HC Deb 27 July 1868 vol 193 cc1871-86

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 10 (Minister may, subject to Regulations, visit and instruct Inmates registered as of his Religious Creed).

MR. POWELL

said, he rose to move the addition of words providing that any inmate in a workhouse, above the age of twelve years, should have the right to refuse to be instructed by such minister, after having been once visited by him. He thought that paupers ought not to have forced upon them the ministrations of persons to whom they objected. He fixed the age at twelve years, because in two other clauses of the Bill the age was named as equivalent to years of discretion.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 28, to add the words— Unless such inmate, being above the age of twelve years, and after having been visited at least once by such minister, shall object to be instructed by him."—(Mr. Powell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he would suggest to the hon. Member to insert fourteen instead of twelve in his Amendment, in accordance with the age prescribed in the Industrial Schools Act.

MR. POWELL

said, he was willing to insert "of fourteen," absolutely.

Amendment amended, by leaving out "twelve," and inserting "fourteen."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

Question proposed, That the words 'unless such inmate, being above the age of fourteen years, and after having been visited at least once by such minister, shall object to be instructed by him,' be there added."

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, he considered it a farce to suppose that a child of twelve or fourteen years of age could form an opinion upon religion, unless it was influenced by some person who had the opportunity of speaking to it on the subject. He thought that some persons competent to examine the child should first say whether it was fit to decide for itself upon the point of religion.

[Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,]

LORD EDWARD HOWARD

said, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) whether he would have any objection to the children being examined by the Poor Law Inspectors before requiring them to declare what particular religion they professed?

MR. POWELL

said, that while he had no desire to proselytize, he was anxious to prevent any undue interference with the religion of the inmates of the workhouse.

MR. T. CHAMBERS

said, he wanted the opinion of the House of Commons on this important question, but he could not hope to obtain it at that period of the Session, when the attendance of forty Members could scarcely he secured. This was not merely a question whether a young child should be the judge of his religion, but whether a person of any age, being an inmate of the workhouse, should be compelled to submit to the religious ministrations of any clergyman who might be forced upon him. The Bill required, in the first place, a Creed Register to be kept of every inmate; secondly, that such register might be inspected by the ministers of any religious denominations connected with the churches and chapels in the neighbourhood; thirdly, any such clergyman might, in accordance with the regulations of the workhouse, visit and instruct any inmate, whether he were seven or seventy years of age, whose name appeared on the register. And all this was done, forsooth, in the interests of religious liberty! He contended that it was an outrage upon the principles of religious liberty. And those who opposed such interference with the religion of those poor people were charged with intolerance and a determination to oppress their consciences. The noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord Edward; Howard) had used many hard words respecting him on a previous occasion, because of the course he had pursued respecting the; Bill. But he (Mr. Chambers) had the testimony of a leader among the Roman Catholics of the House that he had not said one unkind word of any of his opponents. Now, he asked the Committee to say frankly, whether the Bill savoured of religions liberty or of religious coercion. He, for one, did not believe that any religious minister had a right to force his religious ministrations upon him, if he had the misfortune to become a pauper and to enter a workhouse. In opposing those provisions he felt that he was the friend of religious liberty. He would not allow any man to coerce even a criminal to submit to ministrations of religion which he did not desire. He believed that the law at present did all that was required, and that the alterations were not for religious liberty, but against it. They were conceived in the spirit of intolerance, and it was attempted to pass them at the fag-end of a Session when forty Members could not be kept together.

MR. SYNAN

said, he thought there would be no objection to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) if it were coupled with the qualification that in the case of every such child the Poor Law Board should direct an inquiry to be made whether the child was competent to form an opinion on religious matters.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

said, he would object to that qualification in the name of his constituents. They were already too much hindered with the control of the Poor Law Board. They were saddled with enormous taxation, and were left with no power but to carry out the decrees of the Board. It was not a case of opposition to Roman Catholics alone. They objected to the coercion of any class of people, of whatever religion.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he would remind the Committee that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) had stigmatized the objections to this Bill as hypocritical. He could assure the right hon. Member that he was lately in conversation with an eminent member of the Bar, not in that House, who would not believe it when he (Mr. Newdegate) told him that the substance of this Bill was that any person in a workhouse must—whether he liked it or not—receive the visits of a minister of religion. It was to-night admitted by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers) that this was the substance of the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman approved of it.

