HC Deb 30 March 1841 vol 57 cc720-49

House in Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill. Upon Clause 10 being proposed,

Mr. Colquhoun moved, that at the end of the clause these words should be inserted:— Provided always that, in the said com- bined parish or union schools for the infant poor, a chaplain of the Church of England shall be appointed, who shall be empowered to regulate and superintend the instruction and training of the children; excepting, however, the children of such parents as are of a creed different from the Established Church. And in case the parents, or surviving parent, or if there be no surviving parent, in case the godfathers or godmothers of such children shall object to such children receiving religious instruction in the doctrines of the Church of England, then, and in such case, it shall be lawful in such combined schools for any licensed minister of the religious persuasion of the parents or guardians of such children to visit the schools, at times to be specified by the board of management, to instruct such children in their religious faith. Provided also, that such chaplain shall be appointed by the said board of management, with the consent of the bishop of the diocese, and shall receive such salary as the Poor-law commissioners shall determine,

Dr. Lushington

said, that whatever objections might be made on the part of certain persons to the appointment of a chaplain for these schools, he was satisfied of the necessity for such appointment. He was no advocate for imposing upon the Dissenters any additional contributions for the maintenance of a Church from which they conscientiously differed in religious opinion; but he believed most confidently, though he had had no communication with any of the Dissenting bodies upon the subject, that so attached were they in heart, in feeling, and in principle, to the union of religious instruction with secular education, that rather than see two or three hundred children belonging to the United Church of England and Ireland left to secular instruction only, or to a chance religious instruction, they would sacrifice their feelings and their convictions as Dissenters from the Established Church. He entirely assented, therefore, to the proposition for the appointment of a chaplain. But he hoped, at the same time, that the duties of the chaplain would be strictly confined to the instruction of those who properly belonged to him, namely, to those children who had been brought up in the faith and the doctrines of the Church of England; and that his instructions would neither directly nor indirectly be extended to those who honestly dissented from the Church. He believed, that the Dissenters would receive this proposition not merely without reluctance, but with great satisfaction, if it were applied in such a spirit; and he hoped, that if they did so receive it, when their feelings upon other subjects came to be discussed in that House, they would find that such conduct had been duly weighed and justly appreciated. Regarding the subject in this point of view, he confessed, that when he first considered the original amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, it appeared to him to go infinitely further than it ought to go, raising many difficulties and exciting many religious prejudices by the sweeping and comprehensive terms in which it was worded. The clause then before the House was, in the wording at least, though not perhaps in substance, totally different from that which was originally proposed, and contained a great variety of additional matter, which he confessed himself unable entirely to comprehend. It first proposed the appointment of a chaplain, and secondly, that the appointment should be sanctioned by the diocesan. To both these propositions he assented. However liberal might be his opinions with respect to those who dissented from the Church of England, he had ever strenuously maintained the superintending power of the diocesan in all matters connected with the Church of England. He thought that no clergyman should be appointed to so important a trust without the sanction of the bishop. If he rightly understood the matter, the hon. Gentleman had taken certain provisions of the old Poor-law as the basis for protecting from all violation the religious scruples of Catholics and others who dissented from the Church. He was not altogether satisfied with the mode in which the hon. Gentleman had in that respect framed this clause, and his objection to it was one upon which, in his opinion, the fate of the clause would ultimately depend. What was the object to be effected? They all agreed that those who belonged to the United Church of England and Ireland should be placed under the religious instruction of the chaplain; but the difficulties were twofold—first, to ascertain who belonged to that Church, and secondly to devise a protection for those who differed from it. With respect to the first of these difficulties, he doubted whether the hon. Gentleman had expressed himself in terms sufficiently clear. He admitted, that the great majority of children in these unions would be members of the Church of England; and that they had a right to assume, when nothing appeared to the contrary, that the children belonged to the Church, still he was not satisfied with this part of the clause. He had apprehended, as was the case with the amendment originally proposed, that the hon. Member would, instead of introducing the subject into this clause, have reserved it for further consideration in a subsequent stage of the bill, and after mature reflection and consideration. In such a matter they should proceed with the greatest caution. The subject would always be involved in considerable difficulty. But, notwithstanding the difficulty which must be felt in laying down an invariable rule, and the uncertainties which must exist from the very nature of the subject, they should endeavour to adopt that principle, and to lay down that rule, which for the most part would be consistent with truth and justice. Now, assuming the general proposition, that the children should be taken as belonging to the Church, he thought the exception proposed was not broad enough to meet the difficulty. It took the case of a parent, and it said, that the surviving parent—of course while both alive—the father should have a right to state in what religion he wished his child to be instructed; It even went further, and said godfather and godmother. Now, he contended, that this exception was totally inadequate. He would suppose the case of three or four orphan children, whose parents had been of the Catholic faith, and who so far as initiatory rights could discover their intention, must be inferred to have intended to bring them up in their own faith. To instruct those children because they happened to be orphans totally destitute of parental care and authority, in any other faith than that in which their parents lived and died, would be in his opinion a violation of the first principles of religious freedom. Therefore, he contended, that the exception was not sufficient, and that they must establish some other principle than that contained in the clause. The relations of the child, whether Baptist, Independent or Roman Catholic, should be allowed to come forward and state in what faith the child had been instructed. Upon these grounds, he objected to that part of the clause. He hoped that the subject would be postponed for the present, until a clause had been framed, which upon just and reasonable principles should provide, as far as human wisdom and ingenuity could provide, for all these exigencies. Taking the old Poor-law as his guide, the hon. Gentleman had next provided for the access of religious instructors to children who had not been brought up in the Church of England. To that proposition he entirely acceded, conceding all circumstances would permit to those who dissented from the Established Church. If they called upon the Dissenter to contribute to the support of a chaplain of the Church of England, the Dissenter had at least a right to demand the fullest and fairest opportunity of educating pauper children, whose parents were Dissenters, in the principles of their own faith. Entertaining this view, he had endeavoured to frame a clause which was in accordance with it, though it did not materially differ from that of the hon. Gentleman. He would now take the liberty of reading it to the House. The clause read by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was to the following effect:— And be it further enacted, that in every combined parish or union school-house for the education of the infant poor, a chaplain of the United Church of England and Ireland shall be appointed rot the purpose of administering religious instruction to such infant poor, according to the doctrine of the said united Church, to all such children belonging to the said Church: provided always, that such clergyman shall in no way interfere with the religious instruction of the other portions of such infant poor; and that it shall and may be lawful for any minister of such other persuasion, at all reasonable times of the day, to visit such school for the purpose of instructing such children (not being members of the Church of England) in the principles of their religion. With respect to the hours of the day at which such clergyman should be admitted for these purposes, he was content to leave that matter entirely in the hands of the board of managers. Now the committee would perceive that there was a wide difference in the proposition of the hon. Gentleman and his own. The hon. Gentleman in his clause directed that the clergyman of the Church of England should, in all cases (without previously defining who were or were not Dissenters) bring up the children in the doctrine of the Church of England, unless prohibited from so doing according to the tenor of his provision. They were now about to legislate for the poor of this country, and he would not confer upon them even the boon of a good education by the violation of still more sacred principles. Unless prejudices were raised against the system, he had no doubt of its ultimate success. He would go the whole length of the hon. Baronet, and say, that in the case of the mother of a natural child, he never would consent to take her child from her thinking that no object, however bright or holy, ought to induce them to violate the natural affection of a mother for her child. He had now stated his views on this subject, and he asked both sides of the House, seeking, as they all did, the benefit and advantage of the poor to set at defiance the foul outcry against the attempt to confer upon them this inestimable benefit. He trusted there was not to be found in the walls of that House one man so abject a slave to avarice, so totally destitute of all human feelings, as to vote for this measure with the simple view of diminishing the poor-rate without regard to the blessings that it conferred Upon the people. He should have rejoiced if they could have so framed the clause as to combine in universal harmony and contentment the Churchman, the Catholic, and the Dissenter; and so as to assure the poor, and also all people of this country who were truly religious, that they had nothing more at heart than the sound religious education of the people.

