The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, FRB. 23.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
The Earl cf SHAFTESBURY, in the absence of the Lord
Chancellor, took his seat on the Woolsack at Five o'Clock.
Lord ABINGER presented a petition from the Gcver-
nor and Guardians of the poor of Norwich, against the
Poor.law Amendment Act, and condemning some prov:-
sions contained in the Bill now before the House of Com-
mons for continuing that Act.
The CLERK having read the petition at the t
The Marquis o f NORM A Nil Y, objected to its reception
on the ground of its retelling to a Bill as yet before the
other House.
Lord ABINGER said that the petition only inci-
dentally alluded to the Bill in the House of Commons.
But to revent discussion he would withdraw the petition.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM had a very similar peition to
present from (as a e understood) the same nei3hbourhood.
The petition distinctly referred to the Bill supposed to
be in progress in the other House. For his own part
he concurred in several of their objections to that measure,
and he agreed with them that the present system
required amendment in many particular,. They would not
object to the establishment of a permanent body to regulate
the administration of the Poor-laws ail over the country ;
but they thought, and in this he agreed with them, that the
Poor-law Commissioners seemed to act like most persons
in power, as if they were de,irous to stretch that power
to the utmost. They had recently issued an order,
which he considered highly improper, namely, nat the
return of the guardians, when elected, should be made
by the clerk of the union. As that officer was ge.
nerally a person cf legal habits, and the guardians, on
the contrary, persons ignorant of law, the clerk would have
a great advantage ever them in the event of any dispute
arising between him and them, cr of his ac ing improperly,
Residing in •the centre of the union, he would exerete
a control over the election of the guardians in the remo-
test districts, In the Poor-law Bill provision was male
for three classes, the infirm, the insane, and the infant.
The Commissioners had the power to collect these out of
the union, and provide for them according to their
own pleasure. With respect Es the insane, they were
persons rather idiotic than anything else, and he
entertained no objection to the power of the Commis-
sioners with respect to them. But with regard to the in-
firm, he thought tbat to take them promiscuously from
under the care of those with whom they had been con-
nected would inflict a great hardship. With regard to in-
fants, he thought that their education would Le more effi-

ciect when they were collected together in large numbers.
The Marquis of NORMAN BY could assure the Noble
Lord ell who are anxious for the good working of the
law, would be happy to receive suggestions for its im-
provement. Ile could not state at present what provisions
be should introduce, but he would give the Noble
Lord's suggestions his very best attention.

Lord EiLENBOROVGH observed that there were
many urilns in which the clerk was the master of the
guardians instesd of their servant as he ought to be. His
opinion was that the whole machinery of the Poor-
law Bill would fail if there sites any attempt to
diminish the responsibility of the guardians themselves.—
( Hear, hear.) It was only by giving them responsibiliv
and power that good men would he induced to come for-
ward and take the office.

Ea•l FITZW ILL lAM entirely concurred in the views
expressed by the Noble Lord.
The Marquis of NORMANBY was understood to
sta'e that he would make inquiry into the matter.
COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

Lord BROUH AIM laid on the table the report of the
Ccuamitteo on the Copyhcld Enfranchisement Bill, and
moved that the Bill, as proposed to be amended, Le
ptinte.l.
DESTRUCTION OF PRORPERTYINIRELAND.
Lord BROUGHAM brought in a Bill to amend the
laws !elating to the destruction of property in Ireland.
He said there was in that country an Act somewhat similar
to that which was called in England the Rict Act.
The Irish Act was the 15th and 16th of George 111 ,
and it enabled persons whose property was injured in
is and tumults to recover in some cases against the ba-
rony, in ethers against the county. But V cre mai also
anctte: Act, the 19th and 20th of George 111., which for-
merly a a 3 supposed to apply to all the countic=, and eLaYed
persons whose property was damaged by burning, or
whose catfe wei e houghei, to recover, under a cmta:o
account, from the barony, end above it from the county.
Now on account of the word barony used in that pert of the
Act, it had recently been held that the land did not apply
to the county of the c'ty of Dublin. Ha could not
doubt that this decision of the Judges in Ire-
land was correct according to the wording
of the Act. But neither could he think that it was the
intention of the Legislature to except the metropolis of the
country from the operation of such an Act. The objet
of this Bill, which he now tegged leave t?, rirokQe
. Val
Pis and its neighbourhood.
Leave wa3 then given to biing in the Bid.
ST. SULPICE.

The BiFhop of EXETER said it would be in thorecol-

lection of their Lotdships that yesterday he.had:t eferrcd to the
delays which had taken place in printing certain ordinances
which were laid on the table of their Lordships' House.
Having been then informed that the delay was caused
by the Colonial Office rending a fresh order to be
printed, the Noble Lord near him undertook to make
inquiry upon the subject, and he begged leave now to
ask Liz if he had done so.

