The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-30 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION

Bill, and saying that ha had not the slightest de•ire of
then intruding the subject upon the House, provided he
should have an opportunity of doing so on a future ocea-
nion. He was also unwilling to do so in the absence cf
a Learned Serjeant who had paid great attention to the
subject, and as it was one of great importance he hoped
that no technical rule would be interposed to prevent its
being properly diseusve I.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he agreed in what his Hon.
Friend had said on the importance of the subject. He
should be vary sorry that it should come on at a late hour,
or when the Speaker was in the chair, when it could not
be brought forward with any good effect. He was quite
ready, and was desirous, when it was brought forward,
that it should be fairly discussed.
Mr. WAKLEY was understood to say, that such being
the understanding of the House, he should defer the sub-
ject, but he hoped he should have a full attendance when
he brought it forward.
The House then went into Committee.

On clause 6 being propose 3,
Mr. W. ATTWOOD, in the absence of Mr. J. Jones,
moved, after the words " any general rule," to insert the
words " except rules, orders, and regulations relating to
relief or maintenance of the poor."
Lord J. RUSSELL said he proposed that the rules
should be entered on the minutes of the Commissioners,
and they would then appear before Parliament, as a mat-
tcr of course.

The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause
was ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Oa clause 7 being proposed,
Mr. TOWNLEY PARKER sa'd that be wished to
:rove a prcvlso to the clause, but, in order to do so, it
ould be necessary for him, in the first instance, to move
t'-,o discussion of certain words in the clause. His opinion
was, that sufficient publicity was not given in the various
ur.i.mts to the orders and regulations of the Poor-law Com-
missioners: There were many unions in which the rules
aqd regulations of the Poor-law Commissioners did not
meet the public eye, and were unknown even to the board
vi guardians, but were shut up in the drawers of the
c!crks of the union. It was his intention td move this ad-
dition to the clause—" Provided always, and be it enacted,
that the Commissioners shall be required to publish every
order, ru'e, or regulation, which the said Commissioners
gtll issue after the passing of this Act, before the same
shall come into operation in any union at least twice in the
*Ric newspapers circulated within the locality of the said
union." That would be a wholesome regulation, if
adropterl ; and therefore in order that that proviso might
be added, he begged to move the omission of certain words
in the clause.

Lord J. RUSSELL thought it would not be advisable
that the rules should be published in the newspapers. It
would be very inconvenient to do so, and would be very ex-
pensive.

- Colonel SIBTHORP was surprised that the Noble
Lord shoul I objcct on the ground of expense. He re-
gretted to say that there was a great deal of expense use-
lessly inflic ed on the ccuntry—the salaries of the Noble
Lord and Hon. Gentlemen opposite, for instance.
( Laughter.) Ho theught it would be satisfactory that
publicity should be given to the orders cf the Commis-
nieners, and he knew of no better channel through which
it could be mad 3 than the county newspaper.
Mr. FOX MA ULF: thought the clause was one en-
tirely of a humane nature. Suppose it should be desirable
to relax a stringent rule by leaving out the words now pro-
posed to be left out, they would be deprived of all power
cf relsx'ng the rule : and, if the advertisement in the
county papers were insiste I on, such ri:l3xation could not
tllce place for fourteen d sys.
After a few words from Mr. T. EGERTON and Mr.
ORINSDITCII,
Mr. T. PARKER withdrew his motion for the omis-
sion of the words.

The clause was then agreei to, with some verbal
amendments, Mr. T. Parker having intimated his inten-
tion r.f moving the proviso on the bringing up the clause.
On the next clause, regulating eerzain proceedings in
prcscentionF, being proposed.
Lc.rl G. SOMERSET thought that in criminal pro-
c rdingi the 1. huse might Le fund productive of incon-
venieace.

ATTORNEY-GENE RALdefended the clausc.
Mr. GORING and Mr. GRINISDITCH objected to
that part ( f the clause which appl'ca to criminal pre-
c:eiings.
The SOLICrTOR-GENER AL 'defended the clause.

