The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-27 00:00:00

POOR: REMOVA:L ACT.

Lord BEAU MONT presented petitions from the
board of guardians of the Harstmere and Goole Unions,
in the counties of Suffolk and Yorkshire, praying that
greater effect might be given to the Poor Removal Act
of last session, by enlarging the area of settlement.
The NOBLE LORD also presented a petition from Goole,
in favour of an efficient poor-law for Ireland, the peti
tioners complaining that their rates had been greatly in
creased by the recent inundation of Irish poor into tha
district.

FRAUD ON LORD COLVILLE.
Lord COLVILLE, who spoke in a very indistinct
tone of voice, complained of
individual
fraudulent and false as-
sumption of his title by an calling himself
Lord Colville, of Ochiltree. We understood the Noble
Lord to say, that this ihdividual, without any right
to the privil ges of a Peer, made use of this
pretence to obtain his liberty from imprisonment under
the Sheriff of Middlesex in which he succeeded, and
went down to Scotland and voted at the late election of
a representative Peer for that country. The Noble Lord
contended there was not a vestage of a claim which that
individual could suggest in palliation of his conduct.
Lord ROSEBERY understood the general nature of
this case from a private communication, and believed
that his Noble Friend could not do that which he de-
sired to do. By the resolutions of which he was the au-
thor, and which had unanimouslypassed the House in 1822,
no person except the son or other lineal descendant, or
the brother of a Peer of Scotland, could vote for the
election of a representative of the Peers of that country,
without first coming before the House and proving his
right to vote. The Noble Lord could not, therefore,
summon the perscn to the bar of the House ; and the
better plan would be to move for a copy of the proceed-
ings of the late election, and when it was laid upon the
table a Committee could be instituted to investigate the
whole of the circumstances. When the House had
adopted the resolutions, they had taken no measures to
purify the list of the Peers of Scotland ; and if, there-
fore, the party had voted in right of being a lineal de-
scendant of a former Lord Colville, it would be impos-
sible to arraign him for the fault with which he was
charged.
Lord BRO UGH Alleonceived that no other course could
be adopted than that which had been recommended by
his Noble Friend. As the law at present stood any man
might walk into Holyrood House, and tender his vote,
as a matter of course, without any one having the power
to prevent its being taken. The only alteration that had
been made by the resolutions of 1822 was to prevent
persons beyond a certain degree of relationship frcm
voting, but they did not and could not prevent personation,
nor could the House amend the evil, for it was only in
case of a contested election that the House had any
right to scrutinise the votes.
The LORD CHANCELLOR conceived that the better
plan would be to consider the future rather than care
about the past. As the law at present affected the case,
it could not interfere with the personation of a brother of
a Peer. It was true that before a Peer was able to vote
he must come before the Chancellor and prove the right
to his title before a writ could be issued.
Lord CAMPBELL assured the Noble Lord opposite
that a usurpation of a title gave no legal right what-
ever, and the Noble Lord was wrong in supposing that
the Courts of Westminster entertained the case of an
individual because he had been allowed to vote for the
election of a Scotch Peer. The Courts at Westminster
granted a rule to show cause on that ground, but there
cause never was shown. In his opinion a law ought to
be passed requiring that no individual should be allowed
to vote until he had made good his title.
Lord COLVILLE gave notice that on Monday he
would move for a return of the Peers who voted at the
recent election.
The subject then dropped.
IRISH POOR-LAW.

The Marquis of SALISBURY presented several peti-
tions in favour of an extended system of poor-laws for
Ireland.
GOVERNMENT EDUCATIONAL GRANT.
Earl FITZWILLIAM presented several petitions
from places in Lancashire and Yorkshire, against the
proposed grant of the Government for the purposes of
education. Among them was one signed by 25,000 of
the inhabitants of Leeds. The petitioners emphatically
denied that it was the right or the duty of Government
to interfere with the education of the people. To that he
would answer, that if it was not the right or the duty of
the Government to interfere, neither was it the right or
the duty of private individuals. But if, on the other
hand, it was right for individuals to interfere, he
apprehended it was also right for the Govern-
ment. The petitioners act only stated this, but
went further, and stated that voluntary efforts
were quite sufficient for the education of the people. If
this were correct, then ought every person in the
country to he educated; but if they were not then it
was clear voluntary efforts had not been sufficient.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a con-
gregation of Protestant Dissenters in Suffolk, against the
same grant. He found, on looking at the petition,
that it contained the names of more ladies than men
(Hear, bear.) The petitioners stated that they decidedly
protested against the measure as unconstitutional,
favouring the Established Church against the Dissent-
ing sects, and exercising a tyranny over the teachers
who accepted the grant. The Noble Lord also nro-
iuru, against ine roar nemoval Act.

