Sitting of 22 July 1847

MINUTES.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Bankes, from Members of the Tunbridge Board of Guardians, for Alteration of the Law of Settlement.

MILLBANK PRISON AND THE HULKS.
MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEsaid, he had given notice that he should call the attention of the House to the reports laid he-fore Parliament during the present Session, on the state of the Millbank Prison, and the treatment of the convicts on board the hulks at Woolwich. His object was to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government were with regard to the recommendations contained in these reports? In consequence of his having brought forward the state of the Millbank Prison, a Commission was appointed, consisting of Lord Chichester, Lord Seymour, and Mr. Bickham Escott, to inquire into the manner in which the affairs of that prison were conducted. The Commissioners did not agree in their conclusions; and the result was that two reports were presented, one signed by Lord Chichester and Lord Seymour, and the other signed by Mr. Escott alone. Both reports, however, agreed in recommending that the present system of

685
uniting the government and inspection under one head should be abolished, and that a new system of inspection should be established. What he wished to ask his right hon. Friend was, what the intentions of the Government were on this subject; and he wished also to take the opportunity of expressing a hope that a measure would be introduced next Session for placing this prison under a new system of government. The other inquiry, which was also instituted at his instance, was with regard to the medical treatment and the moral discipline pursued on board the hulks at Woolwich. On bringing the subject before the House originally, he described the abuses which he understood were permitted to exist in the establishment; and the explanation which Mr. Capper, the superintendent, sent in afterwards commenced with the words—"To all these charges I give the most distinct and explicit contradiction." In the subsequent inquiry, however, which was ordered by the right hon. Baronet, and which was conducted by Captain Williams, the charges which Mr. Capper had the audacity to deny in these terms, were all distinctly proved; and that person was himself obliged to admit that they were well founded. The establishment was shown to be in a state which was a disgrace to any civilized and Christian country. One of the abuses of which he complained was, that the overseers inflicted corporal punishment on the convicts, without reporting the matter afterwards to the superintendent. Mr. Capper denied that any such proceeding took place; and yet it appeared on the inquiry that it formed the regular practice of the place. The disgusting state of dirt and filth in which the convicts were kept, was fully proved; and the consequence was shown by the fact, that out of 600 convicts on board, no less than 257 were eaten up by scurvy. He thought Capper had shown himself to be a most unfit person to be entrusted with the care of such an establishment; and he wished to know what course Her Majesty's Government intended to pursue on the subject.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in answer to his hon. Friend, he had in the first place to assure him, with regard to Mill-bank Prison, that he entirely concurred with the recommendation of the Commissioners, that the management should be separated from the system of inspection. A measure would be introduced next Session to effect that object, and it should
686
have his entire approval. With regard to the hulks, he begged to say that the result of the investigation satisfied him that ample grounds existed for instituting a strict and searching inquiry into the management; and he regretted to add that very great irregularities existed. He believed that the infirmities occasioned by age and ill health of Mr. Capper, the superintendent of the convicts, prevented him from attending personally to his duties; and the consequence was that abuses and irregularities, some of them of great moment, had occurred, without having been brought under the attention of the Home Secretary. As to the future, he had only to state that it was intended to place the hulks under a system of inspection like the other prisons, and that new rules would be issued for their management. he hoped at a future time to sec a barrack provided for the accommodation of the convicts, as his hon. Friend recommended. With regard to the medical attendance at the hulks, he thought it due to the gentleman in charge to state, that no instance either of cruelty or of harshness had been proved against him; but, at the same time, there could he no doubt but that it was desirable the medical man in charge of the establishment should be one who would be able to devote his whole time and attention to the duties of the office. He would not at present go further into the question; but he could assure his hon. Friend that in the interval before next Session, he would devote his best attention to the matter.
House adjourned at half-past Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3a and passed:—New Zealand (No. 2); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Commons Inclosure (No. 3).
Received the Royal Assent.—Militia Pay; Militia Ballots Suspension; Post Office; Navigation (No. 2); Canada Consolidated Revenue Fund; Naturalisation of Aliens; Bankruptcy and Insolvency (No. 3); Juvenile Offenders; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Amendment; Trustees Relief; Passengers Act Amendment; Master in Chancery Affidavit Office; House of Commons Costs Taxation; Print Works; Stock in Trade (Exemption); Canal Companies; Joint Stock Companies; Police Clauses; Tithes Commutation; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Holyhead Harbour; Turnpike Roads (South Wales); Highway Rates; Copyhold Commission; Copyright (Colonies); Mussel Fisheries (Scotland); Herring Fishery (Scotland); Drainage of Lands (Ireland); Compensation for Damages (Ireland); Punishment of Vagrants (Ireland); Railways (Ireland, No. 2); Fishery Piers and Harbours (Ireland); Shannon Navigation (Ireland); Recovery of Public Monies (Ireland); Destitute Persons (Ireland, No. 3); Public Works and Drainage (Ireland); Constabulary Force (Ireland); Poor Relief Supervision (Ireland); Polling at Elections (Ireland).