Lord G, SOMEUSET sa'd he should take the sense
of ti:e Howe upon the omission of the words to which he
objrc:ed.
Sir C. GREY supported the clause.
After some further discussion, strangers were then
ordered to withdraw, and the Committee d;vided, when
there appeare 1-7

-For the clime

For the amendment
IYlajozity
On our return to the gallery we found
Lord G. SOMERSET obj cting to that part of the
clause which impose] costs upon the parties for disobeying
the orders of the Commissioners. He thought there
sliould be some proviso with regard to the publicity of th?se
,orders in the first instance.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the e ought
to be a discretion left in tne Court as to cost-.
Sir G. GREY thought the ii:troduction or the words
if it thall seem fit," where the Court was empowered to
ev,ard costs, would be the hest way of meeting the objee-
Cal of tho Noble Lord opposit".
Mr. J. JONES paipfea to add in line sixteen after
:Ito word coEte, the words ‘• in any ci.il case." The Hen.
":"ocher stkt2d itr.t his object in moving that amendment
that the prcv:tion might not apply to criminal case?.
General JOHNSON sail he did not think that civil
ca-c; werc clit,!inguishable from criminal one?.
%Ir. J. JONES tboti'ht that aey were clearly distill-
guisbahle, nryi he would, therefore, press the amendment.
After so no discussion, is which L r 1 Granvil!e Somer_
eftc,. the Attorref-General, Mr. Darby, and otior Hop.
•osr.bcrs took par, the Houso divideJ, when there

favour of the nrreadmcn
Against it-
cgr-'inst the arneadTeit —24
On clause 9 boing proimscd a dc9ultory corvr-a!,iur,
respe2t to its postporetivnt, took plice t,e,wcun
,Cu.2tain PeAell, Mr, W. Duncornhe, al(' Lord Jahn
whcn

it1..!,11-ThiTell said that t'e part of the chute
which he peroosod to strike out (lid ri( t apply to the Gil-
Len uoions„ It was a part that iniolved a most important
titeition,

je3rd J. RUSSELL wished to tell the Hon. Gze-itle-
men Ik.at they could net postpone a pert of a cUuse—tbe
elaeso should be postpoeei or none.
7,:r. GORING would propose the postponement cf the
cf eiu till :dee. Ess,e,-. It was i;nportant to know the
tierio to which it. weule be postponed.
Mr. GO ULB URN :-,uggestea ti c te some day
' fixed for the postpueerneet the clause,, iii order
tisee Hue. Ne:ubcra might he prepared Li- the discusisiori
to which the sehjcet might give rise.
Lord .1. RUSSELL tsi I that the chose would be dis-
custed in its reguler order. Whet: the House got through
the Bite Le imagined they would t .ko up the postponed
claeses in weir order. if the discussion on the presei.t
Ls"'"l3', WOUN ceme on late in the eveni! g, he thought he
wored gve notice of its Leing adjourned to the swecei.'-
lee.; day.
In reply to so.ee obi-ere:Aim; rr.en Mr. W. DUls,
tOr4I3E,
Lo‘.l J. RUSSELL said that if the all should not Le
glne through by Fr. olay night, he I not rrea to go on
t,i':z, the remainder of it till after Easter.
fhe clate:e 17...5 then postponed.
On clause 10 being proposed,
,eQuer3tl.onel WOOD mcved the insertion of the word, " In
eiet vvhi,u county lunatic asvleres have beca
ienseed ter the reeeof p ion pauper linaPier."
Mr. es "Sov y
fThlieted to the clause, on the ground
cif its celfouldite s.clicols for the p .or with lunatic asy-
lums. it was veryicpertant that Emetic asylums should
be estah iThed
trnt r.a-ts of the country ; but, in.
steed of teixile- up ill',
a separate 13111 should
containieTewheye:rliveetsipowers for the purpose
int; educed,
of C3t: iblishing them.
be kapt quite separate. woque:Cons, however, should
Lo JOHN RUSSELL said the rola for introdue-
r.l :ii precision was the Very
incifi:-ieut:7l:tnei.of the law
%%ill respect to such asylums. There %
placed in workhouses wulloo
wwoeurlednhotavpe norov objection
t on w e
sup.a gustts
e
persons
meet.: cal attendance.
pot t a Big which would improve the present system, and
wi this view the Noble Lord said he would neevei that
tlee words " insane or" be Omitted.
Lord ASHLEY thought the subject of great import_
aece. There bail been
gloat defects under the
of
present
stem. Much had been done in the rerghb
metropolis to remove the. evils ,
House would
wcld direct
had
u prevailed,
end he hoped. the Noble Lord and the
their attention to the subject, with a view to extend these
behefits to al 1 puts of the country.
Mr. E. BULLER said there was a large class cf per-
sons who we're very ill provided for. Ha trusted that some
provision ver.iuld be soon made for their benefit.
Lord G.'riANVILLE SOMERSET hoped that Bill
would shr ,rtly be iteroduced ; and that the Noble Lord
weed not. forget his promise.
The. 'omission was then agreed to.
eh.. B. WOOD moved in line 4, after the word "fit,"
to ad " with the consent of a majority of each board of
gueeelians of such unions."
7,...0rd JOHN RUSSELL objected to the amendment,
a: id was of opinion that the proviso which he had intro-
(-uced would be sufficient to prevent any abuse of the
Fie wee. given by the clause.
Mr. HODGES supported the amendment.
Mr. GROTE wished it was true that the guardians of
the poor took proper care of the education of the children.
He
not withe w d ishetor werekhouse uspossible for them to do so. They could
poor parish, when there were
in a
Let twenty cr thirty children, procure for them such train-
ir,;.
as
prnvided, for instance, in the normal school at
-feemeced. He hoped the House would do nothing to
modify the el.euse or to render it ineffective.
Believing
thet the object. of the clause was to secure the best possible
training fur ;,super children, he hoped it would he agreed
to without r.ny substantial alteration.
Mr. GRAHAM thought that the arguments drawn
from the school at Norwood, in which the children of the
metropolitan poor were received, could not apply tothe
a'ztleultural districts, with which he was best acquainted,
He thought that the effect of the clause as it stood would
be most injurious. He felt the greatest difficulty in con-
senting to a compulsory power of removing the chiHrea
from their own parish to distant schools, in which ihey
would be separated for years, if not for ever, from all local
Leaments and assrciations. He felt the greatfst cbjec-
teunto the proposed arrangement, but he did not intend to
enforce
his views by tkil
understood) by oub t ti .e or (as we
Toting 31:0; thes amendment.
Mr. HAWES said there were 50,000 children scattered
about in the neighbousrhocood of the etropolis without any
xneaßs of education. in
establishment of th?. school
at Norwood numerous applicationstbweob }ad been made to ob-
tain the services of children fore could procure no
employment. The children in thaet establishment readily
found respectable persons to take chargeOf them. The Hon.