Lord Teignmouth

had listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman with great pleasure, but there were some parts of it from which he was compelled to dissent. He thought that in this country, where there was a church by law established, all whose religion was not known, or who were indifferent on the subject, might be assumed to belong to it, and brought up accordingly in its doctrines. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had overrated the difficulties of this question. In the parish in which he resided, and which contained 153,000 inhabitants, the whole education of the poor was under the superintendence of a chaplain of the Church of England; and though no child could be taught the Church Catechism if the parents objected to it, the chaplain informed him (Lord Teignmouth) that no objection had been made daring the whole time he held the office of chaplain. The mistress of the girls' school, who had tilled that situation for eighteen yours, and who had an average of 170 children under her charge, had also told him that she never knew an instance of any child or parent objecting to instruction in the Catechism of the Church of England. He thought that the clause which had been proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock offended no prejudices, whilst its practical effect would be to afford spiritual instruction and consolation to the meet desitute portion of the community.

In answer to Viscount Sandon,

Dr. Lushington

said, he thought it was to be assumed, that the children were of the Church of England. But there were exceptions, to provide for which he thought there should be a separate clause.

Viscount Sandon

thought that the least cautious way of determining the religion of the children was, to assume that they belonged to the Church of England, unless an objection were made by the parent or natural guardian.

Mr. Gladstone

begged to know, in the case of children received into the work-house, with no near relations or guardians, but the belief of whose parents was known to be different from that of the Church of England, in what way the right hon. Gentleman would proceed?

Dr. Lushington

said, his own notion was, that they should assume, in the first instance, that all children who were brought into the workhouses, or the schools, belonged to the Established Church; and having made that assumption, that they should leave the door open, not merely to the parents or natural guardians of the children to go further—he would not say to what precise extent at that moment—but that they should leave a just and fair opening to those who were interested in the welfare of the children, to show what was the belief of the parents, and to ask them to bring them up in that faith; bat, if no one interfered, then he granted that up to a certain period of age, they should assume that the children were of the Established Church.

Mr. Colquhoun

said, he thought, if any system of religious instruction were adopted at all, it should be interwoven with the course of secular education. It would be most undesirable to separate the two, as he believed many of the Dissenters of the present day would rather their children received spiritual instruc- tion, according to the doctrines of the Established Church, if it were interwoven with good secular education, than that the two should be separated, and they should receive no spiritual instruction at all.

Mr. Hawes

said, he had recently presented a petition from a large body of Dissenters, and another had been also presented to that House from a congregation of the Society of Friends, distinctly objecting to the appointment of paid chaplains, but not objecting to the religious instruction of children in workhouses being placed in the hands of competent persons. Did they mean, that those chaplains should be paid out of the poor-rates? They must recollect, that competent chaplains could not be paid less than from 100l. to 150l. a year; and was that additional charge to be imposed at a moment when by the Tithe Commutation Act, at least 1,500,000l. had been added to the revenues of the church? Let hon. Members look at the returns which had been made to that House, and they would find there had been an augmentation of from 20 to 30 per cent. His right hon. and learned Friend knew, that many of the most respectable Dissenters entertained those opinions, and yet the clause he had proposed, as far as he could understand, would, if adopted, place the whole instruction of these children, secular as well as religious, under the control of the chaplains. Those chaplains, too, must be approved of by the bishops; so that, by a side wind, they would place the education of these children entirely in the hands of the clergy. The people would be exceedingly astonished to find that, by this simple proviso, the whole matter of instruction was placed under the control of the Church. He meant to vote against the clause altogether; but, in his opinion, it had much better be postponed.

Lord J. Russell

certainly felt the full weight of the objection stated by the hon. Gentleman with respect to the children of Dissenters. At the same time, he could not but confess there was very great force in the argument urged, as to the impropriety of allowing 300 or 400 children to he brought up, without any regular provision being made for their religious instruction. This difficulty had been experienced at the Norwood establishment, and be concurred with what was stated by some of the commissioners, as to the expediency of appointing a chaplain to the school. Therefore, upon the whole, he did not object to the principle involved in the proposition of the hon. Member, so far as the appointment of chaplains was concerned. The objection urged by the hon. Member for Lambeth, related only to some few words of the hon. Gentleman's proviso, but it certainly was of very great importance. The hon. Gentleman proposed that clergymen should be appointed to "regulate and superintend the instruction and training of the children." These words, it was clear, would have the effect of placing the whole instruction of the children in the hands of the chaplains. Now, this was not the case at Norwood, nor, as far as he knew, at any of the schools in the establishments formed by the Poor-law commissioners. Chaplains had been appointed to superintend the religious and moral training of the children; but with respect to secular education a different course had been pursued. It appeared, that in the establishments at Glasgow, young men were instructed in the most improved methods of education, and it was thought desirable to procure them to teach in the workhouses. They instructed the children according to what was called the "simultaneous method," and he had seen it practised at Norwood. But if the secular instruction were left to the chaplains, they might think the method practised half a century ago, better than any improved system of the present day. He was, therefore, disposed to object to the proviso, unless the word "religious" was inserted before "instruction," and the word "training "was omitted. He should not, however, oppose the adoption of the proviso, on the understanding that it should be considered matter for future discussion.

Mr. Langdale

had no objection to the appointment of chaplains; but he thought, in allowing the right of objection to having a child educated in the established religion, they might go a step farther. Suppose an orphan of Catholic or Dissenting parents, twelve or fourteen years old, and fully instructed as he might be supposed to be in his own faith, to be admitted into the school, he thought the objection of the child himself ought to be sufficient, and that provision should be made for allowing it.

Sir H. Verney

observed, that the board of guardians, as well as the board of management, had the power at present of appointing chaplains.

Mr. Ward

would strongly impress upon the House the necessity of postponing this clause, for great differences of opinion must necessarily arise in the discussion of this amendment, which were not likely to be overcome by the momentary attention which could now be given to it. He was of opinion that if the number of children in the schools belonging to the Established Church were greatly beyond the Dissenters, the majority should have the largest proportion of the funds which would be allotted for this object; but at the same time those children who asserted different opinions should also have a claim to a portion of the funds allocated to the purpose of being educated according to their peculiar desires. If, for example, he took the town he represented, Sheffield, containing upwards of 100,000 inhabit ants, they would find themselves placed in the same position with regard to the Poor-rates as the Church-rates, for there was not a Church-rate levied there for a length of time. In that town there were Dissenters of every class, who would of course assert their right of being educated according to their own particular tenets. He should, therefore, beg the House to postpone the clause for the present, until they had the exact proposition of the hon. Member opposite submitted to the House in print.