CRIMINAL LAW.
LORD BROUGHAMmoved for Returns to which he understood there would be no objection, viz.:—
"A Copy of the Commission to inquire into the Means of Improving the Law and Practice touching the Conveyance of Real Property; and also an Account of the Criminal Law Commissioners who have resigned or been appointed since the last Session of Parliament."
He took that opportunity of referring to the necessity which existed for a full and complete digest and index of our Criminal Code. He had been most unjustly assailed for his attempt to prepare a digest of the criminal law. He had brought in a Bill upon the subject about three years ago, which his noble Friend, the then Lord

665
Chancellor, supported; but suggested, at the same time, the propriety of not pressing it that Session, as it was a subject which required such deep and careful deliberation. The matter had been accordingly referred to the Criminal Law Commissioners; and he was extremely anxious that it should be brought as soon as possible into shape and form. It was unfortunate that we had as yet no digest of our criminal law, whilst our neighbours across the Channel had been long since supplied with that valuable desideratum. He was far from saying that our criminal code would be made quite perfect by it; but most undoubtedly if we had a proper digest and index, our code of criminal jurisprudence would be rendered the most complete the world yet had seen. By contrasting the mode in which evidence in criminal cases was received in the courts of law at the other side of the Channel, with the practice of ours, the advantages of our laws would be at once seen. Proceedings which had taken place within the last few days amongst our neighbours, placed the matter in a strong light. They there saw prisoners overwhelmed with a hundred and odd pages of an indictment; letters to a man's wife brought into evidence, and tortured into proofs against him, after having been received in the most careless and shameful manner; and confessions wrung out of prisoners by the most improper means. If our neighbours would only consider it properly, instead of self-laudation on the score of their superior methods of proceeding, they should hide their heads for very shame.
Returns ordered.

SUPPLEMENTARY MINUTE OF THE COUNCIL OF EDUCATION.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the noble Marquess to a subject upon which he had no doubt the noble Marquess would be able to satisfy him by replying to the question he was about to put, although he had not had time to give formal notice of it; and he trusted that the explanation would be a satisfactory one. Within the last few days there had been laid upon the Table of the House a Supplementary Minute of the Committee of Council on Education, bearing date the 10th of the present month. That Minute, after referring to the resolution of the 19th August, 1839, which required "as an indispensable condition that an inspector acting under the authority of the Committee
666
shall be enabled to visit every school to which any grant shall in future be made;" but provided that he should "not be authorized to examine into the religious instruction given in the school, but he would be directed to ask for such information as to the secular instructions and general regulations of the school as might enable the Committee to make a report to Her Majesty in Council, to be laid before both Houses of Parliament," went on to say, "that the principles embodied in the resolution of the 19th August, 1839, be applied to such cases, and that no certificate of the religious knowledge of pupil-teachers or monitors be required from the managers of such schools." Now, it appeared to him (Lord Stanley) that the Committee now intended to apply the spirit of that resolution to two cases which were essentially different: the object of the resolution of 1839 was to exempt schools from religious inspection by inspectors of religious denominations different from those of the pupils; and nothing could be more fair or reasonable than such a proposition. It was manifest the Presbyterian, or Baptist, or Unitarian schools should not be inspected by Church of England inspectors. But it appeared to him that the new Supplementary Minutes carried the matter a great deal further; because the Committee resolved "that there are schools to which it is desirable that grants should be made, though the managers object on religious grounds to make a report concerning the religious state of such schools." He thought the two cases were widely different; and he thought, and he hoped he was not deceived in the belief, that the basis on which all grants were made, or were to be made, was, that although conditions were not imposed with regard to the form of religious instruction, yet that whatever amount of religious instruction should be given, the Parliament and the country which granted and bore the expense of the aid should be satisfied that religious instruction in accordance with the principles of the parents of the pupils educated at the schools should be given. As the reports of the inspectors were the only security which the Government could take or did require for the combination of moral and religious with literary instruction, he wished to know what were the denominations the professors of which objected—as managers of schools requiring aid—to place them under inspection as regarded their religious forms of instruction,

