The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-31 00:00:00

POOR-LAW SETTLEMENT.

The NOBLE LORD also presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Shepton Mallett, praying for au altera-
tion of the law of settlement ; also a petition from the
board of guardians in Glamorgan upon the same subject.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY LAWS.

The NOBLE LORD wished to correct a statement
which had appeared in ono of the Sunday papers, to the
effect that he had changed his opinions with respect to
arrest on mt sne process.. The statement in question
had caused him considerable annoyance by the number
of letters which he had received upon the subject from
persons who were at present under arrest, and whose
intention it was to take the benefit of the existing Acts.
But it was possible that the wrong construction of the
Act by the Commissioners might have worked the effect
of which the complaint was made. The Commissioners
had a power to imprison for twenty days, and in some
instances for forty days, and it appeared that in some
cases the power had been overstretched. This was cer-
tainly an evil, but it might very probably lead to the
abolition, the more complete abolition of i mprisonment for
debt. He had received a communication from Nottingham
in which it was stated that the labourers had a right to
support from the produce of the land. Now he had not
been able to pay much attention to the matter of this
communication, and the petition on which it was based,
but thus! much he might say, that, in his opinion,
the labouring poxr were entitled just equally to support
from the whole of the national capital—from the funds,
stock in trade, and all other capital of which the
country is possessed. The only title which any
poor man had, in his opinion, was upon the produce
of his own work. It was the primeval curse, inflicted
by a higher power than man, that he should obtain his
bread from Lae sweat of his brow, and he (Lord
Brougham) thought that it was perfectly right that it
should be so; for he believed that if there was no such
condition imposed there would be but little work per-
formed.

The Bishop of LONDON—Surely his Noble and
Learned Friend did not mean to say that no person
was to obtain any subsistence but that for which he
worked ?

Lord BROUGHAM—OnIy the able-bodied poor.
SCOTTISH PEERAGE.

Lord COLVILLE rose to draw the attenti6n of their
Lordships to the motion which he had been requested to
postpone till to-night, in order that the true claims of
the ancient nobility of Scotland for a certificate of their
titles might be established. It was truly stated that
in this matter he had no personal concern; but
he ought to state that in cases where the Eng-
lish nobility had to act on their privilege,
before they did so act they had to go before the Lord
Chancellor and prove their right to the title. In Ire-
land there was a similar security, but in Scotland there
was no such advantage, for at the election of a Peer of
Scotland an individual had nothing to do but to state
himself to have a right to the tide he claimed to be at
once allowed to ♦ote. He must now draw the atten-
tion of the House to a matter personal to himself.
lie had been represented in a Scotch paper as
having brought on a conversation respecting him-
self. Now the person of whom he complained was the
representative of Lord Colville of Ochiltree, while he was
Colville of Kilross, and he would put it to the House
whether he had not endeavoured to the utmost of his
power to place the House in the right position with re-
spect to this matter, and he should, therefore, now
restrict himself simply to the terms of the motion of
which he bad given notice.

Lord CANCPBELL thought their Lordships were
very much indebted to the Noble Lord who had brought
this matter before them, for it was not ore in which
the Scottish nobility alone were interested, but
the tradespeople also, who were often defrauded,
in consequence of the facility which existed of usurping
the titles and privileges of the Scotch nubility. Ile
hoped that it would be prosecuted to the utmost, that
the evil might be put down, and that the Noble Lord
(Colville) would continue to give it his attention, and
after getting his returns would move for a Select Com-
mittee.

Lord BROUGHAM agreed that that was the proper
course; but he hoped that the attention of the Select
Committee would be directed to the resolutions which
affected this subject, and were brought into their Lord-
ships' House in 1832. Why, a mere menlicant might
go into Holyrood House, and on the mere claim could
vote and influence important questions. So that
actually it became a matter interesting- the Legislature.
The Earl of ROSEBERY agreed that the law was
defective in the respect mentioned by his Noble and
Learned Friend (Lord Campbell), and he trusted that, if
the matter went into Committee, it would be remedied.
The motion, which was for a list of voters in the late
election for a Scotch Representative Peer, was then
agreed to.
BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES BILL.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a number
of parish clerks and schoolmasters against the Births,
Deaths, and Marriages 1311.
EDUtATION.

Earl RADNOR presented a petition against the Go-
vernment scheme of education.

Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from New-
port Pagnall against the Government scheme of educa-
tion; he only presented it in order to express how far
he dissented from it. He would take that opportunity
of giving notice that he would, after the Easter recess,
bring the question of emigration before the attention of
their Lordships.

CRIMINAL LAW.
Lord BROUGHAM moved that the Archbishop o
Dublin be added to the Committee on Criminal Law.