' Member complained that no a.-2equate provision had been
made for the education cf pauper children.
Colonel WOOD said that if the Hon. Gentleman's
statement was correct, the Poor-law Commissioners had
been very neglectful cf their duty. A very large sum of
money had been expended for that purpose.—( Hoar, hear. )
He thought that if they collected tee childrea in gee_
numbers in rural districts, they would break up connexions
which would be extremely useful to them in after life.
He thought the provision would have a very prmicious
tendency, and, he would, therefore, give it his best oppo-
sition.

Sir H. VIVIAN said, from all be knew of the rural
districts, he was of opinion that the clause would operate
very beneficially. In the uoion of wh'es he was chair-
man he had seen a partial application of the principle, and
the result of his experience was that it was highly advan-
tageous to the poor.
Lord STANLEY said the motion of the Hon. Mem-
ber f'sn. Southwark was to require the consent of the
guardians to the institution of certain establishments. As
the clause originally stood, it included the infirm, the in-
sane, and the infant. The word infirm bad been ex-
plained not to mean the aged, and the word insane
had been struck out. The word infant only were
left to be considered. His Hon. Friend behind him had
very justly stated, that under this system connexions of
great importance in their after life would be broken up.
His Hon. Friend, however, had omitted to notice another
objection, namely, that it was compulsory. The advan-
tage derived from education, however great, was counter-
balancei by the circumstance that the children's natural
affections were not cultivated. Ho willingly admitted the
statement of the Hon. Gentleman as to the effect which
had been produced upon the children at Norwood. He
would give to the Commissioners power to deal with chil-
dren who had no parents or natural protectors, but he
would not consent to an indiscriminate application of such
a principle. Helcould never agree that illegitimate chil-
dren had an equal claim upon the State with the children
of virtuous parents, who had been unavoidably reduced to
poverty. His Hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock had
given notice of a clause providing that a clergyman of the
Church of England should be attached to these schools.
They were about to place these children under the pro-
t.:ction of the State, and it was right that they should be
educated in the religion of the State.--( Hear, hear.)
God forbid that be should object to receiving the chilli-en
of Dissenters into those schools, or to allowing thorn to
receive all the benefits of the system; but he contended
that all the children should be placed under the control of
a minister of the Establithed Church. With these rest' ic-
lions and alterations, he should support the dune.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, whatever amendments
ha might be disposed to introduce, he could not allow that