MR. REARDEN

said, he thought it would be decidedly wrong to intrust power to the local vestries, which had proved—as in the case of the St. George's Vestry, of which he was a member—that it was a power capable of being abused in their hands. The powers conferred by the Bill ought to be in the hands of the Poor Law Board.

COLONEL HOGG

said, this was not the first time that the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Rearden) had had the audacity to make a charge against St. George's Vestry, Hanover Square.

MR. REARDEN

rose to Order, and called for the withdrawal of the word "audacity."

COLONEL HOGG

said, he would use the word boldness instead.

MR. REARDEN

said, that was equally offensive. He must call on the hon. Gentleman to apologize. ["Order !"]

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member for Athlone had objected to a particular expression, which had been withdrawn.

COLONEL HOGG

said, that, as far as his personal experience of the Vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square, enabled him to do so, he gave the most unqualified denial to the charges of proselytizing tendencies which had been made against that body. Any Roman Catholic child subject to their authority had ample opportunities of being visited by the minister of their own persuasion, and Roman Catholic adults were not only allowed to go out on Sundays, but also upon what the Roman Catholic Church considered to be holydays as well. He hoped that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) would be accepted.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, experience had shown, and that in the very case referred to, that it was ludicrous to suppose children of such a tender age could decide authoritatively as to their own religion. Before they were allowed to decide upon so serious a question there ought to be some inquiry into their mental condition, and as to whether anything in the nature of inducements or other influences of an organized system of proselytism bad been brought to bear. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) would fix the age at fourteen, and allow somebody to examine the children.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, as amended, to add, at the end thereof, the words— And who shall be considered by the Poor Law Board to be competent to exercise a judgment upon the subject."—(Mr. Villiers.)

MR. POWELL

said, he would resist any such inquiry if the child's age was to be fixed at fourteen years. At the same time it would be for the Committee first to vote upon the age of fourteen, and after that to say whether or not they would have an inquiry

SIR. HENRY WINSTON-BARRON

said, the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) had given no reason whatever for objecting to an impartial inquiry by the Poor Law Board. Sic volo, sic jubeo was his tone. But were the Committee to be bound by it?

MR. WHALLEY

said, the Poor Law Board was not a competent or impartial tribunal. This was a Bill brought forward by the Poor Law Board in opposition to the wishes of every Board of Guardians in the country. Its object was to prevent as far as legislation could do it, the children of the poor from being brought up in what, at any rate, was a loyal religion, and to leave them by accident as it were, to become members of a religion which, as far as the teaching of its priesthood was concerned, was a religion of disloyalty and sedition, opposed to the historical spirit, and to every instinct of this country.

SIR HENRY WINSTON-BARRON

I call that an insult to my religion; and I call upon the hon. Member to apologize.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) has made use of some terms which are not very common in this House, and which are certainly calculated to give offence to a body of Members in this House.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he was always desirous of conforming to the opinion of the great majority of hon. Members, and although he felt that in doing so he was somewhat curtailing the liberty of speech to which private Members were entitled, he was willing to withdraw the statement, retaining, however, the opinion to which he had endeavoured to give expression. This Bill had been brought forward by the Poor Law Board at a time when their views upon religious matters possibly differed in some respects from those which they now entertained. But, whatever the origin of the clause, its operation was plain. In large towns it was invariably found that the children of the working classes had been surreptitiously baptized into the Roman Catholic faith. Through the willing agency of the public Departments; therefore, this Bill would enable the Roman Catholic priesthood to kidnap the children of humble Protestants and enroll them in their own communion. The House of Lords had condemned the Poor Law Board by striking out the clause.