Mr. Blackstone

said, he would prefer i rejecting the clause altogether rather than such enormous power should be given to the commissioners.

Mr. Slaney

hoped that a proper spirit of conciliation would induce hon. Members to agree upon the clause rather than to propose its rejection altogether. He thought that the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock had very nearly met as to the particular justice of the case, mid he hoped that some amicable under standing would be come to upon the points in dispute.

Lord Sandon

observed, with respect to the proposition of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, that certain restrictions would be necessary in the case he wished to provide a remedy for, so as not to make it imperative on the board of guardians, when a child made objections to a certain religious education, to consult the opinions of the latter, although many other motives might influence the child's objections than those which would arise from conscientious objections

Mr. Ward

said, the point was very important which they had to determine, namely, whether the rate-payers generally should be taxed for the support of those children that belonged to the Church establishment exclusively.

Mr. W. Gladstone

said, he thought it was understood that no inquiry should be made upon the subject of the religion of the child unless in the case of some party objecting upon behalf of the child. It was proposed that a certain discretion should be vested in the board of management of acting as they thought proper in the case of a child making conscientious objections against being educated in the principles of the Established Church. He should think, that such objections, coming from the child himself, would be much more sacred than those which might be made by an adult person on behalf of such child. He did not consider that any thing serious remained for discussion as to the details of the clause. If there had been an objection made upon principle as to the details of the clause, then a postponement would be but reasonable. The question resolved itself into this—whether they were to tax the whole nation in support of a certain system of religion exclusively? This he thought they were as fully competent to decide now as in a week or a fortnight hence. He therefore hoped there would be no postponement.

Mr. Hawes

said, that one of the reasons which would induce him to support the postponement was this, that the printed proviso was totally silent as to the payment of chaplains, and the hon. Member opposite had, therefore, taken the House by surprise.

Colonel Sibthorp

objected to the postponement. It was these postponements which drove all the business to the end of the Session, when it was hurriedly got through.

Mr. Tatton Egerton

said, it, was no novel principle to tax the people generally for the payment of chaplains. This was the case with the chaplains of county gaols, who were paid out of the county-rates. He thought it absolutely necessary that the children should have a religious education, and they could not have that effectually without providing a chaplain, and he thought that, he should be of the Church of England.

Lord J. Russell

said, that in point of form there could not be a postponement of this proviso. The committee must either approve of it or reject it with a view to its being introduced at another time. As he was ready to agree to the proviso, with the amendments suggested, he thought it was better to introduce the proviso now, leaving it open to his right hon. Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, and the hon. Member for Knaresborough, to propose their alterations afterwards, when they thought fit, rather than to reject it altogether. He thought, likewise, that rejecting the proviso at present would be taken as an objection to the clause without there being an intention of refusing it. He should, therefore, be ready to support the hon. Gentleman in his proviso, if he thought fit to divide the committee upon it; but he would not support the rejection of the clause.

Mr. Ward

said, the committee knew nothing of the amendment to which the noble Lord referred. He had never heard it.

The Chairman then read the clause, with the proviso proposed to be added, and with the alteration suggested by Lord J. Russell.

Mr. Hawes

thought such a proposition ought not to be brought before the House without distinct notice. He would take the sense of the House against the payment of chaplains out of the poor-rates.

Mr. Colquhoun

said, his original proviso, of which notice had been given some days ago, was to appoint chaplains to these schools. It had never entered into his head to suppose that they would expect the whole services of literary men, of men educated as gentlemen, and devoting themselves to a very laborious and anxious calling, without giving them a farthing. He was surprised that such a proposal should be gravely made by any man within those walls, and not at once be scouted. That was a proposal he had never made, and never would make, before that committee; he, therefore, in giving his notice, implied the necessity of a salary.

Mr. Ward

should be willing to adopt this clause if the hon. Member would add these words "that the salary of the chaplain be provided for by proportionate payments out of the poor-rates."

Mr. Hume

said, it appeared to him that there was a great deal said about pay. He saw no reason why these schools should not be built in the neighbourhood of the workhouses, and why the clergymen who did the duty as chaplains to the workhouses should not be made to do their duty and teach in these schools. It appeared to him that there was a multiplication of clergymen—clergymen for workhouses, clergymen for gaols, clergymen for schools, clergymen for everything, and nothing but a deluge of black coats running about the country doing nothing, and taking away the whole property of the people.

The committee divided on the question that the proviso moved by Mr. Colquhoun be added as follows:— Provided always, that in the said combined parish or union schools for the infant poor, a chaplain of the Church of England shall be appointed, who shall be empowered to regulate and superintend the religious instruction of the children, excepting, however, the children of such parents as are of a creed different from that of the Established Church, and whose parent or parents, or in the case of an orphan, the godfather or godmother, or their natural guardians, shall object to the child receiving any religious instruction in the doctrines of the Established Church; and in such case it shall and may be lawful in such combined schools for any licensed minister of the religious persuasion of the parents or guardians of such child, to visit the school at times to be specified by the board of management, for the purpose of instructing such child or children in the principles of their religion; provided always, that the chaplain as aforesaid, shall be appointed by said board of management, with the consent of the Bishop of the diocese, and shall receive such salary as the Poor-law commissioners shall determine.

Ayes 119; Noes 32: Majority 87.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Brodie, W. B.
Acland, T. D. Bruges, W. H. L.
Alston, R. Bryan, G.
Ashley, Lord Buck, L. W.
Attwood, W. Bulwer, Sir L.
Baillie, Col. Burr, H.
Baillie, H. J. Burroughes, H. N.
Bannerman, A. Campbell, Sir J.
Baring, hon. W. B. Canning,rt. hon. Sir S.
Barnard, E. G. Cantilupe, Visc.
Barrington, Visc. Chichester, Sir B.
Blackstone, W.S. Clay, W.
Bodkin, J. J. Clive, hon. R. H.
Boiling, W. Coote, Sir C, H.
Brabazon, Lord Courtenay, P.
Bramston, T. W. Crewe, Sir G.
Broadley, H. Dalrymple, Sir A.
Divett, E. Plumptre, J. P.
Duffield, T. Pollen, Sir J. W.
Eastnor, Viscount Praed, W. T.
Egerton, W. T. Price, Sir R.
Egerton, Lord F. Protheroe, E.
Estcourt, T. Pusey, P.
Evans, W. Richards, H.
Farnham, E. B. Rickford, W.
Fellowes, E. Rolleston, L.
Fitzalan, Lord Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Rumbold, C. E.
Fleming, J. Russell, Lord J.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.
Gladstone, W. E. Sandon, Viscount
Gordon, hon. Capt. Seymour, Lord
Grant, Sir A C. Sibthorp, Col.
Grimsditch, T. Slaney, R. A.
Grote, G. Smith, R. V.
Heneage, G. W, Somers, J. P.
Hobhouse, T. B. Somerset, Lord G.
Hodges, T. L. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Hope, G. W. Staunton, Sir G. T.
Hurt, F. Stuart, W. V.
Hutt, W. Surrey, Earl of
Jones, J. Teignmonth, Lord
Lemon, Sir C. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Lowther, J. H. Trotter, J.
Lushington, rt. hon. S. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Macaulay, rt.hon.T.B. Verney, Sir H.
Master, T. W. C. Vivian, J. E.
Maule, hon. F. Walker, R.
Maunsell, T. P. White, A.
Mildmay, P. St. J. Wilbraham, G.
Milnes, R. M. Wilde, Sir T.
Mordaunt, Sir J, Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Morgan, O. Wodehouse, E.
Morris, D. Wood, Col.
Muskett, G. A. Wood, Colonel T.
O'Brien, W. S. Wood, B.
Packe, C. W. Wynn, rt. hon. C, W.
Pakington, J. S. Wyse, T.
Parker, J. TELLERS.
Patten, J. W. Darby, G.
Philips, G. R. Colquhoun, J. C
List of the NOES.
Berkeley, hon. C. Parker, R. T.
Bewes, T. Pechell, Captain
Brocklehurst, J. Philips, M.
Brotherton, J. Pryme, G.
Busfeild, W. Rawdon, Col. J. D.
Collins, W Salwey, Col.
Ellis, W. Tancred, H. W.
Etwall, R. Thornely, T.
Ewart, W. Turner, R.
Fielden, J. Turner, W.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H. Wakley, T.
Gisborne, T. Warburton, H.
Hector, C. J. Williams, W.
Hume, J. Yates, J. A.
Humphrey, J.
James, W. TELLERS.
Johnson, Gen. Hawes, B.
Lushington, C. Ward

