Lords Sitting of 23 February 1841

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord Denman, from London, and Swarkestone, for the substitution of Declarations in lieu of Oaths.

POOR-LAW COMMISSION.
Lord Abingerpresented a petition from Norwich complaining of the operation of the Poor Law Act, particularly as regarded the separation of husband and wife, and against some of the provisions in the bill for extending and renewing the Poor-Law commission before the House of Commons.
The Marquess of Normanbyobjected to the petition as irregular, on account of its seeking to have the new bill, now before the House of Commons, improved and al-

855
tered before that bill reached their Lordships' House.
Lord Abingerobserved, that the petition only incidentally referred to the bill in the House of Commons, but in order to prevent any discussion, he would at once withdraw it.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, that before the noble and learned Lord withdrew his petition, he (Earl Fitzwilliam) wished to call the attention of their Lordships to a petition he held in his hand, and in which the noble and learned Lord opposite would feel considerable interest. The petitioners strongly objected to the duration proposed to be given by the bill in the other House to the power of the poor-law commissioners. They did not object to the duration, or even the establishment of a permanent office for the superintendence of the local boards, but they did object to those powers with which the commissioners were now gifted, and which appeared to partake almost of a legislative character. They thought, and in this he agreed with them, that the poor-law commissioners seemed to act like most persons in power, as if they were desirous to stretch that power to the utmost. They had recently issued an order, which he considered highly improper, namely, that the return of the guardians, when elected, should be made by the clerk of the union, instead of, as formerly, by one of the parochial officers. As the clerk was generally a person of legal habits, and the guardians, on the contrary, persons ignorant of law, the clerk would have a great advantage over them in the event of any dispute arising between him and them, or of his acting improperly. Residing in the centre of the union, he would exercise a control over the election of the guardians in the remotest districts. Such of their Lordships as had seen the bill brought into the other House would be aware that it gave power to the commissioners entirely to alter the form of the present unions as regarded three classes of the poor—the insane, the infirm, and the infant. Now, with respect to those three classes, the commissioners were to be empowered to alter the form of every union in the country, with the view, as it were, of calling those classes out of the present workhouses, and placing each of them in separate unions. With regard to the insane poor, he did not entertain much objection to the proposed arrangement; but, with respect
856
to the infirm poor, he had the strongest objection. It would be a great hardship upon those who were infirm from age, sickness, or accident, to remove them from the parishes and unions in which they had been accustomed to be taken care of. In reference to the infant poor, he did not carry his objection quite so far. There were many reasons which made it desirable to provide schools and asylums for a larger number than the workhouses could accommodate. The general prayer of the petition was, that the bill now before the House of Commons might not pass into a law. He apprehended, however, that the same objection that had been started against the reception of the petition just before brought in by the noble and learned Lord opposite would apply to the present petition.
The Marquess of Normanbyobserved, that the same objection would operate in point of form against their Lordships receiving the petition brought forward by the noble Earl. He (the Marquess of Normanby) had, however, listened to the observations of the noble Earl with the greatest attention, and could assure the noble Lord that all who were anxious for the good working of the law would be happy to receive suggestions for its improvement. He could not state at present what provisions he should introduce into the bill, but he would give the noble Lord's suggestions his very best attention.
Lord Ellenboroughhad not understood from the noble Lord whether the order alluded to was a general one, applying to all unions, or a particular one applicable only to some. [Earl Fitzwilliam did not know.] He thought it would be highly objectionable that the clerk of the union should have any influence over the election of the guardians. The clerk should be made to understand that he was the servant of the guardians. His opinion was, that the whole machinery of the Poor-law Bill would fail if there was any attempt to diminish the power or responsibility of the guardians themselves. It was only by giving them responsibility and power that good men would be induced to come forward and take the office.
Earl Fitzwilliamentirely concurred in the views expressed by the noble Lord. He suspected there were many unions in which the clerks endeavoured to become the masters of the guardians instead of their servants. He would take the oppor-

857
tunity of acquainting their Lordships that in many unions, where the population was great, the clerk had a fee of a farthing a head on a contested election in the parish in which it took place. Where the population was small the fee was increased to a halfpenny.
The Marquess of Normanhyhad no doubt that the order alluded to was a particular order. He believed there was no such general order.