LORD EDWARD HOWARD

said, he hoped that children would not be allowed to change their religion without being examined by the Poor Law Board.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that the question of religion did not arise on the present clause, but on Clause 12. The present clause merely said that in the case of children who were, say, Baptists or Roman Catholics, the nearest minister of their faith should be allowed to go in and instruct them. If, as suggested by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell), a child, on being visited by a minister of religion, objected to being instructed by that particular individual, that was not a religious objection, but a personal objection, and it did not seem necessary that a child should have more liberty in choosing any particular person to instruct him in his own creed than in the selection of his schoolmaster.

MR. T. CHAMBERS

said, he must repeat that the clause providing for the Creed Register related not merely to children, but to all inmates of workhouses, and a minister of religion, coming in and finding a person seventy years of age registered as belonging to his creed, would have the power of inflicting his visits on the pauper. He quite agreed that a child of immature years should not have the power of saying that he would not have a particular minister and would have another; but he objected in the strongest possible manner to the Poor Law Board arbitrating in such a matter. He remembered the Poor Law Board being very unpopular in this country, and he should see it so again on account, among many other reasons, of the passing of the present Bill.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, be had hoped that they might have come to a compromise on this clause by means of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridge, the age of fourteen being inserted instead of twelve. Perhaps it might meet the objections of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord Edward Howard) if the age of sixteen were inserted.

MR. M'LAREN

said, be thought the age of twelve quite sufficient. He knew many children of that age who would puzzle some hon. Members in that House on religious subjects. In Scotland a person of fourteen years of age was able to make a will, or appoint a manager of his property. The Marquess of Bute at that age chose a person to manage his vast estates.

LORD EDWARD HOWARD

said, he must remind the Committee that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) applied to children in workhouse schools, and the children in the minority had no chance against the majority, but were jeered at and laughed out of their religion. It appeared from the third Report of the Poor Law Commission that a Guardian in one of the largest parishes of the metropolis stated, in answer to questions put to him, that the Guardians there never recognized any children as Roman Catholics. He really must say it was perverting common sense to assert that poor children of a tender age in workhouses made choice of a religion through conviction. He had great difficulty in assenting to the compromise which had been suggested.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the noble Lord denied that children under fourteen years of age had any religion of their own. That, to a certain extent, was the doctrine of the law of England.

LORD EDWARD HOWARD

begged the hon. Member's pardon. His observation on the subject had reference to children in the disadvantageous position of the children in our workhouses.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he (Mr. Newdegate) was referring to children in that disadvantageous position. The law of this country had been that if a child became destitute it should be educated in the religion of the State. A similar law existed in certain Roman Catholic countries still. He had been told of the case of a child in a public institution who objected to be visited by a priest. The father of the child was a Roman Catholic, and he was referred to, and he did not wish that the priest should continue his visits. The rev. gentleman insisted on doing so, but a lawyer explained to him that he had no right to adopt such a course. What was the remark of the priest? Why, that the father of the child must be a very bad Roman Catholic. From first to last, this Bill was a violation of the law of England. It was a departure from the modification of the original law of England that the Church of England, being tolerant, should be the instructress to all who did not profess a different religion. It would make the machinery of the Poor Law an instrument for enforcing intolerance. The Secretary of the Poor Law Board had gone the length of asking the leave of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord Edward Howard) to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell). We were rapidly going from the tolerant system of the Law of England to the most intolerant system of religion ever known in the world.

MR. CANDLISH

said, he thought there was a concurrence of opinion that the clause in its present form should not stand part of the Bill. The question was as to the way in which it should be amended. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) would not substitute sixteen for fourteen years of age in the proposed Amendment.

MR. SYNAN

said, that the opinions with which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was imbued, were very erroneous one. When listening to the hon. Member he was reminded of a story he had heard of an Irish banister. The learned gentleman had told an attorney that he must succeed in a certain action. The attorney was defeated, and meeting the barrister some time after, said to him, "I acted on your opinion and was cast." "Where did I give you that opinion?" said the barrister. "In Capel Street," was the reply. "Oh, then," rejoined the barrister, "never believe a Capel Street opinion again." He would recommend the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to remember the moral of that story. As to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell), he contended that children of fourteen years old in workhouses were not competent to select their own creed.

