Lords Sitting of 26 June 1848

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths,—The Lord Kilmarnock.
PUBLIC BILLS. Reported.—Certificates for Killing Hares (Scotland).
3a Evicted Destitute Poor (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Durham, and several other Places, in favour of the Public Health Bill.—From the Borough of Fraserburgh, against any Alteration in the Navigation Laws.—From an Odd Fellows' Lodge, in Nottingham, in favour of the Provident Associations Fraud Prevention Bill, and for the Insertion of a Clause by which their Surplus Capital may be Invested in the Savings' Banks.—From the Royal Burgh of Ayr, in favour of the Law of Entail.—From the Guardians of the Glutton Union, Somerset, for the Adoption of Measures for the Better Suppression of Vagrancy.

EVICTED DESTITUTE POOR (IRELAND) BILL.
The Order of the Day read for the Third Reading of the above Bill.
The Queen's consent signified. Bill read read 3a.
On Motion that the Bill do pass,
The MARQUESS of CLANRICADE The MARQUESS of CLANRICADE moved—
"That the Amendments which had been introduced into the First Clause of the Bill in its passage through Committee be struck out, and that the Bill be restored to its original shape."
The Bill, as originally passed, had provided that notice of eviction should be given to the clerk of the board of guardians. The Amendment in Committee was, that the notice should be served on the relieving officer, which was a provision by no means so desirable as that which had originally been contemplated. The second Amendment (or rather alteration) would go far to change the character of the Bill, and to impair its efficiency. It was, that instead of provision being made for a contingency so calamitous as an eviction in sufficient time to prevent the possibility of any injury to human life, no such provision should be made until within a few hours of the
1166
occurrence of the calamity. The Bill as originally worded, provided that a week's notice should be given; but the Amendment curtailed the term of notice to a few hours, which was a most blundering piece of legislation.
LORD MONTEAGLEdefended the clause as amended.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSthought the notice should be served on the relieving officer, and not on the clerk of the board of guardians, and that a period of forty-eight hours, instead of seven days, would be sufficient. Let it then be made the duty of the relieving officer (and the Poor Law Commissioners might issue an order if requisite) to repair to the spot where the ejectment was to take place, to ascertain the number and circumstances of the destitute persons, and make provision for their removal to the workhouse. He should beg to move an Amendment accordingly.
The DUKE of LEINSTERfelt bound to say, from his knowledge of Ireland, acquired by long residence in that country, that the amended Bill would best carry their Lordships' intention into effect.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEwould not object to substitute the relieving officer as the person on whom notice was to be served; but he still thought that forty-eight hours would be a very short and inconvenient period.
House divided:—Contents 47; Non-contents 58: Majority 11.

List of the CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

BISHOPS.

Durham

MARQUESSES.

Hereford

Anglesey

Manchester

Breadalbane

BARONS.

Clanricarde

Byron

Lansdowne

Westminster.

Camoys

Campbell

EARLS.

Cremorne

Auckland

Colborne

Besborough

Dacre

Bruce

Dunalley

Fitzhardinge

Eddisbury

Granville

Elphinstone

Grey

Erskine

Leicester

Foley

Minto

Keane

Morley

Kinnaird

Nelson

Lovat

Powis

Milford

Shaftesbury

Montfort

St. Germans

Mostyn

Strafford

Portman

Suffolk

Say and Sele

Uxbridge

Sudeley

Yarborough

Wharncliffe

1167

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Enniskillen

Cambridge

Egmont

Richmond

Romney.

Buccleuch

Stradbroke

Argyll

Sheffield

Leinster.

Cleveland

VISCOUNTS.

Canterbury

MARQUESSES.

Combermere

Winchester.

Hawarden

Huntley

Lorton

Exeter

Downshire

Sydney

Ormonde

BARONS.

Sligo

Colchester

EARLS.

De Ros

Abergavenny

Feversham

Aylesford

Blayney

Cardigan

Forester

Desart

Boston

Falmouth

Kenyon

Fitzwilliam

Bolton

Glengall

Monteagle

Harewood

Tenterden

Eglintoun

Stanley

Mountcashel

Polwarth

Lonsdale

Braybrooke

Malmesbury

Redesdale

Lucan

Southampton

Mansfield

Sondes

Manvers

Rollo

Roden

Lyndhurst

Clare

Beaumont

Paired off.

AGAINST.

FOR.

Lord Abinger

Duke of Bedford

Marquess of Salisbury

Earl of Zetland

Earl Hardwicke

Earl Spencer

Earl Delaware

Bishop of Norwich

Earl Jersey

Lord Poltimore

Earl Digby

Earl Fortescue

Duke of Beaufort

Earl Fitzhardinge

Earl Kinnoul

Archb. of Canterbury

Earl of Munster

Earl of Erroll

Marq. of Londonderry

Earl Camperdown

Earl of Bandon

Earl Sefton

Earl Rosslyn

Lord Denman

Earl of Ellenborough

Lord Beauvale

Viscount Beresford

Lord Suffield

Marquess of Drogheda

Earl Lovelace

Earl of Wilton

Marquess of Donegal

Lord De Lisle

Lord Crewe

Viscount Exmouth

Lord Stafford

Lord Templemore

Lord Cornwallis

Lord Saltoun

Lord Dinorben

Other Amendments moved and agreed to. Bill Passed.

GAME CERTIFICATES FOR KILLING HARES BILL.
House in Committee,
LORD REDESDALE LORD REDESDALE moved to insert a clause to limit the authority from the owner and occupier of land to kill hares to one person only.
House divided:—Contents 36; Non-contents 23: Majority 13.
The EARL of CARDIGAN The EARL of CARDIGAN moved the following proviso:—
1168
"Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow any person or persons, not having a game certificate, to use any engine or wire commonly called a snare, or any trap of any description for taking game."
In moving this provision he expressed his disapproval of the Bill generally. He believed it would tend to encourage poaching. He had never heard from any of his tenants that hares committed injury, and he did not believe they did.
The DUKE of RICHMONDopposed the proviso. He was of opinion that hares did a great deal of harm, After all, this Bill would only allow a man to do what he liked with his own; for hares when they were on a farmer's land were his own property. For his part, he thought a farmer ought to have the power of killing all kinds of game when they were on his land. He thought a farmer ought to have the power of killing pheasants whenever he saw them on his land.
EARL GREYsaid, if the clause were inserted, the efficacy of the Bill would be destroyed in cases of small proprietors, and especially of market gardeners.
House divided:—Contents 20; Non-Contents 22: Majority 2.
House resumed.
House adjourned.