[BILL NO. 15.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 29 May 1862)

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, he rose to move an Amendment which would have the effect of preventing guardians of the poor receiving and keeping in the workhouses orphan and deserted children under two years of age. He rested his case upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, that 47 per cent of such children died every year, while the mortality in the same class of children out of the -workhouses was only 16 per cent, thus showing that 31 per cent of these poor children were killed by law in the Irish workhouses. The Amendment was also sanctioned by the precedent of the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas), who, in 1858, proposed a similar prohibition, only he included all children under six years of age, instead of those under two. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary estimated the cost of rearing the children out of the workhouse at about the same as that of rearing them in the workhouse, and therefore there could be no objection on the ground of expense.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, it was impossible to agree to the Amendment, as it would clearly lead to a great sacrifice of human life.

LORD NAAS
said, he approved the object of the Amendment, but, at the same time, he was of opinion that the children must be received into the workhouse for some limited time, until the services of an outdoor nurse could be secured. The evils of putting infants into workhouses 95 were so great that Parliament was justified in prohibiting the practice. All statistics proved that workhouses were not fit places for the proper nurture of very young children, who were often taken there in a very weak state, and therefore required great care and attention. If a child was put out to nurse, it would naturally assume the religion of the person to whose charge it was confided, and by adopting that plan the religious difficulty would practically be got rid of That was the course which was followed with success under the grand jury system.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, he was afraid the unfortunate question of religion would arise, unless the Amendment was so modified as to render it imperative upon the authorities to place the child with a nurse of the same religion as itself.

§ MR. BRADY
said, in the interests of humanity, it was absolutely necessary that children of a tender age should not be kept in the workhouse, where, from want of pure air and exercise, the mortality amongst them was very great.

§ LORD JOHN BROWNE
said, he did not see how the suggestion of the noble Lord would overcome the religious difficulty. There would be the same question at the Board as to the religion of the nurse as there was as to that of the child. There was this objection to the proposed arrangement—that a mother might be induced to send her child to the workhouse in the hope of being afterwards paid for nursing it outside.

§ MR. VANCE
said, he did not regard this as a religious question at all. He thought that it would be much wiser to leave the question of maintaining the child inside or outside the workhouse to be decided at the option of the guardians. It would, in his opinion, be extremely dangerous to make it compulsory to remove all children from the workhouse.

MR. H. A. HERBRET
maintained that in the workhouses every provision was made for the sanitary welfare of the children who were inmates. He had the greatest objection to making it compulsory on the guardians to send out the children, and held that it should be left to their discretion.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he was afraid he could not entirely concur with his right hon. Friend who had just spoken. No doubt in many unions the guardians did 96 their best to bring up the children under their care; but from the report of Dr. Hancock, it appeared that in the best-circumstanced workhouses the mortality of children was double the average mortality of children in the United Kingdom, while in some of the worst-circumstanced places, such as Dublin, it was four times as great. In the workhouses of Ireland generally the mortality of infants was three-and-a-half times more than that of the country at large. There had never been any difficulty under the old grand jury system in placing out children to nurse, and in France the whole of the foundlings were thus dealt with, and dealt with, too, with great success. He thought, therefore, that the Committee would do well to accept the Amendment, and thus give those poor children three-and-a-half times as good a chance of life as they would have in the workhouse.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
denied there was any analogy in the case of pauper children in Ireland and the enfans trouvés in France. In Ireland there was no machinery for carrying out such a plan as the hon. Member for the King's County proposed. If they meant to save those children from destruction, they must admit them into the workhouse, and thus place them under the care of a responsible authority.

COLONEL DICKSON
remarked, that as he understood him, his hon. Friend the Member for the King's County did not mean to remove the children altogether from the jurisdiction of the workhouse authorities.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, his hon. and gallant Friend was quite right. He would quote the highest authority as to the state of the workhouses. The Poor Law Commissioners in one of their Reports said— We beg to draw attention to the great difficulty of rearing infant children who are admitted into the workhouse under two years of age without their mothers, and to the great mortality which prevails among those children. It is quite impossible to procure for them in the workhouse that kind of substitute for maternal care which, is necessary for them at that age.

§ LORD JOHN BROWNE
said, he did not object to putting children out to nurse, as a general rule. What he objected to was, that the regulation should be made under all circumstances compulsory. No doubt the mortality of pauper children would always be very high, considering the hardship and exposure which they suffered before they were brought to the union.

§ MR. COGAN
said, he saw no objection to the admission of the children into the workhouse until nurses were found for them. He would, therefore, suggest that the word "received" should be omitted, so that the Amendment might run— "No orphan or deserted child shall be maintained in a workhouse until after the age of two years."

§ MR. M'CANN
said, that in order to induce some guardians to put children out, it was necessary that the law should be compulsory.

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
said, that the experience of England had been against outdoor nursing. If it were made compulsory, children would often, in point of fact, be nursed by their own mothers or near relatives at the expense of the union.

§ MR. MAGUIRE
said, he should support the Amendment.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE
said, he thought that it would be sufficient to leave the matter to the discretion of the guardians.

§ MR. H. A. HERBERT
said, the question was not between a nurse and the mother, but between two hirelings—a nurse inside the workhouse and a nurse outside.

§ MR. O'BRIEN
said, he wished to ask whether the Government had not received from some eminent medical men in Dublin an expression of opinion in favour of the Amendment?

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
replied that he had received no such communication.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
said, that the Report of the Commissioners stated that the mortality among children under two years of age must be great, whether they were brought up within or without the workhouse. If the Amendment was adopted, how was the expense to which it would give rise to be provided for?

