was Government property of enormous MR. HARVEY LEWIS seconded the value, the loss of which would affect, not only the convenience, but in some cases the safety of the country. Two Committees of that House had been of opinion that a contribution of £10,000 would not be two much for the Government to pay towards the new Fire Brigade. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press an Amendment which would overturn the whole arrangement on which the Bill was founded.

LORD FERMOY said, the inhabitants of the metropolis had come very badly out of the negotiation as it stood; and the Amendment would make matters still

worse.

Question, "That the words 'the sum of ten thousand pounds' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Another Amendment made.

Bill to be read 3° To-morrow.

POOR LAW BOARD CONTINUANCE, &c., (re-committed) BILL-[BILL 218.]

COMMITTEE.

Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the
Chair."

LORD FERMOY said, that this Bill was,
on the face of it, a deception. It was
described as a Poor Law Continuance Bill,
yet of all the twenty-four clauses only one,
the first, enacted the continuance of the
Poor Law Board. The other clauses ex-
cited much difference of opinion both in
and out of that House. The 24th clause
declared that the Bill might be "cited and
described for all purposes as
the Poor
Law Amendment Act of 1865,'" and that
was exactly what the Bill was. It was
impossible for his right hon. Friend to
carry the Bill in its present shape, and he
would suggest that the Bill should be
limited to a single clause, continuing the
Poor Law Board for one year. The
ques-
tion involved in the religious clauses alone
would keep them there for a fortnight or
three weeks, and it was too important a
question to be hurried through the House.
He would move, as an Amendment to the
Motion-

Motion. He said some of the largest parishes in the metropolis had petitioned against the Bill, and the House had, he thought, some reason to complain of the indecent haste with which the President of the Poor Law Board attempted to force the Bill through at the fag-end of the Session. Why had it not been brought forward sooner, when it would have been a charity to find the House something to do? Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the provisions of this Bill should be limited to the continuance of the Poor Law Board for one year,"”—(Lord Fermoy,) -instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. SPEAKER said, that if the Amendment were carried it would negative the Motion to go into Committee, and that therefore it would be impossible to pass even that part of the Bill which would continue the Poor Law Board.

VISCOUNT GALWAY said, he objected to the Bill, and he trusted that the President of the Poor Law Board would not refuse to accede to what was evidently the general feeling of the House. He would not object to the Speaker leaving the Chair, in order that the first clause might be carried. But the other clauses of the Bill were of great importance, and would lead to a great deal of discussion. The Bill proposed to deal with the Gilbert Unions. A few years ago the House would not agree to a dissolution of these unions, and it was rather hard that they should be put under the power of the Poor Law Board without having a word to say on their own behalf.

SIR BROOK BRYDGES said, it was too late in the Session to discuss the important clauses of this Bill. There were important taxing powers in the Bill given to the Poor Law Board independently of the Guardians. These might be very proper, or they might be very improper, powers for the Poor Law Commissioners to possess; but the alterations in the law were most important. The Bill was brought forward when hon. Members could not discuss its provisions with satisfaction to their "That, in the opinion of this House, the pro-jority of the House were anxious that the constituents, and he believed that the mavisions of the Bill should be limited to the continuance of the powers of the Poor Law Board for Bill should be cut down to a mere continuone year."

ance Bill.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, it was his duty, having presented a great number of petitions against the Bill, to represent to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Villiers) that in the interest of the Poor Law Board itself it would be extremely imprudent to press the clauses of the Bill, with the exception of the continuance clause. The other matters should be discussed in the New Parliament.

MR. WHITE said, he concurred in urging on the President of the Poor Law Board to adopt this plan. He had presented a petition from the directors and board of guardians of Brighton praying the House not to enter upon a discussion of clauses from 9 to 18. The matters to which those clauses related could not receive adequate attention in the present Parliament, and he hoped that they would simply pass a continuance Bill.

SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY said, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to go on with the Bill.

access to the workhouses for their priests, they were still not admitted, the Duke of Richmond, with the consent of Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, issued an order to meet the case, but at this order the guardians took offence, saying that the order gave a direction to the guardians to procure Roman Catholic priests to attend to the unions. The Resolution of the Committee, embodied in the present Bill, fell something short of that order of the Duke of Richmond. He would ask hon. Gentlemen who complained of the lateness of the Session to name the day before which he could have introduced this Bill. It was brought in at the first opportunity. The clauses relating to the register of creed, to access to the inmates by the Ministers for religious instruction, and to going to a place of worship were approved by the Secretary of the Protestant Alliance, and he thought himself safe when he obtained the approval of that Gentleman. The fact was, that considerable MR. C. P. VILLIERS said, that the pains had been taken to bring hon. Memnoble Lord (Lord Fermoy) stated, not very bers there that day to vote against this courteously, that this Bill was one of Bill; yet, considering the exertions that had deception, because, professing to be one been made, the result was not very strikof continuance, it contained many other ing. Those most likely to object to the clauses. That statement was wholly religious clauses were absent. His hon. unfounded. The title of the Bill was Friend (Sir John Shelley) told the House "A Bill to continue the Poor Law Board that he had presented a great number of for a limited period, and to make cer- petitions against the Bill, but if so they tain Amendments in the law regulating had not been reported in the Votes. He the Relief of the Poor." The noble did not believe that twenty petitions had Lord was a Member of the Committee, been presented against the measure, alwhich sat for three years, and he could though there were 700 unions in the not affirm that the introduction of the country. He had received deputations Bill was in any sense a surprise. The from Boards of Guardians, and he beReport of the Committee was sent to lieved that, after explanation, they had every Board of Guardians in the country; been in most cases satisfied with the and the guardians had considered the religious clauses. There were 250,000 Report and taken action on it, and had Roman Catholics in the metropolis who presented petitions to the House, and were just as loyal as any other class, memorials to the Poor Law Board. They and a great injustice was inflicted upon had singled out those portions of it to that body by the present system. which they objected, namely, the pay- the pauper schools and workhouses of ment of priests out of the rates, and the metropolis no notice was in many any interference with the discretion of the guardians in the education of the children. Those objections had been respected; but no one had objected to those parts of the Report which were embodied in the Bill. The real objection to the Bill was to prevent the Roman Catholic clergy from having access to the workhouses, and giving instruction to their own people. The Roman Catholics some time since having complained that an Act of Parliament having given

In

cases taken of their religious opinions, and it was notorious that their children were sent to schools where they were brought up as Protestants. One of the Poor Law inspectors went to a district school containing 700 children, and asked whether they had any Roman Catholic or Dissenting children among them. They said they had none. He had great reason to believe that many of these were the children of Roman Catholic parents, and he went to the workhouse to make

inquiry. He saw a poor woman, a Ro- consent of the Board of Guardians. By man Catholic, left with four children, the 8th clause, however, the right hon. who had been sent to this school. The Gentleman took power to order an exinspector asked her of what religion her penditure of £500,000 without any consent children were. She replied, "They are at all, and he might repeat that as often Catholics, or ought to be." She knew, as he pleased. The next was a power to nevertheless, they were being brought up transport children from one part of the as Protestants, and, being asked why she country to another without reference to had not complained, she said, "What is a distance. Then came the religious clauses poor woman like me to do?" The in- of the Bill. It was somewhat singular spector knew of 350 children of whose re- that the right hon. Gentleman, having had ligion no notice was taken, and he knew this subject before him for six years, and that the parents and relatives of some of the Committee having been sitting for them were Roman Catholics, although the three years, and the right hon. Gentlechildren were brought up as Protestants. man having communicated with Boards of At Manchester, Liverpool, and Birming- Guardians, should have brought in a set ham correct registers were kept, the reli- of clauses, and then, before the ink with gious feelings of the poor were consulted, which they were printed was dry, should and no ill-will was excited between Ro- have withdrawn and amended his own man Catholics and Protestants. He knew clauses. If the right hon. Gentleman, a metropolitan district inhabited by a mil- after all this time for consideration, and lion of souls, and containing ten work- after having had his official experience houses, in which not the least notice was directed to the matter, thought it necessary taken of the religion of the children. Now, to amend his own proposition, it was odd these poor people did care whether their that the House of Commons were to be children were brought up as Roman Ca- allowed no time for consideration, and were tholics or Protestants. Some thought, to have many unpleasant things thrown at indeed, that the poor cared more for their them because they would not, without dischildren in this respect than the rich, but cussion, accede to these proposals. There at any rate they had feelings which were was one very curious thing in the Bill as entitled to respect. The Roman Catholics amended. The right hon. Gentleman had had good ground of complaint in this divested himself of the power of censormatter, and if hon. Members refused to ship over religious books, but he retained do them justice now they would hear more in his own hands the very extraordinary of this hereafter. power of deciding whether a child of twelve years old was to be permitted to choose his religion. Whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to make a journey into the country, in order personally to examine these children, or whether he intended to have them sent up to him by third class trains to be examined at the Poor Law Board, or how this clause was to be otherwise worked out, he did not know. Another strong power was taken by this Bill. If a man or a woman, being out of the workhouse, applied for relief for a sick child and got it, and if the Board of Guardians saw fit to order them to do task work, and the parent neglected or refused to do it, he or she was to be considered an idle and disorderly person, and might be sent to prison as a vagrant. Another provision gave the Board of Guardians a taxing power with reference to the superannuation of a number of persons who had nothing to do with the relief of the poor. The House ought surely to know the opinions of the Guardians and the taxpayers before they adopted such a clause. All these were