667
and which being to be carried on a religious basis, yet would not undertake to report to Government the religious progress of the children? he hoped they would have some explanation from the noble Marquess as to what class of schools were alluded to in the Minute, and of which Her Majesty's Government entertained the opinion that aid should be granted to them without inspection as to religious instruction.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that he could assure his noble Friend that he would with great pleasure give him all the information in his power. Surprising as it might he to the noble Lord, that such strong objections should exist on this subject, and surprising as it had been to himself that they should prevail to such an extent, still a large class entertained strong impressions against receiving any aid in any way connected with religion or religious instruction. Objections had been taken on the part of certain classes of Dissenters, which he should not have taken if he were in their situation, to the existing Minute of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education; and these existed to a very great extent. There were many schools throughout the country which required aid; but the managers of which were deeply impressed with the conscientious feeling that it was their duty to avoid not only the reality but the appearance of receiving any support from the State in connexion with religious instruction. They had expressed in the strongest terms the apprehensions they entertained at inspectors being appointed to examine into the religious instruction given in their schools, as they supposed that they might be considered to receive some support from the State in aid of religious instruction or worship. The Committee of the Privy Council adhered most strongly to the opinion that there must be religious instruction, in some form or other, in all schools which received any portion of the public money; but they would not enforce the visits of the inspectors to inquire into the religious instruction given in them, when conscientious objections were entertained. They would not enforce the visit of the inspectors in such cases as to religious instruction; but they would still inquire into the nature of the secular instruction there given. The nature of the objection was, that such inspection into religious matters was a violation of a principle for which they had always contended. Under these circumstances, by means of this Supplementary
668
Minute, they would be able to extend aid to a very numerous class of schools in connexion with most religious communities. The utmost care would be taken that no aid should be given to any school in which religious instruction was not a part of the system of education. No grant also would be made by the Committee of the Privy Council until they were perfectly satisfied as to the respectability of the parties applying for it, and until they gave ample assurance as to religious instruction being imparted.
The BISHOP of LONDON, viewing, as he did, the proposed change as involving the risk of great danger, had heard with great satisfaction the question put by the noble Lord; but he certainly had not felt satisfied with the answer of the noble Marquess. He thought most injurious and dangerous consequences were involved in the course taken by the Government. The noble Marquess himself did not admit the soundness of the scruples said to be entertained by certain bodies of Dissenters. What was the nature of those scruples? It was, that if they received any portion of the public money for the purpose of aiding them in giving religious instruction to the younger members of their body, it would involve the breach of a rule of conscience; they, therefore, would not in the remotest manner allow any inspection as to the nature of the religious instruction imparted in their schools. So gross a fallacy was involved in this objection, that he was astonished to hear the noble Marquess acknowledge the validity of it. They would receive aid, it appeared, for the instruction of their children. Now, the most important part of education was religious instruction; and they said they would allow inquiry to be made into the manner of instructing the children in mathematics, or any other secular matter; but they would not allow any investigation or inspection to take place as to the nature of the religious instruction given by them. However they might exclaim against the visit of inspectors, when they received a portion of the grant they were in the fullest sense of the word receiving a grant for religious instruction; for such instruction was made essential in all schools. He was surprised that the Privy Council should have allowed itself to be blinded by the allegation of such an objection. It was clear the real objection was to prevent any visits whatever on the part of the inspectors. He did not see any grounds on which the Privy Coun-

669
cil were justified in following the course which they did. He would not go into a general statement as to the opinions entertained by the Church, of which he was an humble member, as to this recent Minute; but he believed he only spoke the general feeling of the Church with respect to the Minutes of the Committee of the Privy Council on the subject of Education, when he said that they were not prepared to acquiesce in any modifications and additions from time to time to such Minutes, to suit the prejudices of certain classes of Dissenters. He would urge it upon Her Majesty's Ministers to consider that there was nothing in the compact between the Church and the Government on this subject which would allow the latter to infringe on those Minutes of the Privy Council which were prepared with so much care, and which it had been understood were to be fairly and fully carried out. He was utterly unprepared for such reasons as had been stated by the noble Marquess as a justification of the course taken by the Government. Such reasons ought not for a moment to be acted upon; for if they were, it was palpable there would not be a sect which would not object to the visits of the inspectors, which they would choose to allege involved inquiry into religious instruction. Let the Government take care of the nature of the exception they had been induced to make. This would prove a most dangerous instance of their severing inspection in secular and religious instruction. They might depend upon it that the adoption of the principle involved in the recent Minute, instead of tending to promote harmony, would excite in the strongest degree ill feeling and animosity.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that the more he heard and read on the subject, the more was he convinced of the number and magnitude of the difficulties which surrounded the Government in their attempts to carry out their wishes. He had listened with astonishment to the speech of the right rev. Prelate. He regretted the course which had been pursued by the Government with respect to the education grant to the sect to which he belonged; but he could not subscribe to charges so unjust as those brought by the right rev. Prelate. The right rev. Prelate said that the Government must not give money for educational purposes if not accompanied by religious instruction; but the right rev. Prelate inferred that the Government should
670
not be a party to the instruction in religious tenets unless in connexion with the Established Church. The Dissenters wanted to see general education proposed; and all that they asked was, that, in doing so, their own religious opinions should not be interfered with. What did the right rev. Prelate seek to do? Did he wish the Government only to give money for education in connexion with the Church? Did he wish the Government to propagate the religious opinions of the Establishment, by means of this Parliamentary grant, intended for general education? He hoped next year the Government would return to their original benevolent intention, of extending the grant to all classes. It was a most difficult matter to deal with in this country, where there were from twenty to fifty different religious sects.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, that he objected to the principle of refusing the visits of the Government inspectors in any schools which received a portion of the public grant. Similar objections to those raised against the inspectors inquiring into the nature of the religious instruction given, would be urged against inspection into secular instruction, and on equally valid grounds. It was the duty of the Government to insist that religious instruction should form a part of the education given in any school receiving aid from the State. As a Christian Government, they were bound to insist on a Christian education being given in all those schools.
The EARL of MINTOknew that a pretty general feeling existed in Scotland in objection to the visits of the inspectors to the schools in connexion with religious instruction, although there was none as regarded secular instruction. Many most respectable persons objected to the interference of the State at all with religion. He did not defend the justice of the prejudices which existed on the subject; but it could not be denied that they pervaded a very large portion of the community. All they asked was, that on their receiving aid, the investigation of the inspectors should be limited to secular instruction, and that each sect should be left to give such religious instruction as it thought fit. The real question was, whether they were prepared to exclude from the benefit of any aid from an educational grant a large proportion of the most religious classes of society in this country.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, these parties