ENFRANCHISEMENT OF COPYHOLDS.
Lord Broughambrought up the report of the committee on the Copyhold and Customary Tenure Bill. The committee had made many alterations, and had incorporated with the present bill a considerable part of the other bill on the enfranchisement of Copyhold. He believed that the proper way would be to move that the report on the first bill be received, and to move that the report of the other bill be put off for six months.
Ordered accordingly. Copyhold and Customary Tenure Bill to be printed. Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill put off.

DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY (IRELAND).
Lord Broughambrought in a bill to amend the laws relating to the destruction of property in Ireland. The Irish act was the 15th and 16th of George 3rd., and it enabled persons whose property was injured in riots and tumults to recover in some cases against the barony, in others against the county. But there was also another act, the 19th and 20th of George 3rd., which formerly was supposed to apply to all the counties, and enabled persons whose property was damaged by burning, or whose cattle were houghed, to recover, under a certain amount from the barony, and above it from the county. Now, on account of the word barony used in that part of the act, it had recently been held, that the law did not apply to the county of the city of Dublin, where there was no barony. He could not doubt that this decision of the judges in Ireland was correct according to the wording of the act. But neither could he think, that it was the intention of the Legislature to except the metropolis of the country from the operation of such an act. The object of this bill, which he now begged leave to propose, was to explain the 19th and 20th of Geo.
858
3rd, and to extend its operation to the metropolis and its neighbourhood.
Bill brought in and read a first time.

CANADA—DELAY IN PRINTING ORDINANCES.
The Bishop of Exetersaid it would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that on a previous occasion he had referred to the delays which had taken place in printing certain ordinances which had been laid on the Table of their Lordships' House. Having been then informed that the delay was caused by the Colonial-office sending a fresh order to be printed, the noble Lord near him undertook to make inquiry upon the subject, and he begged leave now to ask him if he had done so?
Viscount Duncannonreplied, that the delay had been occasioned by the ordinance No. 129 being under the consideration of the law officers of the Crown. It had not therefore been laid before their Lordships. The rest of the papers then printed were taken back to the Colonial-office, in order that the paper in question might be inserted in its proper place. This caused a delay of eleven days, and to make up for it, he would undertake, on the part of the Government, that the ordinances should now remain on the Table eleven days longer than had originally been intended.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, it was for their Lordships to say, whether they were satisfied with the noble Viscount's explanation, but, for his own part, he must beg to be excused from indicating the slightest symptom of approval of it. The noble Viscount had stated, that on the 29th of last month he laid certain ordinances upon the Table of the House, and moved, that they should be printed, but it unfortunately happened, that an ordinance which ought to have been amongst those laid upon the Table was not in its place, because it was at the time under the consideration of the law officers of the Crown. What course was taken upon this discovery? Instead of coming down to the House and informing their Lordships, that the ordinance in question had been omitted, and obtaining an order for its being printed among the rest, as it was the noble Viscount's bounden duty to have done, he smuggled it into its place, and now expected their Lordships to pass over such a gross act of indiscretion—he was unwilling to use a stronger word. [Laugh-