MR. T. CHAMBERS

said, that the gentlemen who called for an alteration in the existing laws were in reality the persons who would give rise to a selection of creeds on the part of children in workhouses.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

said, he was disposed to vote in favour of the retention of the word "twelve." But he must observe that the Amendment to the clause was founded upon a mistake. It was supposed that the clause provided that a minister belonging to the creed of a child who was on the register of the workhouse as connected with that creed might insist upon instructing that child. Now, the clause merely provided that such minister "may, in accordance with the regulations of the Poor Law Board," visit and instruct such persons.

MR. SYNAN

proposed that the clause should be further amended by the addition to it of the words ''and who shall be considered by the Poor Law Board to be competent to exercise a judgment on the subject," a proposal which was supported by Mr. Villiers.

MR. POWELL

said, he objected to the addition because the Amendment would then be applicable to the inmates of workhouses, however old they might be.

MR. M'LAREN

said", that if the Poor Law Board were to send down an inspector to make inquiry into each individual case and report thereupon, they might as well take away all rule and control from the local authorities.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he had had considerable experience in this matter, having for about eight years been a member of the Board of Supervision in Scotland. He had always stood up for the right of children to be educated in the religion of their parents, but nevertheless he should deprecate any addition to this clause, as it would, in his opinion, be for the interest of all parties that a fixed rule should be established.

Question put, "That those words be added to the said proposed Amendment, as amended."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 66: Majority 48.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Clause 11 (Where no Religious Service provided in the Workhouse, the Inmate may, on Sunday or other Sacred Day, go to his own proper Place of Worship).

MR. T. CHAMBERS

said, he should not press the Amendment of which he had given Notice, as he had no objection to the clause as it now stood.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12 (No Child in the Workhouse or School visited by a Minister of its own Religion shall be required to attend any other Religious Services, unless, being above Twelve Years of Age, he shall desire to do so).

MR. POWELL moved in page 6, line 5, before "such minister" to insert "the parent or surviving parent of such child or in the case of orphans or deserted children." His object was to preserve parental authority in the case of children who were inmates of a work house.

LORD EDWARD HOWARD

said, he thought the parent was not always competent to form an opinion, and might, indeed, be an imbecile.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WHALLEY

said, that in order to make the clause conformable with Clause 10, he would beg to move the omission from the end of the clause of the words "and who shall be considered by the Poor Law Board to be competent to exercise a Judgment upon the Subject." The Board would judge by it sofficers, many of whom were Roman Catholics.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 (Poor Law Board to appoint Auditors).

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

proposed the insertion in line 35, after the word "do," of the words "and the provisions contained in the Poor Law Board Act, 1847, relative to the salaries of the persons therein mentioned shall apply to the salaries of the persons to be appointed as auditors by the Poor Law Board." Several Committees had reported in favour of that proposal.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, the election of the auditors was now in the hands of the Guardians, and it was the accounts of the Guardians which had to be audited. It was obvious that the present state of things in that respect was anomalous, and exactly the same as if a Board of Directors were to appoint the auditors of their own expenditure.

MR. NEATE

said, he thought that the object should be to exclude central patronage while increasing central control. He would suggest that the Guardians should nominate three persons for the office of auditor, and that the Poor Law Board should appoint one of those three.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he would remind the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish), who had given notice to move to leave out from line 30 to line 37 inclusive, that when the Guardians failed to appoint their own officers, the Poor Law Board, though they had no wish for the power, could make the appointments. The Committee of 1864, after going most fully into this matter, reported that the substitution of district auditors for auditors elected by the Guardians had led to greater uniformity of procedure, more vigilance, and more careful expenditure, and recommended that the auditors should be reduced in number and should devote their whole time to the public service. Previous Committees had taken the same view, and he hoped, therefore, that the clause would be agreed to.

