The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-08 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
HOUSE OF LORDS, June 7.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
Messengers from the Commons brought up several
Bills, which were read a first time.
IRISH JUDGES.
Lord BROUGHAM begged to ask his Noble Friend
on the Woolsack whether there was any truth in the
report that the Irish judges had refused to go their cir-
cuits on account of the infectious fever ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he was not
aware that any such report had been made, but he be
lieved that the greater number of the prisoners in the
gaols had recovered.
Lord BROUGHAM would then wish to ask of his
Noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,
what had been the course pursued within his district?
Lord CAMPBELL said, that although it was under-
stood that the prisoners in the gaols, which were not fifty
yards from the Courts where the assizes were held, at
Stafford, were dying by dozens, none of the Judges had
refused to take the circuit.
ARMED INTERVENTION IN PORTUGAL.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH wished to ask the
Noble Marquis opposite (the Marquis of Lansdowne)
what system it was intended to pursue in the armed in-
tervention in Portugal, if it were necessary; whether the
command of the combined fleets was to be committed
to the senior officer; in other words, whether the com-
mand of the British fleet was to be given to the Prince
de Joinville?
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that he could
not reply directly to the inquiry of the Noble Earl, and
all he could say was that the British fleet would be com-
manded by their own officers.
POOR REMOVAL (ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND)
BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL moved the second reading of this
Bill. He said the present Bill proposed what was but
equitable justice to both countries—England and Scot-
land. The law for the removal of paupers first originated
in the reign of Charles 11., when power was given to
remove paupers out of the parish on which they had no
claim. In the reign of George 11. the necessity was felt of
a law giving the power to remove the paupers that had
come from the Channel Islands, Ireland, and Scotland,
and had become chargeable to England. Laws more
stringent had been enacted from time to time after-
wards, until the enactment of the law as it at present
stood. But there was great difficulty in putting that
law in execution ; for, first, the pauper must be brought
before a court by summons ; if the pauper did not heed
the summons a warrant was issued against him, but
before that could be done the pauper was out of the way,
and the law could not be carried into effect. The Noble
and Learned Lord read a statement from a private in-
dividual to the effect that up to the 31st of May last
176,462 Irish paupers had gone over to Liverpool, and
that previous to January there were already 160,000 in
Liverpool, making in all 236,462.
Lord BROUGHAM was understood to say that he
entirely concurred in the view which the Noble Lord
had taken of the subject.
After a few words from Lord ELLENBOROUGH and the
Marquis of LANsDoWNE,
Earl FITZ WILLIAM said that there was an ambi-
guity in the Bill which he would wish to see removed ;
the Bill did not state where the paupers were to be re-
moved to.
Lord CAMPBELL was understood to say that pro-
vision would be made to meet that case in some clauses
which it was proposed to introduce into the Bill.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM thought that considerable diffi-
culty would arise in carrying out the provisions of
the Bill even acceding to the proposed clauses.
Irish paupers would be removed from Liverpool to
Belfast, and upon Belfast would devolve the duty of
forwarding the pauper into the interior of the country.
It was quite cleir, therefore, that the Bill did not treat
with the Irish pauper in the same way that it did with
English paupers.
Lord CAMPBELL said, the case suggested by the
Noble Earl was provided for by another Act.
Earl EITZ WILLIAM wanted to know whether the
whole of the expense of the entire removal was to fall
upon the parish of Liverpool. His Noble and Learned
Friend had not answered that question.
The Earl of WICKLOW contended that the Bill was
most unconstitutional, and ought not to be passed.
His Noble and Learned Friend who had introduced
the Bill justified it by producing a letter he had re-
ceived from certain magistrates of Liverpool, who
found it too much trouble to carry out the law as it
esent stood. Under an existing law a man could not
be removed from one place to another unless it could be
proved before a magistrate that he had become
chargeable to a parish,:and he thought it would be
extremely dangerous if not impolitic to repeal that pro-
vision. He deeply regretted that Liverpool had suffered
so much from the influx of Irish paupers ; but looking
at the immense advantages, the great wealth that town
had derived from the importation of corn from all parts
of the world, for the use of Ireland, he did not think, after
all, that the people of Liverpool had so much cause to com-
plain. This Bill arose out of the clamour and pressure
try which the Government were now subjected, but it was
a Bill which would not have the slightest tendency to
promote the objects which the parties had in view It
had been said that the existing law had become
inoperative. The Bill was inoperative, solely in conse-
quence of the misconduct and neglect of the magistracy,
and it was not right, upon that account, to pass a mea-
sure so unjust and unconstitutional as the present.
But he contended that the existing Bill had not alto-
gether failed in carrying out the objects for which it was
passed. He begged their attention to the effect, of this
Bill on Londonderry. That town and district was as
much unprotected as any part in England now was.
After the passing of this Bill, therefore, swarms of Irish
paupers from the west might come in upon that district
and swamp the wealth of the place. The Bill was un-
constitutional, and gave powers over the pauper which
were never allowed except i❑ the case of felony. He
must oppose the further progress of the Bill.
Lord BEAUMONT said the question was how an
Irish pauper stood now in England, and how he would
stand if the Bill passed. A pauper now applied for relief
and obtained it. The guardian, if he chose, complained
to the magistrate, and got a summons against the pauper,
who forthwith appeared under the summons. After
this Bill, all that would be effected was the doing away
with the formal ceremony of complaint to the magis-
trate. In all other things the proceeding was the same.
If this was the result they were encouraging mendicity
of the grossest kind, and thus by travelling ingeniously
through the whole of England the pauper might live on
the alms of the poor-house, without being removed
to the place from whence he came. This Bill, therefore,
only prevented a great evil by dealing with it summarily,
so that a pauper might be passed at once to the parish from
which he was entitled to relief. In his opinion the poor
law of Ireland and England ought to be placed precisely
on the same footing as the poor-law stood between
town and town in England. He had not, therefore,
entered at all into the spirit of the complaint of the
authorities of Liverpool, for it stood upon entirely dif-
ferent grounds from those on which this poor-law was
built, and ought not therefore, in his opinion, to be en-
tertained. Yet this did not in the slightest degree effect
the serious question which had been so seriously and so
forcibly put by the Noble Lord, as to that where the
instance showed that there was no means of subsistence
whatever, and where the pauper would have to be passed
to the place where the means of a livelihood might be
obtained, for he thought that such a case was far out of
the pale of all minor considerations. Neither would he
enter into the sanatory state of the country, although
it was intimately connected with the question. For
these reasons he thought that the observations of his
Noble Friend were needless and uncalled for.
The House then went into Committee without a
division.