when-paupers asked to be maintained at the public ex-
pence, that they would refuse to the State the power of
giving them a good and religious education. Ha was
borne out in this determination by the condition of the
poor at the time they had been taken into unions.
—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then read a statement
of the former condition of the poor in the Isle of Thanet
and in the Union of Chale. The poor had no right to
refuse to the State the power of making them Christians.
He could not see how it was possible reasonably to obj ct
to that view. The objection that the children were taken
from their parent,, and had no opportunity of cultivating
natural ties, was a very plausible objection; but he thought
the sccicty which the children met with in such places was
not such as would be likely to improve the morals of the
children.—(Hoer, hear.) With respect to the motion of
the lion. Member for Kilmarnock, he (Lord J. Russell)
would think it an advantage that a clergyman should be
established. But an objection had already been raised on
account of tl:e burdens imposed by the erection of chapels
in connection with the workhouses. Wherever there was
a board c.f guardians composed partly of Dissentr,r3, any
additional burdens would meet with graat cpposi'ion. He
oral not, therefore, agree to that proposition, notwith-
withstanding the benefit which it rn. ght be the means of
conferring.
Mr. (i 0 ULBU tiN vs-Pied to know whether any plan
could he adopted by means of which, in small distli,:t4,
clergymen could he allowed to attend to the children ia
the workhouses.
Lfrd J. RUSSELL was understood to object to any
such plan.

Mr. COL QUHOUN agreed that central echools
would be a source of great benefit, but it appeare I
from the Reports of the Commissioners, that Dr. Kay had
given his testimony in favour of placing the children under
the superintendence of a clergyman of the Church cf
England.
Mr. SL A NE Y rose amidst loud cries of " Oh." He said
there could be no doubt of the immense importance of
the subject. These children were and would be often
the offspring of guilt and crime; yet no fault attrurhed to
them, therefore, even if it was a question of expense, it
was their duty to incur it. But he would be able to prave
that by being liberal in their eduction, they would, in
fact, be saving the money of the nation, for those
poor infants who ware in darkness, would be
brought to light, and prevented from cos-ing
the country expense for their punishment as criminals. In
unions there were not enotro of children to provide a
good achoolmas!er—the guardians would not go to the
expense. Besides, in the union workhouse, there was an
impossibility ot giving them that industrial education which
would make them such servants as masters and mistresses
desired to have. In proof of the old system having been
a fsinire, in the unions of Norfolk and Suffolk, the cost
of giving premiums along with these poor chiAren was
40 00r/., and the masters were of a low character and de-
scription, who, ia place cf taking them with t i itention
of taldag care of them, their only object was to get qui,. of
tli,rn as soon as possible is order t 3 enjoy the prcn.i.mi.
Even then, on the score of economy, they ought t t adopt
the new system, far the children had been so much im-
proved in both morals and bodi!y health, that nus'ers and
miitressei were anxious now to take the no at thi!teen 3eirs
of age without any premium —( Loud cries of " Divide.")
Sir R. PEEL after rendieg th very int resting Report
on the trbi,ing of pauper ehiltiten, had con e to the
ci,iaion that by corg,og sting children io large numberr,
they took the only means of affording them a g.n)il and
tre-ful vducation.—( Carers.) At the same time he was
of opinion that, as they would make the children the
children of the Sta•e,wahile the State had a Sti.t.! reli-
gion, they wer:) bound to chord the children a religious
education according to tie principles adored by the Sta'e.
—(lf:sr, hear.) Too cvi fence of Dr. Ks r, as nell
the injunctions given to the Chaplain at Norwood, fully
pr vcd the recessity of giving children a religious Auca-
ti in 'f they wanted their education to prove of any use to
ti en. Still these were the gnieral principles—there
were and might be many cases where great injury might
e done, and gross violation of filial aff,x!i3n be done by a
strict adherence to the geacral rule. Take the case of a
man, his wife arid children being thrown out of work by
some sudden derangement of trade. Suppose it to be only
temvartry—say a week or two, or a month even—if they
claimed the right t) take the children of able-bodied poor,
hat an interruption of scholastic dtei, a would take Once
if the wa-,tor did not know but 100 of them might e!akto
away in so shore a ti:ne. Yet ware they to deprive the: e
c iniren of 3.11 eduction? Surely not; then they must
have a double systern.—( Hear, hear.) lie thougl t or-
pLans, or the children of consicts, ought to be adopted apt
the children of the Stain. But he was not prepared to say
that bezauic a woman might have been seduced and had a
child, which might be the only solace she had—he was not
quite prepared to ray that ehiidren under such 6. coma
stances should be forcibly taken to district schools
He should wish to know what was the probable number of
ch ldren that would he thus educated, end, considering
the expenselho country had been pat to in erecting union
svcrkhoussr, he hoped the Commissioners would net press
too hardly the erection of these schools. The education
in the workhouses was not so bad now as it had been re-
present •d. Out of 32 union,, 23 had sent the cliddren
either to natio:n.l schools or endowed schools; so that
the:e acre only nine left who had to provide education.
These, however, were merely difficulties in the working
of the plan ; Let he was satisfied th it, if they could erect
schools to be under the superintendence of chaplains of the
Church of England, they would be effecting agreat good,
and the clause should bare his cordial support. -