671
had no conscientious scruples whatever against applying for the fund, or against taking as much of it as they could get; but they were too scrupulous to take it upon the conditions laid down by the Government. These scruples of conscience were never indicated until the money was received. They asked and they received, the conditions, being, of course, implied and understood; and when the funds were in their possession the conditions were rejected, and their conscience refused to allow them to act honourably. This was a mode of proceeding he did not very well understand. Who wished not, willed not, was a common maxim; and it was certainly not strictly honest to deny the self-imposed responsibility. Another reason he had to offer against the principle involved in these Minutes being carried into effect, was the objectionable species of legislation thus introduced. He considered it a dangerous precedent to legislate in matters of such paramount importance by Order in Council, instead of by Act of Parliament.
LORD STANLEYmust express his regret and disappointment at the nature of the answer which had been made by the noble Marquess; and he must also express his earnest hope that the Minute (after the conversation which had taken place) would not be considered as finally arranged. It had been brought forward at so short a period before the prorogation of Parliament, that it could not be sufficiently discussed; and he trusted the Government would undertake not to act upon it until Parliament should have a full opportunity of pronouncing its opinion upon the character of this particular Minute. He was as free as any man could be to give way to, and make allowance for, conscientious scruples; but he must be satisfied that those conscientious scruples were in the first place founded on reason; and in the next place, if he gave way to conscientious scruples, he must be assured that he did not violate fundamental principles on his own part which he was bound to maintain. As to the reasonableness of those scruples, he conceived that the right rev. Prelate and the noble Lord behind him, had both of them exposed the sophistry and quibbling on which the objection appeared to be founded. Taking it either as a wholly unreasonable and a wholly sophistical quibble, or a pretended scruple, or a scruple without foundation—taking it as either —it was a distinction without a difference; those parties were ready to receive the
672
money of the State, but at the same time refused to comply with a reasonable demand for an account of how they applied it; and the Government were bound not to give way to scruples which were wholly unreasonable. Or else, if there were nothing in that objection, then was there a concession to be made by the Government on a point of principle? Were they to withdraw altogether their control, and the security they had that religious instruction should be given in every school? Would they sanction the principle that they were to have nothing to do with inquiring whether in the schools to which their money was given, instruction in the principles of Christianity was to be afforded? If those constant alterations were to take place, and further alterations were to be made from day to day by simple Minutes of the Committee of Council; and if principles were to be infringed from mouth to mouth, and year to year; Parliament could have no permanent security for the principles on which they acted, or the grounds on which they sanctioned them.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaw no ground whatever for the objections urged by the noble Lord. Having been informed of the undoubtedly conscientious scruples of those numerous and most respectable bodies of Christians, he had not been prepared to insist upon compliance with the conditions imposed, in other cases, as to the religious education which would be imparted in the schools aided by grants from the State. It was not for him to interpret the exact conscientiousness of their scruples, or to ascertain the precise amount of reason by which they were guided. He believed them wrong; but he was not entitled to question their sincerity; and he thought it was too much in any man, however differing with them, to apply to their conduct the term "sophistry" or "quibbling." The Legislature had always been in the habit of respecting the scruples of those who disagreed with them. In matters of allegiance and oath-taking, we over and over again dispensed with the forms with which some portion of our fellow-citizens refused to comply; and, convinced as he was, that the control of the State in religious affairs was beneficial to the country and advantageous to the Government, he was yet not prepared to refuse assistance to the cause of education, merely because the details as to the religious instruction could not conscientiously be accepted in all cases. He did not think the noble

