Page images

pointments, to the effect "that the ex-| VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, he periment of open competition for junior thought it was usual not to sit on the clerkships, tried at the India Board in next Wednesday, and therefore they 1859, be repeated from time to time in the would adjourn from Tuesday to Thursother departments of the Civil Service?" day. There would then be only one remaining day before Whitsuntide, and that was usually more a Volunteer day than anything else. He should propose, therefore, that the House adjourn from Thursday the 5th to Thursday the 12th of June.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, the present arrangement for competitive examinations was this-that the candidates for each examination were in the first place examined upon a standard test, to see whether they had what might be called a minimum of the acquirements necessary for the appointments for which they wished to compete. The usual practice then was to select three candidates for every vacancy, who were subjected to competitive examination. It was not intended by Her Majesty's Government to widen that range of competition, and he thought there were good reasons for that determination. If the competition was thrown open to all comers, the result would be that for ten vacancies, instead of thirty, there would be 300 candidates, and there would be spread over a still wider surface the disappointment which was the inevitable consequence even of the limited competition which the Government had established. He thought, that although the disappointment was an evil, the advantages of competition predominated, and that the effect of appointing three candidates to compete for every vacancy was to benefit the public service. But he thought it would be very hard if they allowed a whole troop of young men to come up for competition, and subjected the greater number to inevitable disappointment, besides diverting their minds from other occupations and pursuits in life, where they would find profitable employment and a useful career.

MR. WARNER said, he wished to ask whether the two unsuccessful candidates could compete for the next vacancy?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, that would depend upon the discretion of the head of the department where the vacancy occurred. If there was reason to think that they were well qualified, although not so qualified as the one who had gained the first place, they might be allowed a second trial, but they had no right to elaim it.


MR. WALPOLE said, he wished to ask, When the House was likely to aujourn for the Whitsuntide recess?


Order for Committee read. House in Committee.

Clause 9 (Relief to Orphans and Deserted Children).

MR. HENNESSY said, he rose to move an Amendment which would have the effect of preventing guardians of the poor receiving and keeping in the workhouses orphan and deserted children under two years of age. He rested his case upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, that 47 per cent of such children died every year, while the mortality in the same class of children out of the workhouses was only 16 per cent, thus showing that 31 per cent of these poor children were killed by law in the Irish workhouses. The Amendment was also sanctioned by the precedent of the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas), who, in 1858, proposed a similar prohibition, only he included all children under six years of age, instead of those under two. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary estimated the cost of rearing the children out of the workhouse at about the same as that of rearing them in the workhouse, and therefore there could be no objection on the ground of expense.

Amendment proposed,

In page 5, line 3, after the word "Enacted," to insert the words that no orphan or deserted child shall be maintained in a workhouse until after the age of two years."

SIR ROBERT PEEL said, it was impossible to agree to the Amendment, as it would clearly lead to a great sacrifice

of human life.

LORD NAAS said, he approved the object of the Amendment, but, at the same time, he was of opinion that the children must be received into the workhouse for some limited time, until the services of an outdoor nurse could be secured. The evils of putting infants into workhouses

were so great that Parliament was justi- | their best to bring up the children under fied in prohibiting the practice. All sta- their care; but from the report of Dr. tistics proved that workhouses were not Hancock, it appeared that in the bestfit places for the proper nurture of very circumstanced workhouses the mortality young children, who were often taken of children was double the average morthere in a very weak state, and therefore tality of children in the United Kingdom, required great care and attention. If a while in some of the worst-circumstanced child was put out to nurse, it would na- places, such as Dublin, it was four times turally assume the religion of the per- as great. In the workhouses of Ireland son to whose charge it was confided, and generally the mortality of infants was by adopting that plan the religious dif- three-and-a-half times more than that ficulty would practically be got rid of of the country at large. There had never That was the course which was followed been any difficulty under the old grand with success under the grand jury sys- jury system in placing out children to nurse, and in France the whole of the foundlings were thus dealt with, and dealt with, too, with great success. He thought, therefore, that the Committee would do well to accept the Amendment, and thus give those poor children three-and-a-half times as good a chance of life as they would have in the workhouse.


