Lords Sitting of 25 July 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the following Bills:—Four-per-Cent Annuities; Pensions (Civil Offices); Navy Pay; Landed Securities (Ireland); Administration of Justice in Boroughs; Central Criminal Court; Sale of Tea; Greenwich Hospital; London Port Dues; Chimney Sweepers; Roman Catholic Marriages; Common Fields' Exchange; and a Number of Private Bills.—Read a third time:—Newspaper Stamps (Ireland); Stannaries Court (Cornwall).
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of BUTE, from the Shareholders of the London and Westminster Bank, in favour of the Bill concerning the Bank.—By the Earl of MANSFIELD, from the Parochial Schoolmasters of Kincardine, for an increased Stipend.—By the same, from the same Place; and by Lord WYNFORD, from Liverpool; and Lord TEYNHAM, from Kensington and Rowley Regis,—ageinst the poor-Laws' Amendment Bill.
460
—By the Duke of BUCCLEUGH, the Bishop of GLOUCESTER, and Lord COLCHESTER, from several Places,—for Protection to the Established Church, against the Claims of the Dissenters, and against the Universities' Admission Bill.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
Lord Wharncliffe Lord Wharncliffe moved the second reading of the Great Western Railway Bill.
The Earl of Cadoganrose to oppose the Motion. He observed, that the road front Windsor to London was the first which had been projected through this part of the country, and this road, which on that account deserved their Lordships' favour, would be materially affected, and its projectors injured by this Bill. There were roads extending along different parts of this line, which only required to be connected together in order to render them perfect. That object might be effected at less expense, and with greater advantage, than the road which was called by the high-sounding appellation of the great Western Railway. This project had been so altered in the Committee in the Commons, that it was no longer capable of performing the promise at first held out, but would, at least at the London end, leave the parties at a distance of three or four miles from London, to bring their goods hither how they could. The road was now to terminate at Brompton, which would have the effect he had stated. This was his first objection. His next objection was, that the line now contemplated was not a complete line, as the road came from Bristol to Bath, but left goods between Bath and Reading to be brought by the Kennet and Avon Canal Company, and from Reading to Brompton by the Rail-road. The third objection he had was, that the number of the assents was not so great, nor was their property so considerable, as that of the dissents; and the fourth objection was, that their Lordships had already given their assent to the London and Southampton Railway Bill, which would be rendered almost good for nothing, for at least a considerable part of the distance, if this Bill should be carried. Under these circumstances he should move, "That the Bill be read a second time this day six Months."
Lord Wharncliffehoped that their Lordships would read this Bill a second time, and allow the case of the promoters of the Bill to be put forward in the Committee. The noble Earl opposite had started four objections to the Bill. The first was one which neither the noble Earl nor a noble

461
Marquess who was in the same situation with him, should ever have thought of putting forward. It related to the terminus of the road at London. The noble Earl objected that the road would not come into London, but would leave the goods to be brought hither from Brompton. Why, the fact was, that the promoters of the Bill were prevented from bringing the road to London by the noble Earl, through whose estates at Chelsea it would have passed, but who would not consent to allow it to do so; otherwise it would have been carried, as at first intended, to Southwark-bridge. But surely after preventing it coming to London, the noble Earl ought not to turn round and object to the whole measure, because it did not come here. The second objection was the strongest; but then there was a good canal from Bath to Reading, and at least the parties were entitled to be heard against this objection, and he for one was prepared to say, that if they did not make the communication complete, he should not be prepared to give his assent to the measure. As to the third objection, he declared, that the assents exceeded the dissents, both in their numbers, and in the value of their property. The noble Earl and he were, therefore, at issue on that point, and he asked for the Committee to inquire into the difference. As to the last point, he declared, that he did not believe the scheme of the Southampton Railway Bill would ever be put in execution; but whether it were or not, he did not believe that that was a reason why the Kennet and Avon Canal people should be disappointed in their expectations of opening a direct communication between Bristol and London. It was not usual, in matters of this kind, to refuse a second reading to a Bill, and he hoped that the usual custom would not now be departed from. The line of the proposed rail-way was objected to by some, and it was said, that a better line could be found; but that line would have to pass through the long walk at Windsor, and he for one would never consent to spoil in that manner the finest domain in the kingdom. As to the line ending at Brompton, he repeated, that it was not the fault of the projectors that that terminus had been adopted; and, if the noble Earl would consent to the line of road passing through his estate at Chelsea; the projectors would make good that part of their original plan.