Proviso added.

Mr. Ward moved an additional proviso, to the effect that the salary agreed to be given to chaplains should be divided according to the numerical proportion of the children professing different religions to whom religious instruction should be afforded.

Mr. Hume

, hoped his hon. Friend would not persist in his motion. The effect of the motion would be to put Dissenters upon an establishment which was altogether contrary to their principles.

Proviso withdrawn.

On the question, that the clause as amended stand part of the bill,

Mr. T, Parker

opposed the clause. He found that it gave the commissioners the power of determining how a board of management should be appointed by the guardians. The salaries of the chaplains were also to be left to the commissioners. But his main objection to the clause was, that it exhibited a strong symptom of the perpetuity of the Poor-law commissioners, who were to have in their hands the appointment of certain officers—the clergymen, whose salaries were to be determined on by the board of guardians under the direction of the commissioners. That alone would be sufficient to induce him to divide the committee on the clause. There was scarcely a town in the country which was not provided with a school for the poor, who could much more easily attend these parochial schools than schools twenty or thirty mites off. The Poor-Jaw commissioners acquired additional power in every clause of the bill.

Mr. Darby

trusted his hon. Friend would not divide upon this clause. He could not agree that the largest schools were necessarily the best schools. He thought the hon. Member had better wait till a subsequent clause came on, by which the board of management were empowered to contract for the maintenance of the poor for seven years.

Mr. Grimsditch

considered that the clause as it stood extended the powers of the commissioners, by giving them that of taxation, which it was not before intended they should have. The establishment of district schools might be an excellent thing; but it should be the subject of separate legislation. To take from the board of management the power of regulating the salaries was an insult to the common sense of the country, and most offensive to the respectable gentlemen who composed the boards of guardians. He re- commended the noble Lord not to listen to the Poor-law commissioners and to their extraordinary schemes. He objected to such a provision being introduced into a law for the relief of the poor.

Mr. Wakley

said, he understood that the clause could not now be postponed, so that they were driven to the necessity of dividing upon it. As the clause stood, he thought it would give great additional offence to various classes of the community. He agreed with the hon. Member for Macclesfield, that this was matter for separate legislation. Here was a clause introduced into a poor-law bill, incidentally relating to a large proportion of the children of the poor, and the power was given and confined entirely to the Poor-law commissioners. This bill, however, could not last five years. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, for no doubt he would then be on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, would come down to the House at that period and say that he could not propose its continuance. The commission could not outlive the term proposed in this bill, and yet the commissioners were to fix the salaries of the chaplains, and the commissioners were to have additional power and additional patronage, and there was nothing in the clause to lead the public to suppose that the commission would terminate in five years, or in fifty-five years. But the House would find that the feeling of the country against this bill would be so strong that it would be utterly impossible to stem the torrent. Could the House legislate upon this subject with the care and deliberation and caution which the circumstances of the country demanded? Where the feeling and the aversion of the country were so strong, could the House legislate in this manner, by introducing a clause incidentally, and containing a proviso differing from the clause? He believed that the clause as it stood would increase the strong feeling out of doors against the bill. The clause gave extraordinary power to the commissioners, and seemed to contemplate the perpetuity of the commission.

Mr. Gisborne

considered that if the boards of guardians were the best judges of who were fit to be chaplains, they must be the best judges of what their salaries should be. He had no faith in the efficacy of the clause as it stood, and he should vote against it.

Mr. Hawes

could not vote for the rejection of the clause altogether; he considered it one of the most important parts of the whole bill.

Mr. Howard

thought that clergymen of all denominations should be permitted to attend to the spiritual wants of the infant poor, and he hoped, that whatever their creed might be, they would be animated with sufficient zeal to perform their duties without the hope of any positive pay to stimulate them.

The Committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the bill.

Ayes 141; Noes 36: Majority 105.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Freshfield, J. W.
Acland, T. D. Gaskell, Jas. Milnes
Alford, Viscount Gladstone, W. E.
Alston, R. Glynne, Sir S. R.
Antrobus, E. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Ashley, Lord Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Bailey, J. Grote, G.
Baillie, Col. Hawes, B.
Baillie, H. J. Heneage, G. W.
Bannerman, A. Hobhouse, rt.hn. Sir J.
Baring, hon. W. B. Hobhouse, T. B.
Barnard, E. G. Hodgson, F.
Barrington, Viscount Hope, hon. C.
Berkeley, hon. C. Hope, G. W.
Bodkin, J. J. Horsman, E.
Bolling, W. Howard, F. J.
Brabazon, Lord Howard, P. H.
Bramston, T. W. Humphrey, J.
Broadley, H. Hurst, R. H.
Brodie, W. B. Hurt, F.
Bruges, W. H. L. Hutt, W.
Buck, L. W. James, W.
Bulwer, Sir L. Kemble, H.
Burroughes, H. N. Lemon, Sir C.
Busfeild, W. Lennox, Lord A.
Campbell, Sir J. Loch, J.
Cavendish, hon. G.H. Master, T. W. C.
Chichester, Sir B. Maunsell, T. P.
Cholmondeley, hn. H. Mildmay, P. St. J.
Clay, W. Milnes, R. M.
Clive, hon. R. H. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Cochrane, Sir T. J. Morgan, O.
Courtenay, P. Packe, C. W.
Crawford, W. Pakington, J. S.
Dalrymple, Sir A. Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.
Dennison, W. J. Patten, J. W.
Divett, E. Pechell, Captain
Eastnor, Viscount Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Egerton, W. T. Philips, G. R.
Egerton, Lord F. Plumptre, J. P.
Estcourt, T. Pollen, Sir J. W.
Evans, W. Praed, W. T.
Ewart, W. Price, Sir R.
Fellowes, E. Protheroe, E.
Filmer, Sir E. Pryme, G.
Fitzalan, Lord Pusey, P.
Fleming, John Rawdon, Col. J, D.
Fremantle, Sir T. Richards, R.
Rickford, W. Trotter, J.
Rolleston, L. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Rumbold, C. E. Tyrell, Sir J. T
Rushout, G. Verney, Sir H.
Russell, Lord J. Warburton, H.
Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A. Ward, H. G.
Sandon, Viscount Welby, G. E.
Seymour, Lord White, A.
Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. Wilbraham, hon. B.
Slaney, R. A. Wilde, Sir T.
Smith, R. V. Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Smythe, hon. G. Wilnnington, Sir T. E.
Somers, P. Winnington, H. J.
Somerset, Lord G, Wodehouse, E.
Somerville, Sir W.M. Wood, C.
Stanley, Lord Wood, Colonel
Staunton, Sir G,T. Wood, Colonel T.
Stuart, W. V. Wood, B.
Style, Sir C. Wrightson, W.B.
Surrey, Earl of Wynn, rt. hn. C. W.
Tancred, H. W. Wyse, T.
Teignmouth, Lord TELLERS.
Thornely, T. Maule, hon. F.
Trevor, hon. G. R. Parker, J.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. Irton, S.
Attwood, W. Johnson, Gen.
Bewes, T. Jones, J.
Blackstone, W. S. Langdale, hon. C.
Brocklehurst, J. Lowther, J. H.
Brotherton, J. Mackenzie, W. F.
Cantilupe, Visc. Rundle, J.
Collins, W. Salwey, Col.
Crewe, Sir G. Sanderson, R.
Darby, G. Sibthorp, Colonel
Duffield, T. Turner, E.
Duncombe, hon. W. Turner, W.
Etwall, R. Wakley, T.
Farnham, E. B. Walker, R.
Fielden, J. Williams, W.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Yates, J. A.
Gisborne, T.
Halford, H. TELLERS.
Hector, C. J. Grimsditch, T.
Hodges, T. L. Parker, T. R.