MR. VINCENT SCULLY said, he was afraid the unfortunate question of religion would arise, unless the Amendment was so modified as to render it imperative upon the authorities to place the child with a nurse of the same religion as itself.

MR. BRADY said, in the interests of humanity, it was absolutely necessary that children of a tender age should not be kept in the workhouse, where, from want of pure air and exercise, the mortality amongst them was very great.

LORD JOHN BROWNE said, he did not see how the suggestion of the noble Lord would overcome the religious difficulty. There would be the same question at the Board as to the religion of the nurse as there was as to that of the child. There was this objection to the proposed arrangement-that a mother might be induced to send her child to the workhouse in the hope of being afterwards paid for nursing it outside.

MR. VANCE said, he did not regard this as a religious question at all. He thought that it would be much wiser to leave the question of maintaining the child inside or outside the workhouse to be decided at the option of the guardians. It would, in his opinion, be extremely dangerous to make it compulsory to remove all children from the workhouse.

MR. H. A. HERBERT maintained that in the workhouses every provision was made for the sanitary welfare of the children who were inmates. He had the greatest objection to making it compulsory on the guardians to send out the children, and held that it should be left to their discretion.

MR. MONSELL said, he was afraid he could not entirely concur with his right hon. Friend who had just spoken. No doubt in many unions the guardians did Lord Naas

SIR EDWARD GROGAN denied there was any analogy in the case of pauper children in Ireland and the enfans trouvés in France. In Ireland there was no machinery for carrying out such a plan as the hon. Member for the King's County proposed. If they meant to save those children from destruction, they must admit them into the workhouse, and thus place them under the care of a responsible authority.


COLONEL DICKSON remarked, that as he understood him, his hon. Friend the Member for the King's County did not mean to remove the children altogether from the jurisdiction of the workhouse authorities.

MR. HENNESSY said, his hon. and gallant Friend was quite right. He would quote the highest authority as to the state of the workhouses. The Poor Law Commissioners in one of their Reports said

"We beg to draw attention to the great difficulty of rearing infant children who are admitted into the work house under two years of age without their mothers, and to the great mortality which prevails among those children. It is quite that kind of substitute for maternal care which impossible to procure for them in the workhouse is necessary for them at that age."

LORD JOHN BROWNE said, he did not object to putting children out to nurse, as a general rule. What he objected to was, that the regulation should be made under all circumstances compulsory. No doubt the mortality of pauper children would always be very high, considering the hardship and exposure which they suffered before they were brought to the union.

MR. COGAN said, he saw no objection to the admission of the children into the workhouse until nurses were found for them. He would, therefore, suggest that the word "received" should be omitted, so that the Amendment might run "No orphan or deserted child shall be maintained in a workhouse until after the age of two years."

MR. M'CANN said, that in order to induce some guardians to put children out, it was necessary that the law should be compulsory.

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON said, that the experience of England had been against outdoor nursing. If it were made compulsory, children would often, in point of fact, be nursed by their own mothers or near relatives at the expense of the union.

MR. MAGUIRE said, he should support the Amendment.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE said, he thought that it would be sufficient to leave the matter to the discretion of the guardians.

MR. H. A. HERBERT said, the question was not between a nurse and the mother, but between two hirelings-a nurse inside the workhouse and a nurse outside.

MR. O'BRIEN said, he wished to ask whether the Government had not received from some eminent medical men in Dublin an expression of opinion in favour of the Amendment?

SIR ROBERT PEEL replied that he had received no such communication.

SIR EDWARD GROGAN said, the clause empowered the board of guardians to provide for the relief of any orphan or deserted child out of the workhouse, if they should think fit to do so, by "placing such child out at nurse or otherwise, according to their discretion." He objected to the words "or otherwise," which were not very intelligible, and he therefore would propose that they should be omitted. Their insertion might enable the board of guardians to send young children to institutions outside of the workhouses where large numbers were congregated together, so that the same evil would arise as if they were crowded together in the workhouse.

MR. HENNESSY said, he would consent to omit the words "received into" from his Amendment.

to leave out the words "
Amendment proposed, in lines 6 and 7,
or otherwise."

The Committee divided:- Ayes 33; Noes 177: Majority 144.


