Page images
PDF
EPUB

"The seventh clause is one to give to the board of guardians the power of relieving any orphan or deserted children out of the workhouse by placing such children out to nurse or otherwise, according to their discretion."

The words "or otherwise," therefore, did occur in the clause; but no attention appeared to have been directed to them. But the question which followed showed distinctly what were the grounds which the Chief Commissioner recommended, and which mainly induced the Committee to adopt the clause. He would read Question 624, as put by him to Mr. Power

"There are two reasons, then-first, a medical reason; and then the moral reason—namely, the desirability of cultivating that family attachment which grows up in a child, when cared for, even in a family not its own.'

That was really the principle of the controversy, so far as his recollection served him, that took place in the Committee. There were on a division six Members who thought it right to stop with the medical reason, which terminated at five years; and there were the majority of seven, who thought the moral reason ought also to be considered. The former, having regard to the medical reason, supported the original proposal of the Poor Law Commissioners-namely, five years; and the latter, considering the desirability of cultivating the family attachment, prevailed, authorizing boards of guardians to place orphan and destitute children out to nurse up to the age of twelve years, when they should think it right to do so. MR. POLLARD-URQUHART observed, that the Amendment did not make it at all compulsory on boards of guardians to extend outdoor relief to children of twelve years old. They were only allowed to do so; and he did not think the power would be abused.

MR. GEORGE said, the question before the Select Committee was, whether-till five years or any other period-it would be safe to intrust boards of guardians with a discretion to put children out to nurse; but the great preponderance of evidence was that, after five years, especially in an educational point of view, they were better in the poorhouse. The subtle construction which had first been put upon the words "or otherwise," in Clause 9, by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, had never been contemplated by the Committee of last year. It would be a most unfitting and indecorous way, under cover of two such words, to introduce a new and highly important

principle, as that guardians, merely at their own will and caprice, should send children to schools of which nobody knew anything. He would be just as unwilling to intrust such a wide discretion to a Protestant board of guardians in the north of Ireland as to a Roman Catholic board of guardians in the south. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman before the debate closed would abandon the interpretation which, doubtless hastily, he had put upon

the words.

MR H. A. HERBERT said, he was surprised at the excitement which these simple words had occasioned. It would almost seem as if his right hon. Friend had been a party to some corrupt compact.

MR. GEORGE said, he should be the last person to insinuate anything of the kind. He merely expressed his belief that the right hon. Baronet had hastily adopted a decision calculated to be attended with injurious effects.

MR. H. A. HERBERT said, the provision, whatever its merits or demerits, had been before the House since the beginning of the Session; his right hon. Friend could not, therefore, be charged fairly with practising any surprise upon the House. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) had taunted the right hon. Baronet with his inexperience, but he ventured to assert that the description given by that hon. Member of the union workhouses of Ireland, as regarded the condition and education of the younger inmates, was not warranted by the actual state of those establishments. Children in the generality of Irish workhouses were better clothed, better educated, and better fed than the children of the corresponding classes outside.

SIR ROBERT PEEL said, the very fact of his having introduced the limit of five years into the Bill was conclusive proof that he had no such intention as that attributed to him by his right hon. Friend opposite. The Bill had lain upon the table of the House since the beginning of the Session, and no question had been raised. The words were also contained in the Bill of 1860. The words were originally introduced in consequence of the recommendation of the noble Lord to extend the age from two or three years.

LORD NAAS said, what he wanted to know was whether the meaning that had been put upon the words in question was correct-whether children might be sent to institutions of a charitable character

all over the country? It was most important that that point should be decided, because upon it depended the question whether an entirely new system should be introduced in connection with the Irish Poor Law. Such an intention did not exist in the former Bill, and was never entertained by any Member of the Committee. He should be inclined to move the postponement of the clause, because if the construction that had been placed upon it for the first time was correct, it would be necessary to add other clauses to the Bill. He had heard nothing to induce him to change his opinion that it was desirable to extend the age, but he was not prepared to say that the guardians should have power to send children to charitable institutions. He could not at all admit that children were better kept in workhouses than in respectable homes. Those educated in workhouses might have more literary learning, but they were not in so good a position for social or moral training as those who were placed out.