673
Lord had any ground for complaining of the time at which this Minute had been laid before Parliament. It had already received full consideration, and ample opportunity had been given for discussing it previous to the prorogation of Parliament.
LORD STANLEYdid not care when it was laid before Parliament; the Supplementary Minute was only dated the 10th of the present month. About three weeks before the dissolution of Parliament, and when a general election was about to take place, the Committee of Council came to the determination that it was wise and expedient to agree to this Minute. The noble Marquess had said, that all scruples that were conscientious scruples, ought to be respected; and the inference from that would be, that you should demand no condition, for on the principle laid down by the noble Marquess, if there was one word in a condition that any human being could object to, they were to do away with that condition. That was doctrine to which he (Lord Stanley) would not assent.
EARL GREYsaid, he thought that no man should come into that House, and, speaking of a large body of his fellow-citizens, say that the scruples they entertained were sophistical. he denied the right of any man to hold language of that sort towards such a body of men. He thought they should feel the deepest interest in the subject of education. It was a disgrace and a scandal to them, that in the year 1847, so large a portion of the children of the British empire were growing up in ignorance. he believed there was actually a smaller proportion of the people of this country who could read or write than of the people of any other country in Europe. Nay, more, it was even stated that a larger proportion of the natives of New Zealand could read and write than of their own population. He thought the alterations which had been made by the rules adopted by the Privy Council were strictly proper and right, and would, he thought, carry into effect that which, from recent debates in the other House of Parliament, seemed to be the general opinion of the most enlightened persons on both sides.
Subject dropped.

POOR LAWS ADMINISTRATION BILL.
The Order of the Day having been read for considering the Commons' Reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords' Amendments,
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEobserved, that notwithstanding that he still adhered to the opinions which he had delivered respecting the various provisions of the Bill, when the measure was under the consideration of their Lordships, and notwithstanding that those opinions had been approved of by the great majority of their Lordships, he, nevertheless—regard being had to all the circumstances of the case— had no hesitation in asking their Lordships not to insist upon the Amendment they had made in the Bill, in reversion of an alteration agreed to by the other House. The Commons had so far deferred to the wishes of their Lordships as to acquiesce, at their instance, in an important Amendment, the effect of which would be to prevent boards of guardians from being converted into arenas of popular contention, to the great detriment of public business, and to the disgust, no doubt, of many respectable and influential persons who were now in the habit of attending those boards; and the question now arose, whether, having obtained that valuable concession, which in his opinion was absolutely necessary to justify the passing of the Bill at all, they would now insist on the less important Amendment which their Lordships had made, by omitting that clause, the effect of which would be to prevent poor couples over sixty years of age from being received together into the workhouse. He had been all along of opinion that cases of a peculiar description might arise where it might be highly desirable that poor couples should not be separated; but he was inclined to think that the guardians were the safe, fit, and competent judges to decide upon such cases, and the more so as no cases of abuse with respect to the conduct of guardians had ever been alleged of such a character as to favour the supposition that if a discretionary power of that kind were entrusted to them, they would use it improperly, or show any indisposition to consult the feelings of the humblest persons who might appeal to their humanity. It was in that light that he had all along viewed the question. However, a feeling had certainly arisen amongst the friends of the poor, not only out of doors, but in the other House of Parliament, that if the Bill were passed in the precise shape in which it came from their Lordships' hands, sufficient protection in that respect would not be afforded to the poor, and that cases might arise where poor couples at an advaced period of

675
life would be deprived of those comforts which were essential to their condition, and which could only be insured to them by taking care that they should not be separated from each other. That had been in a strong degree the feeling of the House of Commons, who, there could be no doubt, had acted from motives of humanity and benevolence. He had made inquiries on the subject, and was given to understand that the operation of the clause inserted by the Commons would not in all likelihood materially interfere with the administration of the Poor Law; and being convinced as he was that the clause had originated in a feeling of humanity and kindness towards the poor on the part of the other House of Parliament, he was prepared to submit to their Lordships whether it was expedient just at that moment for their Lordships to insist upon the Bill being restored to the form which it presented when it received their sanction on the third reading. He begged leave to move that their Lordships do not insist on their Amendment, but that on the contrary, they do acquiesce in the views of the other House.
The EARL of STRADBROKEobjected to the retention of the clause for three reasons. First, because the House of Lords had already in the most positive and decided manner rejected it; secondly, because the clause itself was calculated to produce irregularity and relaxed discipline in workhouses; and, thirdly, because it was contrary to the expressed opinion of some of the highest authorities in the country, the very men who took a leading part in the passing of the law of 1834. He asked their Lordships whether it was decent—whether it was becoming—whether it was expedient now to adopt that which they had previously with unanimity rejected?
EARL GREYagreed with the noble Earl, and confessed that he did not think it right or expedient that the clause should be introduced in the Bill. At the same time he thought the noble Earl attached a greater degree of importance to it than it really possessed. The whole number of such old couples as the Bill applied to, was not, on an average, more than two in each union; and of these a considerable number were, by consent of the boards of guardians and the Commissioners, admitted to the privileges which this clause now sought to confer upon them. He begged their Lordships to remember that if they, upon this occasion, voted for the rejection of this
676
clause, they were, in effect, rejecting the Bill altogether; for it would be quite impossible, at this late period of the Session, and under the present state of circumstances, to go into the whole Bill again. The usefulness of the Bill almost every noble Lord admitted. It would not be denied that a system of supervision was necessary; and those noble Lords who attached importance to the Bill of 1834 would, he knew, be cautious how they gave a vote which would be fatal to a measure by which the law of 1834 was to be efficiently administered. It was but too plain that in many parts of the country there was a tendency to the abuses which existed to such a fearful extent before the Bill of 1834 was passed; and if some such measure as the present was not passed, those abuses would become intolerable in the agricultural counties: in the south of England especially, there was so lax a supervision that many of those evils were apparent. The existence of the present superintendence would terminate in the next Session of Parliament; and he warned their Lordships of the consequences, if an electioneering cry were got up against the Poor Law. He feared that in too many instances Gentlemen anxious to secure popularity might join in that agitation; and his firm conviction was, that by throwing out this Bill they would in effect make the whole subject of Poor Law a question to be very seriously agitated at a very large proportion of the ensuing elections. They could not next year postpone the consideration of this question; and the new House of Commons might not be disposed to view it in the same light as the present one. They would be called upon to legislate upon this most grave and important subject. The Members of the other House being just fresh from the hustings, and, perhaps, having given pledges which, in his opinion, were contrary to the spirit of the Constitution—no one held a stronger opinion than himself upon the impropriety of these pledges—under such circumstances, therefore, considering the necessity of this Bill—looking at the future, and seeing how doubtful a matter it was that they would be able to get so good a Bill next Session as the present—considering that in the other clauses there was nothing exceptionable—considering that the Commons had already made concessions upon this Bill to this House; and thinking that the adoption of the clause would, after all, be productive of no great

