The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-15 00:00:00

Tn.E Stnsl, LONDON, SATUItDAY EV`NING, MAI?' 15, 1847.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
BLICISE OF LORDS, May 14.
The LORD CITANCELLOR Wok his seat on the Woolsack
at Five o'clock.
A number of Bills were brought up from the House
of Commcns.
TIIE TOWNSIIEND PEERAGE.

Mr. AUSTIN having concluded his address in this case
shortly before the assembling of their Lordships, a num-
ber of papers were handed in, and attested by witnesses
on oath at the bar.

The Bill was then read a second time.
THE FACTORIES BILL.

Lord FEVERSHAM presented a petition from
Leeds, signed by 25,300 persons, in favour of this Bill.
IMMIGRATION OF IRISH PAUPERS.
Lord CAMPBELL said he had a petition to present
from Liverpool. It had been sent him on account of his
connexion with the Duchy of Lancaster. They com-
plained that, since the Ist of January of the present
year, 150,000 destitute Irish paupers had migrated into
Liverpool, taking up their residence in the town and
neighbourhood, taking possession of cellars condemned
as human habitations ; and that in these places fever,
small-pox, and dysentery had broken out. They peti-
tioned that their Lordships, in order to save them from
not only this pressure upon the poor-rates, hut from the
contagion which eves spreading into every quarter.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS BILL.
The NORLE AND LEARNED LORD moved that this
Bill should go into Committee pro forno;.
The Duke of RICHMOND was opposed to the pro-
gress of this Bill. Ha had opposed the original Bill, but
the present changed the only redeeming parts of that
old Bill.
Lord CA\IPBELL said it would be committed
pro form, and ample opportunity for discussion would
be offered when it was in Committee.
The Bill then went through
EDUCATION . Committee pro formii.

The Bishop of EXETER gave notice that he would,
on Tuesday next, ask the Government a question, in
regard to a communication made to a deputation of Dis-
senters on the subject of education.
POOR REMOVAL ACT.

Earl FORTESCUE presented several petitions in
favour of the Poor Removal Act.
TEN HOURS' BILL.

Lord STANLEY presented several petitions in favour
of the Ten Hours' Bill. One of them had received ten
thousand signatures.
Lord BROUGHAM presented several petitions to the
same effect.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented four petitions
from the West Riding of Yorkshire, which were also to
the same effect.

Lord FEYENSILIM presented a petition to the same
effect, which had received the signature of twenty•eight
thousand persons.
IRISH POOR RELIEF BILL.

Earl FITZ WILLIAIII moved v for a return
from each rateable district, whether union, elec-
toral division, or otherwise, of the rates struck,
levied, or in arrear, under the provisions of
the Act for the temporary relief of destitute persons;
also, an account of the number of persons, distinguish-
ing males and females, adults and children, to be relieved
in each district, according to those provisions of the said
Act, by which the lists of such persons are to be made
out within each division; also, a return of the estimates
made by the relief committee of each electoral division,
of the sum needed from time to time for the purchase of
food, under the provisions of clause 7 of the said Act ;
and also a statement of the rate per cent. of the rates,
whether struck or levied upon the valuation of the
district accordinc, to the poor-law valuation. Ile
bad asked his Noble Friend to give him some infor-
mation upon these points, but he was unable to do so,
and he was therefore most anxious that the House should
have such documents in their possession as would en-
able them to come to a sound and accurate judgment.
And he could assure the House that there was a great
difference between rates struck and rates levied.—
(Laughter.) It was quite easy for the officer to
strike a rate, but it was quite another matter to collect it.
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM,
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE suggested that the
Noble Lord_ should postpone the motion which he had
submitted to the House.

