§ On the Amendment to leave out Clause (A), added as a rider to the Bill, being proposed,
LORD J. RUSSELL
said, that this was the clause with respect to the separation of old married couples in workhouses, which had been left out by the House of Lords altogether. He thought that, perhaps, considering the feeling which prevailed on this subject, and that all the main principles of the Poor Law were continued in the present Bill, it would be better that that House should disagree with the Amendment, trusting that their Lordships would see fit to reconsider it.
§ Motion agreed to. Lords' Amendment disagreed to.
§ On Clause (B), also added as a rider to the Bill, and omitted by the Lords, which related to the admission of the public to the proceedings of boards of guardians,
§ MR. WAKLEY
objected to this summary method of proceeding at such an hour of the night. There ought to be a discussion on this matter, and he moved that the debate be adjourned.
MR. TATTON EGERTON
observed, that the clause which had been struck out by the Lords had been introduced into the Bill in the House of Commons at one o'clock in the morning.
LORD J. RUSSELL
appealed to the hon. Member not to press an adjournment of the debate, and so impede the progress of public business.
§ Motion to adjourn the debate withdrawn.
§ MR. ETWALL
was surprised at the easy way in which the Government abandoned the clause, after the general feeling which had been expressed in its favour by the Treasury Bench when it was debated.
§ SIR GEORGE GREY
observed, that he had stated a strong objection against the indiscriminate admission of the public, while he had admitted that there might be a difference in the admission of the ratepayers only. He had been given to understand, however, that great alarm had been excited by this proposed clause; and upon the whole, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he thought it better 569 that the power should rest as it was with the hoards of closing their doors. He thought the best course would he to agree to the Lords' Amendment.
§ MR. WAKLEY
wanted to know in whose minds alarm had been excited? In those of the guardians, no doubt, who dared not let the public know what they were about. If they did not fear public opinion, why not admit the ratepayers? Some portion of the public surely might he admitted, as to the proceedings of that House. Why should not the press be admitted? He attached greater importance to this clause than even to the other; and he feared it had been suggested in another place that the course would be for the Lords to strike out both clauses, and then an agreement come to to retain one of them. It was most unfair to discuss a clause of this kind at such a time of night; and he would support his hon. Friend, if he took the sense of the House against agreeing to this Amendment.
§ MR. BROTHERTON
observed, that the clause was in fact a cruel clause as regarded the poor. Some boards of guardians acted with delicacy and kindness in investigating the cases of the poor when they came before them; but it would be cruel to force these poor people to disclose their sufferings before a mob of spectators. The poor, he thought, would be better attended to by the board of guardians, when alone.
§ CAPTAIN PECHELL
apprehended that the difficulty was for the poor to obtain admission to the boards of guardians.
§ The House divided on the question that the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, when the numbers were:—Ayes 89; Noes 19: Majority 70.
|List of the AYES.|
|Acheson, Visct.||Cowper, hon. W. F.|
|Acland, Sir T. D.||Craig, W. G.|
|Antrobus, E.||Cripps, W.|
|Archdall, Capt. M.||Deedes, W.|
|Bentinck, Lord G.||Denison, J. E.|
|Boldero, H. G.||Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.|
|Borthwick, P.||Duncan, G.|
|Bouverie, hon. E. P.||Dundas, Adm.|
|Bowles, Adm.||Dundas, Sir D.|
|Bramston, T. W.||East, Sir J. B.|
|Brotherton, J.||Easthope, Sir J.|
|Brown, W.||Egerton, W. T.|
|Buller, C.||Ferguson, Sir R. A.|
|Buller, Sir J. Y.||Filmer, Sir E.|
|Byng, rt. hon. G. S.||Forster, M.|
|Carew, W. H. P.||Gaskell, J. M.|
|Cavendish, hon. C. C.||Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.|
|Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.||Gore, M.|
|Clive, Visct.||Goulburn, rt. hon. H.|
|Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.||Parker, J.|
|Greene, T.||Philips, M.|
|Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.||Price, Sir R.|
|Grosvenor, Lord R.||Rich, H.|
|Halford, Sir H.||Richards, R.|
|Hallyburton, Ld. G. F. G.||Roebuck, J. A.|
|Halsey, T. P.||Russell, Lord J.|
|Hamilton, Lord C.||Russell, Lord C. J. F.|
|Henley, J. W.||Rutherford, A.|
|Herbert, rt. hon. S.||Seymer, H. K.|
|Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.||Seymour, Sir H. P.|
|Inglis, Sir R. H.||Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.|
|Jervis, Sir J.||Shelburne, Earl of|
|Labouchere, rt. hon. H.||Somerville, Sir W. M.|
|Law, hon. C. E.||Spooner, R.|
|Lindsay, Col.||Strutt, rt. hon. E.|
|Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.||Thornely, T.|
|Mainwaring, T.||Tyrell, Sir J. T.|
|Maule, rt. hon. F.||Vyse, H.|
|Morpeth, Visct.||Walpole, S. H.|
|Neeld, J.||Ward, H. G.|
|Neville, R.||Wilshere, W.|
|Newdegate, C. N.||Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.|
|Nicholl, rt. hon. J.||Wortley, hon. J. S.|
|O'Brien, A. S.||TELLERS.|
|Packe, C. W.||Tufnell, H.|
|Palmerston, Visct.||Hill, Lord M.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Aglionby, H. A.||Hindley, C.|
|Bennet, P.||Hodgson, F.|
|Blackstone, W. S.||Lawless, hon. C.|
|Collins, W.||M'Carthy, A.|
|Colville, C. R.||Morris, D.|
|Duncombe, T.||O'Connell, M. J.|
|Duncombe, hon. O.||Pechell, Capt.|
|Escott, B.||Sheridan, R. B.|
|Evans, Sir De L.||TELLERS.|
|Frewen, C. H.||Etwall, R.|
|Fuller, A. E.||Wakley, T.|
§ Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be submitted to the Lords at a conference for disagreeing with the Lords' Amendment.
§ House adjourned at Two o'clock.