The Earl of Cadoganthought, that the noble Lord opposite had pressed him unfairly on the point last referred to. He had, like other men, resisted a proceeding of one of the details of the Bill, that would materially injure his property; but he denied, that his opposition to the Bill itself arose out of any but public grounds. The question now put to him had been so pressed upon him by the projectors of the rail-road, that he had at last been obliged to say, that he should consider the question in future as an insult, and to desire that it might not be repeated. That part of the matter he was ready to answer as a private individual; but as to the rest, his conduct in this, as on other occasions, was decided by a consideration of what seemed to him the balance of public good, as against injury to private individuals, and in this case he did not think the balance in favour of the Bill.
Lord Teynhamsupported the Bill, which he thought would be a public benefit.
The Duke of Cumberlandsaid, that from their having sat as many as six weeks on another measure the same description, and from the length of time this Bill had been passing the other House, he was sure it was impossible that there would be time enough for them to get through with the Bill in what remained of the present Session. It appeared to him, therefore, that it would he deluding and cheating the parties interested, to lead them to a belief that, even if they should be able to prove their case, it would, under the existing circumstances, avail them any thing.
Lord Ellenboroughwas inclined to think, that, if the Bill had occupied so much time already, the parties must have exhausted what they had to say on the subject. He must declare, that it appeared to him a little hard on the parties who had been at the trouble and expense of promoting the Bill through the other House of Parliament, that their Lordships, on its getting into this House, should cut the neck of it at once. The Bill was a very important one to many parts of the country; if passed, it would be the means ultimately of opening a communication between London and Bristol, and consequently with the south of Ireland. He trusted their Lordships would consent to go into a Committee on the Bill.
The Earl of Radnormust confess, that he, for one, was inclined to cut the neck of the Bill, for the sake of the parties themselves. The Bill was not what it pretended to be. It professed to be a measure for the formation of a great Western Railroad, but it was no such thing. It was in fact a measure for the formation of a rail-road from London to Reading, and then (there being an intermediate line of considerable distance of the Kennet and Avon canal) from Bath to Bristol.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, that the noble Lord was mistaken in saying, that the Bill appeared under false colours. In the preamble, it was distinctly stated, that the Bill was for the formation of a rail-road from London to Reading, and from Bath to Bristol. He thought, that such a rail-road would be a great public convenience.
The Marquess of Londonderrythought their Lordships had better allow the Bill to be read a second time, and leave the parties to take their chance of its being passed through the Committee.
Their Lordships divided on the question, that the Bill be read a second time: Contents 30; Not-contents 47—Majority 17.
The Duke of Cumberlandbegged to be understood as not having declared himself contrary to the Bill, having voted against it solely because it had been delayed to so late a period of the Session.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he feared that the determination to which the House had come would occasion great discontent among the people, which would be increased by the reason now given for the determination. What did that determination hold out, but that if parties could by any means, no matter how vexatious, delay the progress of a Bill, this House would not entertain any inquiry into the merits of a measure so delayed at an advanced period of the Session? It would lessen the confidence of the people in the justice of the House.