After some further conversation,
Earl FITZWILLIANI consented to postpone his
motion until Monday.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE rose again and said
that, in the Committee on this Bill, after considerable
difficulty in fixing a limit to the duration of
the measure, he then stated that he would
reserve to himself to take that course which
he might think proper at the subsequent stages of the
Bill. It was now his duty to retain the opinion which
he expressed in Committee, namely, to strike out
of the Bill those clauses which were intended to
affix a limit to the measure, or to make it of a
temporary nature. The arguments on both sides
lay in a very narrow compass. It was stated by
those Lords who wished to affix a limit to this mea-
sure, that it was in a great degree experimental.
lie admitted on introducing the Bill, and he now re-
peated it, that the measure was of an experimental na-
ture, but he still as strongly objected to have any fix-?d
period assigned for its duration.—(Hear, hear.) Ile
also was oppooed to its being made a temporary mea-
,ure, from the difficulties which they would have to en-
counter in carrying it out; and in the course of time
they would be enabled to ascertain the nature of those
difficulties, and to be, as a matter of course, in a better
position than at present to amend them. Of course
:heir Lordships would reserve to themselves the power
if reconsidering the measure in two. three, or even ten
vears hence ; unless they reserved this power, the
greatest inconvenience would result. An additional rea-
' ion in favour of the permanency of the measuro was to
'so found in the diversified arguments of Noble Lords in
t'avour of the limitation of the Bill, some being in
favour of one year, some one year and a half, end some
or it: limitation to five years—(Hear, hear)--that in
;tself was an additional reason why they should not
anticipate the duration of the measure, but more cspe-
,tially was it inexpedient to do so at the present moment.
the experience which they had bad of Ireland ought
.o prevent them from passing the Bill as a temporary
one.—(Hear, hear.) The 'Anse of Commons intended
that it should be a permanent measure; that, however,
was no reason why it should not he submitted to revision
like all other measures.—(hear, hear.) They might
pass it as a temporary measure, and subsequently alter
ir abrogate it altogether. Under these circumstances
lie begged to move that their Lordships do disapprove
,f those clauses which made the Bill a temporary one.
Lord BROUGHAM begged to say that he maintained the
opinions he had formerly expressed. He was the first per-
son tempo-
rary, and not permanent. He retained that opinion still, al-
though
hehisguhglygeastie,pdrothveed eoxfpetdhieenscuy of making it
gg
suggestions of the Noble
Marquis, and did not think they would lose anything by taking
the discussion in that way. He was surprised, however, at
the line of argument adopted by the Noble Marquis. Had ho
not distinctly heard him say that he was about to move that
the clauses givire, a temporary character to the Bill should be
omitted, he would, he confessed, have believed that he was
arguing in favour of the course adopted by the Commit-
tee for making the measure a temporary one.—( Hear, hear.)
He said the idea of binding themselves to use their discretion
at an after-time was most absurd. He agreed that the measure
ought only to be temporary, and he thought so because it was
new in system and gave out door relief. The Noble Marquis
himself admitted that the measure was only an experiment;
yes, a great experiment—a hazardous experiment encompassed
with every risk. Surely, it ought to be but a temporary
enactment. Did they forget the measure of D'34, that it
was made a temporary measure, and that merely ? He felt that
he must vote against the motion.
Lord CAMPBELL thought the Learned Lord had surely
never read the measure as amended. Never was /a reuse le rout or
le oil teem! pronounced over a more miserable farce of legislation
If the Noble Earl on his right had moved a clause at the close
of the Bill that it be in force for three or five years, that
would have been in the regular course of legislation. But the
Bill as it stood contained clauses at utter variance with each
other. It contained four clauses, severally permitting the
giving of out-door relief; of provisional relief without the
knowledge of the guardians and of medical relief. These were
temporary. But there were classes inserted by the Noble
Lord which quite stultified these. Clause 3 was to be a per-
manent clause ; and it enacted that an exact return
should be made of all applicants for every kind of relief—
medical and out-door relief. In 1850 the powers to grant
out-door relief would have failed. But it did not cease then.
There was a clause respecting er-ogieio guardians. He would
not go through all the details of the Bill to point out its various
incongruities. They had the confessions of three-fourths of
those who voted for the Bill that they did not know what they
were abOut: , ,

Lord MONTEAGLE said, though he had not the experi-
ence in legal matters that his Noble and Learned Friend pos-
sessed, yet he thought the fallacies in this ease were so potent
that even an unlearned person could discover them. Medical
ielief differed alto Aether from what was called out-door relief.
There was no inconsistency in the measure, as it clearly pro-
vide:l that out-door relief•should be given for three years, and
that the Commissioners Should have the power of controlling
and regulating it. And the other objections of his Noble
Friend were equally untenable, namely, that permanent and
temporary clauses in a Bill were irreconcilable. The charter
of the Bank of England and of the East India Company, for
instance
s contained temporary clauses with others which
were perpetual, and therefore the insertion of
clauses of this kind in the Bill was no novelty,
and was no evidence of inexperience on his part. Therefore,
as the Bill stood it was partly temporary and partly the reverse,
but they should bear in mind that the temporary part related to
the most important and at the same time the most serious part
of the Act. Nothing was more likely to prove fatal to the
measure than making it permanent, because it proposed the
introduction of r.dangerous principle, which its supporters ad-
mitted to be purely experimental. If they believed that the
experiment would be successful let them make it permanent,
but if they felt that they were introducing a dangerous expe-
riment—a frightful one, in his opinion, if they thought they
were groping in the dark, he asked them to support the clause
which he had succeeded in carrY ing.—(llear, hear.) If
the Bill were temporary it would be more successful and
more advantageous, because it would be tried at a time
when every one was interested in securing its sue"' owing to
the calamity which had visited Ireland, from which they could
hardly expect she could extricate herself in the next three
years. He denied that there was any truth in the statement
which had been made, that he had brought forward his amend-
ment for the purpose of defeating the measure ; his sole object
was to render it more efficient and less injurious than as it
castle before them. His Noble Friend the Postmaster-General
(the Marquis of Clanricarde) in 1833, when he was connected
'with the administration of affairs in Ireland, was strongly
,opposed to out-door relief ; and said that he wondered that any
:man could have the hardihood to introduce a Bill to carry into
effect such a system, as it woull lead to the confiscation of
property, and to the
considered the proposition of the Noble Marquis (Lansdowne)
hardly respectful to the Noble Lords who, in Committee, sup-
ported his clause. To them he appealed to continue that sup-
port to it, and not to consent to the proposition of the Noble
Alarquis.
The Marquis of CL ANRICARDE greatest misery and injustice. He
said his Noble Friend
had, in his clause, lost sight of the main principles of out door
relief, and had confined it to its least important matters. He
admitted that, at the time to which the Noble Lord had re-
ferred, that he was strongly opposed to out-door relief ; arid,
if the circumstances were the same at present, he might, no
doubt, have been of the same opinion ; but at that time he
contended that out-door relief should be given to the indigent
ipor, and he was of the same 00E11011 now, and that