Lords Sitting of 28 May 1868

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Sale of Poisons and Pharmacy Act Amendment * (103).
Report of Select Committee—Tenure (Ireland) * (129).
Committee—Poor Relief (111); Stockbrokers (Ireland) * (105).
Report—Tenure (Ireland) * (23–130); Stockbrokers (Ireland) * (105); Cotton Statistics * (126–133); Documentary Evidence * (88).
Third Reading—Consecration of Churchyards Act (1867) Amendment * (124), and passed.

ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLIINGS BILL.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  LORD PORTMAN, having presented a Petition for Amendment of the Artizans' Dwellings Bill, of the Board of Works of the Holborn District, said: I take the liberty of asking your Lordships' attention to a matter somewhat personal, but still lone as to which it is desirable that I should offer an explanation to your Lordships. In the observations made by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) in the discussion on the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Bill the other night, I supplemented his statement by a paragraph which, as I thought, he had omitted, Now, the noble and learned Lord omitted to state to the House that he quoted from The Observer; and, as I was not aware that there wore two paragraphs of a somewhat similar nature in two different papers, I naturally imagined that he was quoting from The Daily Telegraph. It would seem that The Observer had an article of much the same kind, but without, the words which to me were so offensive. The passage in The Daily Telegraph of Monday, the 25th, was, as I stated—
  "Any fair and reasonable objection will be gladly entertained, and any proper safeguard admitted, by those who have charge of the measure; but the Peers, who own so much property in the metropolis, and who therefore owe a proportionate duty to its inhabitants, will oppose this most salutary and necessary piece of legislation at their peril."
  These were the words I used and for having used them I am accused this morning of practising "a ruse." But those who have known anything of my conduct for the last forty years will not, I feel sure, suppose me capable of practising anything like a ruse upon your Lordships, or of making any statement which I was not prepared to support or did nut believe to be true. I am not in the habit of playing that sort of game. I am too old to do so now. But it is due to The Observer that the acknowledgment should be made that its correspondent did not betray it into the use of the same language which found admittance into The Daily Telegraph.

POOR RELIEF BILL—(NO. 111.)
(The Earl of Dewn.)
POOR RELIEF BILL—(NO. 111.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee on this Bill read.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, there were

  947
  two provisions of the Bill which seemed to him open to serious objection. In the first place, he did not think it right to deprive the small parishes of the right of appointing each its own representative to the Board of Guardians of the union—thus depriving them of any control over the expenditure of funds to which they had contributed a part; and, in the next place, he objected to give to every inmate of a workhouse a statutable right to go outside to attend religious worship. He thought this point would require consideration, because it was to be feared that persons would avail themselves of such a right for the purpose of getting off from workhouses and leaving their children behind them.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Poor Law Board may unite small Parishes for the Election of Guardians).
  THE EARL OF DEVON THE EARL OF DEVON moved to insert after "Parish" the words "in a Union."
  LORD KESTEVENsaid, this clause would violate the principle that representation should go with taxation, because the smaller parishes of a union would be taxed without having representatives of their own on the Board, and thus the control over the expenditure would rest entirely with the larger parishes. He proposed that the clause be struck out.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYhoped their Lordships would not expunge the clause. Where each parish was taxed by itself it was fair that each parish should have a representative on the Board; but since union rating for various purposes had been introduced, it would be absurd to give a small parish, that might perhaps consist of only 300 persons, a representative of its own. If this were done the representation of the smaller parishes would be out of all proportion to their population and rated value. The change proposed would leave them as much power at the Board of Guardians as they were fairly entitled to.
  On Question, "Whether to insert? Their Lordships divided.—Contents 56; Not-Contents 28: Majority 28.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Several clauses agreed to; some postponed.
  Clause 22 (Mow the Religion of Children to be entered in the Creed Register).
  EARL GREYsaid, he did not think the parents who deserted their children should be allowed to exert any control over their religious education. To do so would be to give a premium to child-desertion. He would therefore move the insertion of words dispensing with the requirement that deserted children should be educated in the faith of their parents.
  After ("Child") moved to insert ("not being a deserted Child").—(Earl Grey.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYhoped that their Lordships would not assent to the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl. The provision objected to was already in force with respect to orphan children.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsupported the Amendment. Respect was very properly paid to the religious feelings and opinions of the deceased parents of orphans; but when parents deserted their children they forfeited all their rights over them to the State, which had a right to educate them in the manner it believed to be best for their temporal and eternal welfare.
  THE EARL OF DEVONsaid, that the words objected to were requisite in order to do justice to the various religious bodies, and to prevent a large number of deserted children whose parents belonged to the Roman Catholic Church from being sent to Church of England schools.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought it wrong to tax the poor ratepayers of this country in order to support and educate the children of Irish parents who emigrated to America, leaving their children to be a burden upon the taxpayers of this country.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that one of the most important functions of the Poor Law Board was to undertake the education of destitute children in this country. If the religion of the parents of destitute children could not be ascertained, they should be regarded as belonging to the Established Church of the country.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not pretend to question the earnestness of the noble Earl's advocacy of the Established Church; but it should be remembered that the Established Church was, so to speak, in the crucible at present, and if the legislation now sought to be applied to Ireland prevailed, and if a deserted child had no other religion than that of the Established Church, it occurred to him to ask what its religion would be

  949
  where there was no Established Church at all?
  LORD OVERSTONEsaid, that deserted children necessarily became the children of the State, who stood towards them in loco parentis; and it was the clear duty of the State to educate them in what was the religion of the State.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided: —Contents 42; Not-Contents 60: Majority 18.
  Clause agreed to.
  House resumed; and to be again in Committee on Monday the 15th of June next; Bill to be printed as amended (No. 132)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.