Lords Sitting of 22 June 1848

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Public Health; Appeals on Civil Bill (Dublin).
2a Gartificates for Killing Hares (Scotland); Game Certificates for Killing Hares; Criminal Law Consolidation (No. 2); Copyhold Enfranchisement Extension.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Dumbarton, and a' great Number of other Places, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill, and the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill.—From Dufftown, for Facilitating the Attainment of Sites for Churches in Scotland.—From Peterhead, against any Alteration of the Navigation Laws.—From Aberdeen, for Revision of the Excise Laws.—From Dunbar, complaining of the Inadequacy of the Remuneration of Schoolmasters in Scotland.—From Runcorn, and other Places, against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on the Sabbath.—From Saffron Waiden, for the Adoption of Measures for the Suppression of Seduction and Prostitution.—From Members of several Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, for the Extension of the Provisions of the Benefit Societies Act to that Order—From the Parish of Kenilworth, against the Admission of Jews into Parliament.

SPAIN—DISMISSAL OF SIR H. BULWER.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that he wished to ask a question with reference to the recent communications between our Government and that of Spain; he would enter into no discussion upon the merits of the case, but confine himself to a statement of so much of the correspondence as would make his question intelligible. After the Spanish Government had taken the very strong step—a step so strong as, in his judgment, hardly to be capable of entire vindication under any circumstances what-ever—of dismissing Her Majesty's Minister from Madrid at very short notice, they must have been aware that that step must necessarily be regarded with great jealousy, and probably with great indignation, in this country; and they hastened to remove the impression it would produce by sending over the Count Mirasol upon a confidential mission to explain to the British Government the circumstances under which that step had been taken, and to vindicate, if possible, their own procedure. He arrived on the 25th of May; but the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, whether correctly or incorrectly, came to the conclusion that it was his duty not to receive any communication through the Count Mirasol, and he informed the Spanish Minister in this country that if the Government of Spain had any communication to make to the British Government, he (the Spanish Minister) was the proper channel through which it was to be made. In a private note of the 29th of May to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, M. Isturitz stated that, in consequence of this determination of the British Government, it would be his duty to transmit to them himself the statements of which the Count de Mirasol was the bearer; and two days afterwards Lord Palmerston inquired when
988
the communication would be made; but M. Isturitz then replied, that in the circumstances in which he was placed, he did not feel himself fully authorised to present those communications with which another person had been charged, and that he could not take upon himself to make them. On the 6th of June Lord Palmerston in consequence addressed to M. Isturitz a letter, of which the following was the concluding portion:—
"Her Majesty's Government cannot acquiesce in a course of proceeding so disrespectful to the British Crown. If the Count Mirasol has brought any statement which it is fitting that the Government of Spain should submit for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, in explanation or in justification of the conduct pursued towards Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid, Her Majesty's Government are entitled to call upon you as the official and accredited organ of your Government at this Court, to make that statement, and to send it to me in writing forthwith.
"I now formally and officially call upon you to do so; and it is my duty to add, that if you do not do so within two days after the date of this letter, Her Majesty's Government will deem themselves entitled to assume that Count Mirasol has brought no statements or explanations which are in the slightest degree deserving of consideration; and that the Spanish Government in sending him hither had no serious or becoming purpose in view; and I have further to say, that as no statements can be admitted by Her Majesty's Government except those on which the Spanish Government acted at the time, no supplementary statements which may hereafter reach you from Madrid can be received, nor can be taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government in forming their final judgment on this important matter."