SIR ROBERT PEEL said, he believed there were excellent institutions in the north of Ireland and elsewhere, to which it was desirable that the board of guardians should have the discretionary power of sending children up to five years of age, not exactly to be nursed, but to be taken care of. It was therefore desirable, with that view, to retain the words "or otherwise."

SIR EDWARD GROGAN said, that the Report of the Commissioners stated that the mortality among children under two years of age must be great, whether they were brought up within or without the workhouse. If the Amendment was adopted, how was the expense to which it would give rise to be provided for?

MAJOR O'REILLY said, he thought there ought to be some provision to enable boards of guardians to dispose of children MR. POLLARD-URQUHART said, he above one or two years of age, but under would admit that it was preferable that five. There were institutions in Ireland children should be brought up out of the peculiarly adapted for taking care of such workhouse; but he did not wish to inter-infants as were above the age of maternal fere with the discretion of the guardians, or with their power to apply that sort of workhouse test to mothers who might be anxious to abandon their children.

LORD NAAS said, he was rather alarmed at the statement of the right hon. Baronet. If children were not to be taken into the workhouse, they ought to be given to the care of nurses. He decidedly objected to the children being sent to the establishments referred to by the right hon. Baronet. To give the power to do so would be a serious departure from the main principles of the Poor Law, which he hoped the Committee would not sanction.


MR. VANCE said, he feared that such a provision would create discord and dissension among the guardians, some of whom would be for sending the children to one kind of institution, while others would have a partiality for a different one.

MR. MONSELL remarked, that the

Question put, "That those words be House unanimously decided two evenings there inserted." since that the English guardians should have the power of sending children to institutions up to the age of sixteen. Ho


could see no reason why the same course could not be taken with regard to Ireland.

SIR EDWARD GROGAN observed, that the reason urged before the Committee upstairs for sending children out to nurse, was that it would be better for their MR. VINCENT SCULLY said, he prohealth. When their nursing was over, posed to insert a proviso, which would they ought to come back to the work-limit boards of guardians in their choice house. His objection to placing children of persons to whom the children should be in institutions was that they would not be intrusted to the selection of those who under the control of the guardians. were of the same religion as that in which the children were registered.

MR. M'EVOY said, he hoped the Committee would retain the words.

MR. M'CANN said, that in the case of the English children the only question raised was as to whether the provision should extend to the age of sixteen, or not apply to children over fourteen.

LORD NAAS remarked, that in the English Bill there was a provision that the schools should be open to inspection, and be certified by the Poor Law Board. There was no such safeguard in the Bill under discussion with respect to the institutions in Ireland.

MR. HASSARD said, he thought that the words in question would defeat the object of the Select Committee.

MR. MAGUIRE said, he was of opinion that the words ought to be retained. There might exist in Ireland at present, or there might spring up hereafter, institutions to which it would be desirable to send orphan children when they left the nurses to whom they had been confided.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS said, he had no doubt, that if the words were retained, there would be no want of institutions such as those to which the hon. Member (Mr. Maguire) had referred, and that a new crop of poorhouses would spring up in Ireland.

MR. BRADY said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would persevere with the clause. If the guardians should commit themselves by improper conduct, their constituents would have power to turn them out.

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

LORD FERMOY said, that the great difficulty with pauper children was to get them absorbed in the rest of the population. Most people would prefer to take a young woman as a servant from a religious institution rather than to take her from a workhouse.

MR. VANCE said, he would recommend the words to be omitted, in order to prevent the occurrence of disputes.

Mr. Monsell

The Committee divided:
Noes 76: Majority 51.

[ocr errors]

Ayes 127;

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, he should oppose the Amendment. In a district where the bulk of the population were Roman Catholics, it might be difficult to find a Protestant nurse; and in a Protestant district it would be equally difficult to find a Roman Catholic nurse.

LORD NAAS said, that after the important decision to which the Committee had just come, it would be right to know from the Government how far those children were to be supported out of the rates, and also whether it was intended to assimilate the clause as it now stood to the clause relating to English children which had been carried a few nights ago. He thought that the Government ought to undertake to bring up clauses, providing that the institutions in Ireland to which the children might be intrusted ought to be put under the same restrictions with regard to inspection and other matters as those of England. Until some such intention was announced, the discussion of the clause ought to be deferred.