§ MR. POLLARD-URQUHART
said, he would admit that it was preferable that children should be brought up out of the workhouse; but he did not wish to interfere with the discretion of the guardians, or with their power to apply that sort of workhouse test to mothers who might be anxious to abandon their children.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, he would consent to omit the words "received into" from his Amendment.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
said, the clause empowered the board of guardians to provide for the relief of any orphan or deserted child out of the workhouse, if they should think fit to do so, by "placing such child out at nurse or otherwise, according to their discretion." He objected to the words "or otherwise," which were not very intelligible, and he therefore would propose that they should be omitted. Their insertion might enable the board of guardians to send young children to institutions outside of the workhouses where large numbers were congregated together, so that the same evil would arise as if they were crowded together in the workhouse.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he believed there were excellent institutions in the north of Ireland and elsewhere, to which it was desirable that the board of guardians should have the discretionary power of sending children up to five years of age, not exactly to be nursed, but to be taken care of. It was therefore desirable, with that view, to retain the words "or otherwise."

LORD NAAS
said, he was rather alarmed at the statement of the right hon. Baronet. If children were not to be taken into the workhouse, they ought to be given to the care of nurses. He decidedly objected to the children being sent to the establishments referred to by the right hon. Baronet. To give the power to do so would be a serious departure from the main principles of the Poor Law, which he hoped the Committee would not sanction.

§ MAJOR O'REILLY
said, he thought there ought to be some provision to enable boards of guardians to dispose of children above one or two years of age, but under five. There were institutions in Ireland peculiarly adapted for taking care of such infants as were above the age of maternal nurture.

MR. YANCE
said, he feared that such a provision would create discord and dissension among the guardians, some of whom would be for sending the children to one kind of institution, while others would have a partiality for a different one.

§ MR. MONSELL
remarked, that the House unanimously decided two evenings since that the English guardians should have the power of sending children to institutions up to the age of sixteen, He 99 could see no reason why the same course could not be taken with regard to Ireland.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
observed, that the reason urged before the Committee upstairs for sending children out to nurse, was that it would be better for their health. When their nursing was over, they ought to come back to the workhouse. His objection to placing children in institutions was that they would not be under the control of the guardians.

MR. M'EVOY
said, he hoped the Committee would retain the words.

§ MR. M'CANN
said, that in the case of the English children the only question raised was as to whether the provision should extend to the age of sixteen, or not apply to children over fourteen.

LORD NAAS
remarked, that in the English Bill there was a provision that the schools should be open to inspection, and be certified by the Poor Law Board. There was no such safeguard in the Bill under discussion with respect to the institutions in Ireland.

§ MR. HASSARD
said, he thought that the words in question would defeat the object of the Select Committee.

§ MR. MAGUIRE
said, he was of opinion that the words ought to be retained. There might exist in Ireland at present, or there might spring up hereafter, institutions to which it would be desirable to send orphan children when they left the nurses to whom they had been confided.

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
said, he had no doubt, that if the words were retained, there would be no want of institutions such as those to which the hon. Member (Mr. Maguire) had referred, and that a new crop of poorhouses would spring up in Ireland.

§ MR. BRADY
said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would persevere with the clause. If the guardians should commit themselves by improper conduct, their constituents would have power to turn them out.

§ LORD FERMOY
said, that the great difficulty with pauper children was to get them absorbed in the rest of the population. Most people would prefer to take a young woman as a servant from a religious institution rather than to take her from a workhouse.

§ MR. VANCE
said, he would recommend the words to be omitted, in order to prevent the occurrence of disputes.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, he proposed to insert a proviso, which would limit boards of guardians in their choice of persons to whom the children should be intrusted to the selection of those who were of the same religion as that in which the children were registered.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, he should oppose the Amendment. In a district where the bulk of the population were Roman Catholics, it might be difficult to find a Protestant nurse; and in a Protestant district it would be equally difficult to find a Roman Catholic nurse.

LORD NAAS
said, that after the important decision to which the Committee had just come, it would be right to know from the Government how far those children were to be supported out of the rates, and also whether it was intended to assimilate the clause as it now stood to the clause relating to English children which had been carried a few nights ago. He thought that the Government ought to undertake to bring up clauses, providing that the institutions in Ireland to which the children might be intrusted ought to be put under the same restrictions with regard to inspection and other matters as those of England. Until some such intention was announced, the discussion of the clause ought to be deferred.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the subject before the Committee was the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cork.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, he thought, with all deference to the hon. Gentleman, that a discussion might now very properly arise upon the questions put by his noble Friend.

THE CHAIRMAN
The debate is restricted to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cork.

§ MR. H. A. HERBERT
said, he hoped that the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork would be adopted by his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel). The principle was one which nobody could have the slighest hesitation in supporting—namely, to provide an additional, security that there should be no attempt at proselytizing. The Committee would do an outrageous thing not to support it.