children out to private families or otherwise could be called a system of extended outdoor relief he could not understand. With respect to the moral advantages of removing children from the workhouse there could be no doubt, and his own experience convinced him that workhouse training could never succeed in bringing children up to a moral level with those who were trained out of the workhouse. The College of Physicians in Dublin had expressed their strong approval, on sanitary grounds, of the proposal, and the Committee might be sure that boards of guardians would not use such a permission unless they believed it to be for the good of the children themselves. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) was Secretary for Ireland, the full force of the Government was brought to bear in favour of the proposal; but now, he presumed, the full force of the Government would be directed against it. How, under the circumstances, the Chancellor of the Duchy would vote he did not know.

SIR GEORGE GREY said, he would MR. COGAN said, he should support admit, that if the construction to which the the grant to boards of guardians of the noble Lord had called attention were the permissive power. On grounds of humatrue construction, it would very much dis-nity, for the sake of the children's health, tort the Bill. He thought, however, that as well as of economy to the ratepayers, it was obvious such was not the case, be- it was equally desirable. If they were cause if the limit of five years was main- brought up out of the workhouse, the chiltained, the provisions of the English Bill, dren would soon be absorbed into the to which reference had been made, could labouring class, and on every account he not possibly apply to children under the greatly regretted that the policy sanctioned clause. If those provisions were covertly by his predecessor had not been followed extended to Ireland by the clause, he by the present Secretary for Ireland. It thought it would be an unworthy mode of was not in that case alone that Irishmen proceeding; but if that were the case, it had reason to regret that the right hon. would be necessary to insert clauses to Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) was not still give boards of guardians complete control Secretary for Ireland. over the establishments to which children might be sent. He was not prepared to say that the words "or otherwise" might not allow children to be sent to other places than to private families. But the whole importance of those words depended upon the preliminary question what should be the age beyond which children should not be sent out of the workhouse. If the age was limited to five years, there could be no danger; but if extended to twelve, then these words would want ex-lation. planation by additional clauses.

MR. MONSELL said, he could not understand how extending the age to twelve would be extending the powers of boards of guardians to grant outdoor relief. That power they had now in some cases, but how a discretionary power to send

MAJOR O'REILLY said, he hoped the Committee would consent to give the discretionary power to the Poor Law guardians to allow children under twelve years of age to be brought up out of the workhouse. The greater average mortality of children in workhouses did not cease at the age of five years. It extended to higher ages. It was impossible to bring up children so well in these public establishments as among the mass of the popu

MR. HASSARD said, he should support the Amendment upon both moral and social grounds, believing that children would be better brought up outside the workhouse than in.

MR. MORE O'FERRALL said, he would suggest the omission of the words

"or otherwise," and an extension of the time from five to twelve years.

Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) and the noble Lord the MemLORD NAAS said, that if the power ber for Cockermouth (Lord Naas), that were strictly limited to children put out if the words "or otherwise" were omitto nurse in the country, they ought to ted, there should be an extension of the adopt the longer time. If there were terms. He should, therefore, move that the other considerations, they might extend following words be added to the clause :the time now, with the understanding "Provided always that the guardians of the that any necessary modifications should be poor may, with consent of the Poor Law made upon bringing up the report. Commissioners, continue such relief from MR. KER observed, that without know-year to year, until the child attain the age ing the meaning of the words " or other-of ten years, should the guardians consider wise "it was impossible to know how to that such extension of outdoor relief be necessary for the preservation of the child's health."

vote.

SIR ROBERT PEEL said, the question was, whether it should be five years or twelve years. Whatever the Committee determined upon, he was determined to adhere to five years.

MR. WHITESIDE said, that, looking forward to the probability of litigation and vexation from the presence of the words" or otherwise," he would propose that they should be struck out, and that the longer period should be adopted, with some limitation as to expense.

MR. LEFROY said, he considered the extension of the time would be the most injurious to the interests of the country, and he should support the five years against the twelve.