The Earl of Eldonbegged to tell the noble Lord, that he had given his vote on conscientious grounds, and he was not to be told that such a vote would be injurious to their Lordships in the estimation of the people.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he did not charge any of their Lordships with not having given a conscientious vote on this
464
occasion. He claimed for himself that he had done so; for though he advocated this Bill, he had no private interest in it, and he believed that their Lordships' votes had been equally conscientious. At the same time he must declare, that be considered their decision on the question could not prove a good precedent. It would have the effect of showing that parties might be defeated by a pertinacious opposition, involving a loss of time.
The Duke of Cumberlandsaid, that the effect of their Lordships' decision would be to give a lesson on the expediency of forwarding Bills, instead of procrastinating them.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that he performed his duty conscientiously, trusting to Providence for the consequences, and he thought he ought not to be reproached with his vote.
The Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, was agreed to.

FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC POLICY.
The Earl of Winchilsearose for the purpose of putting a question to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, with the view of getting a clear and distinct statement as to the principles which his Majesty's Ministers intended should guide them with reference to the foreign and domestic policy of the country. If they looked at the position in which the country now stood, it must appear to every one that there were questions at issue affecting all classes of the community. Indeed, he would venture to say, that there never was a period in the history of this country when information as to the course of policy adopted by his Majesty's Government was more generally or more imperatively called for. Any charge of factious motives with respect to his opposition was most unjustly founded. He could put his hand on his heart, and honestly declare that, of all the votes he ever gave against the measures of the present Government, not one of them had been influenced by factious motives, nor did he ever enter into any bond of union with persons on that side of the House for the purpose of getting up a factious opposition. With respect to the two measures formerly alluded to by the noble and learned lord on the Woolsack, his opposition to them had been on conscientious grounds. He had never wished,

465
nor did he wish at present, to embarrass in any way his Majesty's Government; and, however much he might differ from the opinions of the members of that Government, he had no wish to prevent them from carrying useful measures by an unnecessary and uncalled for opposition. He could honestly say, that he had not the slightest desire to increase the difficulties under which the present Government laboured—difficulties which all must acknowledge were unparalleled in the annals of this country—which no human wisdom or legislation could meet and successfully encounter. He contended that the balance of power in this country was completely destroyed, and he trusted, that the noble Viscount opposite, who was now at the head of his Majesty's Government, would make the communications that were demanded of him. With respect to foreign countries, he would beg their Lordships to look to Spain and Portugal—ay, to Portugal—for it was a grievous mistake to imagine that the contest in this latter country was ended. That contest would be renewed by the partisans of that prince who was now an exile, but whom the people of Portugal looked upon as their rightful monarch. He was their lawful prince, not expelled from Portugal by the people of that country, but driven from it by the gold and warriors of England. He begged to call the attention of the House to the situation Portugal was in, and he asked whether it was not the duty of the present Government to give their Lordships some information as to the line of policy intended to be pursued with respect to that country. If they cast their eyes towards Holland, they would see a prince and a people who had been most cruelly used, and who were only waiting for a fit opportunity to avenge the injuries they had received. He would ask the Government, therefore, whether they had made any pledges as to the line of foreign policy they were inclined to adopt, whether they intended to interfere in the internal regulations of other countries, and whether they had pledged this country to that effect? He called upon the noble Viscount, in order to know from him whether any interference on the part of this country was intended respecting Spain? He asked this question because he had read in the journals of the day, that certain vessels, supposed to be conveying arms to Spain in favour of the
466
cause of Don Carlos, had been stopped. He desired to know whether those vessels had been arrested by order of the Government of this country. He also desired to be informed whether any compact had been entered into between this country and France respecting Spain, and respecting Don Miguel. Was this country pledged to France to aid her in forwarding her objects with respect to Spain and Portugal? Upon those subjects he sought for specific information at the hands of the existing Government. The Table of that House was groaning beneath the petitions of the people, complaining that their sources of wealth and greatness had been dried up and destroyed. He called upon the noble Viscount to state whether the Government of which he was the head were determined or not to uphold the institutions of the country, to support the Church and State, to support the Church of Ireland; and whether they intended honestly to correct the abuses of those institutions, to reform the Church of Ireland, but not to surrender a particle of the property that belonged to that Church. He asked those questions in order to afford the noble Viscount an opportunity of stating the line of policy he meant to pursue, and the measures he intended to adopt in the present awful state of the country. The noble Viscount would, he hoped, state the course of foreign and domestic policy he intended to pursue. For his own part he held, that the principle of non-interference in the internal regulations of other countries ought to be strictly adhered to, if Government wished to uphold the institutions of this country, which institutions every person and every Government ought to respect.