Lords Sitting of 14 May 1838

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of LEINSTER, from the Grand Jury of Clare, by the Marquess of LONDONDERRY, from Landholders of a parish in Antrim, by the Earl of RODEN, from the Grand Jury of Kilkenny, by the Earl of FINGALL. from the Grand Jury of Meath, and from the Grand Jury of the county of the town of Drogheda, and by the Earl of SHREWSBURY, from a parish in Dublin, against parts of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill.—By the Bishop of CHESTER, from certain Wesleyan Methodists, for the better Observance of Sunday.—By Lord WHARNCLIEFE, from a parish in Suffolk, from a place in Yorkshire, and from other places, that all Ecclesiastical Revenues may be appropriated to the spiritual improvement of the people.—By Lord HOWARD, of Effingham, from a place in Northumberland, by the Marquess of DOWNSHIRE, from Bandonbridge, and places in the county of Down, by the Duke of CLEVELAND, from Durham, Barnard Castle, and other places, by the Earl of CARLISLE, from members of the Society of Friends in Cumberland, by the Bishop of LONDON, from Hartley (Northumberland), by the Earl of BURLINGTON, from places in Westmorland and Derbyshire, by the Earl of SHREWSBURY, from Kilmain, and other places in Ireland, and by Lord, DENMAN (three), from Methodists of Manchester, and other places, for the Immediate Abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.—By Earl STANHOPE, from the parish of Revelsby, in the county of Lincoln, from the inhabitants of Chichester, and from Huddersfield and Bradford, against the New Poor-law.—By Viscount MELBOURNE, from two places, for Amendments in the Beer Act.—By the Bishop of DERRY, from the Governors of the Foundling Hospital, Dublin, praying that the interests and regulations of that Establishment may not be affected by the Irish Poor-law.

POOR-LAW AMENDMENT ACT.
Earl Stanhopepresented a petition from Saxmundham, and other parishes in the county of Suffolk, for the repeal of the New Poor-law.
The Earl of Cawdorremarked, that he thought the prayer of the petitioners rather in favour of, than against the Poor-law Amendment Act, as he observed they prayed for the observance of all good laws.
Earl Stanhopesaid, there was one passage in the petition which he would recommend to the attention of the noble Lord, and, indeed, to that of their Lordships in; general. The special prayer of the petitioners, after the general prayer, was, that

1171
the noble Lord would be pleased to illuminate their understandings.
The Earl of Stradbrokesaid, it was a singular circumstance, that the signatures to the petition were all in the same handwriting—a fact which he would assure the noble Earl would cause some sensation in Suffolk, that part of the country from which the petition proceeded, and in which the Act had been found to work admirably. When the noble Earl brought forward his motion in March last, he had turned round to him (the Earl of Stradbroke), and said, that there was a large landed proprietor near Folkestone, who had become so disgusted with the way in which the Act was administered, that he had become a determined enemy of the law. There was only one large landed proprietor near Folkestone, and with reference to that gentleman, he begged most distinctly to deny the assertion.
Earl Stanhopesaid, it would save some trouble if he repeated what he had stated on the occasion referred to. He had never stated, that the gentleman in question was inimical to the measure, he regretted he was not; but he had stated, and he again repeated, that which he had more than once heard in the presence of others, from the great landed proprietor of whom he was speaking, that in consequence of the bruality with which the applicants for relief were treated, when they came to the Board of Guardians, and the injustice shown to them, that gentleman had discontinued his attendance.
The Earl of Stradbrokedenied, that that was the case. The gentleman alluded to had never attended the Board but twice. On the first of those occasions, he had taken an opportunity of expressing his admiration of the way in which the law was carried into effect. On another occasion, he had been requested to present a petition against the measure, which he said as a Member of Parliament, he would be happy to do, but he, at the same time, declared, that he could not approve of the principle of that opposition.
Earl Stanhopebegged leave most distinctly to adhere to his declaration, which was founded upon statements made to him. The noble Earl talked of the excellent administration of the law in the county of Suffolk. He was not connected with that county by property or residence, but he had frequent communications with its inhabitants, and was well aware that it was
1172
there carried into effect in a manner the most cruel and oppressive. In the Union of Blomsgate, an ex officio guardian, a magistrate and a clergyman, had ceased to attend in consequence of the manner in which the law was executed. He would not mention the name; but he was positive of the fact being so, from the declarations made to him. The noble Lord talked of the names being in the same handwriting. It was very probable that that might be so, or that there might be marks.
Lord Hollandhad no hesitation in saying, that if a great number of names were affixed to the petition by persons not bearing those names, the petition could not be received.
Earl Stanhopesaid, he had been informed and instructed, that no name was affixed to this petition without the authority of the parties.
Earl Fitzwilliamwas desirous of knowing by whom the noble Earl had been so instructed. If the petition had been presented by a noble Lord connected with the county of Suffolk, or if the noble Earl had presented any petition from his own county, it would have been unnecessary to make that inquiry. But it was very unfortunate that noble Lords should be so forward in giving testimony regarding counties with which they were in no way connected.
Earl Stanhopehad the full authority of the person who delivered those petitions to him. He should have no difficulty in giving the name; the gentleman was a person of high respectability.
The Duke of Richmondconsidered that nothing was more likely to detract from the importance of petitions, and lessen the attention paid to them by the House and the public, than any laxity of practice in the annexation of signatures. The custom of affixing marks where the person could not sign his name was admissible, but it was reserved for Mr. Lewin, and the getters-up of petitions against the New Poor Law, to invent a new mode, and set on foot a manufactory of them in London.
Lord Hollandhad no hesitation in saying, that if, as the noble Lord had stated, it had been signed by a certain number of persons, and their signatures were false—
Earl Stanhope.—No, no, not false—irregular.
Lord Hollandsaid, if there was no falsity when another man put down a different signature from his own, he did not know the meaning of the word. Even a petition signed by the chairman of a meeting of which all the members were unanimous in opinion, was received only as the petition of the individual. It would be impossible for the House to distinguish between the false and genuine signatures, without instituting an examination for the purpose. This was not a popular petition at all. A man might write any number of names in this way in his study.
Earl Fitzwilliamcalled the attention of the noble Earl opposite to the names of "William Gurling," "George Gurling," "James Gurling," and "William Gurling" again, which were all found in one sheet of the Suffolk petition, and again to the repetition of the very same names in the same order in another sheet of it, all in the same handwriting.
Petition rejected.