[ocr errors]

LORD JOHN BROWNE said, he did not regret that the words or otherwise " were in the clause. It was much better that the children should be kept in some public institution, instead of being sent to the dirty, filthy cabins in which they would assuredly be brought up.

Amendment proposed,

At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That the Guardians of the Poor may, with consent of the Poor Law Commissioners, continue such relief from year to year until the child attain the age of ten years, should the guardians consider that such extension of outdoor relief be necessary for the preservation of the child's health."

MR. WHITESIDE said, he wished to clear up a misconception on the part of the hon. Member. He had certainly remarked, that if the words " or otherwise" were erased from the clause, he was willing to vote for an extension of the term. The hon. Member for Mayo, however, reduced the matter to its original confusion. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary also adhered with tenacity to the words of the clause, not being aware, as the Home Secretary appeared to be, of their legal force. Under those circumstances, he was obliged to vote for the clause.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY said, he MR. HENNESSY said, he would apwished to ask whether he was to under-peal to the Government not to take advanstand, that should the Committee deter-tage of the misconception, which had obmine on twelve, instead of five years, the viously occurred through a mistake made right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary by the Chief Secretary. would resign office?

COLONEL GREVILLE said, he wanted an explanation of the words "or otherwise."

MR. HENNESSY said, that if the word "five" were retained, he would oppose the Bill at every stage.

"That the word 'five' Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause." The Committee divided: :- Ayes 74; Noes 33 Majority 41.

MR. COGAN said, he could not but express the surprise which he, and others near him, felt at the result of the division. He understood there was a sort of agreement with the right hon. and learned

SIR GEORGE GREY said, that it was impossible on that occasion to deal with a phrase which had already been passed. On the report, however, it would be quite competent for any hon. Member to move the omission of the words "or otherwise,” and the extension of the term. Of course, such a course. he gave no opinion as to the propriety of

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:
Noes 57: Majority 20.

Ayes 37;

MR. BEAMISH said, that s there was no disposition to meet the reasonable requests of Irish Members, and with a view

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided:- Ayes 25; Noes 62: Majority 37.

to give Her Majesty's Government, and of his own Bill, when up rose the right especially the noble Lord at the head of hon. Baronet and stated that what he it, the opportunity of considering what meant was not that children should be course would be most advantageous to the out at wet-nurse at five years of age, and progress of legislation for Ireland, he he said something about the mothers of should move that the Chairman should deserted children. The right hon. and report progress. learned Member for Dublin made a proposal, which the hon. Member for Kildare was ready on behalf of the Roman Catholic body to accept, when again up started the Chief Secretary, and prevented the matter from being brought to a satisfactory conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman might have admitted that he had made a mistake, and have offered to strike out the words on the report; but he had chosen to take an opposite course, which was exceedingly to be regretted. After the evidence before them, and seeing that it had been acknowledged that 47 per cent of the children died in the workhouses, if that Bill went to Ireland unamended, the House He would would be stultifying itself. therefore move--what he believed to be a very moderate proposition-that these words be added at the end of the clause, namely

MR. HENNESSY said, that as the object of Irish Members had been defeated in consequence of a mistake committed by a Member of the Government, he should move, as the first of a series of Amendments, the addition to the clause of the

words

"The guardians of the poor may, with the consent of the Commissioners, continue such relief from year to year, until the child attain the age of nine years."

"Provided always that the guardians of the poor may, with the consent of the Poor Law Commissioners, continue such relief from year to year until the child attains the age of nine years, should the guardians consider that such extension of outdoor relief is necessary for the preser