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that with every intention to pay that attention and respect to the noble Earl which he deserved, he must say, at the same time, that he found it extremely difficult to comprehend the nature of the noble Earl's questions, and of course extremely difficult to give an answer to them. The noble Earl said, that he rose to put two questions, and the noble Earl had prefaced them by a speech, into the multifarious topics of which he did not feel it necessary on the present occasion to enter. He must repeat, indeed, that he did not precisely understand the nature of the noble Earl's questions. The noble Earl seemed to think, that it was some imputation on him, that he had not

467
followed the example of those who had preceded him in the situation which he at present filled, in making a statement as to the general principles on which the Government would be conducted. Looking, however, at the peculiar situation in which the present Government stood—seeing that it was not in any respect a new Government, that it was in fact only a renewal of the old Government, with the loss of one member, whose loss all must deplore,—seeing that there were no persons in the present Government who had not been, in some situation or other, connected with the former Government—taking all these circumstances into consideration, he thought that they constituted a sufficient guarantee, without any necessity for a specific declaration on the part of the head of the Government, as to the principles upon which the present Government would be conducted, and as to the views and measures which they had in contemplation. The former Government had existed more than three years. The measures which it had proposed, the principles upon which it had acted, both as regarded foreign and domestic policy, were before the country, and there was nothing for him to do but to follow up those principles, suiting them to the circumstances of the times, and to the events that might possibly arise. The noble Earl had complained that factious motives had been imputed to noble Lords on that side of the House, and that they had been represented as desirous to embarrass his Majesty's Government. He was not aware that any such insinuations had ever been cast from that side of the House upon noble Lords opposite; at all events, he could say, that such insinuations had never proceeded from him. The noble Earl said, that he had given notice of his questions. That was a novel thing in Parliamentary practice, and he (Viscount Melbourne) could not exactly see the utility of it. When a notice of a Motion was given, the objects and purport of the Motion could generally be gathered from the nature of the notice; but it was quite a different thing as regarded a notice as to putting questions. A noble Lord might give notice to this effect—"I shall tomorrow ask questions as to foreign policy and domestic policy." Was there any possibility of collecting from such a notice the precise nature of the questions that might be asked? He did not think that
468
he should be acting rightly if he should on this occasion allow himself to be led into a discussion of all the topics to which the noble Earl had adverted in his speech. With regard to the foreign policy of the Government, he would only say, that it would be conducted upon the principles upon which it had been already conducted, having in view the securing the peace of Europe, by the formation of such alliances as the circumstances of the times, and the situation of this country and of Europe, might require. With regard to the principle of non-intervention, every one was agreed that it should be the rule, but still it must be admitted that there were exceptions to the rule. Perhaps, however, he was wrong in entering so far into the particulars into which the noble Earl had gone. If the noble Earl felt, that his Majesty's Government had done anything wrong, or that they were pursuing a wrong course, he could bring the matter by Motion before the House, and it would be then for his Majesty's Ministers to defend themselves against the noble Earl's charges. If the noble Earl thought that the course of proceeding adopted by the Government should be changed, let him move an Address to the Crown to that effect, or let him move a Resolution of the House on the subject, and then it would be for his Majesty's Ministers to consider what it would be wise and prudent to say in reply to him. With regard to the internal policy of the Government, he would say, that it was their intention to uphold and maintain our institutions (he used the noble Earl's very words), at the same time adopting every well-considered reformation called for by the circumstances of the case, and demanded by the intelligent majority of the community. He conceived, that he had given a very clear and distinct answer to the questions of the noble Lord as regarded the foreign and domestic policy of the country. He had not accompanied that answer with observations in reply to those of the noble Lord, as he thought that such a course of proceeding was, to say the least of it, extremely inconvenient.
