The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 19.
The LORD CHANCELLOR Valk his rettt, Upoo the WOCI-
‘4. at Five o'clo.,lc.

POOR REMOVAL BILL.
Earl ST. GER NI ANS presented a petiti.,n from Salt-
-I,n the county of Devon. prain;.: for a repe.4l of the
0"o, i
r ItII:lova' Act, and the substitution of a parochial
—"etuent.
„..T.,..he Bishop of DOWN and CONNOR presented a
,i'uon from the ratepayers of the county of Lincoln,
erayin
aeti.t io for a repeal of the law of settlement; and also
Petit from Dromore, in Ireland, praying for a repeal
the
law forbidding marriage with a &ceased wife's
als4r.
The
the Earl of WICKLOW presented two petitions from
d county of Wicklow against the principle of out-
rtlpitc.r relief, and against any alteration in the mode of
(3,1:g in that county. Also, a petition praying the
tra-irnruent to encourage an extensive system of emi-
whilLun• If leui might be permitted to offer a suggestion,
yetet"was not, however, one of his own, tOr he had not
ilion11;13' considered the question, it was that facility
lot; be given by her Majesty's Government to grant
Irma for the 'purposes of emigration, under the same
thgetnents as were prop lied with regard to loans for
lruprovement of estates.

POOR REMOVAL ACT.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
tottmr,PaYr of Storrington, in the caunty of Sussex,
tig‘S alning that the Poor Removal Act operated
for nest him in an unjust and grievous manner, and pray ing
remedy. He hoped that the Noble Marquis (the Mar-
-I,ll7lLansdowne) would see the necefsity of having the
11:5' law of settlement brought under consideration.
say that he differ,d altogether with the report
toqe, h the Select Committee on the Poor R moval Act had
thuie to, and thought if they delayed the amendment of
,4: Act till the whole question of the law of settle-
I; Was di.posed ef, great injury
.would be inflicted,
be wet possible in one sessien of Parliament, and
sjit,e a general election, to give that due consideration
2 n such an important subject as the law of settle-
,flt required. He had also a petition from the union
rlewenton, in the counties of Hereford, Worcester,
rod Gloucester, to the same effect.
beLord CAMPBELL said, that having the honour of
re ~„11g on the Committee, he entirely concurred in the
dad which had emanated from it. One reason which
h greatly influenced him in corning to that decision
thB2 that the other House had strongly recommended
,?'; there should be no legislation on the subject till the
toutle question had been fairly considered. But he would
have cotes to that decision if his own opinion had in
t,,,),:keegree led him to a different conclusion. It might,
Nxtutay.., have been as well if the A. ct had been retro.
tit sviellansoww,ell as ptospective, but if they were to bring
having reference only to that clause, their
daerd'hips would find that there would be a great deal of
'.:,etilty attending the working of it.
the Earl of SUFFOLK was understood to agree to
,Prayer of the petition.
frnrd BROUGHAM took the same view that the
frC'era of the report had taken. The general complaint
01)44 the country against this Act was, not that it was
roPl.43ive or unjust, but that it was Si' written that they
Titidd neither make head nor tail of it.—(Laughter.)
,7 knew their mother tongue very well, but they
unused to the step mother tongue of this Act of
-"araent.
47.nrci BEAUMONT did not rise to defend the Act of
tif-,_Laraent, but he wished to say one word in defence
mince
decision to which the Noble Duke's Com-
tr)",eke had come. One of the propositions made
th " Committee had been already disposed of by
Noble and Learned Lord ; the other proposition
oe, that they should frame another Act which would
dertate from that time forward, and be somewhat
parliamentom the Act passed in the last session of
cre,„
4,4 need that a great deal of inconvenience would
e arisen under the altered system. Tie only thing
thetl
4 Act difficult to be understood was the proviso.
0," even admitting that the ambiguity existed, he for
tte_should deprecate any interference with the Act, bee
it would affect that principle for which
ieteeY had been so long contending, namely, the
rrainable removals of the poor from place to place.
efe;t'Pr.inciple bad been establiehed, but not carried out
enti3', because no settlement was given. Under
t these:t circumstances he thought they would derive the
tttritage from the present measure, that it would lead
e,C,O consideration of the whole question, and when the
ad:ie question had been considered, they should then
whir me.ures to meet the imperfect state of the law
respect to removal.
so4blle Duke of RICHMOND begged to remind his
ase and Learned Friend opposite (Lord Campbell),
st he was of opinion that this Act was injurious to a
class of the poor, who were most entitled
the consideration of their Lordships' House be.
‘,7l3ine of
i t o h
lnate theyt (the ;poor-law guardians) had been
out.dogin g
or e unions those who had been receiving
live; This law was said not to be retrospec-
tr°sPectivienuonndeereathsee it
had been decided that it was re-
veere to do'and ha would wish to knom what guardians
opposite (Lord se circumstances. His Noble Friend
Would lead to Beaumont) had said, that the measure
muchconfusion, and give rise to a great
I?aileosfty,lsitcjigoa‘,.jeornn.meinite hoped and trusted that if her
would not alter the plan, which