MR. HENLEY said, he had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not have resumed his seat without expressing his willingness to concede to the evident wish of the House. The right hon. Gentleman intimated that the objection to the measure was entirely owing to the religious clauses, but he had not stated the reasons on which he founded that opinion. Upon his (Mr. Henley's) side he had heard no objections founded upon the merits or demerits of a single clause. The religious clauses, were only a small part of the Bill, but if they were so important, why had not the right hon. Gentleman brought in the Bill two or three months ago? What was to hinder him? Hon. Members would then have had an opportunity of hearing the opinion of their constituents. He did not wish to give his opinion upon any of the clauses of the Bill, but it contained five main provisions. With regard to the first of these the Gilbert Unions had a right to be heard. The next provision was the taxing power, which was now restrained by the

Continuance, &c., Bill. important alterations in the law, which | part of the Select Committee's recommenmight or might not be advisable, but which dations-namely, that Roman Catholic it was impossible to discuss after the Ap- children should be handed over to Roman propriation Bill had passed through Com- Catholic schools and maintained therein mittee. There was no earthly reason that by the guardians. To say that hon. Memhe could see why the Bill should not have bers on his (the Opposition) side of the been laid on the table three months ago. House refused to give Roman Catholic He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman children their religious rights and privileges would, in deference to the universal opi- was, in fact, a mere bit of electioneering nion on all sides of the House, agree to tactics. make this simply a Continuance Bill, and not drive hon. Members to move that the Chairman report progress after every clause. At this period of the Session it was utterly impossible that the questions of pauper emigration and officers' superannuation could be fairly discussed. In six months all the other matters contained in the Bill could be discussed and adopted. His own opinion was in favour of what were called the religious clauses of the Bill; but, in the interest of those for whom they were framed, it would be better they should be passed after the Bill had been sufficiently considered by the country, rather than leave it to be said that it had been snatched through after the Appropriation Bill had been brought in, and thus drive many persons to be awkward in the working of the Bill. Another reason for more consideration was, that the wording of some of the clauses was very defective. The clause enabling ministers to visit and instruct the inmates of his persuasion was so indefinitely drawn that he did not believe a single Minister would be able to avail himself of the provision.

MR. LOCKE said, that the objections were not confined to the religious clauses. That morning he received a communication from the Bermondsey Board of Guardians, who objected to clauses from 16 to 19 in clusive, not one of which referred to religion.

MR. KNIGHT said, he must for himself indignantly repudiate the assertion of the President of the Poor Law Board that this Bill was opposed on anti-Roman Catholic grounds. All that the Roman Catholics could justly demand would have been given them by the order which the Duke of Richmond, with the consent of Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, had proposed to issue; and now the right hon. Gentleman, having been in office for six years and done nothing, proposed to hurry a Bill through Parliament at the eve of a general election, to do what would have been done by the Duke of Richmond's order. The right hon. Gentleman had, after all, left out the best