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET thlught the
amendment of !Ira Hen. Member for Southwa, k would
be a useful check on ail cackr,cy to incur u.elksi expense
on the part of the Cornmission,:rs, and he should support it.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL suggested that the c'iscussi3n
on the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough should be taken before the division.

Mr; LANG DALE hoped he had misunderstood what
hoitdthfeallen from the Right Hon. Baronet, that the children
poor, being children of the State, shocH all be edu-
catedmvointtemtehleaSotaftereligion.
butHe had no. objection. to the
of parental superintendence, t aki ng a child i gal:d
without
chaplains, he did object to the
ntwenildoencem, ave baeueyn
regard
divetdo
the religion
gious instructilets party, of its friends, and of the rel;-
forcin it, in °it might previously have received,
the State spitereligion,
of its former principles, to become a
awful propositio If this were the case it was the most
a ever mate •
not bring himself to believe In Parliament, and he could
Right Hon. Gentleman i that he had understood the
adopted at NJrwood. liti'ttnlY- This principle was not
had gone and instructed ehildreewn Catholic clergymen who
Hon. Member for Kilmarnock m:annttat school. If the
lion
that the chaplain should have the general
the term instrue-
tendenco of the school, 1., ;
-c might not perhapseneral auperin_
but if it were meant to give the chaplain object to
. the exclu-
sive right to giving religious instruction to thechildren,
whether they wen,' Roman Catholics or rs
issenteri, to
that he would give his most decided opposition.
Sir ROBERT PEEL had before said that if the pa.;
rents objected to the children being sent to thcae schools
to that objection they ought to defer.—(Hear.) He had
always held that they had no right to force the religion of
the State upon a child if the natural guardians, the parents,
objected to it ; and if a Roman Catholic father, or Roman
Catholic parents, objected to have his or their children
educated in the doctrines of the Established Church, that
objection ought to bo scrupulously deferred to.—( Hear,
hear.) He had been speaking of the children of con-
victs ; when he had been misunderstood by the lion. Gen-
tleman he had been speaking on the subject generally, and
had not, perhaps, sufficiently guarded himself. He always
had contended that whenever the natural guardians of a
child objected to its being instructed in the religion of the
State that objection ought scrupulously to be deferred to.
They had no right to force on any child a religion objected
to by its parenta.—( Cheers.)
Mr. LANGDALE was rejoiced to bear the explana-
tion of the Right Hon. Baronet, From his known tole-
rant principles, he had thought that ho must have mis-
understood What had previously fallen from him.
mr.
MUNTZ said that the Right Hon. Baronet had
not said
whether children, so situated as be had described,
were
to
have any religious instruction in
their own faith, or
whether they were to be deprived of it altogether.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw,
then divided--

For the amendment
Against it
Majority.,,,
-
On our re-admission to the gallery we found 64
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET on his legs pro-
posing his amendment that in clause 10, line 5, after the
words " infant poor" there should be inserted the words