The Earl of Winchilseawas not satisfied with the noble Viscount's explanation. It was absurd to say the present was not a new Ministry, for it had been expressly stated in both Houses, the other day, that "Lord Grey's Government was at an end, and a new one in course of formation."
The Earl of Radnorrose to order. The noble Earl had set out with saying, he only wished to put a question or two; he had put two questions in a very lengthy speech, and had gained his answer; yet he had now got up again to address the House on the same subject, though a subject of very great importance was waiting the consideration of their Lordships.
The Marquess of Londonderrywished to ask, whether it was by the noble Viscount's orders, that certain vessels which had been armed and were about to be forwarded to Spain, had been arrested?
Viscount Melbournesaid, he did not know, as a matter of fact, that the circumstance mentioned by the noble Marquess had really occurred.
The subject was dropped.

POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT—COMMITTEE.
The House went into Committee on the Poor-laws' Amendment Bill.
On Clause 25 being proposed,
Lord Kenyonobjected to the arbitrary power given to the Commissioners, of consolidating parishes, as there were many cases in which there were parishes well-regulated, and with a small amount of Poor-rate, and it would be a hard case for such a parish to be mixed up with a parish where the rates were high and the affairs ill-managed. He should, therefore, propose, as an Amendment, that no parishes should be consolidated into a union without the written consent of a majority of the guardians of the poor and of the rate-payers in each district.
The Lord Chancellorwas not surprised that the noble Baron who was opposed to the fundamental principle of the Bill, should propose this Amendment. It was, however, anything but an Amendment, for it would have the effect of crippling the Bill in one of its most material features, and, in a great measure, of preventing that change by which it was intended to return to the old and salutary system, which taught every man to depend on his own industry, on his own resources, to despise and hate as much to be a pauper at all, as to be a pauper receiving relief in a workhouse. It was generally found, as appeared by the Report, that when a man said he could not find work, the reason was he had not made the experiment; and it was almost invariably the case, that after being in the workhouse a little time, labourers got, out, and contrived to find
470
work elsewhere. This was the effect of the workhouse system, which was the best feature in the Bill, for it tended to restore to the lower classes that natural tone of which the mal-administration of these laws had almost divested them. The system had been tried in several places on a small scale with the happiest effect.
Lord Falmouthsupported the Amendment. He concurred in the principles stated by his noble friend (Lord Kenyon). Parishes varied much in circumstances; and it would be doing much injury to some parishes if they were united with a neighbouring parish.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that it was absurd to suppose the Commissioners would go into the country for the mere purpose of annoying and injuring one parish by joining it to another. There was no reason to suppose but that they would exercise their judgment in an impartial and proper manner.
Lord Falmouthhad no doubt they would: what he objected to was the principle.
The Earl of Winchilseasupported the clause, and was rather surprised that the noble Baron should oppose it, considering how nearly he was connected with an extensive parish (Mary-la-bonne), in which the system of setting paupers hard to work and giving them necessaries instead of money, had reduced a body of paupers demanding relief in one week from nine hundred to fifty.