§ MR. CONOLLY
said, it was totally 101 wrong that so large a question as that upon which the Committee had just divided should be decided by a sort of side-wind upon the mere adoption or rejection of the simple words "or otherwise." If the institutions to which reference had been made were to be recognized, the recognition ought to take place only after the adoption of a specific motion made for the purpose; though he questioned whether such an object came within the scope of the Bill, which was a measure for amending the Poor Law in Ireland, and not for establishing a number of orphan asylums. The decision just come to would introduce an element of strife into every board of guardians in Ireland. He was sorry that the right hon. Baronet had been led into a trap; but the question could not rest as it stood.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
observed, that though the hon. Gentleman stated that the words "or otherwise" were introduced into the Bill by a sort of side-wind, they had from the commencement formed part of the Bill as printed, which had been upon the table of the House for some time. He had acted, as he thought, fairly between the two great religious parties in Ireland, and he disclaimed the notion of pandering to the feelings either of one class or of the other. He thought the provision was a wise one to adopt in reference to children up to five years of age, and it was not proposed for educational purposes, but for sanitary purposes only. As for making use of the Poor Law for the object of preparing the way for the establishment of Roman Catholic orphan asylums in Ireland, he disclaimed any such intention, and he was willing to accept the entire responsibility of the clause. With regard to the larger question which the noble Lord stated was raised by the retention of the words, he should be prepared to meet it when the proper time arrived for its discussion. The provision adopted in respect to England, to which allusion had been made, had reference to the education of pauper children up to fourteen years of age, and was entirely different in principle from the enactment in the present Bill, which provided for the relief of children not more than five years old out of the workhouse, on sanitary grounds only. He was willing to agree to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the county of Cork.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
said, he could 102 assure the light hon. Baronet, that whatever might be his intention, he had provided for the establishment all over Ireland of Roman Catholic orphan institutions which would be used for proselytizing purposes; and he wished to know whether the ratepayers were to sustain those institutions. In order that the right hon. Baronet might have an opportunity of giving an explanation of the meaning of the clause, he would move that the Chairman should report progress.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, that Members on that side of the House were disposed to give the right hon. Gentleman every assistance in passing the Bill; but a Minister of the Crown was bound to give the necessary explanations. They wished to know distinctly how the orphan institutions which might arise were to be supported. Were boards of guardians to have the power to maintain such institutions out of the funds of the State? That question must be discussed fully and fairly, and any attempt to act covertly in that House always failed. He believed that a more unwise thing could not be done than to introduce into the Poor Law Act a provision which would most assuredly lead to the establishment of institutions totally different from those contemplated by the Poor Law. If they did so, he feared that the result would be bickerings, ill-will, animosity, and quarrelling in every Poor Law Board throughout Ireland.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, that every explanation would be given at the proper time; but the Chairman had decided that the subject was foreign to the Motion before the Committee. He thought the most convenient course they could take would be to adopt the Amendment, and then to discuss the clause in its completed form.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, he would then propose as an Amendment in line 8, the substitution of the word "twelve" for "five," the object being to extend to a period of twelve, instead of five years, the time during which it should be lawful under the operation of the Bill for a board of guardians to provide for the relief of any orphan or deserted child out of the workhouse. The Committee of the House, 103 to which the subject had been referred during the last year, was in favour of his proposal.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he felt compelled to oppose the Amendment. The Committee agreed to the age of twelve years by a majority of only one. He was strongly in favour of the age of five years, which answered every sanitary purpose, and after that period the child would get an excellent education in the workhouse school. In enacting that children up to the age of five years might be put out to nurse, "or otherwise," he intended no reference to the establishment of institutions for children throughout Ireland; but he merely used the words because the phrase "to nurse" might be supposed to mean that the child was actually at the breast, and children five years old could hardly be expected to be in that position. Up to one or two years they would be at the breast, and then they would be taken care of until they attained the age of five.

§ MR. MAGUIRE
said, he believed the medical authorities in Ireland had given it as their opinion that on mere sanitary grounds it was expedient that children should for a longer period than the first five years of their age be brought up out of the workhouse. He believed, too, that the last place in which a boy or girl would receive an education calculated to fit either for the daily duties of life was in the workhouse. It was found from experience that young women trained there were entirely unsuited to become domestic servants. For his own part, he felt the strongest conviction that the future of Ireland depended to a great extent on the decision at which the Committee might arrive in reference to the Amendment.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, he could not concur in all the remarks of the last speaker; but the hon. Gentleman had this in his favour—that in the opinion of the Select Committee boards of guardians should be authorized to place pauper children out at nurse up to the age of twelve years. If the words "or otherwise" should be inserted in the Bill and become law, the result would be that the guardians might send the children under their care, not only to schools, but to other institutions — such as convents — to be educated at the public expense. 104 He did not wish to introduce the religious element into the discussion, but he could not help saying that such a provision he should regard with sincere regret. True, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said, that that would not be the effect of the clause; but the question was, what meaning a court of law would attach to the words.

§ LORD JOHN BROWNE
said, he hoped that no change whatever would be made in the clause, which stood as prepared by the Poor Law Commissioners. The whole question of sending children" out of the workhouse was considered by the Select Committee as a sanitary one, and the age of five years was fixed upon as that beyond which extensive mortality did not exist in the Irish poorhouses. He held, therefore, that to extend the time of nursing from five to twelve years, would be to impose an unnecessary burden upon the ratepayers. Children were well fed and well educated in the workhouse, and in all respects were better treated than the children of some of those who were taxed for their support. If sent outside, they must necessarily be placed with the very poorest class of people, for none other would receive thorn; and, while they would be worse fed and worse clothed, in health, they would not be so well attended to in sickness as they would be if allowed to remain in the workhouse. A boy in the workhouse would be obliged to attend school every day; whereas, outside, he might go as seldom and as irregularly as he pleased. The two objections which had been urged to children being brought up in the workhouse — first, that they inevitably contracted workhouse attachments, and were less likely afterwards to be absorbed in the industrial population; and, secondly, that girls especially were apt to be contaminated by association with women of bad character—were alike based on a totally false assumption, and showed in those who used such arguments an entire ignorance of the system of classification which was carried out in the workhouse, which rendered such contamination literally impossible. The question of outdoor relief had been referred to. He believed, if granted, it would be the ruin of the country.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, that the Reso-solution of the Committee pointed entirely to the putting out children to nurse up to the age of twelve years. He observed that Question 621, as put by him, was in these words— 105 The seventh clause is one to give to the board of guardians the power of relieving any orphan or deserted children out of the workhouse by placing such children out to nurse or otherwise, according to their discretion. The words "or otherwise," therefore, did occur in the clause; but no attention appeared to have been directed to them. But the question which followed showed distinctly what were the grounds which the Chief Commissioner recommended, and which mainly induced the Committee to adopt the clause. He would read Question 624, as put by him to Mr. Power— There are two reasons, then—first, a medical reason; and then the moral reason—namely, the desirability of cultivating that family attachment which grows up in a child, when cared for, even in a family not its own. That was really the principle of the controversy, so far as his recollection served him, that took place in the Committee. There were on a division six Members who thought it right to stop with the medical reason, which terminated at five years; and there were the majority of seven, who thought the moral reason ought also to be considered. The former, having regard to the medical reason, supported the original proposal of the Poor Law Commissioners — namely, five years; and the latter, considering the desirability of cultivating the family attachment, prevailed, authorizing boards of guardians to place orphan and destitute children out to nurse up to the age of twelve years, when they should think it right to do so.

