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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 19.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon tiikWool-
sack at Five o'clock.
POOR REMOVAL BILL. _

Earl ST. GERMANS presented a petition hom Set

ash, in the county of Devon, praying for a repeal of the
Poor Removal Act, and the substitution of a parochial
settlement.
The Bishop of DOWN and CONNOR presented a
petition from the ratepayers of the county of Lincoln,
praying for a repeal of the law of settlement; and also
a petition from Dromore, in Ireland, praying fora repeal
of the law forbidding marriage with a deceased wife's
sister.
The Earl of WICKLOW presented two petitions from
the county of Wicklow against the principle of out-
door relief, and against any alteration in the mode of
rating in that county. Also, a petition praying the
Government to encourage an extensive system ofemi-
gration. If he might be permitted to offer a suggestion,
which was not, however, one of his own, for he had not
yet fully considered the question, it was that facility
should be given by her Majesty's Government to grant
loans for the purposes of emigration, under the same
arrangements as were proposed with regard to loans for
the improvement of estates.
POOR REMOVAL ACT.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
a rate-payer of Storrington, in the county of Sussex,
complaining that the Poor Removal Act operated
against him in an unjust and grievous manner, and praying
fora remedy. He hoped that the Noble Marquis (the Mar-
quis of Lansdowne) would see the necessity of having the
whole law of settlement brought under consideration.
He must say that he differed altogether with the report
which the Select Committee on the Poor Removal Act had
come to, and thought if they delayed the amendment of
the Act till the whole question of the law of settle-
ment was disposed of, great injury would be inflicted,
It was not possible in one session of Parliament, and
before a general election, to give that due consideration
which such an important subject as the law of settle-
ment required. He had also a petition from the union
of Newenton, in the counties of Hereford, Worcester,
and Gloucester, to the same effect.
Lord CAMPBELL said, that having the honour of
being on the Committee, he entirely concurred in the
report which had emanated from it. One reason which
had greatly influenced him in coming to that decision
was, that the other House had strongly recommended
that there should be no legislation on the subject till the
whole question had been fairly considered. But he would
not have come to that decision if his own opinion had in
any degree led him to a different conclusion. It might,
perhaps, have been as well if the Act had been retro-
spective as well as prospective, but if they were to bring
in a Bill now, having reference only to that clause, their
Lordships would find that there would be a great deal of
difficulty attending the working of it.
The Earl of SUFFOLK was understood to agree to
the prayer of the petition.
Lord BROUGHAM took the same view that the
framers of the report had taken. The general complaint
from the country against this Act was, not that it was
oppressive or unjust, but that it was so written that they
could neither make head nor tail of it—(Laughter. )
They knew their mother tongue very well, but they
were unused to the step mother tongue of this Act of
Parliament.
Lord BEAUMONT did not rise to defend the Act of
Parliament, but he wished to say one word in defence
of the decision to which the Noble Duke's Com-
mittee had come. One of the propositions made
to the Committee had been already disposed of by
the Noble and Learned Lord ; the other proposition
was, that they should frame another Act which would
operate from that time forward, and be somewhat
different from the Act passed in the last session of
Parliament ; but if that had been done he felt
convinced that a great deal of inconvenience would
have arisen under the altered system. The only thing
in the Act difficult to be understood was the proviso.
But even admitting that the ambiguity existed, he for
one should deprecate any interference with the Act, be-
cause it would effect that principle for which
they had been so long contending, namely, the
interminable removals of the poor from place to place.
That principle had been established, but not carried out
efficiently, because no settlement was given. Under
these circumstances he thought they would derive the
advantage from the present measure, that it would lead
to the consideration of the whole question, and when the
whole question had been considered, they should then
adopt measures to meet the imperfect state of the law
with respect to removal.
The Duke of RICHMOND begged to remind his
Noble and Learned Friend opposite (Lord Campbell),
that he was of opinion that this Act was injurious to a
large class of the poor, who were most entitled
to the consideration of their Lordships' House ; be-
cause of late they (the ;poor-law guardians) had been
bringing into the unions those who had been receiving
out-door relief. This law was said not to be retrospec-
tive; but in one case it had been decided that it was re-
trospective, and he would wish to kno.v what guardians
were to do under these circumstances. His Noble Friend
opposite (Lord Beaumont) had said, that the measure
would lead to much confusion, and give rise to a great
deal of litigation. He hoped and trusted that if her
Majesty's Government would not alter the plan, which
they had taken from Sir James Graham's sugges-
tions, that they would do justice to the poor-law.
guardians, and bear the expenses of any litigation that
might ensue.—(Hear, and laughter.)
Lord ASHBURTON thought that this measure was
certainly one entitled to consideration. Now, as
respected the opinion of the Noble Lord, although
he was satisfied that that opinion was disinterestly
given, yet it could hardly be taken as a criterion for
the whole country. In the north of the country, where
he resided, it was very probable that this Act might have
worked mischievously, but where he (Lord Ashburton)
resided it had proved of considerable benefit. and be-
fore it was repeated he thought that time ought to be
given to the people to ease themselves of their obli-
gations to each other.
Lord PORTMAN conceived that it was quite ne-
cessary that the question of the removal of the poor
should be decided upon, as early as possible ; and he
must entreat that his Noble Friends, the Members of the
Governrcant would, before the end of the session,
bring in a Bill, nut a declaration, but an enactment which
would have the effect of doing what the Act of last ses-
sion was intended to effect, viz., a retrospective in-
fluence upon the present state of the several pa-
fishes. He did not suppose that before the end
of the present session they would have time to
settle the question, and as it would be requisite before
Thursday next to give notice of removal to all the
parishes interested, fur by the Act, Lady-day
was appointed as the expiration of the time
for giving notice. It was, therefore, absolutely
necessary that something should be done before
the conclusion of the session, for, unless they did, they
would have an immense number of poor before Michael.
nias without any legitimate settlement. Should the
notices of removal be carried into effect, and the
poor be carried out of the parishes where they
now resided, tbey would have to be taken to places
where there were no houses to receive them ; and
before winter they would have a number of people
without a home or a right of relief. In one in-
stance which had come under his notice, a number
of individuals had been removed from the workhouse by
order of the medical man, and had been taken into
the houses in the place; the consequence of this was
that they could not be taken to the several parishes to
which they properly belonged, and these men were now
chargeable
.on the rates of the place where they re,
aided,

