The Bishop of Exeterhaving presented petitions from the union of Chipping Norton and other places against the renewal of the powers of the Poor-law Commissioners, proceeded to say, that it was likely he should be absent from their Lordships' House when this subject would be discussed, but if he were present he should co-operate with his noble Friends who were most likely to propose such amendments as would make their Lordships pause before they continued the powers of the Poor-law Commissioners even for another year. The first point on which he would address their Lordships was the bastardy clause, which, when the original bill was before the House, he did all in his power to induce their Lordships to alter. At that time he was of opinion that effects the very reverse of those which were confidently expected by the favourers of the measure would ensue. They expected that there would be a great increase of chastity on the part of the young females of the country, and a great diminution of that hideous crime, infanticide, which, he was shocked to say, had been the opprobrium of this country for the last few years. He heartily wished that the expectations of the promoters, in respect to these two points, had been realized. But the reverse was the case. The reports of Poor Law Commissioners were flattering enough. But what was the fact? Returns had been ordered of the number of children registered by the clergy of the country, as legitimate children, during the four years previous to the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Act, and the four years following it. And there had been a large increase in the number of illegitimate children registered as baptized. But did their Lordships think that increase really measured the increase of illegitimate children. They might be quite sure that the number of those unhappy children born since that period, and not baptized, was considerably greater than the number of those returned as registered and baptized. Before the Poor-law passed, the birth of an illegiti- 742 mate child was a matter of notoriety; the mother was obliged to proclaim the birth in order to get relief from the parish, and there was no motive for concealment, or for not taking the child to church to be baptized. Then the mother would be ashamed to keep the child of sin which she had brought into the world from that blessed sacrament, which was intended at last to impart a hope of salvation hereafter. But now the mother of an illegitimate child was tempted to do the utmost to keep it from baptism, because her chief object was to avoid exposure, and to conceal the fact that she had given birth to such a child. He did not speak lightly on this subject, but on the authority of the clergyman in the parish of Stoke Damarel, from whose statements there appeared to have been such an extraordinary diminution in the number of registered baptisms, that it would astonish their Lordships were he to give the details. But, without going into them, he would ask, was the increase in the number of illegitimate children who were supposed to live, a satisfactory subject for their Lordships? And what would they say, if the number of children brought into the world only to be sent out of it by the guilty hand of its mother could be ascertained? Let them go to Chester, and inquire there what had recently occurred at the assizes of that county, and then let them say whether infanticide had not greatly increased since the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Act. There was another part of the law which enabled, nay compelled, the guardians, to shut up all persons who need relief, however small that relief might be, in workhouses, and to separate husbands from wives, and parents from children. This was not only contrary to natural law and reason, but to the revealed law of God, and he should earnestly call upon their Lordships to retrace their steps here, and to clear themselves from the guilt of passing a law so opposed to the divine law. On a former occasion he had declared that he would take the opinion of a court of law upon the legality of that power. He had redeemed the pledge he then gave. He instructed a learned counsel to apply to the Court of Queen's Bench, and he did so, but it was so late in the term when the application was made, that the judges refused to entertain it in that term. When the next term commenced, the very learned individual whose 743 services he bad engaged told him, that whatever opinions he and others held upon that subject, the provisions of the statute were so stringent, that it was doubtful whether any application of the kind would be successful. Deferring to that opinion, and considering the state of the country in reference to this subject, he thought he had only exercised a sound discretion in not proceeding further in the matter at present. The Poor Law Commissioners, at least the assistant commissioners, wanted the union workhouses to be what the petitioners proclaimed and deplored that they were—prisons. He held in his hand an extract on the report of an assistant commissioner, which was as follows:—
To the old, restraint is so little of a hardship, the quiet and excellent accommodation of the new workhouses is so congenial to their time of life, that I much fear lest they should become attractive, when experience has shown that they are not so comfortless as described. At present, their prison-like appearance, and the notion that they are intended to torment the poor, inspires a salutary terror.That was the language held in respect to the aged, infirm, and distressed; persons who could perhaps earn a little out of doors, but not enough to support them, and who must be content either to die by inches, or submit to perpetual imprisonment. There was another part of this law which he deemed to be not a whit less culpable before God. It was that by which the unhappy inmates of the workhouses were prevented from enjoying religious fellowship and community with their Christian friends in the worship of God. They were confined to the association of persons like themselves. To them Sunday was no day of rest or enjoyment. It had been said, that the late riots at Birmingham had been caused by excitement on the subject of the Poor-laws. Supposing, for a moment, that it was true, he would say, the best way of getting rid of that excitement was to remove all real grievances. Agitation would cease when the cause was taken away. The inhabitants of this to this country were a considerate, and, thank God, a religious people, and therefore it was that the laws were honoured, and the monarchy safe. But, if unfortunately, the time should come when they would consider the laws of man in opposition to the laws of God, their religious feeling would contrain them to resist the laws of man. Government stood upon opinion—upon 744 opinion made up of a feeling of terror, and, happily in this country, of a deep sense of duty. Terror alone could do nothing, for the sense of duty was the firm foundation upon which all rested. But their Lordships might depend that the sense of duty would not long survive the consciousness of oppression—that it would not long survive when the people felt strongly that the laws of God were violated by the laws of man.