Lord Wynfordhad no objection to the union of parishes, provided the parishes wished it, but their consent he considered indispensable, for it would be too bad to mix up a well-conducted and consequently prosperous parish, with an ill-conducted one. He was ready to admit, that the system of a union of parishes for the purpose of having one workhouse among them would be cheap; but many a thing was cheap which, so far from being desirable or proper, was most injurious to the country. And he was satisfied, that great evil would result from the intermixture of so many paupers together. There could be no question, that a great contamination of each other's morals would be the consequence. Paupers ought not to be so far removed from their friends as that they should not be able to visit them. The workhouses under the proposed Bill would, in fact, be several county prisons, in which paupers would be separated from

471
their friends. He thought that it ought to be left to the paupers themselves, provided they received the concurrence of the Magistrates, either to go to the workhouse, or to eat their meals at their own houses, or in the open air. That was the practice under the old law.
The Lord Chancellor: No, no.
Lord Wynford: Yes, yes.
The Duke of Buckingham here read an extract from the 2nd Geo. 2, confirming the statements of Lord Wynford.
Lord Wynfordresumed: He thought that if the Commissioners were to have the power to unite parishes, they ought also to have the power to dissolve such union when it was proved to be injurious. He repeated, that they ought to possess the power of dissolving, as well as of making unions, in order that they might be able to correct any evils which might be found in certain cases to result from uniting parishes together. He liked the old law, and they ought not to consent to any innovation in that law, unless the innovation could be proved to be an improvement. He would, therefore, support the Amendment of his noble friend.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that his noble and learned friend had completely misconceived the import of the observations which he had made, and also the object of the clause itself. The object of that clause was, to enable the Commissioners to unite a number of parishes together, which were too small to enable them to erect and support workhouses for themselves. His (the Lord Chancellor's) noble and learned friend had also completely mistaken the meaning of the 2nd George 2. There was no doubt that the Act in question gave the Magistrates the power of affording relief to paupers at their own houses. There was no doubt, he (the Lord Chancellor) repeated, that the Magistrates had the discretionary power of either sending paupers to the workhouses, or relieving them at their own houses; their Lordships all knew how that power had been abused. Wherever the power was exercised to advantage, that was the exception; the abuse of the power was the rule, and greatly had it been abused. His noble and learned friend had endeavoured to give the workhouse a bad name, which it certainly did not deserve, and which it certainly ought not to bear in the estimation of their Lordships. He could have no objection to his noble
472
and learned friend endeavouring to give the workhouse a bad name in the eyes of the paupers, because that might have the effect of impressing them with a horror of it, and consequently prove an inducement to them to do all they could to avoid it. But his noble and learned friend ought not to try to persuade their Lordships, that it deserved this bad name. His noble and learned friend had compared the workhouse, under the new system, to a great prison. The comparison was most unjust. There was all the difference in the world between a workhouse and a prison. Paupers were not compelled to enter the workhouse; they would go to it of their own freewill. It was different with regard to a prison. Men were obliged to go into it against their wills. Paupers could leave the workhouse when they liked; but men could not leave the prison when they liked. They were detained contrary to their inclinations; they could not get out of it. He wished that the noble and learned Lord would exert his eloquence, as he had already stated, against the workhouse, in the eyes of paupers, so as to prevent them going into it. His noble and learned friend's imagination had run away with him, and he had attributed to the Bill what was not to be found in it.
Lord Wynfordexplained. It was not to workhouses generally he objected, but to those forced unions. Workhouses were very useful in particular parishes. The Bill gave the same discretionary power to the Commissioners as the Magistrates enjoyed before.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, they must leave this clause in the Bill as it stood, if the object were to produce cheapness in the administration of the Poor-laws. With this view it would be necessary to give the Commissioners the power of uniting parishes. He thought that, in all cases above and under a certain age, children and infirm persons ought to be entitled to relief out of the workhouse at the discretion of the Magistrates of the district.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought the question a very simple one. It was, whether parishes should be compelled to unite whether they liked it or not, without the consent of the guardians of the poor. He thought, that the establishment of workhouses, in the manner proposed, would tend to ameliorate the system. In many parishes there was not, at present, the means of erecting a work-

473
house, and those parishes could never have the advantage of one without uniting with other parishes.