859
ter.] The noble Viscount laughed. He was glad the noble Viscount could find anything ridiculous in the matter, but he supposed the noble Viscount laughed at their Lordships' order, and the whole of their proceedings. According to the noble Viscount's explanation, the 129th ordinance had never been presented to the House—it had never been laid upon the Table until it was printed. This was a matter which ought not to be treated lightly. There had in this case been, he would not say negligence only, but a serious departure from that ingenuousness which the House had a right to expect. He wished to know whether the noble Viscount meant to pledge himself that the House should have an opportunity of addressing her Majesty relative to the ordinance in question within thirty days, dating from the 16th of the present month?
Viscount Melbournedid not believe that any injury had resulted from the mistake which had furnished the right rev. Prelate with the ground of his complaint. It certainly was a matter of regret that all the papers in the list had not been laid upon the Table of their Lordships' House at once. It was impossible to deny that there had been some little irregularity; but there was no pretence for charging his noble Friend with any want of ingenuous, ness; and he must say that the right rev. Prelate, in doing so, reminded him of those persons who were in the habit of accusing others of wanting that in which they were most deficient themselves. The right rev. Prelate greatly exaggerated the inconvenience which might arise from the irregularity which had occurred. The ordinance in question was not one of great importance, nor one to which the right rev. Prelate was likely to call the attention of the House. He (Viscount Melbourne) was desirous that the spirit of the act should be complied with, and that their Lordships should have the fullest opportunity for considering the ordinances, and to address her Majesty with respect to them if they thought proper. It would be impossible, by any agreement, as the right rev. Prelate seemed to imagine, to give to an address of their Lordships a force which it did not possess by law. The address must be made within thirty days after the ordinances were laid upon the Table. He spoke doubtingly on this point, however, and if it could be arranged, the thirty days should commence from
860
the time the 129th ordinance had been given out to be printed.
The Bishop of Exeter: That was the 16th of the month.
Viscount Duncannonbegged to inform the right rev. Prelate that he had no wish to treat the matter with any undue levity.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid the intention of the act was, to give Parliament a full opportunity of considering the ordinances issued by the Canadian government. The practice adopted had last Session given general satisfaction. If upon the present occasion a little delay had occurred, the right rev. Prelate had only to bring forward any motion he might think necessary a few days earlier.
Lord Ellenboroughsuggested that in future a copy of the ordinances should remain upon the Table, and another copy be sent to the printer.
The Bishop of Exeterwished to know distinctly whether the noble Viscount would undertake that the cabinet would advise her Majesty not to give her consent to the ordinances until thirty days had expired from the 16th instant.
Viscount Duncannon: Certainly.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, he would not then trouble the House that night by presenting the petition of which he had given notice. He would present it on a future day, and state the grounds upon which the petitioners came before their Lordships, and thus afford an opportunity for considering the question before he submitted any motion on the subject. He gave notice that he would present the petition on Thursday, the 4th of March.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that if the right rev. Prelate intended to bring forward a motion taking the same view of the question as the petitioners, it would be a great convenience to the House if he would allow some days to intervene between the presentation of the petition and the motion.
The Bishop of Exetersaid that was his intention. He hoped, when he presented the petition, to hear the opinions of noble Lords on the question, and their opinions would, as they ought, have great effect upon his decision as to whether or not he should found any motion on the petition.—Subject at an end.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE—COMPENSATION.
Lord Lyndhurstbegged to cull the attention of the noble Viscount

861
at the head of the Government to a bill which it appeared by the votes was passing through the other House of Parliament—he alluded to the bill for facilitating the administration of justice in the courts of equity. He believed that the bill in question was in accordance with one which their Lordships sent down to the Commons last Session, but which was not passed. The present bill had been introduced by the law officers of the Crown, and was, therefore, to be considered a Government measure. He now addressed the noble Viscount for the purpose of calling upon him to take care that there should be introduced into the bill a clause for the purpose of guaranteeing adequate compensation to persons who possessed vested interests in the courts. He mentioned this matter now, because, as their Lordships were aware, no alteration of such a clause could possibly be made in that House. He was anxious for the success of the bill, and should be sorry if it were hazarded by any attempt, whether of accident or design, to commit an act of injustice.
Viscount Melbournethought it was an unusual and extraordinary proceeding to address observations to him in that House respecting a bill in the other House of Parliament, and especially with respect to the money part of it. However, he could only say he would take care that a compensation clause should be introduced with respect to all who had a real right to compensation.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that there was no compensation clause in the bill when it went down to the Commons, because their Lordships had no power to insert one. He had spoken now as a matter of caution.
Adjourned.