§ SIR GEORGE GREY, having moved the Order of the Day for the taking into consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Evicted Destitute Poor (Ireland) Bill, said, that he would briefly state the nature of the alterations made in the Bill by the other House, and what course he proposed the House of Commons should adopt with regard to them. The first alteration he would call attention to was one made in the second clause. The House of Commons provided in the original Bill that—
The landowner or other person by whom, or on whose behalf, such writ, decree, order, or other process as aforesaid, shall have been sued out, or his agent, shall give notice in writing of his intention to execute the same, seven days at the least before the same shall be executed, to the guardians of the poor of the union.It was to that part that the most material amendment had been made by their Lordships: for they substituted the "relieving officer" for the "guardians of the poor," as the person on whom the notice was to be served; and in the first line of 482 the clause they introduced the words "with-in twelve hours after "the decree" shall have been executed," thereby substituting a notice within twelve hours after the eviction for the notice of seven days before it. Now, with respect to the substitution of the relieving officer as the person to be notified instead of the board of guardians, he (Sir George Grey) did not think that a material alteration, and he therefore did not propose to ask the House to dissent from that amendment. But, with respect to the notice being given after the fact of eviction had been accomplished, instead of before, the effect of that alteration would be to defeat the very object with which the Bill had been passed by the House of Commons: for their great object was to insure that notice of the intended evictions should be given. He should therefore propose that the House should disagree in substance with that amendment. But as he did not moan to ask them to disagree with the very words of the notice, he would propose that they should allow the relieving officer to be retained as the person on whom the notice should be served; and whilst declining to accede to the notice being given after the eviction, he would beg leave to substitute forty-eight hours before it, instead of the original term of seven days. The right hon. Baronet explained the other points on which he objected to the Lords' Amendments.After a few observations from Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD and Mr. POULETT SCROPE, objecting to the Lords' Amendments, they were agreed to and dissented from as suggested by Sir GEORGE GREY.