The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-08 00:00:00

LICENSED VICTUALLERS.

Mr. DIVETT presented a petition from the Licensed
Victuallers of Exeter, complaining that the measure intro-
duced by the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was not calculated to afford them any relief. Also petitions
to the same effect from the Licensed Victuallers of Bolton-le-
Moor, signed ,by 120 ; from Davenport, signed by 47 ; frOm
Plymouth, signed by 63 ; and from East Stonehouse, signed
by 21.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed
that he would not have brought forward this measure if he
had not intended and believed that it would be beneficial.
He had been charged with a desire to uphold the gin-palaces,
but his object was to relieve those whose trade was principally
in beer, and with whom the sale of spirits was but a matter of
secondary consideration. His object was to relieve the smaller
class of publicans, and if he should retain his office next ses-
sion, he had not a doubt of being able to show that the mea-
sure had been productive of considerable benefit.
Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition from the labourers
of Warwick against the Poor Law Amendment Bill, and
praying that tithes might be applied to the purposes for which
they were originally instituted.
BIRMINGHAM POLITICAL UNION.

Mr. SCHOLE FIELD presented a petition from the Bir-
mingham Political Union, praying the House to reject the
Municipal Corporation Bill, as amended by the House of
Lords. The petitioners complained of the qualification'elause
introduced into the Bill, which he (Mr. S.) entirely acqui•
esced in. His own opinion was, that they were not to look
among the most wealthy individuals for patriotism ; they were
generally actuated by selfish and sordid feelings, and did
not participate in those generous feelings which would be found
to exist as much among the unions of B►rmingham as among
any men in the country.—( Hear, hear.) He was sorry he
could not concur in the prayer of the petitioners for the rejec-
tion of the Bill ; but were it not for fear of being thrown into
the hands of the Tories, he would vote for its rejection.—
( Hear, hear, and laughter. ) The petitioners stated, that nine-
tenths of the amendments which had been introduced were mis-
chievous, selfish, and aristocratic; and he further stated,
that they were fully prepared, and were resolved to
stand by the House when any infraction of the rights or liber-
ties of the people were threatened.
Mr. T. ATTWOOD expressed his regret that Ministers
had thought proper to agree to any one of the amendments
made by the Lords.—(Hear, hear.) He felt convinced the
people never would be satisfied until the Bill was restored to
that integrity which it possessed, when sent from that
House to the Lords, a month ago.—( Hear, hear.)
If there should be another election shortly—if Ministers
would only pledge themselves to maintain the Corporation
Bill, as it existed a month ago, notwithanding a Tory Admi-
nistration, they would have upwards of 100 more members on
their side than they had at present. He thought there
was more in the threats that had been held out than met
the eye

The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
POOR LAWS.

Major BE AUCLE k pies;;;Ced a petition from Sussex,
against certain parts of the Poor Law Amendment Bill. The
petitioners complained that an order had been issued by the
Poor Law Commissioners that no relief should be
given to
any persons, unless they consented to become inmates of the
Workhouse. This order, in the opinion of the petitioners,
would be productive of great hardships and misery. In
his opinion, this was carrying the provisions of the Bill too
quickly into operation. The Bill to work well ought to be
carried into effect gradually.
Lord J. RUSSELL would give his best attention to the
statements of the Hon. Menthe', and direct inquiries to be
made on the subject.
Lord GEORGE SOMERSET wished to call the atten-
tion of the Noble Lord aethe head of the Home Department
to the fact, that many of the country parishes under the Poor Lan,
Bill were joined with those in towns, which in many Cases
acted most detrimentally to the country parishes. He trusted
the Noble Lord would institute some inquiry upon the subject.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL would look into the matter.

Mr. SC HOLEFIE L DtrUsiieathar Mitiiste;,.i;jore they
allowed this order to be put into effect, would step the pen-
sions of all state paupers.
After some observations from Mr. WAKLEY, Mr. RoBIN-
SON, and Mr. ATTWOOD, the petition was ordered to lie on
the table.

Mr. RUTH YEN presented a petition from the parish of
St. Thomas, Dublin, expressing great regret at the mutilation
of the Irish Church and Corporation Bills, by the House of
Lords, and praying the House to do all in their power to sup-
port the present Ministry. He fully concurred in the prayer
of the petition. Also one from Whitburn in Linlitligowshire,
praying for the House not to agree to the Lords amendments
to the Corporation Bill. Also one from an individual in Dub.