RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 6 July 1869)

§ MR. T. CHAMBERS
rose, according to Notice, to call attention to the recent Correspondence between the Poor Law Board and the Guardians of the Poor of the parish of Marylebone; and to move— That in any case where a Board of Guardians of any parish or union shall have made due provision within the workhouse or district school for the instruction in their own faith of children not of the Established Church, their religious rights being amply secured and the spirit of the law 1335 effectually carried out, it is inexpedient that the Poor Law Board should exercise its discretionary power to enforce the removal of such children to schools not under the control of the Guardians or of the parish authorities. The hon. and learned Member traced the course of the controversy which had arisen in that case, from which it appeared that a Roman Catholic priest had applied to the Guardians for facilities for giving religious instruction at regular stated times to certain Roman Catholic children under the care of the parochial authorities. Those children were at the schools at Southall connected with the parish of St. Marylebone, and almost everything that the Roman Catholic priest (the Rev. Mr. Wincott) had claimed in the matter had been granted. He was allowed free access to the children to instruct them, and the children were also regularly taken to a Roman Catholic place of worship on Sundays and on days of obligation; and he believed the priest was perfectly satisfied. Notwithstanding that, the removal of the children from the school at Southall to a certified Roman Catholic school at North Hyde was demanded; and the Guardians held that there was no reason for such removal, and that such a proceeding would be inexpedient. The Guardians had an interview with the President of the Poor Law Board on the subject; and after some considerable delay the Assistant Secretary of that Board wrote to the Guardians that it would be acting in contravention of the spirit of an Act of Parliament if it refused to entertain the application for the removal of the children. In their reply the Guardians stated that the children had long been receiving instruction in their own religion, and had been regularly attending their own place of worship. By the Act of 30 & 31 Vict, it was provided that a creed register should be kept in every workhouse and workhouse school, in which the creed of the child should be entered, and supposing any dispute were to arise as to the correctness of the register the Poor Law Board was to decide. Then the Act went on to provide that the minister of the religion to which the child belonged might according to the rules visit and instruct any inmate, unless he was above fourteen years and objected to receive such religious instruction. The Act further provided that any inmate for whom a religious service of his own 1336 creed was not provided in the workhouse should be allowed to attend a place of worship of his own creed outside the workhouse. At the time when these provisions were made there was a power vested in the Poor Law Board to remove a child for whose religious instruction no provision was made in the workhouse to a certified school of the religion of the child, and therefore it must be taken that when, the Legislature made these elaborate provisions it was for the express purpose that the Poor Law Board should no longer exercise the discretionary power which they possessed under the Act of 1866. Now, in the metropolitan district there were 2,000 Roman Catholic children dependent on the public rates, and if there was a removal of those children in the case of Marylebone there must be also in the case of the rest of the metropolis, and, in fact, all over the country. In the metropolis the increase in the annual expenditure would be upwards of £8,000, and what it would be for the whole country he could not tell. Then let hon. Members consider what the effect would be on the parochial system. It would be entirely subverted, for the principle of that system was that the Guardians were in loco parentis to the children who were placed in their charge; and if persons who did not belong to the Established Church went to the Poor Law Board behind the backs of the Guardians and claimed the removal of those children, it was not the Roman Catholics alone, but the Wesleyans, Baptists, and other sects that might make a similar demand. The evidence taken before the School Committee at Marylebone Workhouse last May with reference to these children, showed that, in the case of the first, the boy said the Roman Catholic priest had told him that he was a Catholic, upon which he said, ''I don't think I am," and that the priest told him to worship idols; and with reference to his early education, he said he had lived with his grandmother, with whom he went to a church. The evidence in the case of three other boys was similar in effect; but one of the boys said he had attended a Roman Catholic school for a short time and was removed by his father because they "whacked him." In the case of the fifth boy, it appeared that he had been to a Roman Catholic school and to a Roman Catholic church with his relatives. The evidence respecting the 1337 girl Elizabeth Marks showed that she was clearly never a Roman Catholic. The charge therefore that these children were known to be Roman Catholics and were brought up as Protestants totally failed when tested by the evidence. Dr. Manning was the last man in the world to complain of proselytism. No one was a more bitter opponent than he of the Church in which he was brought up, and no man had done more to degrade and injure it, and to draw away those who belonged to it to Popery. He was the last man to come to Parliament with a grievance about people changing their religion. There was no grievance to be redressed, but there were the rights of the parish to be maintained. Dr. Manning said there were 10,000 Catholic children in London, receiving no education, to be gathered in. Why did he not gather them in from the gutters, whence they issued to increase the crime and pauperism of the metropolis, instead of bearding the Guardians and beseeching the Poor Law Board to take children from one of the best of parochial day schools where the Catholic children were instructed by one of his own priests? Dr. Manning spoke of "a flagrant violation of statute law;" his own signature to public documents and his own archiepiscopal title were flagrant violations of statute law, as was also the multiplication of monastic institutions in this country. The Roman Catholics were the last persons to claim the equity of the law, because they least observed its letter and most openly infringed it. What other denomination went to the Poor Law Board and attacked the Guardians? Did the Baptists, Wesleyans, or Congregationalists? None of them. Only the Roman Catholics did so, and they did it on the principle on which they had sought to destroy the Queen's Colleges in Ireland—that of thwarting the policy of Parliament which was to endeavour by assuaging religious animosities to fuse all classes into one by educating children of various communions in mixed schools. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving the Resolution.