On the next day, the 7th, M. Isturitz sent to Lord Palmerston an answer, which concluded thus:—
"This mission, which the Gentleman intrusted with it would have been able fully to execute as he might have thought proper, might have been considered by Her Britannic Majesty's Government a sufficient satisfaction or otherwise; but, without perverting intentions and words, never, at any possible period, could it be called a proceeding disrespectful to the British Crown, since, on the contary, it was expressly intended by the Spanish Government as an act of consideration and just respect called for by the circumstances in which it originated. Motives, on which I abstain from passing any judgment, determined your Excellency not to receive the Count Mirasol, without your Excellency being able to know, officially, whether he came with a diplomatic character or not—a quality, however, which was not rigorously indispensable for the fulfilment of an honourable and friendly mission. However that may be, the refusal of your Excellency, and the approaching departure of the Count Mirasol from England, have already disposed of this question, to which it has been attempted to give undue importance, and your Excellency will find me prepared to follow out the principal question in the fulfilment of my duties. No one so much as myself deplores the

989
present state of the relations between the Government of Her Catholic Majesty and that of Her Britannic Majesty; and I will not allow an opportunity to pass without expressing my desire to bring it to an early and satisfactory termination. I have nothing to add now to what I have already written to your Excellency upon this question, except that I am prepared to receive your replies or your resolutions. If at a later period, if during the sojourn which I may have to make in this capital, my Government sends me communications to transmit to your Excellency, I shall transmit them; and your Excellency will use your discretion in receiving them or in rejecting them, as appears to be indicated in the concluding paragraph of your Excellency's communication of yesterday, the 6th, to which I have replied to-day, the 7th, before the term fixed in the unusual intimation contained in it."
The reply of Lord Palmerston, dated the 12th, went into an elaborate examination of the communications which he had received, and the noble Lord intimated that under the circumstances M. Isturitz would do well to quit this country forthwith. In consequence of that intimation, he did quit, on the 14th inst., without having delivered to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the papers explanatory of the act of the Spanish Government, which had been thus sent over by a confidential agent, who had been despatched with such anxiety that not a moment should be lost that he arrived here, as he (Lord Stanley) believed, before Sir H. Bulwer. Her Majesty's Government had laid the correspondence on the table as being closed; but he (Lord Stanley) believed that M. Isturitz had not left this country twenty-four hours before a despatch from Madrid arrived, giving him instructions to communicate to the British Government the papers intrusted to Count Mirasol, and also forwarding additional papers. Apart from diplomatic etiquette it would certainly seem that a knowledge of these communications was necessary for a full consideration of the merits of the case, and in order to enable Parliament and the country to form a just estimate—he would not say of the question whether the Spanish Government were justified in dismissing our Minister, but—whether they had fair reason to believe that his conduct was a departure from the ordinary functions of a Minister in a foreign country, and that he was intriguing for the purpose of overthrowing the existing institutions of Spain—a belief which would go far to remove part of the offensive character of the very strong step they took in removing him. There appeared, however, to be considerable difficulty in presenting to Parliament the papers upon
990
which the question turned. He wished to ask, whether the communication intrusted to Count Mirasol had been subsequently tendered by the Spanish Minister here, or the Secretary of the Embassy, or any other person, to the British Government, and received by them; and whether, if so, it would be laid before Parliament?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he would abstain, like the noble Lord, from going into the merits of the case, and that after diplomatic relations between this country and Spain had ceased, no further communication was received from the Embassy, or could be received.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that as diplomatic relations had ceased, they could not be in a fair position to judge of the conduct of Spain.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that the Spanish Government had had an opportunity of stating their case, and had abstained from doing so.
The EARL of ABERDEENconsidered that Parliament could not, in this state of things, and with the imperfect statement laid upon the table, pronounce any judgment upon the question, but must wait for that information which Her Majesty's Government had declined to receive, but which he presumed the Spanish Government would take means of communicating to the world.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that Parliament had not yet been called upon to pronounce any opinion upon the subject.

CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION (No. 2) BILL.
LORD BROUGHAM LORD BROUGHAM moved the Second Reading of this Bill. It would on Saturday next be thirty-two years since an address was presented to the Prince Regent by both Houses of Parliament, praying His Royal Highness to appoint Commissioners to digest the statute law of this country. Although thirty-two years, however, had elapsed since that time, no legislative measures had been adopted on this important subject. There were some persons who were anxious for reforms in the law, but who would not be satisfied with any reforms that might be proposed: while there were others who were opposed to all reform, and who seemed to think that the law of England was almost perfect. For his own part he was in favour of well-considered and slow—because sure—reforms in the law; for he desired so to amend the law of England that it might

991
be not only almost but altogether perfect. In asking their Lordships to give this Bill a second reading, he proposed to refer to a Select Committee, and he intended to lay before that Committee a digest of the reports of the Commissioners who had collected information on this subject. He did not propose to proceed with the Bill in the present Session, and therefore ample opportunity would be afforded during the long vacation of considering its provisions.