Clause to stand part of the bill.

On the 11th clause,

Sir H. Fleetwood

rose to move the amendment of which he had given notice:— To insert at the end of clause 11,'Provided always that so soon as any such board of management for any union shall be instituted, it shall forthwith prepare and publish the rules and regulations relating to the training of the infant poor aforesaid, and the admission into such building, from lime to time, of the parents and relatives of such infant poor.

Mr. F. Maule

admitted the propriety of publishing the rules for the instruction of the infant poor generally, at the same time that he objected to the publication by each separate board of guardians. He had rather that his hon. Friend would leave these regulations in the hands of the commissioners.

Sir H. Fleetwood

said, that if the parents of poor children knew that under certain regulations they might visit their children, they would be most anxious to avail themselves of the privileges of these schools. He would not object to the alteration of his amendment where it might be found objectionable.

Sir R. Peel

thought it probable that, after a great expense in erecting buildings had been incurred, a sufficient number might not be found of orphans and others for whom these establishments were intended to fill them. In the event of any miscalculation of this kind, he would propose to make these receptacles subservient to the public good, by admitting the children of the adjacent poor, who were willing to pay a trifling sum towards their education. By this course he thought a great benefit would be conferred on the community.

Mr. Slaney

thought, that if the wishes of the parents were consulted, especially as the plan proposed gave industrial employment to the children, the system would make its way as soon as it became known.

Mr. Goulburn

feared, that unless the proposed plan were carried into effect with the greatest possible discretion, it would cause a great departure from the principles of the Poor-law Amendment Act.

Mr. Grimsditch

held that the question now under consideration was worthy to be made the subject of separate legislation. He deprecated the interference of the Poor-law commissioners in a matter of this nature. The clause now under consideration ought to have no place in the present bill.

Sir H. Fleetwood

expressed his intention of withdrawing the amendment, his object in proposing which was, that infant children who were not compelled to go to those schools might have the benefit of them if their parents wished.

Mr. F. Maule

thought that this might not be an improper time to state that he had a clause prepared to carry out the proposition which had been suggested by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, upon the understanding that in the first instance pauper children should be provided for, but that in the event of vacancies occurring, those vacancies should be placed at the disposal of such children of the poor not actual paupers as should be anxious for education.

Lord Stanley

expressed his concurrence in the sentiments of his right hon. Friend, and observed that he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Maule) would find them already acted upon in the management of county lunatic asylums, which were, in 'the first place, open to paupers from all districts, at an expense to the parish of a small sum; next, to criminal lunatics, upon payment of another sum; and thirdly, in ease of vacancies, to private families who might suppose that patients would be better accommodated there than in the county hospital, upon payment, also, of a certain sum; which sums went to relieve the county-rates, while they afforded a facility to the pauper lunatics of obtaining the best accommodation upon the cheapest terms.

Amendment withdrawn, and clause agreed to.

Clauses 13 and 14, relating to lunatic asylums, were struck out, to be made the subject of a separate bill.

On clause 15 (determining the proportions and rates of contribution of the parishes and unions) being proposed,

Captain Wood

begged to know what the principle of the contribution was to be, and said it ought to be defined in the clause.

Mr. F. Maule

replied, that the rate of contribution for the building of those district schools would be with reference to the size and population of the unions, and that afterwards it would depend on the number of children sent to those schools. He was not then prepared to introduce a definition of it into the clause; but he would take the suggestion into consideration.

Sir R. Peel

ventured to say that it would be impossible to devise any scheme for general contribution which would be palatable to four-fifths of the board of guardians, unless they defined beforehand what the principle of that contribution was to be.

Sir H. Verney

observed, that if the former suggestions of the right hon. Baronet the member for Tamworth met with the approbation of the House, he thought they might regard those schools as a part of the national system of education, and that therefore there ought to be a portion of the public funds voted for their support.

Mr. G. Palmer

was of opinion, that this subject should be brought under their consideration in a separate bill. If it were intended that the commissioners should be continued not in perpetuity, but for five years, and no longer, were they to assume that those schools were only to last for the same period; or was a separate commission to be appointed for the purpose? It would be absurd to set about establishing such schools as, were proposed by this bill for the period of five years, and if the period were to be longer, then must the commission be also continued, or a separate commission appointed. Another objection he had to the proposed arrangement was, that a kind of degradation would attach to those children who, not being themselves paupers, should be sent to the schools of pauper children. Far better would it be to frame a separate measure on the subject, and to establish schools for children who were not paupers, and then send to those schools the pauper children at the expense of the parish.

Sir R. Peel

hoped, that the suggestion he had thrown out would not be misunderstood. A large district school having been established, and the children of paupers in the house having, undoubtedly, the first claim to participate in its advantages, he contemplated the possibility of a number of vacancies, and therefore he proposed, that a power should be taken to render that accommodation available for the education of children whose parents were not in the workhouse. A poacher, for instance, might not be willing to enter the workhouse, but, having some regard for the education of his children, it was most desirable that day scholars, living in the neighbourhood and paying a certain sum, should be admitted. This case he had no doubt would frequently occur. A benevolent gentleman seeing profligate parents, who would not go into the workhouse, might be disposed to undertake the education of their neglected children, having an opportunity of paying for them in the district school upon certain prescribed conditions. Sure he was that in acting thus with the consent of parents, and having a clergyman of the Church of England presiding over the education so communicated, great good must be effected. He could not too strongly protest against the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Essex, (Mr. G. Palmer), that they should teach the class just above the pauper to shrink from allowing their children to be educated with paupers. He maintained that pauperism was no test of vice. A man might be a pauper and go into a workhouse without being degraded. But to say that the fact of being in a workhouse so degraded a family that those immediately above them should refuse to have their children educated in the same establishment with the children of paupers, would be to introduce into their bosoms all the feelings and prejudices which accompanied a state of slavery.