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, that the warmth of the hon. and learned Member rendered it desirable that he should interpose between him and those Roman Catholic Members who would no doubt reply to him. In view of the serious- 1338 ness of the subject, anything like sectarian bitterness should be avoided, and it would be better to exclude the particular history of Archbishop Manning from the discussion. The question was how orphan and deserted children were to be dealt with under existing Acts of Parliament, and, further, what was to be done with Roman Catholic children in particular? But other denominations had come to the Poor Law Board also, and desired their children to be removed from the workhouses to schools of their own denomination. The Jews had taken precisely the same course as the Roman Catholics had taken. The hon. and learned Member gave no prominence to the fact that the Act of 1868 which provided for the religious instruction of children within workhouses, gave further powers to the Poor Law Board to exercise its discretion in removing the children of Roman Catholics and others from workhouses to certified schools. The argument used by the hon. Member was that the Act of 1866, giving the power of removal, had been practically superseded by the legislation of 1868; but the Act of 1868 extended that power to orphans, deserted children, and illegitimate children, with the important modification that the removal might be made on the application of others besides parents and god-parents. Therefore, the Act of 1866 did not supersede previous legislation, but the power of priests and ministers of other denominations to visit co-existed with the power of removal. That was a very large power to give to the Poor Law Board, but it was given with the intention that the children should be removed to these certified schools when they were prepared to take them upon the application of those most interested in them. In the case of the day schools they had the Conscience Clause, but it must be remembered that workhouse schools were not day schools, and it was almost impossible to carry out the principle of a Conscience Clause, when there was no home influence behind, and when they had to deal with the fact that the workhouse or district schools were the actual homes of these children? His hon. Friend said that the guardians stood in loco parentis to these children, but it was an extremely delicate and difficult matter when they had to deal with the case of Protestant 1339 Guardians standing in loco parentis to Catholic children. In the case of a ward in Chancery the child was always carefully brought up in the religion of its parents. This principle was clearly laid down by the law as the one to be followed where it was possible, and it was the principle upon which the Poor Law Board always acted where they had the power. His hon. Friend had referred to meetings where statements without foundation had been received with cheering, but other meetings had also been held at which statements equally unfounded, in an opposite direction, had been similarly received. The position was this—Subsequent to the legislation of 1866 various religious denominations, the Roman Catholics among the number, thought they would establish schools for the reception of pauper and other children. Of these schools there were four or five certified by the Poor Law Board as fit for the reception of pauper children; and now that these schools had been established by the Roman Catholics and by the Jews—for that body had also taken advantage of the permission granted by the Legislature—was the House of Commons to come forward and reverse the policy which they had adopted, and to say to the schools now being established that the children were not to be sent there. When he had first been appointed to his present Office he had had a careful and accurate Report prepared upon these schools. His hon. Friend had said that these schools were more costly, and that the cost was as 6s. against 4s. 4½d. —the cost in the workhouse school. But the latter amount did not include education or general charges, it was for food and clothing alone, and it would be seen by an inquiry into the expenses of the different Unions, that 6s. per head was in reality a very low figure, and that in most cases the expense was far in advance of that sum, which did not represent any profit to the Roman Catholics. He thought, therefore, that in a pecuniary point of view his hon. Friend had failed to make out his case. The discretion lodged in the hands of the Poor Law Board was never intended to enable that body to over-rule the principle laid down by the Legislature; and it was impossible to contend that at such an early age the religious principles of a child could be as well maintained by the biweekly visits of a priest as they would be 1340 by the child being placed among its coreligionists. Would his hon. Friend be satisfied to see a child of his own of the age of twelve years placed amongst Roman Catholics only receiving a visit from a Church of England clergyman twice a week? His duty seemed clear and precise. It was one of impartiality as between the different religious denominations. In matters of religion the authorities of the Poor Law Board ought to act towards deserted children as the Court of Chancery would act if these children were its wards.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board would prevent children from exercising that which the law gave them—a voice in the choice of their religion.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He had been referring to the case of children under the age of fourteen years.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone had referred to the case of other children.

§ MR. T. CHAMBERS
said, he had gone into the case of the children in question to show what the facts were.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, there was no earthly doubt that the law gave the right hon. Gentleman the power to remove these children to certified schools. Dr. Manning meant to make profit out of the rates by speculation in these schools, and the right hon. Gentleman was going to accord with this design. The party which practised proselytism came to the House with an appeal ad misericordiam, although they were always ready to assault their neighbours, fie should be prepared, on another occasion, to state the reasons why he doubted whether there was any impartiality in the dealings of the Government in this matter.

§ MR. SYNAN
said, he must defend Archbishop Manning and the Catholic body from the imputations of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. T. Chambers). He could understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman had to consult the wishes of a portion of his constituents in adopting the line taken by him that night. All the Roman Catholics wanted in this matter was justice. The Guardians had proselytized these children for four years, and then alleged that the children were four- 1341 teen years old. Unless the Poor Law Board exercised its power these Catholic children would have no protection; and he denied that in Spain, or Italy, or any other country there was a more flagrant case than that of these five children.

§ MR. WHALLEY
said, that in other Protestant countries children brought up at the public cost were invariably brought up in the religion of the State. The Government ought not to recognize the pretensions of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in this instance.