The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-24 00:00:00

POOR RELIEF IN THE METROPOLIS.

The committee met again yesterday; Mr. Villiers
in the chair. Several other members were also
present.

Mr. Henry Potter, honorary secretary to the
Guardians of the West London Union, was exa-
mined at considerable length by the chairman. He
said that the union consisted of seven parishes, and
that the number of guardians was twenty. He then
detailed the proceedings which took place when a
large number of guardians from different parts of
the country assembled at Radley's Hotel in May
last, and resolved to oppose the order of the Poor-
law Board relative to the religious education of
children, and to petition Parliament against the
bill then tinder consideration with a view to obtain-
ing a modification of the powers of the Poor-law
Board. The original steps were taken after con-
sulting some of the members of the Protestant Alli-
ance. The gentlemen present at Radley's Hotel, at
the meeting convened by circular, represented forty
unions, and letters were read from twelve other
unions promising to co-operate with the meeting.
The first meeting was called to consider the
order allowing priests to attend and give instruction
to the Catholic children ?—Yes.
Was the invitation sent out in ccncurrence with
the Protestant Alliance ?--They had nothing to do
with it.

Chairman—The origin ofa6sembling the guardians
was the Protestant Alliance P—Yes ; the first meet-
ing. When the forty guardians met at Radley's
Hotel the subject of discussion was the order of the
board of August, 1859, and they determined by all
constitutional means to endeavour to obtain the
withdrawal of that order. The committee appoin-
ted at the meeting issued a circular, stating that
the time had come when boards of guardians ought
to be subjected less to the surveillance and control
of the Poor-law Board, and requesting that peti-
tions might be forwarded to Parliament. Petitions
were sent from from 104 unions representing a
population of 4,193.308 persons.
The Chairman—Will you tell the committee the
grounds on which you support the petition, and
what it is you have to allege against the powers
which are now vested in the central board P—l
have had 26 years' experienc, and an ample know-
ledge of poor-law relief. The unions having been
properly formed there is no necessity for the con-
tinuance of the powers given to the central board.
I further say that there is a need of circumscribing
those powers, because we have found them so ex-
ercised as greatly to impede the business of our
union, and do great wrong to the board itself and
to the individual members of that board.

What is it you have to complain of in respect to
the interference of the Poor-law Board P—The first
thing is their having in 1857, by an illegal order,
annulled the election of the guardians of the parish
of St. Andrew. In consequence of that the chair-
man of the board of guardians made an application
to the Court of Queen's Bench, the Poor-law Board
did not defend the order, and the guardians were
put to considerable inconvenience and expense.
What conclusion do you draw from that with
respect to the Poor-law Board—is that the ground
on which you wish to prevent the renewal of their
powers P—That is one ground why we wish their
powers to be circumscribed ; and we further re-
commend that, in the -event of the Poor-law Board
going to law again, they should, in the event of
failure, be compelled to pay the costs. Thernext
thing we complain of is with respect to their con-
duct in the matter of the Hanwell Schools. The
poor-law guardians thought th'y hrd a right to
receive the amount which they had incurred in that
visit. The City of London were al:owed to do so,
but West London wore surcharged to the extent of
£6. That was in 1859. The two cases Were pre-
cisely the same.
Has your union decided to what court you should
appeal from the auditor P—We suggested the magis-
trates sitting in petty session, or the county court.
The magistrates are ex-officio guardians P—But
we bad none.

But you are proposing to legislate for the whole
country ? Will you proceed with your reasons for
withdrawing the.] urisd lotion of the Poor • law Board?
—The next cause is the order of April 23, 1859,
commanding us to provide religious instruction.
When that order was received we considered it con-
trary to the act of Parliament.
The object of the order was that when you ascer-
tain the religion of the parents, you are bound to
find some instructor for the children who is of the
same persuasion P—Yes, and we found that to do
that would be to bag 41)911t a state 0 thins which

would cause religious strife in the house. We held,
as a board, that there was no necessity for the order,
inasmuch as the law provided that instructors should
be allowed to attend, provided the wishes of the
parents of the children were known. The order
directed the board to provide such instructors,
The order has reference chiefly to Catholic chil-
dren who are left orphans ?—We believe that the
order was obtained by the Roman Catholics, and
our experience led us to believe that it was obtained
mainly at the instigation of the priesthood, arid not
at the desire of the parents of the children under
our charge. We found our opinion on the fac s
which we know to exist in our union, when
we have found the priests over and over again
urging the people to have their children in-
structed in the Roman Catholic faith, and we also
find that signatures have been obtained under false
pretences. We take it that the Roman Catholic
priests want to make it compulsory on the guardians
to provide religious instruction, as a step towards
the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains in
oui workhouses.

Your great objection to the order is that it was
promoted by the Roman Catholic priests, and not
at the request of the parents of the children ?—We
think it was a political bargain, made by the
Government which was going out of office.
Mr. Estcourt—Which Government got the order
issued P—l think it was Lord Derby's.
The committee then adjourned.