The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-31 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF 1.01?DS, May 30.
The LORD CILiNCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool•
sack at Fivo
Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions from Stran-
raer in favour of the Scotch Entail Bill ; from Lanark
in favour of the Free Church Sites Bill; from several
places in'fayour of the J ewi s Diisabilits Bill;
ment i and from
some places in Ireland, prayg for an amendn the
Irish Po,ir-law.
The Bishop rif 'NORWICH prevented several p
ti ins praying for a repeal of the legacy duties on be-
ti
left to charities.
The Earl of EGLINTON presented several petitions
fr,,in parochial 'authorities in Scotland against the
Scotch ttelistration Bill ; also some petitions against
the B ink Charter Aot of 1844.
The Earl of FITZ WILLIAM presented a petition
from Ar lrachan, pra,yirg for an alteration in the poor-
laws of Ireland".
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
some ph .ce in'Yorkshire against the admit)ion of Jews

into Parliament,
POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
The Earl orLEICAN m wed thet a Select Committee
be appointed to inquire into the operation and adminis-
tration of the poor-law in Ireland. He was surprised
that her MajestY'e 'Goveenment should have refused to
bring in any measure to mitieate the severity of that
Act, which pre4sed most harshly upon certain indivi-
duals. fie tied therefore gloved for this Committee; but
he proposed to chnfine the inquiry to be instituted to the
operation of the law as it affects& lessors. He did not
want to get rid of the rating of immediate lessors, but
be thought that either persons ought not to be rated.
Such a course:would prevent the infinite subdivision of
land which was so injurious to Ireland. Atter a few
further observations the Noble Lord concluded by moving
for the appointment of the Committee.
The Mervis of LANSDOWNE was sorry to oppose
the motion, but he understood a case had been prepared
involving some of the questions alluded to by the Noble
Earl as to the present mode of rating. and it would
shortly be decided by a court of law. Until that deci-
sion had been come to, he did not see how their Lord-
ships could take any step in the matter. He advised the
Rouse, thereforeeto-eefuse the motion.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM supported the motion. The
Noble Earl, whose observations were imperfectly audible,
was understood to complain of the great increase in the
expense of supporting the poor in Ireland. He conjured I
the Government to adopt some system of colonization
which should assist in relieving the rates. They had
waste lands at one end of the world, and waste hands
at the other, and why not adopt some system which
should brine those two great elements of production
together?—(Hear, hear.) This was a matter re-
quiring immediate consideration. This yea then
desire
to emigrate was not as great as last year, andf
waited until next year it would possibly have disap-
peared altogether.
Earl GREY deprecated the discussion of so large a
question. us colonization, on a mere restriuctedof motion Toler
inquiry into certain proceedings arising ot the wor.-
ing of the Volr-laws. He complained of the fallacy In-
volved in hi.4Noble Friend's observations, namely, that
it was in tree power of any Government to dispense
prosperity and happiness among the people. Prosperity
must come from the industry of the people, and
the development of the national resources. That de-
velopment could not come without security, and Govern-
ment had performed its task in restoring security and
suppressing crime throughout 'reined. As to emigra-
tion, if the people practised industry at home, there
would be no necessity for deportation ; while, if they
were sent away without some capital, nothing but mis-
fortune must be the result. In a few days he would lay
upon the table, further papers relative to emigration, and
be would at the same time tike the opportunity of en-
teeing at length into the views of the Government on
that important subject. He believed that the poor-law
in Ireland was on the while working better than could
have been expected. He did not see that a sufficient
case had been made out for the motion of the Noble
Earl.
Lord STUART DE DECIES took occasion to ex-
press his regret that more attention was not paid in
Parliament to the wishes of the Irish people as ex-
pressed through their representatives. Those «ishes
had been expressed explicitly on the motion of the Hon.
Member for Portarlington; and he (Lord Stuart de
D-cies) had reason to know that the rejection of that
motion had done more to advance the cause of repeal
than all the exertions of its most strenuous advocates.—
(Hear, hear.) Having entered into some details as to
the working of the poor-law, the Noble Lord concluded
by stating that he should vote for the Noble Esrl's
motion unless Government promised an early and search
ing inquiry into the whole scope, tenor, and operation of
the Irish poorltw.
Lord BEAUMONT considered that a good ground
for inquiry had been made out.
ISe Earl of DEVON was opposed to immediate in-
quiries, seeing that legal steps were pending in another
place; but he hoped that before long a full and searching
inquiry would'be conceded by Government. The Noble
Earl near him (Earl Grey) had told them that on the
whole the poor-law worked well. That td.ght be true,
bet he (Earl-of Devon) could state of his own knowledge
that in some parts of Ireland it was tar from successful
in its operation.
Lord CAMPBELL opposed the motion.
Lord MON rEAGLE supported the motion. He did
not care about the individual grievance, but here was an
important law containing confessedly a serious grievance;
that grievance caused general discontent, and it was
thsrefore. he conceived, the duty of that 'louse to grant
an immediateinvestigation. As a friend of the union, as
a feiend of Britieh connexion, he dared not vote against
this inquiry.—(Hear.)
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE could not see that
there was any necessity for a Committee of Inquiry. If
the intention of the Poor-law Act was not clearly made
out as regarded lessors, the best remedy would be a short
Bill to remnse misconception. If they were to have in-
quiry, let it be general, and not confined to a mere point
of detail.
The House divided, when there appeared—
FOr - the :notion. .. 33
Against it
• . Majority —6
The motion was consequently carried.against the Go-
vernment.
ADDRESS., OF CONDOLENCE TO HER MA-
JESTY.
The Marquis of LANSI)OWNE moved that an
humble eddress be presented to her Majesty condoling
with her Majesty on the loss sustained by the Rupil
Family in the death of the Princess Sophia.
Lord STANLEY said there would be only one opi-
nion on the subject—namely, that the virtues of her
late Royal Highness would occasion her loss to be very
se,erely felt.
The motion was then unanimously agreed to.
EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Marquis of CLANillq;AlloE, in moving the
second reading of this Bill, entered into a statement of
its objects and provisions, which have already formed
the subject of several discussions in the other House,
when the Bill wis introduced.
Lard MONTEAGLE said that he had no objection
to Ow objects proposed to bo at: sine I by the Bill, but so
long as the Irish tenor-law was in ,existence the proposed
measure wield offer the mos'. inseperabl, difficulties to
tue effectual operation of the existing law, and would
resider it wholly inoperative. If he had been rightly
infr.rrned the gentleman whose imputed conduct had
mainly given rise to the Bill was wholly ignorant of the
cireueestances which had taken place in evicting tenatits,
on his prop-rty, in Galway; and Set he hail been struck
off the commission of the peace, without having had an
opportunity of denying them. In fact, he had the n
au-
thority of the Lerd-Lientenant of Mr.
B;
innocent occ the au-
thoritY of' the Lord'Lieutsnint (1 Mr. Biake's cou
tn
for asserting that that gentleroan was quite
the facts imputed to him. Their Lordships ought, there-
fore, to guard themselves against adopting general
measures founded on two cases, one of which had been
denied to have any foundation in truth. The Bill would
introduce the greatest confusion into the administration
of the poor-law in Ireland. and he must offer is
the strongest opposition•
For the objects soug,tbutot
be attained by the Bill he had great sympathy,
let them be attained by the regular operation of the
poor-laws, and not by a measure which would derange
altogether the system of relief now in force in Ireland,
and be equally applicable to the class of persons con-
templated by the Bill as to all other poor and destitute
persons.
The Earl of GLENGALL vindicated Mr. Blake from
haiing participated in the evictions which were ac-
knowledged to have mainly given rise to the present
measure. At the same time, it was to be observed
that Mr. Blake had not given so clear an explanation
of the circumstances to the Irish Secretary as would
hare exculpated him from participation in the out-
rages imputed to him. As for the Bill itself he was
opposed to it, for if it passed in its present shape, it
appeared to him that every transaction in Ireland con-
nected with the letting of lend must of necessity come
under the cognisance and control of the poor-law guar-
dians there.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE briefly defended
the Bill, and justified its provisions against the objection
urged by the two Noble Lords who had opposed it.
The Bill was then read a second time.
Tne Ruse adjourned at a Quarter to Ten o'clock to
Friday next.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 30.
The SPEAKER took thp Chair at Four o'clock.
REPORTS.