§ MR. POLLARD-URQUHART
observed, that the Amendment did not make it at all compulsory on boards of guardians to extend outdoor relief to children of twelve years old. They were only allowed to do so; and he did not think the power would be abused.

§ MR. GEORGE
said, the question before the Select Committee was, whether—till five years or any other period—it would be safe to intrust boards of guardians with a discretion to put children out to nurse; but the great preponderance of evidence was that, after five years, especially in an educational point of view, they were better in the poorhouse. The subtle construction which had first been put upon the words "or otherwise," in Clause 9, by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, had never been contemplated by the Committee of last year. It would be a most unfitting and indecorous way, under cover of two such words, to introduce a new and highly important 106 principle, as that guardians, merely at their own will and caprice, should send children to schools of which nobody knew anything. He would be just as unwilling to intrust such a wide discretion to a Protestant board of guardians in the north of Ireland as to a Roman Catholic board of guardians in the south. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman before the debate closed would abandon the interpretation which, doubtless hastily, he had put upon the words.

§ MR. H. A. HERBERT
said, he was surprised at the excitement which these simple words had occasioned. It would almost seem as if his right hon. Friend had been a party to some corrupt compact.

§ MR. GEORGE
said, he should be the last person to insinuate anything of the kind. He merely expressed his belief that the right hon. Baronet had hastily adopted a decision calculated to be attended with injurious effects.

§ MR. H. A. HERBERT
said, the provision, whatever its merits or demerits, had been before the House since the beginning of the Session; his right hon. Friend could not, therefore, be charged fairly with practising any surprise upon the House. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) had taunted the right hon. Baronet with his inexperience, but he ventured to assert that the description given by that hon. Member of the union workhouses of Ireland, as regarded the condition and education of the younger inmates, was not warranted by the actual state of those establishments. Children in the generality of Irish workhouses were better clothed, better educated, and better fed than the children of the corresponding classes outside.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, the very fact of his having introduced the limit of five years into the Bill was conclusive proof that he had no such intention as that attributed to him by his right hon. Friend opposite. The Bill had lain upon the table of the House since the beginning of the Session, and no question had been raised. The words were also contained in the Bill of 1860. The words were originally introduced in consequence of the recommendation of the noble Lord to extend the age from two or three years.

LORD NAAS
said, what he wanted to know was whether the meaning that had been put upon the words in question was correct—whether children might be sent to institutions of a charitable character 107 all over the country? It was most important that that point should be decided, because upon it depended the question whether an entirely new system should be introduced in connection with the Irish Poor Law. Such an intention did not exist in the former Bill, and was never entertained by any Member of the Committee. He should be inclined to move the postponement of the clause, because if the construction that had been placed upon it for the first time was correct, it would be necessary to add other clauses to the Bill. He had heard nothing to induce him to change his opinion that it was desirable to extend the age, but he was not prepared to say that the guardians should have power to send children to charitable institutions. He could not at all admit that children were better kept in workhouses than in respectable homes. Those educated in workhouses might have more literary learning, but they were not in so good a position for social or moral training as those who were placed out.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he would admit, that if the construction to which the noble Lord had called attention were the true construction, it would very much distort the Bill. He thought, however, that it was obvious such was not the case, because if the limit of five years was maintained, the provisions of the English Bill, to which reference had been made, could not possibly apply to children under the clause. If those provisions were covertly extended to Ireland by the clause, he thought it would be an unworthy mode of proceeding; but if that were the case, it would be necessary to insert clauses to give boards of guardians complete control over the establishments to which children might be sent. He was not prepared to say that the words "or otherwise" might not allow children to be sent to other places than to private families. But the whole importance of those words depended upon the preliminary question what should be the age beyond which children should not be sent out of the workhouse. If the age was limited to five years, there could be no danger; but if extended to twelve, then these words would want explanation by additional clauses.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he could not understand how extending the age to twelve would be extending the powers of boards of guardians to grant outdoor relief. That power they had now in some cases, but how a discretionary power to send 108 children out to private families or otherwise could be called a system of extended outdoor relief he could not understand. With respect to the moral advantages of removing children from the workhouse there could be no doubt, and his own experience convinced him that workhouse training could never succeed in bringing children up to a moral level with those who were trained out of the workhouse. The College of Physicians in Dublin had expressed their strong approval, on sanitary grounds, of the proposal, and the Committee might be sure that boards of guardians would not use such a permission unless they believed it to be for the good of the children themselves. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) was Secretary for Ireland, the full force of the Government was brought to bear in favour of the proposal; but now, he presumed, the full force of the Government would be directed against it. How, under the circumstances, the Chancellor of the Duchy would vote he did not know.

§ MR. COGAN
said, he should support the grant to boards of guardians of the permissive power. On grounds of humanity, for the sake of the children's health, as well as of economy to the ratepayers, it was equally desirable. If they were brought up out of the workhouse, the children would soon be absorbed into the labouring class, and on every account he greatly regretted that the policy sanctioned by his predecessor had not been followed by the present Secretary for Ireland. It was not in that case alone that Irishmen had reason to regret that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) was not still Secretary for Ireland.

§ MAJOR O'REILLY
said, he hoped the Committee would consent to give the discretionary power to the Poor Law guardians to allow children under twelve years of age to be brought up out of the workhouse. The greater average mortality of children in workhouses did not cease at the age of five years. It extended to higher ages. It was impossible to bring up children so well in these public establishments as among the mass of the population.

§ MR. HASSARD
said, he should support the Amendment upon both moral and social grounds, believing that children would be better brought up outside the workhouse than in.

§ MR. MORE O'FERRALL
said, he would suggest the omission of the words 109 "or otherwise," and an extension of the time from five to twelve years.