Mr. Grimsditch

thought the clause very objectionable in its present shape. It was scarcely practicable to frame such regulations in an Act of Parliament as would meet the likely contingencies of so complex a system. The only tiling intelligible about it was, that it would entail enormous expense on every district, with out securing any efficient plan of education.

Lord Stanley

suggested, that some words should be inserted referring to the principle upon which the commissioners should proceed in fixing contributions. Another clause was promised in order to define that principle; but, if no such clause were forthcoming, the commissioners might proceed most arbitrarily upon the present clause. Unless some restrictions were introduced, he should vote against the clause.

Lord J. Russell

had no objection to the insertion of words to that effect; and the following proviso was then added:—"Provided always, that such proportion of rated contribution shall be fixed by the commissioners in the manner hereinafter enacted."

On the question "that the clause do stand part of the bill,"

Mr. T. Parker

put it to the noble Lord (J. Russell) whether this clause had not been framed with reference to the perpetuity of the Poor-law commission? He expected a frank reply to this question. If he did not, he should draw his own inference, and so would the country.

Lord J. Russell

.—Not to my knowledge.

Clause agreed to.

On clause 17, providing workhouses for relieving and selling to work poor and women of a disorderly character, within the limits of the metropolitan police.

Lord G. Somerset

asked why its provisions were restricted to the metropolis, and not extended to populous towns in the country.

Lord J. Russell

was understood to say, that he should have no objection to extend the clause if other populous towns desired such an arrangement.

Mr. Grote

proposed to insert in the clause, after the words "for relieving and setting to work therein," the words, "of casual, and vagrant poor;" and he wished to do so in order to remedy an evil which had been seriously felt by the constituency he represented. He would state to the House, that for the purpose of affording relief to the poor, the City of London was divided into three unions—namely, the City of London within the walls, the East London union, and the West London union. The City of London within the walls contains a population about equal to the aggregate of the other two, and was, besides, the most wealthy of the three. Of course it was not surprising, that in a district so populous as this the applications of the casual and destitute poor for temporary relief should be very numerous; but inasmuch as it happened that the City of London within the walls had no workhouse of its own, it was the custom of the relieving officer in that district to give to vagrants a shilling and a loaf of bread each, and to send them away. These same people afterwards went to the East or West London union workhouse for a night's lodging; and the number of persons who made these applications in the evenings, at most inconvenient hours, was so great as entirely to break through the good order and tranquillity of those establishments. He held in his hand a list of the admissions into the West London union workhouse, for the first week of the present month, and he thought the House would be astonished to hear that in that week there had been no less than 245 of those vagrants claiming and receiving admission. But what made the difficulty and inconvenience greater was, that a very large proportion of these vagrants were of the worst and most disorderly characters. The list he held in his hand contained the names and ages of each of the persons admitted; and he regretted to stale that by far the lager proportion of persons so admitted were persons in the full maturity and vigour of life, both males and females, between eighteen and forty years of age. They conducted themselves in the most riotous and disorderly way, refused to submit to restraint, and, in fact, behaved in a manner that was completely inconsistent with the maintenance of tranquillity or good order in the establishment. Moreover, it appeared, that many of them were in a state of infection and disease, and, from the reception of such persons, the effect had been most serious as regarded the inmates of the workhouse. He thought, therefore, it would be seen, that, for the preservation of good order in the workhouse, it was necessary that some change should take place; and his object was to give the board of management power to combine the three unions in the City of London for the purpose of providing a separate building for the relief and setting to work of those casual and destitute poor. He was sure that that would be found a material convenience in every point of view, and would lead more effectually to the prompt relief of those who laboured under extreme want, and in whose cases prompt and effectual relief would be most required. In the report of the Poor-law commissioners for 1838 and 1839, it would be seen that this subject had engaged the attention of the commissioners, and that they had found it necessary on more than one occasion to insist upon the board of guardians relieving those casual and destitute persons prior to any inquiry as to their character; for, inasmuch as it had happened, that so many of this class of poor were really riotous and disorderly and worthless characters, the boards of guardians had felt a disinclination to relieve them which they would not have entertained in ordinary cases. If hon. Gentlemen would consult the report they would perceive that the most urgent and peremptory recommendations had been made by the commissioners to the boards of guardians in London, against their omitting to relieve these casual and destitute poor. This report with the testimony he (Mr. Grote) could adduce from his own knowledge and examination, was sufficient evidence of the great inconvenience and evils now felt, and which would continue to be felt until some special building should be provided for such individuals. He believed, however, that something more even than this would be necessary. It was his belief that in the case of vagrants who applied for relief, the guardians should be invested with the power of detaining them until the next day, or for a certain number of hours, in order to force them to render to the parish a certain quantity of work in consideration of the relief they received. To meet the evil of vagrancy some such measure as this was certainly requisite. In looking over the returns recently laid before the House, and which contained the circular of the Poor-law commissioners to the various boards of guardians on the subject of vagrancy, and the answers thereto, he found that those boards of guardians, with hardly a single exception, completely approved of and strongly desired to be invested with the power of detaining vagrants for a certain number of hours, with the view of compelling them to render a certain quantity of work. Such a provision as that would have the effect of greatly abating the evil of vagrancy; but if such a measure were proposed, it ought to be a general measure, and not confined to the City of London. Therefore it did not now form any part of his recommendation to the House. The hon. Member concluded by proposing his amendment.

Colonel Sibthorp

said, he should have been very glad if the present clause had not appeared in this bill, a bill to the principle of which he was strongly opposed. He was against the bill, the whole bill, and every clause in the bill. There was nothing in the bill, in his humble opinion, which rendered it worthy the adoption of the House. He must say he very much regretted that the hon. Member for the City of London had brought forward this proposition, which was levelled against a class of unfortunate people, many of whom, perhaps, had been driven to the commission of crimes under circumstances, which he lamented to say, though they afforded no justification, must be regarded as some palliation of their conduct—circumstances to a great extent, in his humble opinion, which were the fruit of the enactments of that former bill, which the noble Lord opposite was pleased to call an amendment of the Poor-law Act. He would not enter into the details given by the hon. Member for the City of London, of these poor creatures applying for a shilling, with which to procure food and lodging for the night at most inconvenient hours. He would not pretend to say what hours that hon. Gentleman thought most convenient or inconvenient for giving relief. The hon. Member had stated, that in one week 245 persons of the description he termed vagrants had applied for relief at most inconvenient hours. Probably Saturday nights were not included in the hon. Member's return, those seasons which were holydays in that House, and therefore most convenient to hon. Members who wished to look after such matters. Who was to decide upon the character of the persons presenting themselves for casual relief? Who was to have the task of declaring which were disorderly persons? Was the Attorney-general to do it? He would not say to what party in that House, or to what disorderly Member of it, this business should be referred, or whether it should be left with the Secretary for the Home Department, or the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, or the Colonial Secretary, as the fittest person to execute it; or whether they should all be formed into a board of management having power to decide who were disorderly and lewd persons, and then to consign them to those places which had been recommended by the hon. Member for the City of London. But would the House give to boards of guardians a power to come to decisions which would be inconsistent with the rights and liberties of the subject? Would they consent to give any person or persons the power of detaining unfortunate individuals, of which he lamented to say, there were too many, and compel them to work for a day, because under extreme circumstances of distress they had applied for relief? What was to be the proof of their being the persons answering the description in the clause? Were they to be dealt with according to the mere caprice or passion of individuals, who probably might be more guilty themselves of disorderly and improper conduct? Would the House adopt a clause which would press harshly and unjustly upon a class of persons towards whom the commisseration of the House ought rather to be extended? He was sorry to find, that the hon. Under Secretary of State for the Home Department seemed to feel so little for this class of people. He made no charge against the hon. Gentleman, nor would he make any, however gratifying it might be to the hon. Gentleman, In the name of poor persons driven to the commission of crimes which would have been totally repugnant to them under other circumstances, he protested against the clause.