LORD EDWARD HOWARD said, he was delighted to hear from the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) with his large experience, that he looked with favour on the religious clauses of this Bill. It was a sanction of an important principle for which the Roman Catholics would be very grateful. It had been said that the Session was so advanced that the measure could not be properly discussed. He did not concur in that opinion. At all events he was willing to accept what he desired whenever it was offered to him; and he trusted that his right hon. Friend would go on and try and pass the Bill. It contained clauses of great importance, affecting deeply the religious liberties of large num bers of the most destitute persons in the country, and which clause had undergone the careful consideration of a Select Committee of that House. Why delay for another year the consideration of these important matters ? Next year there would be a new Parliament, with new Members and with new subjects for consideration. The management of workhouses varied in different places. Roman Catholics had great complaints of that management in many places, especially in the metropolis. Bricklayers and dock labourers flocked to London. Without them the metropolis would be wanted in its magnitude and in its present commerce. having done their work they died, and their families were often forced into the workhouses, where, for want of instruction, they were led away from the religion of their forefathers. He regretted that so many hon. Members connected with the metropolis had spoken in favour of delay, because it was in the metropolitan workhouses that the children of Roman Catholic parents were most frequently perverted from the faith in which they had been brought up. This Bill would meet the evil, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would proceed with it. Thank God! there had been throughout the debate such an enunciation of liberal feeling towards the Roman Catholics in workhouses

But

on both sides as to lead to the conviction | ation, which the present Session would not that, at all events, if not this year, yet afford time to give. still eventually and ere long, the case would be treated equitably, and the existing evil be met by a proper remedy.

SIR GEORGE GREY said, he did not think the House would have been satisfied if his right hon. Friend. after so long an inquiry by the Select Committee on Poor Laws, had proposed a mere continuance of the powers of the Poor Law Board for a year without embodying in such a measure some of the most important recommendations of the Committee. His right hon. Friend had withdrawn some of the clauses to which considerable objection had been made as requiring further consideration, and had hoped that those now left in the Bill might have been thought reason

SIR JOHN TROLLOPE said, he must remind the House that this debate might have been greatly shortened if the President of the Board had not thrown out the taunts he had. For himself he would say that all the right hon. Gentleman's taunts were entirely without foundation. The right hon. Gentleman intimated that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches had been summoned there in large numbers to defeat the Bill. He for one had received no such summons. It was still more un-able enough to pass without any considerfounded to assert that his hon. Friends met this Bill in a spirit of bigotry. He agreed that Roman Catholic children should be fully open to religious teaching in the tenets in which they had been brought up, and that if this teaching could not be obtained in the work house, it should be proIcured out of it. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he meant to go into the Bill as it stood, or limit it to a continuance Bill? If the former, he would find hon. Members on the opposite side of the House willing to consider the clauses, and that not in a spirit of bigotry.

MR. NEATE said, he was prepared to give his humble support to the Bill as it stood. Especially he approved of Clause 22, which extended the limits to which children would be sent for the purpose of education.

SIR MINTO FARQUHAR said, he could not help thinking that the President of the Poor Law Board was rather too apt to assume an aggressive attitude towards the Opposition Benches. But why had not the right hon. Gentleman turned round on his "Liberal friends,' as they called themselves, and attacked them for their opposition to his Bill? Instead of which the right hon. Gentleman must needs attack those who sat on the opposite side of the House, and told them they had been whipped up to oppose this Bill from religious feelings. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman such was not the case, and that hon. Members on that side were too independent to be whipped up for any such purposes. The right hon. Gentleman had entirely misinterpreted the feelings of those who sat upon the Opposition Benches. Their only reason for opposing the Bill was, that its clauses required full consider

able delay or discussion. It was clear, however, that there was on the part of the House a great indisposition to go on with the clauses during the short remaining period of the Session. It was impossible at the present hour (3 o'clock) to make any progress with the clauses in Committee. One great advantage had been gained by the discussion. They had heard from every Gentleman who had addressed the House a concurrence in those clauses the object of which was to give the Roman Catholic children in workhouses these religious rights and privileges to which they were justly entitled. Seeing the evident indisposition of the House to go into the consideration of the clauses this Session, and being of opinion that the measure could not be passed during the short remaining period of the Session, he would advise his right hon. Friend, having done his duty in bringing in this measure, and having made the best fight he could, to consent to limit the Bill this Session to a mere Continuance Bill. If his noble Friend would withdraw his Amendment, the House might go into Committee and pass the Continuance Clause, and the other clauses could then be withdrawn. The Government would, if they were in office, propose a measure containing those clauses as soon as possible after Parliament should meet, and he trusted that the expression of opinion which they had that day heard would insure the favourable consideration and adoption of them in the next Session of Parliament.

MR. NEWDEGATE said, it was evident that there was a sort of tacit agreement between the Roman Catholics and the Poor Law Board to supersede the guardians in the management of unions: and there was a rivalry between the two sides of the House in making concessions to the Roman