The Sun.
London, England, 1834-05-08 00:00:00

ST. BO TOLPH'S, BISHOPSGATE

At the ward school-house, in Peter-stieet, a vestry of
the parishioners was held yesterday morning, pursuant to
notice, to take into consideration the Poor Laws' Amend-
ment Bill ; the Rev. Dr. Russell, rector, in the chair. It
was resolved, on the recommendation of the workhouse
committee, that no petition should be presented to the
House of Commons against the second reading of the bill;
but that it should be referred to the workhouse committee
to watch its progress in committee, and to petition on be-
half of the parish against such clauses as should to them ap-
pear objectionable. Thanks having been voted to the chair-
man, the meeting was dissolved.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

THIS DAY, THURSDAY, MAY 8.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter after twelve.

PRIVATE- BUSINESS

Lord NORREYS presented two petitions from Hart-
ford, against the Farringdon and Camsfield Road Bill, and
then moved that that bill be read a second time.
Mr. GORDON opposed the bills going into committee.
Much public money had been squandered in a useless con-
test between the trusts appointed to this road. Trust No.
1, (he would designate them) obtained leave to improve
that road, and trust No. 2, opposed it in the House of
Lords, successfully, at the expense of 800/. No 2 at-
tempted to do what No. 1 had been obliged to desist from,
and, therefore, the latter was about to oppose trust No. 2,
at, of course,. great expense. (Laughter.) He there-
fore moved that the bill be read a second time that day six
months.

Mr. THROGMORTON (we understood) seconded
the like proposition.
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND was for thebills being
committed, as he considered there never was a clearer
case for the consideration of a committee.

Mr. PALMER supported the bill.
After a few words from Mr. Hartcourt, Mr. H.
Hughes, Lord Villiers, and Mr. Gordon,
The SPEAKER ordered strangers to withdraw, when a
division took place.
For the second reading
Against it
_ _ Majority for the second reading —s

The bill was ihen-eommitted.
Sir JOHN BYNG moved the third reading of the
Poole Bridge Bill.—Read a third time and passed.

BUCKLEBURY INCLOSURE BILL.
Mr. R. PALMER moved the second reading of the
amendments to the Bucklebury Inclosure Bill.
Mr. WALTER moved that the amendments be read a
second time that day six months. He felt it to be his
duty to state, that a measure more pregnant with mischief,
and less likely to benefit the public, never was brought
under the consideration of the house. The advantages
enjoyed by the poor people in right of commonage, amounted
to 81. 2s. per annum. There were about 230 families
interested in the bill, 35 of whom were freeholders, and at
least 200 of these families, amounting to about 1,000 indi-
viduals, were opposed to the bill. He trusted that the
house would agree with him that this bill should not pass.
(The hon. member then proceeded to read the evidence
given before the committee upon the bill.) He trusted
that the house would not consent to sanction such an act
of injustice as this bill would produce.
The SPEAKER put the question with the amendment.
Mr. PALMER replied briefly.
Mr. PEASE thought the measure was a very unfair
and improper one. It was a great injustice, and a gross
infringement on the rights of the poor.
Colonel EVANS must certainly oppose the bill, as well
as others of a similar tendency, in progress through the
house.

Mr. THROGMORTON said a few words in support of
the bill, but in a very inaudible voice.
Mr. H. CURTEIS would oppose the bill on the ground
that the rights of the poor were not sufficiently protected.
It went entirely to the support and advantage of the tithe
owners,..and was therefore most unjust in its operation.

Air. H. HUGHES said that at the committee they
were surrounded by poor people praying not to make them
paupers. ( Hear.) He hoped the house would protect
the interests of the poor, and he appealed to the house on
their behalf.

After a few words from Mr. PALMER, strangers were
ordered to withdraw, and the house divided, when the
numbers were—

For the 2d reading of the amendment 6
Against it 3B
Majority against the 2d reading .
On our return to the gallery, we found Colonel BUT-
LER on his legs, adverting to a letter which he had lately
received from the Rev. C. Stevenson, rector of Callan, in
the county of Kilkenny, in which the writer stated, that
being well acquainted with the condition of the poor of his
parish, he was anxious to lay it before one of the members
of the county, to enable him to state the very great distress
that prevailed there, and to impress on the members of
that house the
tbaomeabsoluteonnmg
providens
making
necessity
theensgs foridteyrme
the
efi
emaciated
ltasersudaspi
legisla-
tiveoT fh ec
lhl
ao
nl e r; a enactment,
ahna d ravages
pre:g :
oloaimfnt etothnhe,e
ap townofoerwhours decided the fate of those who were attacked. A fund
had been raised for the support of the poor, but it had been
exhausted, and famine was staring them in the face. One
hundredvictims had fallen before the cholcra,and unless some-
thing was done, a still greater number would perish from star-
vation. The hon. and gallant member contended that this let-
ter was a complete refutation of the assertions lately made in
that house that the union had improved Ireland. Very
few places had suffered more than Callan by the union,
previous to which it returned two members to the Irish
parliament, had a respectable and wealthy resident
nobility and gentry, and was making a progressive
improvement. This state was now entirely changed, so
changed that, in his opinion, even a separation between
the two countries would be preferable to their remaining
as they were. He was as sure as that God was in Heaven,
that the repeal would be carried ; and his prayer would
constantly be, that it might be carried within that house.
The hon. and gallant member then presented petitions
from Killaloe, Callan, Rathpatriek, and other places in