At the suggestion of Mr. Darby,

Mr. Grote

withdrew the words "casual destitute," retaining these, "vagrant poor," instead.

Colonel T. Wood

thought there was not sufficient information before the House with regard to the persons contemplated by the clause to justify its adopting the amendment at present.

Amendment agreed to.

Lord G. Somerset

proposed to leave out the words of the clause which made it applicable to "women having been prostitutes, or habitually of lewd or disorderly behaviour," and to insert instead,—"common prostitutes, who shall have been duly convicted as idle and disorderly persons." As the clause stood, the master of a workhouse, or, at all events, the board of guardians upon his complaint, would send any decent woman who might not happen to be as submissive or obedient as bethought proper to these receptacles, which were professedly for very different persons; for he would have nothing to do but to say that she was habitually disorderly. Some independent authority ought to be appointed to decide who came under the description of this clause. It should not be left to persons who might desire to get rid of an individual whom they deemed disagreeable, or who might wish to gratify some ill feeling.

Mr. B. Wood

recalled the noble Lord's recollection to a petition which he had recently presented from the parish of St. George, Southwark, and which showed that other unions besides that of the City of London required some such plan as this now proposed. He was disposed to support the amendment of the noble Lord, the Member for Monmouthshire.

Lord J. Russell

saw some difficulty in agreeing to the amendment. Women who were convicted of disorderly behaviour would be sent to the House of Correction. Was it meant that, having once been convicted, they should then be brought within the operation of the bill?

Mr. Goulburn

said, the clause as it was originally proposed was liable to the same doubt.

Mr. T. Egerton

said, that the governors of Bridewell complained of the enormous expense occasioned by disorderly paupers being sent to that establishment.

Mr. Estcourt

hoped that the clause would not be made applicable to all persons who might, at a former period, have been convicted of being disorderly, or who might have fallen into vice, because, if it were so, it would put a stop to all reclamation and reform of character. The great objection to the clause was this very thing—the incomplete definition of the persons who were to be set to work. Was it safe, he would ask, to intrust such an authority as the master of the workhouse with the power of declaring any individual female to be a person of habitually lewd and disorderly behaviour, and sending her without due examination to a workhouse, which, if not absolutely a prison, was still a place of restraint? He wished for some clearer definition of the persons who were the subjects of this clause, as with the present words it would be possible for masters of workhouses to act with the greatest unfairness and cruelty. He should support the amendment of the noble Lord.

Sir R. Peel

said, that while contemplating the possibility of abuse on one side, they must not entirely forget the evil on the other, of relaxing all power over persons who might come into the workhouse. It was quite right to say, that you would not subject a woman to punishment unless she were convicted of some intelligible offence; but suppose a woman came to the workhouse as a casual pauper, and asked for relief, and by the grossness of her conduct disturbed the other inmates, behaving in a manner that would be with perfect justice styled lewd and disorderly; if there were no control over that woman, unless she had been previously convicted of some offence, she might defy all restraint. Scenes of the grossest impropriety would occur if a general statutable exemption were given to all females not previously convicted.

Mr. Darby

said, if any person behaved in a disorderly way in a workhouse, there not only should be, but actually was, the power to correct that person; but by this clause the master would have the power of judging and pronouncing on the conduct and character of parties at their entrance into the workhouse. He could not but think, that such a power would be dangerous, and likely to be abused.

Dr. Lushington

said, as this clause had so very important a bearing on those whom he had the honour to represent, as it concerned the interests of a great many persons in the extensive parishes of the metropolitan districts, he must offer one observation to the House. If he understood the clause, its object simply was to make a classification of persons of this description, to place one set in the workhouse and another in a distinct receptacle, in order to obtain the good effects of a separation. No one could contend, that vicious persons should be allowed to enter the workhouse, and instantaneously corrupt those who, though destitute, were innocent. Therefore some security must be had against contamination. But if the House adopted the words of the noble Lord, they might as well negative the clause altogether, for how was the master of the workhouse to get a list of persons previously convicted for disorderly conduct, or how was he to prove their identity? Persons of this description were quite notorious, and was it to be supposed, that the master of the workhouse would, without any reason whatever, inflict on a decent woman the penance reserved for those of the character mentioned in the clause? You must trust something to the discretion of the master, for it was impossible to define the objects of the clause with perfect clearness. If the clause were not adopted, scenes might be expected to occur which would render the workhouse a disgrace to the country.

Lord G. Somerset

observed, that all he required was, the appointment of some independent person, who would not be likely from caprice or worse motives to send a person to these penal workhouse. He asked, would be safe to give the power of affixing a stigma into the hands in which it was proposed to vest it? It was desirable to have a separate establishment for women of that class, but he did not think it safe to give the master of a workhouse the power of saying, that this or that woman was a disorderly character. The master might be actuated by improper motives; he might, for example, have made overtures to the woman which she had rejected, and from a feeling of revenge he might consign her to the separate workhouse.

The Attorney-general

thought the amendment of the noble Lord would render the clause entirely useless. Where could the record of previous conviction be found? Did the noble Lord propose to have a trial, at which evidence should be brought? He apprehended it would be necessary that some discretion should be left with the master of the workhouse, even with the possibility of its being abused. He thought, however, that the words as they now stood "Women who have been prostitutes, or who may be habitually of lewd or disorderly behaviour, chargeable to the poor-rates," were too general. He should, therefore, propose to leave out the words "who have been prostitutes, or who may be."

Lord G. Somerset

withdrew his amendment.

The words indicated by the Attorney-general were struck out.

Mr. Grote

denied that there would be any coercion. The question was simply whether persons of the class described should be dealt with in one workhouse or another.

On the question that the clause stand part of the bill as follows:— Workhouses may be provided for any parishes or unions within the district of the metropolitan police, for relieving and setting to work therein casual and vagrant poor and women of disorderly behaviour, chargeable to the poor's-rates within such parishes or unions.