677
practical evil or inconvenience, he called upon their Lordships, as friends of the law of 1834, to agree to the clause.
The EARL of RADNORsaid, the noble Earl who had just sat down called upon them to agree to this clause, and to pass this Bill, because in the next Session of Parliament, when the Members of the House of Commons came fresh from the elections to speak the voice of the people, it was not likely that a Bill so little objectionable as the present would be passed. The noble Earl talked about the unconstitutional nature of pledges; but he (the Earl of Radnor) confessed he did not think it very constitutional so to disregard the voice of the people. Their Lordships had already unanimously rejected this clause; and the noble Lord who proposed its rejection had not a word to say in its favour. The noble Earl recommended it because he thought it would produce but little mischief. But why should they insert a clause which would produce any mischief at all? Why should they insert a clause which they thought would not do good? He thought it would do great mischief—that it would relax that discipline which it was so necessary to maintain in the workhouses, and lead to all sorts of disorder and immorality. It would put it in the power of any "cantankersome" old couple to throw the whole workhouse into confusion and disorder. He would read a passage from the report of the Poor Law Commissioners on this very subject. The noble Lord then read a passage from a report signed by Sir F. Lewis, Mr. Lewis, jun., and Mr. Lefevre, in which it was stated that such indecency and immorality had occurred in workhouses where this privilege had been allowed, as were unfit to be mentioned in any public document. And where there were separate apartments provided for those couples, the result of the system showed that the ordinary workhouse rules could not be relaxed without leading to gross irregularity and improper intercourse between the sexes. The noble Lord went on to say that he was adverse to the introduction of the clause, because it would throw open the workhouses of this country to immorality and disorder, and be the first great step toward the breaking down of that discipline, order, and arrangement on which the existence of the present Poor Law depended. He trusted their Lordships would not so far forget what was due to themselves as to act contrary to their unanimous decision on a former occasion,
678
merely because the House of Commons told them to do so.
The DUKE of CLEVELANDsaid, it had been stated that upon a former occasion this clause had been unanimously rejected. He was not present on that occasion else he would have publicly stated, as he now begged leave to do, his conscientious opinion, that the clause was a humane and a useful one, and ought to form a part of the Bill. It was with extreme regret he had learned that their Lordships had rejected that clause. He had some experience of the working of the Poor Law—he knew what the feelings of those old couples were, and how hard it was, after having lived together so long—after they had reared their children, when distress and poverty came upon them, to be separated from one another for the remainder of their days in a workhouse. A noble Lord had stated, that at present the boards of guardians had, with the concurrence of the Commissioners, power to grant this privilege; but he (the Duke of Cleveland) would rather see it a matter of right, for the sake of those poor old people, knowing, as he did, how very severely some boards of guardians acted. He was sorry to say that some of those boards acted in a very hard-hearted manner, and in many instances ought to feel ashamed of their conduct. Why should not, therefore, that discretion be taken out of their hands? Was it just or humane that the deserving old people, who, when no longer able to support themselves, and obliged to seek refuge in a workhouse, should be at the whim and caprice of a board of guardians, either to live together or to be separated for the remainder of their days? For these reasons he would support the Motion of the noble Marquess.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, it was with great regret he felt himself obliged upon this occasion to oppose his noble Friend near him, as he was decidedly adverse, upon principle, to the retention of the clause. He did not apprehend that the adoption of it would lead to much practical inconvenience; but it would form a most dangerous precedent, and be positively hurtful to the administration of the Poor Law. There were 626 unions in the kingdom; but they had returns from only 368: one-fourth of that number were in Middlesex county; and by far the greater number of them were not subject to the provisions of the New Poor Law, being governed by local Acts. In 155 there