Viscount DUNCANNON stated that he had ascer-
tained that the ordinance in question was a police
ordinance, and that a delay had unavoidably taken
plk.ce in the plintiog of that ordinance. But be
proposed, in consi lerstion of the delay, if it were
satisfactory to the [louse, thlt the ordinance should nct
be removed until an additional eleven days be expired.
The Bishop of EXETER said that what was satisfactory
o Lim individually was of very little importance. If it were
satisfactory to their Lordships to hear such an explantion
of such an occurrence, it would be for their Lordships to
express that satisfaction, but he (the Bishop of Exetcr)
could not concur in it. For to what did that explanation
amount ? The Noble Lord stated, that on the 29th of
last month he laid certain ordinances on the table

of the House, ar,d that he, at the same time, moved the
printing of these ordinances. But he admitted that an
ordinance, which it was very important that they should
speedily receive, had not been included in the papers laid
upon their Lordihips' table, because it was under the con-
side.a,i ,n of the Law Officers of the Crown. And how
did her Majesty's Gc.vernmeat propose to remedy this?
Why instead of coming down to the House with the ordi-
nance, they smuggled it in with a number of others. Would
the House subm►t to this gross neglect ?—( A laugh from
Viscount Duneannon). lie begged their Lordships to ob-
serve the Noble Viscount laugh. He (the Bishop of Exeter)
wonder, d what he could Fee that was ridiculous. This
129th ordinance had never yet been printed. The Act
of Parliament enacted that no such ordinance

should pass into a law until thirty days hal been
allowed for Parliament to express its opinion upon it.
He thought the explanation of the Noble Viscount an)-
thing but satisfactory. This was a matter which ought
not to be treated lightly. It was a very serious departure
from that ingenuousness which the House had a right to
expi,ct from her Majesty's Government when they placed
confidence in them. The Government bad professed to lay
cu the table on Jan. 29 all the ordinances which they asked
the it Lordships to pass, y et, it now appeared that they had
kept back one. W( re their Lordships satisfied ? With re-
spect to the course which the Noble Viscount had pro-
poseJ, he understood him to say that he was
willin to allow this ordinance, he did not kook
whether the Noble Viscount meant all. the other
ordinances also, sufficient time to allow their Lordships
consider it—that wa,, that he would allow the ordinance
to remain on the table the same number cf days as had
been lo:t by that transaction. Did he understand that
the Noble Viscount was wiling to allow the House an
opportunity cf addressing her Majcity not to carry that tr-
dinance into effect by reckoning the thirty days from the

16:h of the present month. -
Viscount M E LBO URN E admitted that the ordinance
ought to have been laid on the table with the others—
that an irregularity had taken place, it was impossible to
deny ; but wiled the Right Rev. Prelate charged her Ma-
jesty's Government with want of ingenuousness in their
conduct in this transaction, he must say, that it appeared to
him, he was greatly exaggerating the irregularity that had
taken place. And (said the Noble Viscount, in great
warmth, and turning round to the Bishop of Exeter) I
have always observed that persons are most apt to charge
others vith those defects into which they arc most in the
habit of falling themselves. —( Hear, hear.) With aspect
to the ordinance in question, it was one relating to th•
police, and one to which it was not at all probable the
Right Rev. Prelate would call the attention of the House.
It was desirable that the spirit of the Act of Parliament
should be complied with, so as to give the House the
fullest opportunity of considering the subject. The ques-
tion was if the Act of Parliament had been complied with.
If the ordinance had laid on the table fur thirty days, it
would be impossible by any agreement to give the address
of that House the power of preventing her Majesty from
giving her assent to the allowance of the ordinance, but if
the ordinance had not laid On the table thirty days,
then it was competent to the Right Rev. Prelate before
that time had elapsed to move an address to her Majesty
on the subject. For himself he considered the thirty days
to be reckoned from the day on which it was laid on the
table.

The Bishop of EXETER—Thiity days from the 16th
instant.
Lord DUNCANNON was understood to asscnt.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said the intention was
to give the House a full opportunity cf considering their
ordirance3. That was all that was required, and the
only question which tocir Lordships had to decide was,
Lai the Act been complied with. If less time than usual
had hem given, the Rignt Reverend Prelate would make
his motion a fe.v days wore-.
The Bishop of EXETER—Is it understood her Ma-
jevty's Government undertake to advise her Majesty not
to give her consent to this ordinance, if this House ad-
dresses her Majesty within thirty days from the 16th day
cf she present month.
Viscount DUN C ANNO
The Bi,hop of EXETER was -lad to hear that. That
would take it up to the 18th of March. That hasing Leen
arranged, he would not trouble their Lcrdships then with
presenting the petition, bat at the same time, when he dui
i,re3ent it, it would be his duty to E tate the greend
on which the petitioners came before Lordship=.
He would therefore defer presenting the
Thursday next. petition till