The Lord Chancellor: There are 600 parishes that do not average a population of more than 300 souls each, and 9,000 parishes that do not average more than 500.
The Duke of Wellington: It was clear from this that, if the Magistrates considered a workhouse necessary, it could only be erected in any particular district by a union of parishes.
The Marquess of Lansdownadmitted, that the power it was proposed to grant to the Commissioners could only be justified by necessity; but that necessity being made out, as he thought it was, by the Report of the Commissioners, he could not see why they should not have the power of disuniting as well as of uniting parishes without the sanction of the guardians of the poor. If the necessity for constructing a workhouse for different parishes were made out, there was no other means of erecting it except under the power given by this clause. There was an instance of a parish in Gloucestershire, the administration of which was excellent; but the adjoining parishes refused to unite and afford the means of erecting a workhouse; and there was no power to compel them, except by the provisions of this Act. The Commissioners would, of course, in the union of parishes, take the opportunity of availing themselves of the large workhouses already constructed, and classify the parishes accordingly. It had been said, that the erection of workhouses would drive persons out of the parishes in which they were built; but, if it even had that effect, would not this be a stimulus to those persons to look out for work to avoid the workhouse?
The Duke of Buckinghamwished to know, if there was any objection to limit the space for which each workhouse should be built.
The Lord Chancellorwas rather in favour of a limited distance than any particular number of parishes; for instance, say a circumference of ten or twelve miles.
The Amendment was negatived.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he was desirous of introducing here a clause which he thought their Lordships would not feel much difficulty in agreeing to. It was to this effect:—"That it may be lawful for any two Magistrates acting within any
474
city, borough, or hamlet, to direct that relief shall be given to any child under the age of three years, or to any infirm or aged persons above sixty years, without compelling such persons to reside in the workhouse, any rule or order of the Commissioners to the contrary notwithstanding." He was sure their Lordships would see how cruel and unnatural it must be to separate mother and child, or husband and wife, at an advanced age. He should not be surprised, if such violence to the feelings of persons in such tender relation to each other were to cause an insurrection. He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would see the advantage, and, indeed, the humanity of adopting the clause.
The Earl of Radnorthought, that it would be better to give the power to the Commissioners than to the Magistrates.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that he thought the Magistrates were the most proper persons, as the Commissioners would not have the power to delegate any authority. He named the age of three years for a child, because he considered it much more natural and proper that an infant of that age should be under the care of its parents than in the care of a mercenary nurse.
Viscount Melbournehad a strong objection to that part of the clause proposed by the noble Baron, which went to relieve children out of the workhouse, because it was totally at variance with the general principle of the Bill; and, besides, parents were obliged by law to support their children, even to the grandfather and grandmother. There was also another objection. A child of such tender years could claim no relief for itself; the application must be from the parents.
Lord Ellenboroughwas disposed, after what had fallen from the noble Viscount opposite, to consent that that part of the clause, which applied to children, should be omitted.
The Clause, with this omission, was agreed to.
On clause 40, relating to the instruction of paupers in workhouses, having been proposed,
The Archbishop of Canterburyproposed an Amendment to the effect "that all workhouses should be under the care and superintendence of the Curate or Vicar of the respective parishes in which such workhouses were situated, and that the said Vicars or Curates might visit such

475
workhouses at all proper times, for the purpose of affording religious instruction to such of the inmates as professed the Established Religion, provided, that no pauper be obliged to attend divine worship contrary to the religious belief in which he or she had been brought up; nor should any child in the workhouse be instructed in the creed of any particular religion against the wishes or feelings of the natural parents or guardians of such child."
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the Amendment proposed by the most reverend Prelate appeared to him to embrace every object that was necessary.
The Archbishop of Canterburywould have no objection to add to the Amendment, "that the workhouses should be open always to clergymen not of the Established Church."
The Clause and Amendment were postponed.
The Clauses to the 51st were agreed to. The House resumed.