The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-29 00:00:00

HOT:SE OF COMMONS-MONDAY.

Among the bills brought down from the Lords, and
agreed to by them, was the theatres' regulation bill, their
lordships not insisting on the amendments proposed by
them therein. The house having gone into committee for
further consideration of the report of the slave trade sup-
pression bill, Sir T. WILDE proposed certain amendments
to meet the objections of the Attorney and Solicitor-
General as to certain clauses of the bill on Friday last.
After some conversation they were agreed to. The re-
mainder of the business transacted was not of public in-
terest.

HOUSE OF LORDS-TUESDAY.

The royal assent was given by commission to a multitude
of bills.

Lord CAMPBELL, in moving the consideration of the
Commons' amendments to his defamation and libel bill,
lamented the mutilation it had suffered, and cited a num-
ber of instances to show the injustice of adhering, as the
lower house had done, to the old rule of common law,
which denied redress for any spoken scandal, unless it
imputed an indictable offence or tended to injure a man in
his profession. The chastest matron or the purest maid
might be accused of incontinency; the bravest soldier
might be publicly proclaimed as a coward or a scoundrel ;
yet the law, although punishing the imputation that one
person had lifted his hand against another, afforded no
redress. He contended that in such cases as these the
treatment of spoken should be assimilated with that of
written slander, and thought that the fear of costs would
be a sufficient restriction upon frivolous actions. He com-
plained also of the omission of the clauses which prevented
the mere truth of a charge from being a sufficient answer
in a civil action without proof that the publication was for
the public benefit, but generally approved the other alte-
rations.
The LORD CHANCELLOR vindicated the discretion of
the House of Commons in the changes they bad made,
and the amendments were then agreed to.
Lord TEYNHAM afterwards moved for certain returns

fleeting the administration of the poor law, with the view
principally of procuring for the poor an extension of out
door relief, but partly also that he might procure the ap-
poiOment of a committee to inquire into the operation of
the act. He entreated that regard might be had not only
to the wants but to the feelings of the poor, and established
by several instances the impolicy as well as the cruelty of
offering relief on condition of entering the workhouse, and
thus forcing the honest and able-bodied labourer to eke
out his existence by theft, which, when discovered, would
render his family a burden upon the parish, and ruin his
future prospects of employment. In districts, where
wages were so low as to be insufficient to support more
than two or three members of a family, relief either in
food or money should be given, and neither in this case,
or when work failed from the circumstances of the times,
should the workhouse test be applied. He attributed the
hardships inflicted upon the poor not so much to the act
itself as to the orders of the commissioners, which had
induced many who had originally co-operated in carrying
out the system to withdraw themselves from a participation
in its cruelties. The expectations of decreased expense
that they had been taught to entertain were miserably dis-
appointed—a necessary result of the practice of driving
whole families into th workhouse, whom a little tempo-
rary assistance would have enabled to maintain themselves
in independence. He pressed for a general inquiry into
the system—into the regulation of the workhouses, the
classification of their inmates, and other topics connected
with the operation of the act, but more especially into the
proceedings of the commissioners themselves. He did
not regret that the law had been so little discussed this
session, as enough was not known of its working to enable
their lordships to introduce satisfactory amendments.
Lord STANHOPE complained that some returns which
which had been ordered by the house last session had not
been produced, and expressed his surprise that Lord Teyn-
ham should have contented himself with asking for only
a more merciful administration of the law. He objected
not only to its cruelty and injustice, but to its principle,
and on behalf of the oppressed poor demanded its repeal.
That result would one day be obtained ; and if it was not
conceded by parliament, it would be achieved by the
people.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE had no objection to the returns,
and the motion was, therefore, agreed to.