The LORD CHANCELLORwas glad that his noble and learned Friend proposed to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, as it related to a subject upon which many different opinions existed, and one which required serious consideration.
LORD CAMPBELLalso expressed his entire approval of the course taken by his noble and learned Friend. He thought, however, that if his noble Friend had communicated privately with the Judges, and with other persons conversant with this subject, he might have brought his Bill to something like perfection before he had submitted it to the House. If the noble and learned Lord persevered in the course upon which he had entered—if he introduced a comprehensive and beneficial reform in the law of this country—he would, like another great man, go down to posterity with his code in his hand.
The EARL of POWISsaid, he wished to call their Lordships' attention to a very important provision in this Bill. Among the clauses relating to offences against the Queen's person, not amounting to high treason, there was one providing that any dean or chapter who should refuse the election as bishop of a person named in a letter missive, or any bishop or archbishop who should refuse to proceed, in a certain number of days, to the consecration of such person, should be guilty of an offence under that Bill, and should be punishable by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years, or by fine, arbitrary and unlimited, or by both. He considered that, if a person holding ecclesiastical dignity felt it his duty, under certain circumstances (which they would easily conceive might arise, as such instances had already occurred), to refuse election or consecration to any individual who might be appointed to the office of bishop, such a person should not be stigmatised as an offender against the Queen's person, or classed with Chartists. He thought the interests of the Church required that this subject should be carefully
992
considered, and with a seriousness consistent with the importance of the question.
LORD BROUGHAMrejoiced to see the earnestness and zeal with which the noble Earl had taken up this subject; but he might be allowed to observe that zeal was more valuable when it was accompanied by knowledge, than when it was dissociated from it. Now, as the law at present stood, any dean and chapter, or bishop, acting as the noble Lord had described, were liable to what was termed in law the penalties of prœmunire—to forfeiture of lands and tenements, goods and chattels, and to imprisonment during life. But the purpose of his (Lord Brougham's) Bill was to abolish prœmunire in this case altogether, and to diminish the punishment to imprisonment for three years. The Crown really appointed the bishop, but there was still preserved an absurd ceremony, whereby the deans and chapters were called upon to elect a person as to whom they had no choice; and in all cases all opposers of his election were called upon to appear, and if they did appear they would not be heard, and if they did not appear they were declared contumacious. He thought that as the Crown in fact appointed the bishop, it would be much better that the Crown should do it in form as well as in substance.
LORD DENMANsaid, that the proposed alteration was very favourable to deans and chapters, and other ecclesiastical persons, who might under the present law incur the penalties of prœmunire; but he must say that he hoped this would be taken out of the criminal code altogether, and that the power of appointing the bishops would be vested directly in the Crown.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHobserved, that though the Crown were to appoint directly, yet the archbishop must consecrate, and then the difficulty, which it was suggested might be avoided by the direct nomination of the bishop by the Crown, might arise.
LORD DENMANsaid, the election and consecration of bishops were ministerial not judicial acts. It was a direction to the archbishop. Certain questions were asked by the archbishop, and when they were answered he was bound to proceed with the ceremony.
Bill read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.
Committee named.

COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT EXTENSION BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the Second Reading of this Bill. It professed to deal only with certain particular circumstances connected with copyhold tenure, which, in the present state of the law, made that species of property less productive than it might otherwise he, Both to the tenant and the lord, and less beneficial to the community at large. Their Lordships were aware of the great difficulties and inconveniences which beset copyhold tenure in many respects; and he would advert to those particular cases to which the present Bill referred. The Bill professed to deal with the following manorial rights, viz., the rights to fines, rents, he-riots, and all other payments and renders, periodical or casual, in money or otherwise, the lord's right to timber, the lord's right to enter for forfeiture by reason of waste, and all his other rights in respect of the commission and permission of waste, and provided that they might be commuted by the copyhold commissioners on the application of a tenant, according to the mode of proceeding set forth in the Bill. The customary claims for heriots also made it necessary that some such measure as the present should receive the sanction of Parliament. The claims on account of the value of timber likewise demanded the attention of the Legislature; he would put the case of a well-timbered estate—it might possibly be an estate good for nothing else than the production of timber, and if held of the lord of the manor by a copyholder, the tenant could not touch the timber, neither could the lord; and by that state of the law the timber on the estate was rendered utterly useless. It was surely not fitting that the law should in that respect at least remain unaltered. That which they were, then, called upon to do, and that which the Bill went to effect, would be to create out of copyhold property an estate of full value, giving due compensation both to the lord and the tenant. Suppose, for example, that there was an estate, the existing value of which was 15,000 l the tenant's interest being worth 10,000 l the lord's worth 5,000 l Let the suppose that estate enfranchised, and rendered thereby worth 20,000 l; he did by no means propose that the augmentation of value, being 5,000 l., should go either to the lord or the tenant—what he should propose was, that they should participate in the benefits of the increase.