679
were no married couples; and in 92 only one in each: in the whole 368 unions there were no more than 574 married couples. Therefore, he might say, there would be apparently no practical inconvenience from the adoption of the clause; but he thought it would be no sooner passed, than a great many married couples who were now living outside the doors of the workhouse, and receiving 2s. 6d. or 3s. parochial aid, and by their own industry supplying as much more as furnished subsistence, would crowd into the workhouse, and thus the rates would be heavily burdened, as well as the discipline of the workhouses necessarily relaxed. In fact, he thought its adoption would lead to the destruction of everything like common order and decency in the workhouses. He must, therefore, with whatever regret, oppose the introduction of the clause.
LORD REDESDALEthought their Lordships had just reason to complain of the conduct of the Government; for, instead of standing up for what was right, they deferred to the wishes of those who, to obtain popularity, supported this clause in the House of Commons, and asked their Lordships to disagree to that to which they had already unanimously agreed. Accusations had been brought against the Government of abandoning measures; but he thought this one much more serious, for it was abandonment of principle. The whole thing had been got up for electioneering purposes. He, as the chairman of a board of guardians, knew well that the adoption of the clause would lead to the greatest inconvenience; and that, in short, under the provisions of it there would be no such thing as maintaining due discipline in workhouses.
LORD STANLEY: And the clause has nothing to do with the object of the Bill.
LORD REDESDALE: Just so; and even if it had, why insert it if their Lordships thought it wrong or inexpedient, even supposing its rejection was to prove fatal to the Bill? But they had been told that a cry would be got up at the elections, and that pledges against the Poor Laws would be exacted from candidates; and these reasons were urged upon their Lordships to pass the present measure, and sanction the insertion of the clause. He thought such conduct highly unconstitutional. He entered his protest in the strongest manner against the Motion.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEdid not think it unconstitutional in that House
680
to show some deference to the opinion of the House of Commons, which the Constitution supposed to speak the feelings of the people. The noble Lord talked about the conduct of the Government. He needed not to tell the noble Lord that Government was not all-powerful in the House of Commons—that it could not command majorities when it pleased; and, therefore, they could not be altogether answerable for the conduct of that House. Indeed, so strong was the feeling of the House in favour of this clause, that upon the last occasion there was not one even to call for a division. It was carried unanimously. Noble Lords talked about the disorder the concession of the privilege which the clause conferred would occasion; but he begged to remind them that the same powers which now existed would continue to exist for the punishment of refractory persons in workhouses of whatever description. That power lay with the boards of guardians; and there was nothing in this Bill which would prevent its full and complete exercise.
LORD REDESDALEexplained. What he meant by saying that the Government had not acted constitutionally was, that they had asked their Lordships to consider that popular clamour which they themselves admitted to be wrong. The noble Marquess talked of the unanimity of the division in the House of Commons on the second occasion that this Bill came before them. It was that very unanimity of which he complained. Why did not one of the Colleagues of the noble Marquess in the other House move the rejection of the clause?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that he consented to the omission of the clause to give the House of Commons an opportunity of reconsidering the point. In doing so he thought he had acted wisely; and now that the Commons had reconsidered the question, and had displayed greater unanimity than before in favour of it, he thought he was acting equally wisely in asking their Lordships to concur in the re-insertion of the clause.
On Question not to insist, House divided:—Content 29; Not-Content 11: Majority 18.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

MARQUESSES.

Norfolk

Lansdowne

Cleveland

Westminster

St. Albans

Clanricarde

681

EARLS.

BISHOP.

Granville

St. Asaph

Bessborough.

Auckland

LORDS.

Minto

Foley

Grey

Campbell

Leitrim

Camoys

Charlemont

Cottenham

Meath

Stafford

Fitzhardinge

Strafford

Scarborough

Colborne

Fingall

Clifden

VISCOUNT.