IRISH POOR.
Lord MONTEAGLE rose to move that a Select
Committee should be appointed to consider and report
on the recommendations of the several Parliamentary
Committees and Commissions on the state of the Irish
poor, as relating to the expediency of introducing per-
nsanently the system of out-door relief for the able-
bodied labourer ; and on the effect of such a
measure on the well- being of Ireland, the interests of
the poor themselves, and the immigration of Irish
paupers into Great Britain ; and, also, to consider and
to report on the effects of enlarging the present
electoral divisions, for the purpose of raising and !eying
the assessments under the Poor-law. The Noble Lord
said lie felt the weight and the responsibility
of the subject which he had undertaken to bring
before their Lordships ; but, at the sam3 time,
he felt himself free from many of the difficulties
which surrounded the discussion of it. In the first
place, he was free from one possible imputation of
being swayed by any party views in dicsussing, the ques-
tion ; and, in the second place, he was free from the
supposition, in introducing it to their Lordships, that he
could be swayed by any deiire or acquiring popular favour
on the one side of the Channel or the other. But per-
haps he might be charged with presumption in
taking up so great a question. He begged to say
that he hail twice been Chairman of a Committee
of inquiry in the other House on the poor-law in
Ireland, and he had more than once in his Par-
liamentary career had his attention directed to it.
He had been told that there would be objections taken
to the raising this question by reason of the late
period at which Bills were sent up for consideration
by their Lordships. They had never suffered more
than during the last week of the last session,
for some of the most material Acts of the whole Session
had been sent up at a time when it was utterly
imposs;ble to give them any necessary attention. This
difficulty was increased by the technical regulations
which existed between the two Houses of Parliament,
when there was any amendment to be proposed. lie
would not wish to use any parliamentary tactics
—to meet a measure by a side-wind—to take
advantage of a side-wind.—(Hear.) He desired on
the contrary, to meet the matter directly. This
measure had already been considered during the
recess, and therefore it was no new subject
which they were called upon to consider ; but
70, although they had all the necessary evidence
oefore them, and still he believed that many were
about to vote on this Irish Poor-law, without being
able to make themselves acquainted with ono-tenth
part of the information which was already on the table.
Many had been so engaged, not upon more important
but upon perhaps more pressing subjects, so that they
were unable to command sufficient time to make -them-
selves acquainted with the evidence which had been ad-
duced. In the candour and nobility of their natures
he was sure that their Lordships would never suffer
themselves to slight or deny this evidence, but he was
quite sure that if they did cast this evidence away as
antiquated and unnecessary, they would at least
admit the information which he had to give,
and if they did strike they would at least
hear before they struck, and grant him that for which
he was about to ask. He wished to guard him-
self against any misconception on two grounds—the
first was, that he, as an Irish landed proprietor, desired
in any way to save his own property, and secondly, that
he was desirous of in any way increasing his own pro-
perty from the public revenue. There was no sacri-
fice the landlords of Ireland would not make, if they
could by doing so raise their country to the level of
England. Nor did he came there to ask for unusual
grants from the revenue. Ile deprecated many of the
gifts of this country, because, in some instances he could
name, the money had been unwisely and too lavishly
given. Smaller sum 3, if well directed, might have done
more good than all the lavish expenditure they had re-
cently witnessed, and therefore be did not come
there to ask for large grants from the British
s2tellequer, or to call upon their Lordships
to Protect Irish property from a just and natural
axatl a. His motion was simply for a Committee
quirY and looking at the importance of the measure,)f
and the obi'veeeltist!.t was intended to serve, he thought it
could not
refused. He did not ask their Lord-
ships to examinee because it might lay him-
self open to the charge wishing to produce delay ;
but what he wanted theeiro Lordships to do was, to grant
a Committee to examine the written ritteu evidence which
they already possessed upon
donee could contravene that No oral evi-
gl
ei i testimony;schteu d but
still
be quite
could that evidence be found
ready to consent that the Committee should
was -whether- rstion
go into it.—(Hear, hear.). The great qu
center
which was before their Lordships,
year 1847, with the experience of the last half
before them, with their knowledge of the state of
land, with their knowledge of the character of the Irish
people, they were disposed to sanction this experiment
to be introduced into this country for the first time, a
out-door relief for the able-bodied poor of Ireland. lie
begged they would remember the destruction which he
bad laid down. His motion had no reference to the pre-

sent emergency in that country, for if they were
it was
measures for the remedy of present relief, why, if was
necessary, let them take their Statesman's pro-
POB4l. 'Whet' a great Alinister of this country