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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 30.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool.
sack at Five o'clock.
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 favour of the Jewish Disabilities Bill; and from
some places in Ireland, praying for an amendment in the
Irish Poor-law.
The Bishop of NORWICH presented several peti-
tions praying for a repeal of the legacy duties on be-
quests left to charities.
The Earl of EGLINTON presented several petitions
from parochial authorities in Scotland against the
Scotch Registration Bill ; also some petitions against
the Bank Charter Act of 1844.
The Earl of FITZWILLIAM presented a petition
from Ardrachan, praying for an alteration in the poor-
laws of Ireland.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
some place in Yorkshire against the admission of Jews
into Parliament.
POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
The Earl of LUCAN moved that 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's Government should have refused to
bring in any measure to mitigate the severity of that
Act, which pressed most harshly upon certain indivi-
duals. He had therefore moved for this Committee; but
he proposed to confine the inquiry to be instituted to the
operation of the law as it affected lessors. He did not
want to get rid of the rating of immediate lessors, but
he thought that other persons ought not to be rated.
Such a course would prevent the infinite subdivision of
land which was so injurious to Ireland. After a few
further observations the Noble Lord concluded by moving
for the appointment of the Committee.
The Marquis 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
House, therefore, to refuse the motion.
Earl FITZWILLIAM 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
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 bring those two great elements of production
together?—(Hear, hear.) This was a matter re-
quiring immediate consideration. This year the desire
to emigrate was net as great as last year, and if they
waited until next year it would possibly have disap-
peared altogether.
Earl GREY deprecated the discussion of so large a
question as colonization, on a mere restricted motion for
inquiry into certain proceedings arising out of the work-
ing of the poor-laws. He complained of the fallacy in-
volved in his Noble Friend's observations, namely, that
it was in the power of any Government to dispense
prosperity and happiness among the people. Prosperity
must come from the industry of the people, and from
the development of the national resources. Thatde-
velopment could not come without security, and Govern-
ment had performed its task in restoring security and
suppressing crime throughout Ireland. 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
he would at the same time take the opportunity of en-
tering at length into the views of the Government on
that important subject. He believed that the poor-law
in Ireland was on the whole 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 wishes
had been expressed explicitly on the motion of the Hon.
Member for Portarlington; and he (Lord Stuart de
Decies) 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 Earl's
motion unless Government promised an early and search •
ing inquiry into the whole scope, tenor, and operation of
the Irish poor-law.
Lord BEAUMONT considered that a good ground
for inquiry had been made out.
The 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 might be true,
bat he (Earl of Devon) could state of his own knowledge
that in some parts of Ireland it was far from successful
in its operation.
Lord CAMPBELL opposed the motion.
Lord MONTEAGLE 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
therefore, he cmceived, the duty of that House to grant
an immediate investigation. As a friend of the union, as
a friend of British 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 remove 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 motion.. 33
Against it
Majority
The motion was consequently carried against the Go-
vernment.

ADDRESS OF CONDOLENCE TO HER MA-
JESTY.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved that an
humble address be presented to her Majesty condoling
with her Majesty on the loss sustained by the Royal
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
severely felt.

The motion was then unanimously agreed to.
EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE, 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 Biil was introduced.

Lord MONTEAGLE said that he had no objection
to the objects proposed to be attained by the Bill, but so
long as the Irish poor-law was in existence the proposed
measure would offer the most insuperable difficulties to
the effectual operation of the existing law, and would
render it whelly inoperative. If he had been rightly
informed the gentleman whose imputed conduct had
mainly given rise to the Bill was wholly ignorant of the
circumstances which had taken place in evicting tenants,
on his property, in Galway; and yet he had been struck
off the commission of the peace, without having had an
opportunity of denying them. In fact, he had the au-
thority of the Lord-Lieutenant of fir. Blake's county
for asserting that that gentleman was quite innocent of
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 is Ireland, and he must ofer it
the strongest opposition. For the objects sought to
be attained by the Bill he had great sympathy, but
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
having 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
have 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 land 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.
The House adjourned at a Quarter to Ten o'clock to
Friday next.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 30.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
REPORTS.
The following reports were considered anti agreed to:
East Lincolnshire Railway (Alteration of Great
Grimsby Branch).
Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway (No. I—Amend-
ment of Acts and Branches, &c.)
Great Northern Railway (Isle of Axholme Extension).
Great Western Railway (Extension of the Berks and
Hants Railway from Hungerford to Westbury, with a
Branch to Devizes).
Leeds Central Railway Station .
London and Blackwell Railway Improvement, and
Branches to the St. Katharine's and London Docks.
Low's Patent.

Norfolk Railway (Amendment of Acts and Extension
CJ f Time for commencing Iledharn and piss Branches).
North and South Western Railway (Harrow to Brent-
ford).
North Western Railway (Diversions at Skipton, Cas-
terton, and Sedbergh).
Salisbury and Yeovil Railway.
Sterling and Dunfermline Railway (Amendment and
Deviations).
Strathtay and Breadalbane Extension Railway.
Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway
(No. 2—Deviation of Line, and Power to Shrewsbury
and Birmingham, and Birmingham, Wolverhampton,
Dudley Railway Companies to contribute and make
Arrangements).
The following Bill was read a third timel:—

Bristol and Exeter Railway (Glastonbury Navigation
and Canal Purchase).
RE-COMMITTALS.
The following Bills were re-committed:—
Bristol and Exeter (Taunton and Castlecary).
Bristol and Exeter (Bleadon to Wells ditto).
Exeter, Yeovil, and Dorchester.
Leeds and Thirak (Harrogate and Pateley).
London and Blackwell Railway Improvement.
NOTICES OF MOTION.

Sir.HENRY WILLOLIGHBY gave notice that on
a future day he should move for a return of the monies
expended, or agreed to be expended, on the New House
of Parliament from the lit of January to the 31st of
March.

Dr. BOWRING gave notice that on the 26th of June
he should move the resolution of which he had given
notice, relating to the Board of Works in Ireland and
the Shannon navigation.
Mr. PUSEY postponed the second reading of the
Agricultural Tenant Bill, which stood for to-morrow,
for three weeks.