LORD NAAS
said, that if the power were strictly limited to children put out to nurse in the country, they ought to adopt the longer time. If there were other considerations, they might extend the time now, with the understanding that any necessary modifications should be made upon bringing up the report.

MR. KER
observed, that without knowing the meaning of the words "or otherwise" it was impossible to know how to vote.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, the question was, whether it should be five years or twelve years. Whatever the Committee determined upon, he was determined to adhere to five years.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, that, looking forward to the probability of litigation and vexation from the presence of the words "or otherwise," he would propose that they should be struck out, and that the longer period should be adopted, with some limitation as to expense.

§ MR. LEFROY
said, he considered the extension of the time would be the most injurious to the interests of the country, and he should support the five years against the twelve.

§ LORD JOHN BROWNE
said, he did not regret that the words "or otherwise" were in the clause. It was much better that the children should be kept in some public institution, instead of being sent to the dirty, filthy cabins in which they would assuredly be brought up.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, he wished to ask whether he was to understand, that should the Committee determine on twelve, instead of five years, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would resign office?

§ COLONEL GREVILLE
said, he wanted an explanation of the words "or otherwise."

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, that if the word "five" were retained, he would oppose the Bill at every stage.

§ MR. COGAN
said, he could not hut express the surprise which he, and others near him, felt at the result of the division. He understood there was a sort of agreement with the right hon. and learned 110 Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) and the noble Lord the Member for Coekermouth (Lord Naas), that if the words "or otherwise" were omitted, there should be an extension of the terms. He should, therefore, move that the following words be added to the clause:— "Provided always that the guardians of the poor may, with consent of the Poor Law Commissioners, continue such relief from year to year, until the child attain the ago of ten years, should the guardians consider that such extension of outdoor relief he necessary for the preservation of the child's health."

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, he wished to clear up a misconception on the part of the hon. Member. He had certainly remarked, that if the words "or otherwise" were erased from the clause, he was willing to vote for an extension of the term. The hon. Member for Mayo, however, reduced the matter to its original confusion. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary also adhered with tenacity to the words of the clause, not being aware, as the Home Secretary appeared to be, of their legal force. Under those circumstances, he was obliged to vote for the clause.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, he would appeal to the Government not to take advantage of the misconception, which had obviously occurred through a mistake made by the Chief Secretary.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, that it was impossible on that occasion to deal with a phrase which had already been passed. On the report, however, it would be quite competent for any hon. Member to move the omission of the words "or otherwise," and the extension of the term. Of course, he gave no opinion as to the propriety of such a course.

MR. BEAMISH
said, that s there was no disposition to meet the reasonable requests of Irish Members, and with a view 111 to give Her Majesty's Government, and especially the noble Lord at the head of it, the opportunity of considering what course would be most advantageous to the progress of legislation for Ireland, he should move that the Chairman should report progress.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, that as the object of Irish Members had been defeated in consequence of a mistake committed by a Member of the Government, he should move, as the first of a series of Amendments, the addition to the clause of the words— The guardians of the poor may, with the consent of the Commissioners, continue such relief from year to year, until the child attain the ago of nine years. The continuance of such relief until the age of twelve years had been sanctioned by a Select Committee of that House, and also by a majority of the House in the year 1860, in which majority there voted the noble Lord at the head of the Government, the then Chief Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for War, and several other Gentlemen on the Treasury bench, and also the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas), who might be said to represent Irish opinion on the Opposition side of the House. Why, then, had the proposal that the relief should be continued till the age of ten been now defeated? A mistake had been made by a Member of the Government, of which the Government had taken advantage to defeat the proposal. Three or four hours before, the right hon. Baronet stated that the unfortunate words about which so much had been said, meant that the children were to be sent to certain asylums in the north of Ireland. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: I deny that.] He was bound to accept the right hon. Gentleman's denial; but he appealed to the Committee whether he did not distinctly say that the words in the clause meant that the children might be sent to certain charitable institutions in different parts of Ireland. He thought that he said "the north." The right hon. Baronet loved the north. It had been discovered by his own colleagues that the Chief Secretary was not right in his interpretation 112 of his own Bill, when up rose the right hon. Baronet and stated that what he meant was not that children should be out at wet-nurse at five years of age, and he said something about the mothers of deserted children. The right hon. and learned Member for Dublin made a proposal, which the hon. Member for Kildare was ready on behalf of the Roman Catholic body to accept, when again up started the Chief Secretary, and prevented the matter from being brought to a satisfactory conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman might have admitted that he had made a mistake, and have offered to strike out the words on the report; but he had chosen to take an opposite course, which was exceedingly to be regretted. After the evidence before them, and seeing that it had been acknowledged that 47 per cent of the children died in the workhouses, if that Bill went to Ireland unamended, the House would be stultifying itself. He would therefore move—what he believed to be a very moderate proposition—that these words be added at the end of the clause, namely— Provided always that the guardians of the poor may, with the consent of the Poor Law Commissioners, continue such relief from year to year until the child attains the age of nine years, should the guardians consider that such extension of outdoor relief is necessary for the preservation of the child's health.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he had some doubts whether the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was not an evasion of the rule of the House which forbade the same question being moved twice at the same stage. At the same time, he was not prepared to say that the difference between nine and ten years was not a substantial one, and he thought he should best discharge his duty by resolving any doubt that he might have in favour of discussion.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, that although he believed five to be the age up to which children should be put out in the manner proposed by the Bill, he should be sorry to run the risk of having the measure, which was likely to do so much good if passed, destroyed after all the pains that had been bestowed upon it. He was therefore willing to agree to an honourable compromise in the matter; and as the College of Physicians had expressed an opinion in favour of the age being extended, that afforded him an opportunity of making a concession, which he did most freely. He was prepared to yield to what appeared to be the sense of the 113 Committee, and to accept the Amendment which the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) had put upon the paper, extending the age to eight years. He trusted that that arrangement would prove satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen; and he could only express his regret if he had in any way been the cause of an angry discussion.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he hoped the compromise offered by the Chief Secretary would be adopted by the Committee. The Irish Members felt that they had been fighting against the individual opinion of the right hon. Baronet. It was not to be supposed that the rest of the Government, all of whom, including the noble Viscount himself, had in 1860 voted for the limit of twelve years, had had any reason to change their opinion. They must have simply desired to support their colleague, although his knowledge of Ireland was not so great that they should be governed by his mere ipse dixit.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, that allusion having been made to the members of the Government, and especially to himself, he must observe that he had not a very distinct recollection of what passed on that subject in 1860. But the opinion he had formed that night was founded upon the arguments which he had heard on both sides of the question; and certainly, after the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Mayo (Lord J. Browne), he must think the decision of the Committee with respect to the difference between the ages of five and twelve was quite right.