994
Further, it was proposed that compensation should be given to the parties interested, not only for what they possessed, but for that which they might reasonably expect to possess—the power of making such compensation being, limited by the value of the property. There was one other topic to which he wished to refer before he sat down, and that related to the steward's fees, which generally varied in different manors; provision, as far as possible, should be made to meet this difficulty, but he hoped without injuriously interfering with vested rights. He trusted it would be found that the Bill sufficiently dealt with this part of the subject. He had only to add, that it was proposed to give the tenant the right of building without losing the benefit of his expenditure, and, as much as possible, to facilitate fair and fitting improvements. These were the principal outlines of the measure, and, having laid them before their Lordships, it was not necessary that he should any further trouble the House.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYadmitted the necessity of amendment in the law, but doubted that the present Bill would correct the existing evils. The Bill, he thought, would not be satisfactory either to lords of the manors or to copyhold tenants; whilst its direct tendency was to destroy the copyhold tenure—in many respects a convenient one—throughout the country. The noble and learned Lord had complained of the hardship of the heriot fine, which operated as a heavy tax. With regard to this objection, and that the incidents of the copyhold tenure obstructed improvements, it was sufficient to say that much of the land in agriculture, constantly improved, was copyhold; and that cottages were built upon copyhold land—and why? Because, whilst it was practically equal to freehold, it was less expensive. The noble Marquess enumerated various objections to the Bill; but his speech was very imperfectly heard. His Lordship moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, it appeared to him that, by the Bill as it stood, lords of the manor were not fairly treated. They had, at present, a certain protection against copyhold tenants, in respect to nuisances upon land, which protection the Bill, as it stood, took away, without the slighest compensation. The compulsory commutation was not entirely reciprocal; the tenant might compel the lord to commute, but

995
not the lord the tenant. The lord of the manor should—as he had at present—in case of an application for commutation by a tenant, have the option of purchasing out the whole of the copyhold tenure beforeth e tenant could enforce a commutation. He did not draw the same inference as the noble Marquess from the increase of buildings upon copyhold property; it often arose from necessity. The fine upon the death of a copyholder was claimed at a time when the family were least able to pay it; and the fines sometimes occurred in such quick succession as to reduce a family to indigence. With regard to the mode of commutation, whether fixed fines or rent-charge—there was not much difference between them—it should be so regulated as to secure the interests of both parties.
LORD REDESDALEthought the principle of the measure dangerous in itself, but still more so on account of the arguments by which it had been sustained. He contended that the present system had worked well, and that it ought not to be altered by reason of a few extreme cases of hardship.
LORD CAMPBELLdefended the Bill, which he conceived to be necessary to do away with an unnecessary odium upon a particular tenure. Glancing at the history of copyhold tenure, the noble and learned Lord showed the successive ameliorations by which the grievances under which copyholders laboured had been removed, and argued that the compulsory enfranchisement of copyholds would be beneficial to lords of manors as well as to other parties affected by the Bill.
The EARL of HARROWBYsaid, that the feeling of the country was universally opposed to the existing system. He should, therefore, vote for the second reading of the Bill, and should consider in Committee any objections which might be offered to the details.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that the Commissioners had recommended compulsory commutation, but not compulsory enfranchisement. Under a system of compulsory enfranchisement poor copyholders would be obliged to take a more expensive tenure, and pay a sum of money for taking it, without receiving an equivalent advantage. It appeared to him that the proposed alteration would be productive of more injury and inconvenience than could fairly be attributed to the existing system. The Bill was uncalled for and unnecessary, for voluntary
996
commutations were making satisfactory progress. If the noble Lord pressed his Amendment to a division, he would vote for it, because he thought the Bill unjust, unnecessary, and mischievous in principle.
