The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-15 00:00:00

iisI.PRIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 13.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of Saturday.)
Mr. WODEIIOUSE said that the crime of incen•
Iliarism was as common in other counties as in Norfolk.
It would be well if the Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Finsbury would inquire into those acts of incendiarism,
for no one was more capable of investigating the subject
than he was.
Mr. BUCK was understood to support the clause.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the principle could be
applicable only to the metropolis and to -large cities, not
to rural districts. lie had endeavoured to word the
clause so as to carry out this object, and this object
alone. If, however, it was thought the words were not
sufficiently stringent or precise, he would very willingly
make any alteration that might be desirable, in order to
leave no doubt whatever upon the intentions of Par-
liament.
Colonel RUSHBROOK said no county furnished
better means of education by national and parochial
schools than that which he had the honour to represent,
and therefore the Hon. Member for Finsbury was
greatly mistaken when he ascribed the recent incendiary
fires to the deplorable ignorance of the people.
Mr. R. PALMIER said he had yet to learn that it was
desirable to extend to the whole of the poor children of
England the same extent of education as was given in
the school at Norwood. The great point was to make
them good subjects and good Christians—(Hear, hear)
—and that was all Parliament ought to attempt to do for
them.
Mr. BANKES said that the state of the poor in the
rural districts was not quite so bad as supposed by the
lion. Member for Finsbury. He spoke from his own
experience of the decrease of offences amofig the juve-
nile poor in the country.
Mr. HAWES was surprised to find that the clause did
not apply to the rural districts, where there was far
greater need of education than among the populous
manufacturing localities, to which they were now told
the effect of the provision was to be confined.
It seemed to him to be a matter of reproach and shame
to the Government that they stepped in to prevent the
education of the poor in the rural districts.—(Cheers.)
For what purpose this was done he knew not, but to
stint the education of the lower orders in the rural dis-
tricts appeared to him to be a cause of shame to her
Majesty's Government.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he was very anxious to
exclude all uneeeessary heat from this discussion ; but
he could not conceive on what ground, if he had any
regard for truth, the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat
down had thought fit to make an attack upon himself
and the Government, for shrinking from spreading
education amongst any class of her Majesty's sub-
jects.—(Loud cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman admitted
that it was a salutary principle that children should not
be removed more than a moderate distance from their
friends ; and it was an inevitable consequence of that
admission that the elauee could not be applied to the
rural districts with due regard to the feelings of those
concerned.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HAWES said he did not understand the Right
Hon. Gentleman. He said that he (Mr. Hawes) would
not make a certain statement if he had any regard for
truth. Did the Right Hon. Gentleman mean to say,
that he was in the habit of making statements without
knowing that they were founded in truth ?—(Cheers.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said what he had intended was,
that if the Hon. Gentleman meant to make a deliberate
charge against himself or the Government, that they
wished to restrict the education of the poor, he made a
charge which he could not substantiate, with regard
either to truth or justiee.—(Ministerial cheers.)
Mr. HAWES said the Right Hon. Gentleman had
somewhat altered his words.—(Cries of " No, no.")
The Right Hon. Gentleman now said that if he had
made any such statement he was not able to substantiate
it ; but it so happened that he had used no such words, and
therefore the Right Hon. Gentleman was himself making
a statement which had no foundation in truth.
The CHAIRMAN was understood to say that the
Hon. Member having stated that he had not intended to
make the imputation, the matter might be suffered to
rest.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he never designed to give
personal offence to any gentleman in that House; but the
Hon. Gentleman had unnecessarily used a taunt against
the Government, which did not appear to him to be jus-
tified by anything which they had either said or done,
and which was not founded in fact. If he had used the
word " untruth," it was an expression somewhat
stronger than the rules of the House permitted, and to
those rules he was certainly bound to adhere.—(Hear.)
Mr. HAWES said no one had received more courtesy
from the Right Hon. Gentleman than himself, and he
was glad that he had now removed from his mind a
painful impression.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. I)ARBY said the sole question was whether the
principle of this clause was, or was not, applicable to the
rural districts. He was certainty of opinion that it was not.
lie hoped that his Hon. and Gallant Friend would with-
draw his opposition to the clause. He could not admit
that education was neglected in all unions. He knew
several union schools in which the children were admi-
rably well taught. The Right Hon. Gentleman the
Secretary for the Home Department was possibly right
in the course which he had adopted ; and if it were at-
tempted to apply the clause to the rural districts it
would be a failure.
Colonel WOOD was not disposed to stint the educa-
tion of the people. In the workhouse with which he was
connected there was a schoolmaster and mistress, with
201. a year each, and board and lodging, and the mis-
tress had an evening school for adult females.—(Hear,
hear.) He withdrew the amendment.