§ MR. BRADY
said, he hoped the compromise would be satisfactory to the people of Ireland.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, he rose to express his willingness to accept the concession of the right hon. Baronet in the same spirit as that in which it had been offered. He believed that concession would not only terminate an angry discussion, but would much improve the Bill.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, he did not wish to disturb the harmony of the Committee; but he regarded the compromise offered by the Chief Secretary as a miserable one, and thought the Committee ought to have insisted on the limit of twelve years. The noble Viscount said he had been convinced by the arguments that had been used that night. It was really wonderful how the members of a Government were all convinced like a pack of hounds, and all ran upon the same scent. The pack was now found running 114 in a direction the very opposite of that which it took two years ago. In 1860 the Motion for adopting the age of twelve was carried by seventy-one to ten, and among those who voted in the majority were Mr. Brand, Sir W. Dunbar, Mr. Hugessen, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Whitbread, Lord Palmerston, and many other Ministers.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, he thought that if the proposed compromise was to be carried out, the words "or otherwise" ought to be omitted. There would be great dissatisfaction if guardians were to levy rates for the erection of orphanages outside workhouses, and for the maintenance of children in those separate institutions.

§ MR. H. A. HERBERT
said, he had not changed his opinion on the question of age; but after the division that had been taken, if the compromise was to be adopted, he thought the words "or otherwise" ought to be retained. He hoped, therefore, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not adopt the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin. If the guardians, in the exercise of their discretion, should think fit to place children in Roman Catholic institutions—[Mr. WHITE-SIDE: In convents.] Yes, if the guardians should think that in certain cases the health of the children would be better preserved in convents, he would say, "Let them act as they think fit." He hoped there would be no misunderstanding on the point, and that the Government would be firm on it.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he would remind the Committee that the division to which the hon. Member for Cork had referred took place at two o'clock in the morning. He apprehended that the real purpose of the provision was that the children should be put out to nurse. If that were to be so, let it be clearly understood; but let them not exonerate the guardians from what was their obvious duty. If the Committee chose to accept the compromise, it was not for him to divide against it at that time.

MR. BEAMISH
said, he was still of opinion that the maximum age ought to be twelve years, but for the sake of good feeling he hoped the compromise would be accepted.

MR. KER
was in favour of altering the wording of the clause, so as to meet the objection to the words "or otherwise."

§ CAPTAIN ARCHDALL
said, that if those words were retained, all institutions to which the children were sent ought to be open to inspection.

§ MR. VANCE
observed, that the Protestants of Ireland had some dependence in the Chief Secretary; and, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kerry (Mr. Herbert), he hoped the right hon. Baronet would inform him whether the Government would agree to strike out the words "or otherwise."

§ MR. O'BRIEN
said, he hoped that the right hon. Baronet would give the hon. Member for Dublin no information on the subject. The hon. Member had shown no great anxiety to strike out the words to which he now so strongly objected until he heard that the Government agreed to adopt the age of eight years instead of five.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
said, the Committee had lost five hours on a single question, which might have been disposed of in as many minutes. The poor rates were to be levied from the entire property of the kingdom, and were the Irish people to pay for the maintenance of orphans and deserted children in establishments, or, as it was avowed, in convents over which no control could be exercised by the State? The hon. Members on the Opposition benches had accepted the clause on the distinct understanding that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not swerve from the period of "five" years. The right hon. Gentleman had since thrown over his friends and accepted "eight" years. Could the right hon. Gentleman expect to carry on the Government of Ireland in that shilly-shallying manner? Let the Committee have one single line of policy before it. There were now great doubts whether the Bill would pass or not. The Committee had abandoned the Poor Law, and had now no single principle to guide them. The Chief Secretary had been the sole cause of the obstruction, and he (Sir E. Grogan) would, for one, be no party to the compromise that had been agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, that his right hon. Friend had by no means abandoned the principle he had laid down. He had departed from the strict principle of the Poor Law, for the purpose of preserving the lives of the children. It was exactly on that ground that his right hon. Friend had agreed to make eight years, not the general rule, but the exception to 116 the rule of five years, in cases where it was certified that outdoor relief was necessary to preserve the health and life of the child. His right hon. Friend still stood on "five years" as the general rule, except in cases where it was certified to be necessary that outdoor relief should be continued.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
said, they would never get on with business if they went on in that way. It was now, too late to discuss these famous words "or otherwise." He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland would make no reply to the objections that had again been urged.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, that hon. Members opposite could, if they chose, move to omit the words "or otherwise" on the report. The hon. Member (Sir E. Grogan) must, however, understand that there would be "no surrender" on that side of the House. If Roman Catholic children were educated in convents, there were, on the other band, excellent Protestant establishments for orphans of that persuasion. When the report was brought up, it would be found that hon. Members had forgotten all that had been said in the present debate, and there would not be a word of it in the newspapers.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, that hon. Members on his side of the House wished to understand the position in which they now stood. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had yielded to the arguments of hon. Members who represented one important interest in that House, but had conceded nothing to those who represented an interest equally important. He wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet would reconsider the subject on the report, so as to give the House the benefit of what had been stated by the Home Secretary.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
said, the question before the Committee simply was, whether they were, or were not, to repeal the law of the land which made the country Protestant. The law of the land declared that, where the religion of the parents was not known, the children, if de- 117 serted, should be reared in the religion of the State. A case in point had occurred in the Celbridge Union, in 1841. A difficulty arose as to what religion the child should be registered of; the matter was referred to the Poor Law Commissioners, and by them laid before the present Lord Justice of Appeal, Mr. Blackburn. The reply of that eminent lawyer was— I am of opinion that the guardians in such a case as as this should cause the child to be educated in the religious creed of Protestantism, the religion of the State. In 1854 a similar case arose, and the then Attorney General, Mr. Brewster, gave an opinion exactly the same as that of Mr. Blackburn. But by the Bill of the right hon. Baronet, any one who might find a deserted child, even a common policeman, might determine of what religion the child was to be. That was the first time that such a proposition had ever been submitted to that, or the other House of Parliament. There were two reasons why deserted children should be brought up in the religion of the State—the one, because it was the religion of the State; and the other, on social grounds, because it would deter Roman Catholic parents from deserting their children. If the clause were passed, an inducement would be held out to many parents to abandon their children; and the question was, were they to encourage Roman Catholic parents to do so. There were many parents in Dublin at present, who were deploring the loss of their children, who had been kidnapped and put into institutions such as those which the right hon. Baronet would establish by the Bill. It was said that the words "lawful possession" had been introduced into the clause to exclude such cases; but who was to tell whether children, who were said to be deserted, were stolen or not. He should therefore move to leave out all the words after "case" in line 19, and insert "such child shall be registered of the religion of the State."