Carrington

Falkland

Wharncliffe

Resolved in the affirmative; and Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

THE BISHOPRIC OF MANCHESTER, ETC., BILL.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEmoved that their Lordships agree to the Commons' Amendments.
The BISHOP of ST. ASAPHsaid, that as regarded the subject of a seat in their Lordships' House, the arrangement was altogether founded on a compromise. The right by which he sat in that House was the oldest right, he believed, in the world, certainly it was older than the right by which any of their Lordships held their seats; but the right by which his successor would hold his seat would be dated from 1847, a circumstance which he thought constituted a real objection to the arrangement. He thought, however, it was wise to waive all subsidiary objections, in order that real good might be obtained. He believed it to be absolutely necessary that the number of bishops should be increased, and largely increased, because from practical experience he had known the advantages and blessings of a bishop being enabled to look after his diocese. He hoped also that the dioceses would be so divided as to assist in the furtherance of the great object of superintendence. He should regret exceedingly if any obstacles were thrown in the way of an increase taking place in the number of bishops.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that the arrangement by which a bishopric of Manchester was to be created now, and three other bishoprics subsequently, without the appendage of seats in the House of Lords, had been assented to by the rev. Bench in preference to that of having only a Bishop of Manchester with a seat in their Lordships' House. From what had fallen, however, from noble Lords who had addressed their Lordships, there was reason
682
to anticipate that difficulty of a certain kind would be felt in carrying out the arragement which had met the sanction of the right rev. Prelates; and he wished, therefore, to have a distinct pledge from Her Majesty's Ministers that they would not fail to adhere to the arrangement gone into relative to the appointment at a fitting time of three more bishops.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that he considered the position of Her Majesty's Government to be the same now as it was previous to the alteration which had taken place, relative to the subsequent appointment of three new bishops.
Commons' Amendments agreed to.

NEW ZEALAND (No. 2) BILL.
EARL GREYhaving moved the Third Reading of this Bill,
LORD STANLEYrose, and said, that neither the appearance of the House nor the period of the Session offered any inducement to him to make any lengthened observations upon this Bill. The state of affairs in New Zealand had long been a matter of complaint; and his firm belief was that, so long as the affairs of that colony were conducted upon their present footing, dissatisfaction would continue. He thought that the papers on which this Bill was founded ought to have been laid before their Lordships before they were called upon to give their decision. Although he rejoiced to know that the affairs of Now Zealand were conducted by a very able and excellent man, Governor Grey, who was remarkable for prudence, discretion, and firmness, yet he was convinced that the principle upon which the New Zealand Company was formed would be a source of perpetual difficulty and dissatisfaction; and he felt justified in saying this by the existence of two independent and conflicting authorities in that island. He confessed that he would see with satisfaction the day arrive (and he was confident it would arrive) when the Company would adopt the alternative which was given to them in the 19th Clause of this Bill, enabling them to surrender their property and their responsibility at once into the hands of Her Majesty's Government, when the affairs of that colony would be conducted upon the principle upon which all other colonies were conducted, namely, that of being subject to the direct control and consequently the direct responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown. And what were their Lordships about to

683
do by this Bill? They were about to grant to the New Zealand Company a sum of 236,000 l. (which would be entirely free from interest); and they would take for security a certain portion of the net profits which, after the discharge of certain expenses of the Company, might possibly be realized. That was the whole of the security which they had for the repayment of this loan of 236,000 l. The Company at this moment had an unpaid-up capital of 100,000 l.; but the Government, instead of calling upon the shareholders to pay it up, called upon the country to give them a loan of 236,000 l.; and if, after the expiration of three years it should turn out that that money was lost, and the Company could not any longer carry on their business, they were at liberty to hand over their affairs and responsibilities to the Government in complete satisfaction of this loan. But the Government had no power to compel them to transfer their property to them before the expiration of three years, even if they saw them openly squandering the loan. And not only would the Company be freed from the payment of the loan in case of failure, but the Government also pledged itself to become responsible for all the liabilities to which the Company might be subject at the time of the transfer, which liability would have to be satisfied out of the treasury of the country. However, it appeared that the House of Commons, whose peculiar province it was to deal with these pecuniary matters, was satisfied with the proposal. He thought that it was far from being an economical or satisfactory arrangement. He had no doubt that to the New Zealand Company it was perfectly satisfactory. His belief was that the experiment would fail; indeed he sincerely hoped, for the ultimate benefit of New Zealand, that it would fail, and that the 19th Clause would be fully acted upon, as that would have the effect of transferring the affairs of New Zealand to the proper hands, viz., the Government.
EARL GREY: As the noble Lord who had just sat down intimated his intention of not voting against this Bill, he should not go into the details touched upon by him. In respect to the payment to the New Zealand Company, Government had only adopted the view determined upon by a Committee of the House of Commons. That Committee had been sitting the greater portion of the Session, and by a considerable majority they had come to
684
the conclusions which had been embodied in the present Bill. It was supported, not only by the supporters of the present, but by many of the supporters of the late Government. The result of their deliberations had convinced him that there was a fair claim on the part of the Company to the sum which it was proposed to advance. The terms on which it was to be given were found fault with. It should be recollected, however, that for three years the Company was prohibited from taking any step without the sanction of the Government. The Company had expended a very large capital on this speculation—he believed upwards of 250,000 l—not one shilling of which could be recovered, unless efforts were made to promote colonisation. He believed that in the end the money to be advanced would be found to have been well spent, were a colony of industrious Englishmen to be fairly established in those islands, already so highly endowed by nature.
Bill read 3a and passed.
House adjourned.