THE CHAIRMAN said, the subject before the Committee was the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cork,

MR. WHITESIDE said, he thought, with all deference to the hon. Gentleman, that a discussion might now very properly arise upon the questions put by his noble Friend.

THE CHAIRMAN: The debate is restricted to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cork.

MR. H. A. HERBERT said, he hoped that the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork would be adopted by his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel). The principle was one which nobody could have the slighest hesitation in supporting-namely, to provide an additional security that there should be no attempt at proselytizing. The Committee would do an outrageous thing not to support it.

MR. CONOLLY said, it was totally

wrong that so large a question as that assure the right hon. Baronet, that whatupon which the Committee had just di-ever might be his intention, he had provivided should be decided by a sort of side- ded for the establishment all over Ireland wind upon the mere adoption or rejection of Roman Catholic orphan institutions of the simple words "or otherwise." If which would be used for proselytizing the institutions to which reference had purposes; and he wished to know whether been made were to be recognized, the re- the ratepayers were to sustain those insticognition ought to take place only after tutions. In order that the right hon. the adoption of a specific motion made for Baronet might have an opportunity of the purpose; though he questioned whe- giving an explanation of the meaning of ther such an object came within the scope the clause, he would move that the Chairof the Bill, which was a measure for man should report progress. amending the Poor Law in Ireland, and not for establishing a number of orphan asylums. The decision just come to would introduce an element of strife into every board of guardians in Ireland. He was sorry that the right hon. Baronet had been led into a trap; but the question could not rest as it stood.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now report Progress."

MR. WHITESIDE said, that Members on that side of the House were disposed to give the right hon. Gentleman every assistance in passing the Bill; but a Minister of the Crown was bound to give the necessary explanations. They wished to know distinctly how the orphan institutions which might arise were to be supported. Were boards of guardians to have the power to maintain such institutions out of the funds of the State? That question must be discussed fully and fairly, and any attempt to act covertly in that House always failed. He believed that a more unwise thing could not be done than to introduce into the Poor Law Act a provision which would most assuredly lead to the establishment of institutions totally different from those contemplated by the Poor Law. If they did so, he feared that the result would bo bickerings, ill-will, animosity, and quarrelling in every Poor Law Board throughout Ireland.

SIR ROBERT PEEL observed, that though the hon. Gentleman stated that the words "or otherwise" were introduced into the Bill by a sort of side-wind, they had from the commencement formed part of the Bill as printed, which had been upon the table of the House for some time. He had acted, as he thought, fairly between the two great religious parties in Ireland, and he disclaimed the notion of pandering to the feelings either of one class or of the other. He thought the provision was a wise one to adopt in reference to children up to five years of age, and it was not proposed for educational purposes, but for sanitary purposes only. As for making use of the Poor Law for the object of preparing the way for the establishment of Roman Catholic orphan asylums in Ireland, he disclaimed any such intention, and he was willing to accept the entire responsibility of the clause. With regard to the larger question which the noble Lord stated was raised by the retention of the words, he should be prepared to meet it when the proper time arrived for its discussion. The provision adopted in respect to Eng-form. land, to which allusion had been made, had reference to the education of pauper children up to fourteen years of age, and was entirely different in principle from the enactment in the present Bill, which provided for the relief of children not more than five years old out of the work-period of twelve, instead of five years, the house, on sanitary grounds only. He time during which it should be lawful was willing to agree to the Amendment under the operation of the Bill for a board moved by the hon. Member for the county of guardians to provide for the relief of of Cork. any orphan or deserted child out of the workhouse. The Committee of the House,

Motion negatived.
Amendment agreed to.

MR. HENNESSY said, he would then propose as an Amendment in line 8, the substitution of the word "twelve for "five," the object being to extend to a


SIR EDWARD GROGAN said, he could

SIR GEORGE GREY said, that every explanation would be given at the proper time; but the Chairman had decided that the subject was foreign to the Motion before the Committee. He thought the most convenient course they could take would be to adopt the Amendment, and then to discuss the clause in its completed

« PreviousContinue »