§ MR. GREGORY
said, there had been a great number of discussions on the subject in that House, and in a vast number of unions in Ireland the guardians had been brought into collision with the central Board, in consequence of the present state of the law. The legal decisions to 118 which the hon. Baronet had referred, related entirely to a past state of things, for they had been founded upon the old foundling law of Ireland. That law had led to such constant heartburnings and disputes, that in 1859 he had brought in a Bill, which passed a second reading, and which provided that the question of registration should be left to the decision of the board of guardians. It was proposed at another time that the child should be registered according to the result of the religious census of the country, but that system had been found to be unsatisfactory. He hoped the Committee would give its sanction to the provisions of the present measure, which he believed was the most ready way of dealing with the subject, and in a manner which would be acceptable to the country.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
utterly denied that the law of the land presumed that every deserted child was of the religion of the State. The law presumed that to be the case, which was the most probable, unless the contrary were proved. It was, of course, among the poorer classes that the desertions of children most frequently occurred; and as in Ireland the great majority of the poorer classes wore Roman Catholics, the presumption, in most cases, would be that a deserted child was of the Roman Catholic religion.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, that the question before the Committee was very important. The result of the proposal was, that whatever might be the religion of the policeman who happened to find a deserted child, the child must be brought up in that religion. According to that view, if a policeman were a Mahomedan, or a Unitarian, any child he might happen to find must be brought up in that creed. Now that was, to say the least of it, a very novel proposition. The practice hitherto had been to register deserted children in the religion of the State. In support of that view, the opinion of Judge Blackburn, when Attorney General, was conclusive. The exact point was laid before him; and the decision of the learned Judge was clear, that in the case where the child was deserted by the father and by the mother, the guardians had no alternative than to bring it up in the State religion. That seemed to him to be a more reasonable course of proceeding than the rough and ready mode advocated by the hon. Member for Galway. He would admit, that if the religion of the 119 mother could be ascertained, the child ought to be registered in that religion. "With regard, however, to the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Dun-dalk, that in the absence of any such guide the child ought to be registered in the religion of the majority of the population —which he granted was in Ireland the Roman Catholic—he must contend that it would be of very unfair application in Ulster, where the presumption would be that the deserted child was the offspring of Presbyterian parents.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, no doubt the law of the land was that which had been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but still it had never been enforced, and could not be enforced. The question was undoubtedly a very difficult one. The Government, however, had, in making the proposal on which the right hon. Gentleman animadverted, submitted to the House what they deemed to be the best solution of it. He might further observe that the right hon. Gentleman need not be apprehensive that any child would be registered as a Mahomedan, inasmuch as there was no member of that persuasion in the police force in Ireland; nor did he think it could be justly imputed to the force that it contained men who would be ready to change their religion to suit the views of the Government of the day. The clause had been adopted on the recommendation of the Select Committee, and therefore he hoped it would be retained.

§ MR. VANCE
said, the question was one of principle, and one that, as a Protestant of Ireland, he could not consent to give up. The Court of Queen's Bench had decided that a deserted child should be educated in the religion of the State. Such was the law of the land, and the boards of guardians in Dublin had always acted upon that principle. He regarded the clause as a most dangerous attempt to abrogate a long-established law, and a first step towards separating the State from the Church in Ireland.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, that the objection was that the clause altered the law of the land. Why there was not a clause in the Bill that did not more or less alter the law of the land. The whole business of the House of Commons was to abrogate bad laws; and if they did not do so, they might as well shut up shop altogether. The great argument on the other side was that deserted children should be 120 educated in the religion of the State. Now, the State religion in Ireland was Protestantism, and hence it followed, on the showing of the opponents of the clause themselves, that all the illegitimate and deserted children in Ireland were the offspring of Protestant parents. He thought the proposition of the Government was the best and fairest that could be adopted.