MR. HURST

said, he was quite satisfied with the explanation of the hon. Baronet(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and hoped there would be no opposition to the clause.

MR. T. CHAMBERS

said, he must contend that the ratepayers, who were those chiefly interested in checking lavish expenditure, should have the appointment of auditors.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 21 (Repeal of Penalties on Parish Officers supplying Goods in Unions).

MR. CANDLISH

said, this clause proposed to repeal certain Acts which had been passed for the purpose of prohibiting parochial officers from purchasing goods for the relief of the poor from themselves. The overseers of the poor had to a certain extent the dispensation of relief, and therefore they should not have the power of purchasing from themselves the goods they had to dispense. He proposed to omit from the clause the words "and overseers of the poor."

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, the proposed Amendment was unnecessary, because though the overseers had certain duties to discharge towards the poor they had nothing whatever to do with the control of the expenditure.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.

Clause K (Interpretation of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 43, and 29 & 30 Vict. c. 113. s. 14, as to Child and Consent of Parents).

MR. T. CHAMBERS moved to omit the words "deserted child or." The Amendment would provide in effect that a deserted child should be treated as a child of the State and should be brought up as a Protestant.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, that there were in the workhouses 1,000 Roman Catholic children who were brought up as Protestants because there was no one to demand that they should be brought up in their own creed.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

asked whether a child which had had the misfortune to lose its parents should be handed over to the tender mercies of those who wished to kidnap children for their own creed?

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, that the Amendment would really reverse the policy which had been adopted for the last thirty years in this country. The law was that where a child's parent was notoriously of a certain religion the child should be brought up in that religion. That was Clause 19 in the Poor Law Amendment Act; but, in some cases, the operation of the law had been defeated by preventing the supply of the proper evidence of the parents' religion. In effect the result of the Amendment would be to bring up as Protestants the children of Catholics. [Mr. KINNAIRD: Only where the child has been deserted, and the religion of the parent is not known.] But it was much easier to ascertain the religion of the parents of deserted children than any others. The witness by whom this was stated came from Birmingham, and was now employed in Marylebone. It appeared from his evidence that in the latter place deserted and orphan children were, brought up in the religion of the parents, and that since this system was adopted better order had been kept in the House, there had been better conduct among the paupers, and the townspeople were satisfied. The Amendment proposed a refinement in intolerance which would carry us back thirty years, and it involved a principle which was quite new, that of punishing parents by choosing a religion for their children, and which might be applied to offences other than desertion.

MR. T. CHAMBERS

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers) had come round to the view he (Mr. T. Chambers) had advanced at first, that the Bill was not necessary if the provisions of the present law were carried out.

LORD EDWARD HOWARD

said, the Amendment proposed a different law for the poor from that applied to the rich. A child possessed of property would be brought under the cognizance of the Court of Chancery, which would ascertain the religion of the parents and take care that the child was brought up in it, but because children were helpless and friendless they were to he treated in a different manner. What he asked was that all children, proved to belong to Catholic parents, whether they had been deserted or were orphans should be brought up in their parents' religion.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, that the Amendment only affected "deserted"—not orphan—children, so that the appeal of the noble Lord was not in point. There was no illiberality in the State taking care of these deserted children—children picked out of the gutter—and in the State providing them with education. What was the meaning of "a deserted child?" It was a child not claimed by any one, and for whom there was no one willing to pay. All that was wanted was that it should not be assumed that such deserted children were Roman Catholics.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, it was proposed in the case of deserted children—on the ground that they had no person standing in a recognized relation to them, and that they were to be paid for by the State—that they should, therefore, be brought up in the religion of the State. But that was not the principle of the existing Poor Laws, which were conceived on the principle that children should be brought up in what was supposed to be their own religion—namely, that of their parents, provided it could be ascertained. Now, all that the clause would do in the case of deserted as well as in that of orphan children would be to enable the Poor Law Board not to act on the assumption that the children were of any particular faith, but to accept the evidence which a Creed Register might afford of such faith, and when that was ascertained the religion of the father was to rule the religion of the child.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the Creed Register would not prove the religion of the parents, but only the opinion on the subject of the person who made the entry. The result would be that these deserted children would be put up to auction, and they all knew who would claim them. He maintained that when the parents were not forthcoming the children should be brought up in the religion of the State.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

said, he would support the Amendment. This question of the removal of children would give rise to a great deal of squabbling.