Lord BEAUMONT—That could not be, for a five
years' residence was required to gire a title to perma-
nent relief.

Lord PORTMAN—That might bo true, but the ques-
tion was whether they could be removed.
Lord BEAUMONT—That wa, the law.
Lord PORTMAN—His Noble Friend might be the
best lawyer in that House, but he evidently knew very
little of the practice. However legitimate it might be to
make an order for removal, it required a great deal of
evidence to justify it in a court of law.

After some fe-w words from Lord COLCHESTER,
the subject was dropped.
The Marquis of CONYNGHAM said that he had
a 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 attended
that deputation, and he wished to state the fact publicly,
to avoid the absurdity of having his name upon the list
of a deputation in favour of a measure to which he was
opposed.
Lord NIONTEAGLE said that the mistake arose
partly with him, The Noble Lord had attended a meet-
ing with reference to this deputation, but was compelled
to leave the room before the business was over. The
Noble Lord's name had been put down in the list of
those who had attended the meeting, but by a mistake,
was placed by the secretary upon the list of those who
had voted in favour of the deputation.
Lord BROUGHAM said, that according to the mi-
nutes of the meeting it would appear, that those who
were not there were represented as being there, and
those who were there were represented as not being
there.—(Laughter.)
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE Of COMMONS, March 19.
The SPEAKER took the Chgir at Four o'clock.
The followinSECOND READINGS.
g Bills were read a second time :-
13ingley ImprovementClaridge's Patent Asphalte
Company—Ewell Rates—Legal Quays (London)—
Macduff Harbour—RosP, Cromarty, and Part of
Nairn District Roads—Saffron Walden Rates—Wark:-
worth Harbour.

INcomt T ,
Several Hon. Members pti(l!.es'ejite.d p,Aitions from the
collector 6 and assessors of
an increased ramuneratioß for tillecieritax' praying for
EDUCATION. labour,
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from
against the Government scheme of education.
Norfolk
Mr. HUME presented a petition from several eel,ol
-
masters in Scotland, praying that they might be Ga
pointed registrars of births, deaths, and marriages 1-
order to aitOrd an addition to their scanty income ' in

LIGHT DUES. -
Mr. FORSTER presented a petition from Whitehead
in Bristol from a.° merchants and shipowners, praying
fora reduction of the charges made fur light dues.
POOR REMOVAL ACT.
Sir DE LACY EVANS presented a petition from
the city of Westminster against the Poor Removal Act.