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
said, he hoped the Committee would proceed on some more rational principle than that which seemed to have actuated the framers of this clause. Let them, for a moment, discard all question of Roman Catholic and Protestant. He had a great respect for the Select Committee which sat upon the subject; but anything so extraordinary as the conclusion at which they had arrived in point of principle he never heard. The clause said that a deserted child should be brought up in the religion of the person, whoever he might be—perhaps a tourist—that took him to the workhouse. He thought that proposition altogether irrational, and he trusted the Committee would not adopt it. He concurred in this, that where they had not the parents or surviving parent they should adopt the guardian or guardians of the child, or, if there were no guardians, the godfather or godmother for the purpose of determining in what religion the child should be brought up. In absence of these the Government might step in; but what he would propose was that the guardians of the district should pro hâc vice become guardians of the child. If the population of the district were Roman Catholics, the guardians elected by them would be Roman Catholic; and they, he had no doubt, would take into consideration all the circumstances of the child's case in determining what should be his registered religion.

§ MR. CARDWELL
observed, that the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hugh Cairns) had entirely overthrown the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, It also disposed of the proposition of the hon. Baronet the Member for Dublin (Sir E. Grogan). The proposition of the last-named Gentleman, that in a country the majority of which, and especially of the poor, to which class these children belonged, were Roman Catholics, every deserted child should be entered in the Protestant religion, was so manifestly repugnant to justice that he was not sur- 121 prised that the hon. and learned Member for Belfast threw it overboard. The case, however, was one of real and great difficulty. The law had provided distinctly for the religious education of all pauper children in Ireland. They were to be brought up in the religion of their parents if they could possibly be discovered. If, being without parents, they had guardians, they were to be brought up in the religion of their guardians. But there might be others who had no guardians, and for whom it was necessary to provide. His hon. and learned Friend said, "Let the guardians of the district settle in what religion they should be educated." Now, that seemed a most simple proposition— a great argument in its favour—and he felt at first inclined to adopt it. But on a little further inquiry it turned out that that proposition had already been under consideration in the House, under the auspices of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), but had not been approved; and his hon. Friend himself had, he believed, abandoned it. It had also been considered by the Committee; but the Commissioners strongly urged them not to adopt that proposition. They said they had overcome great difficulties in Ireland; they had introduced a system of local government in the relief of the destitute poor; they found the boards of guardians, though composed of persons of different religious opinions working admirably; and they said to the Government, "Whatever you do, don't introduce into boards of guardians an element which must inevitably produce all the evils of religious discord, by permitting those boards to determine in what religion a child should be brought up." By a large majority the Committee resolved to adopt that view, and he believed the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas) voted in favour of the proposition before the Committee. The question had been mixed up with a good deal of banter and ridicule which had nothing to do with it. The guardians in Ireland, and those excellent public servants the Poor Law Commissioners, said, when a deserted child was brought to them for relief, "Furnish us with a guide—parents where there are parents, a guardian, where there is a guardian, and in the absence of these, let us bring up the child in the religion of the person, that brought it to us."

§ MR. GEORGE
said, he would prefer having a destitute child brought up in the 122 religion of the State to that of the person taking him to the workhouse. The Law Officers had given their opinion, and the law of the land should prevail.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, that the question that the guardians should stand in loco parentis to a deserted child was proposed by him in 1859, and the proposition was strongly opposed by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast and the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. He thought, that if they endeavoured to register the children in Ireland in a way contrary to the general religion of the country, they would be doing nothing less than endeavouring to make converts; and he was surprised to find hon. Members on the other side of the House endeavouring to give a power to guardians which they found it impossible to give when the Bill of 1859 was before the House.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
said, his own argument was in reality strengthened by the case cited by the hon. Member for Dublin; for, by a report of the case, it appeared that the court discharged the conditional order for a mandamus against the guardians.

§ MR. VANCE
replied, that by the decision of the court the child was to be educated in the religion of the State.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that, according to the proviso of this clause, of which some hon. Gentlemen seemed to approve, if a gipsy stole a child and brought it to the workhouse, that child must be brought up in the religion of a gipsy. The only intelligible reason given by the advocates of the clause was, that there was a strong disposition in Ireland to resist the present law. Inasmuch, however, as the State maintained the poor, was it not natural that the children, who were made the children of the State by being brought up under the Poor Law, should be brought up in the religion of the State? Concession upon the point under consideration would neither satisfy the people of Ireland nor England, it would be far easier to maintain the principle of the present law than to adopt any compromise; and a more miserable compromise than that which the clause suggested he could not conceive. The result of passing the Bill with the present clause would be that there would be a perfect scramble for these unfortunate children. It had been suggested that the police would bring most of these children to the workhouses; if so, 123 the policemen would have to stand godfathers to most of those children. He (Mr. Newdegate) did not believe that any such function was contemplated in their engagement. The House could not hope to satisfy the foreign influence which actuated the Roman hierarchy in Ireland by concession: submission would only create confusion. He should, therefore, cordially vote with the hon. Member for Dublin for maintaining the simple provision of the law, which extended the protection of the State to these poor children, who had been deserted by their parents, and who had no other provision, spiritual or temporal, save what the State gave them.

§ MR. VANCE
said, he would move that the Chairman report progress.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion. After seven hours' discussion they had got through two important clauses, and there was no reason why they should not continue the consideration of the Bill.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, he objected to proceeding with the Bill at that hour (12 o'clock).

§ MR. O'BRIEN
said, he hoped it would be known from what quarter the opposition to the further progress of the Bill proceeded.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he would suggest that the clause under discussion should be adopted before progress was reported. He proposed to strike out the following clause, and at its next sitting, therefore, the Committee would, if his suggestion were acceeded to, proceed with the consideration of Clause 12.

§ MR. VANCE
said, he had no objection to that arrangement.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
said, he objected to the omission of the clause, and would move, that the Chairman should report progress.

LORD EDWIN HILL
moved, that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he hoped the arrangement which he had proposed would be acceded to, now that the sense of the Committee had been twice taken.

§ SIR. JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he was quite sure that it was not the intention of his hon. Friend who moved that the Chairman leave the chair to put an end to the Bill.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he had no objection to report progress now.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
observed, that he had not been aware that Clause 11 would be struck out without any discussion.