MR. SYNAN

said, that in the majority of cases there would be no difficulty in ascertaining the religion of the parents of a deserted child.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he thought hon. Gentlemen were losing sight of the meaning of the clause. The gist of the alteration proposed was that the Poor Law Board, in the absence of a requisition from the parents or god-parents, might exercise the powers vested in them by the Poor Law Act, and, upon reasonable evidence of the religion of the parents, order deserted children to be sent to a denominational registered school where they would be brought up in their parents' religion.

MR. AYTOUN

said, he wanted to know what was the nature of the inquiry to be conducted by the Poor Law Board before taking such a step, and whether the evidence taken by the officials who made the inquiry was to be laid before the Guardians and the public? The opinion throughout the country would be that the religion to which the child would be assigned would depend very much upon the person to whom the inquiry would be committed. The public had very little faith in Boards for such purposes as these.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that the whole debate had shown that all the words of the clause after "these Acts" ought to be struck out, and therefore he should move that they should be struck out. They were asked to give the Poor Law Board the perfectly novel power of sending deserted children out of the workhouse to a denominational school. Upon what evidence was the Poor Law Board to judge of the creed to which the child should be consigned? The fact was that the Guardians had no right to part with the children in favour of any denomination whatever.

Amendment proposed, in line 17, to leave out from the word "Acts" to the end of the Clause."—(Mr. Newdegate.)

MR. T. CHAMBERS

said, he would withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate).

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, this was an objection against the existence of a Creed Register. There was no difficulty in the matter. It was the duty of the parochial officer to ascertain what was the religion of the parents.

MR. RAMSAY

said, the difficulty he felt was as to how they were to ascertain the religion of the parents when the deserted child was too young to give any information.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 13: Majority 43.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. CANDLISH moved a clause (Period for re-payment of Loans may be extended from twenty to thirty years). The object of it was to apportion the re-payment fairly between the present and future ratepayers.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he considered the clause unnecessary, as the present system worked perfectly well. Since the passing of the Poor Law Act a sum of £7,000,000 had been borrowed on a uniform plan, which it would not be well to interfere with.

Clause negatived.

MR. READ moved a new clause (Payments for bastard children).

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. CANDLISH

said, in the absence of Mr. T. Potter, he would move a clause (Provision for poor deaf and dumb or blind children), empowering Guardians to send deaf and dumb children to uncertified institutions.

Clause agreed to.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS moved the addition of a clause (Lands and buildings acquired and used under the Poor Law Acts exempted from increased assessment).

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, that no such provision as that proposed by: the hon. Member was called for except by one or two of the metropolitan unions. If it should be generally demanded there would be ample opportunity for considering it hereafter.

MR. J. STUART MILL

said, he had given Notice of a clause of similar effect, though not going so far as that proposed by the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis). No injustice would be done to any locality by the adoption of the clause of which he had given notice. Its principle was that asylums, hospitals, and other buildings, and all land used or occupied therewith for the purposes of the Metropolis Poor Act, 1867, should be assessed for rates upon the annual value of the site, and any buildings on it at the time of the purchase.

MR. H. E. SURTEES

said, that the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill's) argument applied to a clause not before the Committee.

Clause negatived.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR moved a clause (Any ratepayer shall, under proper regulations, have the right to be present at the meetings of Boards of Guardians).

Clause (Any ratepayer shall, under proper regulations, have the right to be present at the meetings of Boards of Guardians).—(Mr. Taylor,)—brought up, and read the first time.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he must oppose the clause. Reporters were present at the meetings of all Boards of Guardians of importance, and that ought to be sufficient for the ratepayers.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 32: Majority 27.

House resumed.

Bill reported, with Amendments, and an amended Title; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.