared
For the third reading 45
For Lord Teynham's Amendment l5
Majority for the third reading —3o
On our entering the House, we found the LORD CHAN-
CELLOR putting the question that the Bill do pass.
Lord \VYNFORD moved two amendments to the 40th
clause, which were agreed to.