The folbwing reportssWroconiidered and agreed to:
E Ist Lincolnshire Railway (Alteration of Great
Grimsby Branch).
Edinburgh and Glasciw Railway (No. I—Amend-
ment of Acts and Braichei, &c.)
Great North,rn Railway of Axholme ExtenAion).
Greet Western Railway (Extension of the Berks and
Hants R tilway from nungerford to Westbury, with a
Brinell to Devizes).
Leech Central Railway
London and BtaAartil [Lail way Improvement, and
Branches to the St. Katharine a and London Decks.

Low'v. Patent.
Norfolk Railway (Amendment of Acts and Extension
of Thug for er,minilein.(27. R edham and Diss Branches).
North and South Western (Harrow to Brent.
ford).
North Western Railway (D:veriions at Skipton, ats-
terton, and S- burgh).
Salisbury and Yeovit Railway.
Sterling and I)unferiolinq Railway (Amendment and
Deviations).
Strathtay and Breada!bane Fxtension Railway.
Oxford, Woreesier, and Wok erhumpton Railway
(No. 2—Deviation of L no, and Power to Shrewsbury
and Birmingham, and Birmingham, Wolverhampton,
Dudley RJ.iiway Compauits to contribute and u.ake
Arrangements).
The following Bill was read a third tinse::--