LORD ABINGERthought that it was best to leave these rights to, be gradually abolished by voluntary commutation.
The LORD CHANCELLORwas understood to express a hope that the House would read the Bill a second time, and it could then be amended in Committee.
On question that the word "now" stand part of the Motion, House divided:—Content 31; Not-content 16: Majority 15.
Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 2a

EVICTED DESTITUTE POOR (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Amendments, moved on report, read.
LORD MONTEAGLEhad no objection to a Bill for making a fair and just provision for the relief of evicted destitute persons; but that object could be better carried out than in the manner here contemplated. He should propose that the notice required by the Bill in case of an ejectment should, instead of being a vague notice giving the names of the lands, specify the name of every tenant to be evicted; and that, instead of being sent by post to the guardians of the union, it should be given direct to the relieving officer, who would be close by, and in possession of funds to relieve with at once. In nine cases out often in Ireland, ejectments were brought, not to obtain possession of the premises, but to compel payment of rent; and the rent being paid, no dispossession took place. To require notice to be given in all cases, and to be given to the board of guardians, would tend to excite animosities needlessly. The 1st Clause of this Bill provided that all writs of ejectment executed during the winter should be served a certain time before sunset; and he intended to propose that these writs should be served in the same manner as all other law processes, between sunrise and sunset. He also entertained objections to the 5th Clause. Under the existing law, it was necesssary that notices should be served on all individuals residing upon land before such individuals could be served with writs of ejectment; and if one occupier was omitted, he might at once, by his affidavit, put an end

997
to the whole proceedings. But by the 5th Clause of this Bill, it was proposed that notices should he required to be served upon persons entering on the occupation of property after writs of ejectment had been served on the previous occupiers; and in case of failure or neglect, penalties were imposed. He considered this a most objectionable provision; for these changes of possession might be made for the mere purposes of fraud. He therefore begged to move that the House be put again into Committee on the Bill, in order that he might have an opportunity of proposing Amendments to meet these objections.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, as the Amendments suggested by his noble Friend would affect the character of the Bill, he had no objection to its recommittal, in order that those Amendments might be considered, and that, if necessary, the sense of the House might be taken upon them.
Agreed to. House in Committee.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, Chairman of Committees, being absent, Lord BEAUMONT was moved to be Chairman.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that as their Lordships had gone into Committee before the Motion was made, they were in this difficulty, that there was no one who had power to put the question.
LORD CAMPBELLapprehended that the House had an inherent right to elect a Chairman in the absence of the noble Lord who was Chairman of Committees; and if they possessed that power before going into Committee, he conceived that they could equally exercise it in Committee.
LORD STANLEYobserved, that the difficulty appeared to be, who was to put the Motion which had been made, that Lord Beaumont take the chair?
EARL GREYwas understood to say that, if it was not competent for any noble Lord to put that question, he did not see how their Lordships were to resume.
LORD BEAUMONTthen took the chair.
On the 1st Clause being read,
LORD MONTEAGLEproposed an Amendment, providing that notices of ejectment might be served at any time between sunrise and sunset.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEopposed the Amendment. He asked their Lordships to consider the consequences which had followed from the ejectment of tenants immediately before sunset; and, although he was ready to acknowledge that some inconvenience might be occasioned
998
by this clause, he recommended their Lordships to adhere to it. This measure was rendered necessary because scenes had occurred in Ireland which were disgraceful to that country; and it would be a disgrace to the Legislature if they allowed the possibility of any repetition of those scenes. The noble Marquess here referred, for the purpose of showing the necessity of some legislation on the subject, to several cases of evictions, which exhibited circumstances of great suffering on the part of many of the people evicted; and contended that it was absolutely necessary that previous notice of eviction should be given to the guardians of the unions, in order that provision might be made for the destitute, in cases of necessity, to prevent them perishing by the roadside. It was not his wish to throw any general blame on the body of landlords, because he did not know how far they might be able to prevent the distressing scenes which sometimes accompanied evictions; but he had adverted to these matters for the purpose of showing that their Lordships were hound to provide, as far as possible, against the unnecessary loss of life. It was not too much, he thought, to require that the previous notice of evictions specified in the Bill should be given to the guardians of unions; and he therefore pressed their Lordships to accept the Bill as it stood.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSthought it would be better not to discuss all the clauses at once, but rather to take them seriatim, and let noble Lords have an opportunity of delivering their opinions upon each clause separately.