Colonel Sibthorp

thought the clause so wholly objectionable, so arbitrary and oppressive, that he should move it be expunged altogether, and he would lake the sense of the House upon the question

Mr. Estcourt

, we understood to say, would oppose the clause if it was to be the means of bringing taxation upon the metropolitan districts for the maintenance of these workhouses.

The committee divided:—Ayes 141. Noes 23: Majority 121.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Bramston, T. W.
Acland, T. D. Brocklehurst, J.
A'Court, Captain Brotherton, J.
Adam, Admiral Brownrigg, S.
Aglionby, H. A. Buller, E.
Ainsworth, P. Burroughes, H. N.
Alston, R. Busfield, W.
Barrington, Viscount Campbell, Sir J.
Basset, J. Cavendish, hon. C.
Bentinck, Lord G. Cavendish, hon. G.H.
Berkeley, hon. H. Clay, W.
Blake, W. J. Clayton, Sir W. R.
Bolling, W. Cochrane, Sir T. J.
Bowes, J. Cowper, hon. W, F.
Craig, W. G. Mildmay, P. St. J.
Dalmeny, Lord Molesworlh, Sir W.
Darby, G. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Dick, Q. Morgan, O.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Morpeth, Viscount
Du Pre, G. Morris. D.
East, J. B, Neeld, J.
Ellice, E. Noel, hon. C. G.
Ellis, W. Ord, W.
Etwall, R. Paget, Lord A.
Evans, Sir De L. Pakington, J. S.
Farnham, E. B. Palmer, R.
Fazakerley, J. N. Palmerston, Viscount
Feilden, W. Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.
Fellowes, E. Pattison, J.
Fitzalan, Lord Pechell, Captain
Fleming, J. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Fort, J. Philips, M.
Fox, S. L Philips, G. R.
Freemantle, Sir T. Pigot, rt. hon. D.
Gaskell, J.M. Pigot, R.
Gisborne, T. Plumptre, J. P.
Gladstone, W. E. Price, Sir R.
Glynne, Sir S. R. Pusey, P.
Goddard, A. Rich, H.
Gordon, R. Rickford, W.
Goulburn, rt. hon H. Roche, W.
Greg, R. H. Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Round, C. G.
Grote, G. Russell, Lord J.
Hall, Sir B. Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.
Hawes, B. Salwey, Colonel
Hawkins, J. H. Seymour, Lord
Heneage, E. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Hill, Lord A.M.C. Somerset, Lord G.
Hobhouse, rt.hon.SirJ. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Hobhouse, T. B. Stanley, hon. E. J.
Hollond, R. Staunton, Sir G. T.
Holmes, hon. W.A'C Strutt, E.
Hope, H. T. Style, Sir C.
Horsman, E. Thornely, T.
Howard, hon. E.G.G. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Howard, F. J. Tufnell, H.
Howard, P. H. Tyrell, Sir J.T.
Howard, hon.C.W.G. Vere, Sir C.B.
Howick, Viscount Waddington, H. S.
Hurt, F. Walker, R.
Hutt, W. Warburton, H.
Hutton, R. Ward, H. G.
James, W. Welby, G. E.
Kemble, H. Whitmore, T. C.
Knight, H. G. Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Labouchure, rt.hon.H. Wood, C.
Laugdale, hon. C. Wood, G. W.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Wood, B.
Lemon, Sir C. Worsley, Lord
Loch, J. Wyse, T.
Lushington, rt hn.S. TELLERS.
Marshall, W. Maule, hon. F.
Melgund, Viscount Parker, J.
List of the NOES.
Broadley, H. Fielden, J.
Bruges, W. H. L. Filmer, Sir E.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Collins, W. Freshfieid, J. W.
Egerton, W. T. Grimsditch, T.
Hodges T. L. Trotter, J.
Jones, J. Wilbraham, hon. B.
Lowther, J. H. Wodehouse, E.
Mackenzie, W. F. Wood, Colonel
Muntz, G. F. Wood, Colonel T.
Parker, R. T. TELLERS.
Round, J. Johnson, General
Rushbrooke, Colonel Sibthorp, Colonel

Clause agreed to.

On the 18th clause being proposed.

Mr. Fielden moved that the Chairman do report progress. The Committee divided:—Ayes 18 Noes 109: Majority 91.

List of the AYES.
Brotherton, J. Lowther, J. H.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Mackenzie, W. F.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Muntz, G. F.
Egerton, W. T. Pakington, J. S.
Etwall, R. Parker, R. T.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Somerset, Lord G.
Fort, J. Wilbraham, hon. B.
Freshfield, J. W.
Grimsditch, T. TELLERS.
Johnson, General Fielden, J.
Kemble, H. Sibthorpe, Colonel
List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Gladstone, W. E.
A'Court, Captain Goddard, A.
Adam, Admiral Gordon, R.
Aglionby, H. A. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Ainsworth, P. Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.
Alston, R. Grote, G.
Barrington, Viscount Hawes, B.
Bentinck, Lord G. Hawkins, J. H.
Berkeley, hon. H. Heneage, E.
Blake, W. J. Hill, Lord A. M. C.
Bolling, W. Hobhouse, rt. hn.Sir J.
Bowes, J. Hobhouse, T. B.
Broadley, H. Holmes, hn. W. A'C.
Brocklehurst, J. Horsman, E.
Brownrigg, S. Howard, hn. E. G. G.
Bruges, W. H. L. Howard, F. J.
Buller, E. Howard, P. H.
Burroughes, H. N. Howard, hn. C. W. G.
Busfield, W. Hurt, F.
Campbell, Sir J. Hutt, W.
Cavendish, hon. C. Hutton, R.
Cavendish, hn. G. H. Jones, J.
Clayton, Sir W. R. Knight, H. G.
Cochrane, Sir T. J. Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Langdale, hon. C.
Darby, G. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Du Pre, G. Lushington, rt. hn. S.
Ellis, W. Marshall, W.
Evans, W. Morgan, O.
Fellowes, E. Morpeth, Viscount
Filmer, Sir E. Morris, D.
Fitzalan, Lord Palmer, R.
Fleming, J. Palmerston, Viscount
Fremantle, Sir T. Pattison, J.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Pechell, Captain
Gisborne, T. Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Philips, M. Trotter, J.
Philips, G. R. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Pigot, right hon. D. Tufnell, H.
Pigot, R. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Plumptre, J. P. Vere, Sir C. B.
Price, Sir R. Waddington, H. S.
Pusey, P. Walker, R.
Roche, W. Warburton, H.
Rose, rt. hn. Sir G. Whitmore, T. C.
Round, C. G. Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Round, J. Wodehouse, E.
Rushbrooke, Colonel Wood, C.
Russell, Lord J. Wood, G. W.
Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A. Wood, Colonel T.
Salwey, Colonel Wood, B.
Seymour, Lord Worsley, Lord
Sheil, rt. hn. R. L. Wyse, T.
Somerville, Sir W. M. TELLERS.
Strutt, E. Maule, hon. F.
Style, Sir C. Parker, J.

Clause again proposed.

Colonel Sibthorp

stated that his objection to the clause was very strong, and it was his intention to divide against it.

Lord G. Somerset

stated, that he had an important amendment to move, which he should be averse to call on the House to take into consideration at that late hour of the night.

Lord John Russell

admitted the importance of the amendment, and would not oppose the motion to resume.

The House resumed, committee to sit again.