The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-15 00:00:00

BIRKENHEAD DOCK BILL.

The Earl of STRADBROKE moved the third reading
of this Bill.

The motion was agreed to.
On the motion that the Bill do pass,
The Marquis of SALISBURY rose, and was
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
NEW POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
3lr. T. DUNCOMBE (in continuation from our
afternoon edition) said—He objected to the power given
to the Commissioners to fix the annual value which was
to give a vote to ti e rate-payer. This power had never
been given to the Commissioners, and he hoped it never
would be. If the postponement of the clause was not
consented to, he should move the omission of the words
giving that power.
Mr. WAKLEY entreated the Hon. Gentleman to
postpone the clause. The clause was one that could not be
discussed in the absence of the Right Hon. Baronet, who
had charge of the Bill.
Mr. FERRAND called the attention of the Govern-
ment to the power given by the clause to the overseers of
the poor to appoint the district board that was to manage
the schools of the poor.
Mr. M. SUTTON could not consent to the postpone-
ment of the clause. The power given to the Commis-
sioners was the same as that given them by the 38th sec.
of the New Poor-law Act. •

Mr. JIAIVES thought that the clause ought not to be
discussed in the absence of any Member of the Govern-
ment who would be able to afford the House any ex-
planation.

Mr. B. COCHRANE said that this showed how little was
known of the new Poor-law. Here was a power possessed
by the Commissioners which few were aware of. He
thought that the power of the Commissioners ought to
be curtailed, and no'; increased.

Captain FITZROY- thought that the conduct adopted
by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and by some on his side,
was such as to afford any Government little inducement
to bring forward a Bill to mitigate the operation of the
new law. He thought the opposition to the Bill was an
unfair one. He was as much opposed to the new Poor-
law as any one, and as such he was justified in not op-.
posing a Bill which was a mitigation of that law
He thought that the conduct evinced with regard to this
measure showed who were the real friends of the poor.
It was not enough to come down to the House like the
Noble Lord the Member for Newark, to make flashy
speeches, in order that they might appear in the news-
papers. But the mask was now taken off those who
called themselves the friends of the poor.—(" Oh, oh,"
and " Hear, hear.")
Sir C. NAPIER said he did not know whether he
was included amongst those who wished to stop the Bill.
He had no wish to stop it, but it was no wonder that the
Bill should be delayed when, on the last evening it wag
under discussion, a clause was for four or five hours
under consideration, which, according to the Right
Hon.:Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, was not applicable to the rural districts,
and which the metropolitan districts aid not want.—
(Hear, hear.) Why should such a clause be introduced
into the Bill? He hoped this discussion would induce
the Government to pay more attention to the Bills they
introduced. They were now on the 24th line of the
present clause, which he thought was a very improper
one. He hoped they would not pass it. He
considered it gave the Commissioners too much power,
and therefore he should oppose that part of it.
After a desultory conversation,
Mr. M. SUTTON moved that the Chairman do report
progress, and ask leave to sit again.
The House then resumed, the CHAIRMAN reported
progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Wednesday
next, at Twelve o'clock.

The House then adjourned till Five o'clock.

The House resumed its slating at Five o'clock.
The London and Croydon Railway Bill was read a
third time and passed.
Mr. HUTT presented a petition from Gateshead,
complaining of the opening of letters by the Post•office
authorities.

Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from certain
parties in the eastern division of Surrey, complaining of
the contradictory decisions of revising barristers.
Messengers from the Lords brought down several
Bills, and also asked leave for Lord Palmerston to be
examined before the Postage Committee of the Upper
House, which was agreed to.
NOTICES OF MOTION—MR. WCDEHOUSE