EARL GREYobserved that the Committee, in considering the measure now before them, were called upon to reduce the provision for the evicted parties to its minimum, and to reduce also the inconvenience which the proprietors of land sustained, in order that property should be as much as possible improved and protected. No one could be more anxious to uphold the rights of property in Ireland than he was; but he could not conceal from himself the fact that, under the name of tenant-right attempts had been made in Ireland to resist the fair rights of property. These attempts, in his opinion, were assuming an alarming aspect. This Bill, he believed, would tend to check the advance of such a disposition as that to which he had alluded. But while protection was given to the landlord, they should take care that relief was pro-

999
vided for those poor people who were suddenly dispossessed of their homes. Let their Lordships remember the frightful cases which had occurred, in which large numbers of persons were ejected from their houses in the depth of winter, and they would not think that it was too much to give them notice to make arrangements for their further abode. He believed that the clause as it stood was a proper one, and he trusted their Lordships would sanction it. It was salutary, because it was intended to provide relief for the evicted persons, without placing a discretionary power of too large a character in the hands of the relieving officer. Both in England and Ireland the law expressly provided that the relieving officer was not to act on his own discretion, unless when the board of guardians could not be applied to. That was a sanitary provision. If the House were of opinion that this clause should stand, then it was proposed that due notice should be given to the board of guardians of the ejectment to take place, in order that some step should be taken for the relief of those who would be driven to apply for it. If such notice were not given to the board, it could know nothing of the ejectment, and therefore could not afford any adequate accommodation for the people ejected. Neither the relieving officer, nor the board, could in such a case know of the occurrence, and it might so happen that 300 or 400 persons might be turned out of their land at a late hour on a stormy night, exposed to all the severity of the weather, without shelter from its inclemency. The landlord and tenant question was one in which the public mind was in no ordinary degree interested, and he thought their Lordships should not refuse their sanction to a Bill which had passed with the general assent of the other House of Parliament, and which was, as he believed, in some degree calculated to meet the evils which arose out of the present position of that question.
LORD MONTEAGLEprotested against its being held out by the noble Earl (Earl Grey), as it were in terrorem, that his object was to reduce the provision for the poor to the minimum, and to keep protection to the landlords at the maximum. On the part of those who took the view of the question which he (Lord Monteagle) did, he rejected that construction. He should persist in taking the course which he thought right, and he was satisfied that,
1000
sooner or later, its prudence would be recognised.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEreminded their Lordships that they were about to divide upon the question whether the word "before" be left out of the clause or not. The question was, whether notice was to be given "before."
The Earl of ROSSE and the Duke of LEINSTER made some observations in opposition to the Bill.
The EARL of GLENGALLdid not object to the principle of the Bill, but he did to many of its provisions. The Bill was founded upon a false notion of the evictions that had taken place upon Mr. Blake's estate; it was, in fact, called Mr. Blake's Bill. Great misapprehension existed as to that case. The reports in the blue book were made from the inquiries of persons without legal authority. The Poor Law Inspectors had, by law, no right to go into inquiries as between landlord and tenant; and in these inquiries only one side was usually heard—the evicted paupers, who resorted to any story to make out a case of hardship. He felt, therefore, great doubt as to the accuracy of reports that were founded upon one-sided inquiries. He objected to the Bill, that it would tend to encourage evictions by throwing the ejected paupers on the poor-rate. He objected to seven days' notice before eviction, since such a notice would afford an opportunity to get up a conspiracy to shoot the party who gave the notice.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSobjected to the formal and public notice proposed. He had no objection to a notice to the relieving officer, that he might have time to prepare for giving shelter to the ejected paupers; twenty-four or forty-eight hours would be quite sufficient for the purpose, and would, he thought, meet the case. It would be an Irish mode of giving notice after the mischief was done.
The House divided on question that the word "before" stand part of the clause:—Content 23; Not-content 23.
By the rules of the House, the question was hereby resolved in the Affirmative.
Other Amendments moved and agreed to. Amendments to be reported.
House adjourned.