Mr. VERNON SMITH thought that in. the. rural
districts such an education as was, the object of this
claim was more needed than in the large WWII& in the
rural distriets, the education of the children was very
much neglected.—(No, no.) He did not accuse any
gentleman of neglect in his own particular district ; but
he found the greatest difficulty in the parish in which
he resided to promote education, and he met with every
kind of obstruction. The interpretation which the.
Right Hon. Baronet put upon the clause,
came upon him (Mr. Vernon Smith) by surprise.
Xliere was nothing in the clause which could lead any
one to think that the rural districts were to be excluded.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that it was ,his object-to ex-
dueZe the'rural districts but he proposed to introduce an
amendenent in the 25th line, which would enable rural
parishes to unite for the . purpose or forming district
schools.—(llear, hear.)
Lord J. MANNERS objected to the omission from
the clause of any authority by whom the teachers were
to be appointed. In the 58th clause, there was a pro-
vision to place the schools under the control of the
Commissioners. Why wps that ? Whereas there was
already in this country, a constituted and conse-
crated body, to which the education of the . people
ought to have been intrusted.,--(Hear, hear.)
The effect of this measure would be to spread over the
whole country one general system of Dutch education,
which would eradicate all . those - feelings of home- and.
family affection, upon which the-well-being of the com-
munity muinly depended.
>fr. M. MILNES agreed with his k1oble• Friend:44t:
the Church ought to have the education of the people COM
mated to their care. But he also thought that it was
the duty of the State to step is and supply the defi-
ciency of the Church. He would n refuse to give the
people all the education he could, it he could not give
them all that he wished. He wouldgive the clause his
full support. , • •
Mr. CHILDERS. would certainly oppose the omission
of the words.
Mr. M`GEACHY world, if he thought it Wert in-
tended to establish secular education, most , decidedly
oppoSe the plan, but hoping that the Goveranient would
consent to the proviso, of whicle, he•had given notice, for
appointing a chaplain, he should support it.
Mr. VERNON SMITH thought as it was intended
to confine the operation. of the plan to certain towns, that
it had better he so stated in. the clause,
After a few words from Mr. Stafferd O'Brien, Mr.
Peter Borthwick. end Arr. Gaily-Knight,
Lord HENNIKER stated, in reply to the observa-
tions of the lion. Member for Finsbury, that the state of
education in Norfolk and Suffellt was much improved
in comparison' with what it had been. With regard to
the incendiarism in, those aounties, it-had-no more to do
with. the poor-laws than it had .to do with any Hon.
Member of that House.
Colonel SIIITHORP said he was really surprised to
bear• the inefficieney.of education stftted. as the cause of
the incendiary fires in NorfOrk and Suffolk. This was
not the cause. For his part he not only `wished to see
the poor well educatedebut he wished to see them well-
housed and welk-fecl.-e-(Hear.) That was a, better way
of hindering incendiary fires than by turning the Poor-
law Commissioners into. tutors.--(Laughter.)
The gallery was- then cleared for a division, and the
Mouse divided, when. there appeared— .
For the ainendiitent
Against it ".. ' " 103
Majority ' . • , _77
In answer to a question from Mr. S, O'BRIEN,
Sir J. GRAHAM said it waa not intended to extend
the benefit of these` schools to children whose parents
were not paupers.
On the clause, to amended, being put,
Mr. P. BORTHWICK moved that it be omitted.
3,1 r. FERRAND had no doubt that the Government
would be able to carry the clause; he therefore wished
to put a question to the Right lion. Baronet with re-
gard to it. He wished to know what was the meaning
of the word " chargeable ?" Hit meant the casual poor,
and would apply to the children of the casual poor, it
would make a greet difference' coespered with the chil-
dren.of permanent *gapers. There were an immense
number of the poor who ware only chergeable once' or
twice a-year.
,Sir J. GRAHAM said the mit tint bx the lion.
Member for Knaresborough applied to periods receiving
out-door relief, and it was clear if they gave their con-
fent to their children going to the school, the dew did

include them.
Mr. FERRANII—Did the education cease when the
parents ceased to becOmechargeable ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said, of: course, it would,,exeept so
far as they were. excluded by .the 39th eltinse.l , • ,
Mr. HENLEY said he was more confirmed by thiscon-
ve in his resolution to 'vote against the clause,
sion was- made by the Bill for a eler-
o the Established Church having anything
'4l6igt"l. -pliy 4 the children, . although the next:
dame go aely prohibited any licensed Dissent-
: ipgAiTeachiif rom haring access to the school at, all
tie es. There was not one word- .authorising a clergy-
- the-Church interfering- with the children at all,
Iridli.she..sid be remembered,: t)iatin many of the unions
*typo chaplain. He should oeytainly (01 it to be
hut linty to vote against the claw*,
Sir J. GRAHAM said there was in fhis,,nfensure
the introduction of no new principle whaterer,
proved that he was favourable to the appotia' Want of
captains by proposing a clause tosthat effect bot pap