§ The House resolved itself into Committee on the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill, to consider the postponed Clauses.
The Bishop of Londonproposed to expunge the 19th clause (the first of the postponed clauses), substituting for it the following clause:—"And be it further enacted, that every workhouse shall be under the spiritual charge and superintendence of the Rector, Vicar, or other officiating, minister or ministers of the parish in which such workhouse shall be locally situate, except where a chaplain may be provided by any local Act of Parliament, or by virtue of this Act or otherwise; and that where any workhouse belongs to any union of parishes, the several Rectors, Vicars, or other officiating ministers of such parishes, may visit such workhouse for the purpose of affording pastoral instruction to their respective parishioners, at all proper and reasonable times; provided nevertheless, that no inmate of any workhouse shall be obliged to attend any religious service which may be celebrated in a mode contrary to the religious principles of such inmate; nor shall any child in such workhouse be instructed in any religious creed to which the parents, or surviving parent, or the guardian legally appointed, of such child, shall object; provided also that it shall and may be lawful for any licensed minister of the religious persuasion of any inmate of such workhouse, under such regulations as may be established in such workhouse, and in such manner as may not interfere with its general discipline, to visit such workhouse for the purpose of affording religious assistance to such inmate, and also for the purpose of instructing his child or children in the principles of religion."
§ Lord Segrave moved an Amendment to the regulation in workhouses allowing paupers to leave the workhouse for the bona fide purpose of attending divine worship where they thought fit.
The Marquess of Salisburythought it would be necessary to guard against the abuse of such permission. Undoubtedly it would be right to let all parties attend religious worship according to their per- 913 suasion; but such a permission as this might lead to their not attending divine worship at all.
§ The Duke of Richmondsaid, that such a clause so amended would make all paupers Dissenters for the sake of getting this leave of absence, which they would always employ in going to the beer-shop.
The Lord Chancellorthought that the better plan would be, to leave out both the clause which had been expunged, and that which it was proposed to substitute, and leave the matter to the discretion of the masters of the workhouses.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, the omission of both clauses would be consistent with the original views of the Commissioners, and of course he had no objection to it.
Lord Stourtonthought the best clause in the Bill was that which secured to the Dissenting interests of the country their most important rights, as it would give to the children of Dissenters, or the orphans of Dissenting parents, the protection of their Ministers.
§ The proposed Clause withdrawn, and the 19th Clause struck cut. The postponed clauses were agreed to.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that their Lordships had now disposed of the postponed clauses, and the next thing they would have to consider were the additional clauses.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, that it was also the intention of his right rev. friend (the Bishop of Exeter) to bring forward a proposition for altering that clause.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that what the noble Earl and the right rev. Prelate seemed to want was, that a penalty, a pecuniary penalty, should be imposed upon the father of the child. He (the Lord Chancellor) did not think such a course advisable, and for the reason that a pecuniary penalty of either twenty pounds, or any other sum, could have no other effect than that of giving the parish officers an interest to force the man to marry the woman. This pecuniary obligation on the part of the father was one of the greatest defects in the present Poor Laws, and, that being his opinion, he could not concur in any such proposition.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that what he wished was, that the man should be liable to punishment as well as the woman. 914 If their Lordships objected to a fine, he hoped some other penalty would be indicted on the man. They should recollect the severity of the punishment which they proposed, certainly indirectly, to impose upon the woman. They told her that she must work her fingers to the bone for the support of her illegitimate offspring, or else submit to incarceration in the workhouse. But God forbid the Legislature should inflict upon the unfortunate female so grievous a penalty, while her hardened seducer was let off scot-free. He was not now speaking of women of notoriously abandoned character, but of young girls of sixteen or seventeen years of age, who had been trepanned from the paths of virtue by the wily seducer. He would be satisfied if the noble and learned Lord would devise a penalty which would meet the case to which he alluded.
The Lord Chancellorreplied, that if he could do as the noble Earl wished, he would willingly comply with his request; but he feared that he could not, although he was as desirous as any noble Lord to have the vices of the man punished, as well as those of the woman. The difficulty, however, was very great, and he feared that any such attempt would only lead to endless perjury of the worst description. But, to put an end to a discussion so irregular, he should propose the additional clause relating to the establishment of provident institutions.
Lord Ellenboroughobjected to provident institutions, on the ground that the expenses of one year would absorb the revenue of two.
§ The Duke of Richmonddid not approve of a prospective outlay of this kind, which would transfer all benefit from the present to the future possessor. The clause was so important, that he thought it would be better to leave it for consideration until next Session, than to include it in this Bill.
The Bishop of Londonwas anxious that the clause should be included in the Bill, because it was about the only Clause in the Bill that bore a kindly feeling towards the poor on the face of it.
The Lord Chancellorwas anxious, that the clause should be agreed to, but he was willing to let it stand over till the third reading, and in the meantime he pledged himself to see whether the objections raised could not be obviated.
§ The Clause was postponed.
915§ The Duke of Richmondsaid, that he wished to throw out a suggestion, namely, that not merely a portion of the pay of the labourer should be attached by the parish in case of his family becoming chargeable, but that also a portion of the pay of the soldier should be appropriated when his family became chargeable. He knew of a case that occurred a few days ago in a parish in Sussex, in which a soldier in the Guards threatened to throw his wife and three children on the parish if three pounds were not advanced to him to take them to Dublin.
The Lord Chancellordid not see how the pay of the soldier could be attached, and it might also interfere with the discipline of the army.
§ The Duke of Richmondsaid, he would persist in his suggestion.
§ The House resumed.