‘''ley had taken from Sir James Graham's sugges-
!_°lls, that they would do justice to the poor law.
guardians and bear the expenses of any litigation that
ensue.—(Hear, and laughter.)
e....t.0rd ASHBURTON thought that this measure was
;trtaiinly one entitled to con,ideration. IsT,,w, as
'Peeted the opinion of the Noble Lord, although
was satisfied that that opinion was disioterestly
given
Set it could hardly be taken as a criterion for
C, 3e
Whole country. In the north of the country, where
ofpided, it was very probable that this Act might have
rn4ed mischievously, but where he (Lord Ashburton)
elided it had proved of considerable .benefit. and be-
kirit was repeated he thought that time ought to be
Satin to the people to ease themselves of their obit-
.7ons to each other.
Lord PORTMAN conceived that it was quite ne-
t„
-%rY that the question of the removal of the poor
dust
be decided upon, as early as possible ; and he
entree. that his Noble Friends, the Members of the
te°vernmant would, before the end of the session,
togs in a Bill, not a declaration, but an enactment which
!et" have the effect of doing what the Act of last sea
ituilletlh. Was intended to effect, viz., a retrospective in-
;!pou the present state of the several pa-
t/ He did not suppose that before the end
sew" present session they would have time to
days T"e the question, and snot it would be requisite before
ars next to give ice of removal to all the
tithes interested, for by the Act, Lady-day
for aPPointed as the expira•ion of the time
set Riving notice. It was, therefore, absolutely
t-484rY that something should be done before
he e-nclusion of the session, for, unless they did, they
14:111d have an immense number of poor before Michaels
Cts; without any legitimate settlement. Should the
peolt)-Tes of removal be carried into effect, and the
ne-r be carried out of the parishes where they
*here, they would have to be taken to places
hf there were no houses to receive them ; and
ae,Zre winter they would have a number of people
R'`tiout a home or a right of relief. In one in-
oit,a,,e.,e. Which had come under his notice, a number
eerividuals had been removed from the workhonse by
the-ekr of the medical mall, and had been taken into
th "uses in the place; the consequence of this was
they could not be taken to the several parishes to
ehtteb they properly belonged, and these men were now
kidertigeable on the rates of the place where they re-
',Lord BEAUMONT—That could not be, for a five
tleltrai residence was required to give a title to perms-
At relief.
tietord PORTMAN—That might be true, but the ques-
t Was whether they could be removed.
Lord BEAUMONT—That was the law.
:''''s„ rd PORTMAN—His Noble Friend might be the
litlawyer in that House, but be evidently knew very
~
1,1,e of the practice. However legitimate it might be to
an order for removal, it required a great deal of
evidence to justify it in a court of law.
the subject
some few words from Lord COLCHESTER,
subject was dropped.
The Marquis of CONYNGHAM said that he had
e
few remarks- to make in reference to a matter
Personal to himself. There was a matter at
Present before the other House of Parliament,
with respect to which a deputation had waited
upon Lord John Russell. His name had been
inserted inadvertently in a list of persons who att.
that deputation, and he wished to state tie fact publicly,
to) avoid the absurdity of having his name upon the list
°I a deputation in layout. of a measure to which he was
°PPosed.
Lord MONTEAGLE said that the mistake arose
tartly with him, The Noble Lord had attended a meet-
g reference to this deputation, but was compelled
leave
, the room before the business was over. The
("°le Lord's name had been put down in the list of
wase who had attended the meeting, but by a mistake,
had
Placed by the secretary upon the list of those who
d rote(' in favour of the deputation.
L, °l'd BROUGHAM said, that according to the mi-
nutesmi-
nutesof the meeting it would appear, that those who
ere not there were represented as being there, and
these who were there were represented as not being
th Ze•---(Laughter.)
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE 01 COMMONS. March 19.
The SPEAKER took the Ch:,ir at Foot. o'clock.
The SECOND READINGS.
following Bills were read a second time
-'O°Y Improvement—Claridge's Patent Asphalte
tia,,P4llY—F Rates—Legal gasp (London)—
Ne'-'4ll Harbour—Ross, Croniartv, and Part of
irn IXstrict Roads—Satiron Walden Rates—Wark-
wo rth harbour.

INCOME-TAX.
"eral Hon. Members presented petitions from the.
!"eetors and assessors ol the income-tax, praying for
lacreased remuneratioa for their lal)our.

EDUCATION.
itel/r• BRIGHT prebented a petition from _Norfolk
:,rttTs in So'tland'
'.3:lllst, thy, Grovernment scheme of educaiion.
pp. —r• il U. '%iE presenTed a petition from several school.
praying that they might be ap-
tnjited registrars oi b:rrt,s, dear.lvi, and marriages, in
uer to afford an addition to their scanty incotue.

LIGHT DUES.
Mfr. FORSTER presented a petition from Whitehead
r_rllristol from the merchants and shipowoers, praying
'° reduction of thy: charges made for light dues.
POOR REMOVAL ACI.
Sir Dt,
the • LACY EVANS presented a petition from
City of Westuainstrr ag:Orist the Poor Act.
Mr 'l‘,E MARRIAGE ACT.
from•RA BERKELEY presented four peti-
-a Cheltenham from the Dissenting ministers, the