The continuance of such relief until the age of twelve years had been sanctioned by a Select Committee of that House, and also by a majority of the House in the year 1860, in which majority there voted the noble Lord at the head of the Government, the then Chief Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for War, and several other Gentle-vation of the child's health." men on the Treasury bench, and also the THE CHAIRMAN said, he had some noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth doubts whether the Motion of the hon. (Lord Naas), who might be said to repre- Gentleman was not an evasion of the rule sent Irish opinion on the Opposition side of the House which forbade the same of the House. Why, then, had the proposal question being moved twice at the same that the relief should be continued till stage. At the same time, he was not prethe age of ten been now defeated? A pared to say that the difference between mistake had been made by a Member of nine and ten years was not a substantial the Government, of which the Government one, and he thought he should best dishad taken advantage to defeat the pro- charge his duty by resolving any doubt posal. Three or four hours before, the that he might have in favour of discussion. right hon. Baronet stated that the unfortunate words about which so much had been said, meant that the children were to be sent to certain asylums in the north of Ireland. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: I deny that.] He was bound to accept the right hon. Gentleman's denial; but he appealed to the Committee whether he did not distinctly say that the words in the clause meant that the children might be sent to certain charitable institutions in different parts of Ireland. He thought that he said "the north." The right hon. Baronet loved the north. It had been discovered by his own colleagues that the Chief Secretary was not right in his interpretation

SIR ROBERT PEEL said, that although he believed five to be the age up to which children should be put out in the manner proposed by the Bill, he should be sorry to run the risk of having the measure, which was likely to do so much good if passed, destroyed after all the pains that had been bestowed upon it. He was therefore willing to agree to an honourable compromise in the matter; and as the College of Physicians had expressed an opinion in favour of the age being extended, that afforded him an opportunity of making a concession, which he did most freely. He was prepared to yield to what appeared to be the sense of the

Committee, and to accept the Amendment in a direction the very opposite of that which the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. which it took two years ago. In 1860 Bagwell) had put upon the paper, extend- the Motion for adopting the age of twelve ing the age to eight years. He trusted was carried by seventy-one to ten, and that that arrangement would prove satis- among those who voted in the majority factory to hon. Gentlemen; and he could were Mr. Brand, Sir W. Dunbar, Mr. only express his regret if he had in any Hugessen, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Lowe, Mr. way been the cause of an angry discussion. Whitbread, Lord Palmerston, and many MR. MONSELL said, he hoped the other Ministers. compromise offered by the Chief Secretary would be adopted by the Committee. The Irish Members felt that they had been fighting against the individual opinion of the right hon. Baronet. It was not to be supposed that the rest of the Government, all of whom, including the noble Viscount himself, had in 1860 voted for the limit of twelve years, had had any reason to change their opinion. They must have simply desired to support their colleague, although his knowledge of Ireland was not so great that they should be governed by his mere ipse dixit.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, that allusion having been made to the members of the Government, and especially to himself, he must observe that he had not a very distinct recollection of what passed on that subject in 1860. But the opinion he had formed that night was founded upon the arguments which he had heard on both sides of the question; and certainly, after the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Mayo (Lord J. Browne), he must think the decision of the Committee with respect to the difference between the ages of five and twelve was quite right.

MR. BRADY said, he hoped the compromise would be satisfactory to the people of Ireland.

MR. HENNESSY said, he rose to express his willingness to accept the concession of the right hon. Baronet in the same spirit as that in which it had been offered. He believed that concession would not only terminate an angry discussion, but would much improve the Bill.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY said, he did not wish to disturb the harmony of the Committee; but he regarded the compromise offered by the Chief Secretary as a miserable one, and thought the Committee ought to have insisted on the limit of twelve years. The noble Viscount said he had been convinced by the arguments that had been used that night. It was really wonderful how the members of a Government were all convinced like a pack of hounds, and all ran upon the same scent. The pack was now found running

MR. WHITESIDE said, he thought that if the proposed compromise was to be carried out, the words "or otherwise " ought to be omitted. There would be great dissatisfaction if guardians were to levy rates for the erection of orphanages outside workhouses, and for the maintenance of children in those separate institutions.

MR. H. A. HERBERT said, he had not changed his opinion on the question of age; but after the division that had been taken, if the compromise was to be adopted, he thought the words "or otherwise " ought to be retained. He hoped, therefore, that the Chicf Secretary for Ireland would not adopt the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin. If the guardians, in the exercise of their discretion, should think fit to place children in Roman Catholic institutions-[Mr. WHITESIDE: In convents.] Yes, if the guardians should think that in certain cases the health of the children would be better preserved in convents, he would say, "Let them act as they think fit." He hoped there would be no misunderstanding on the point, and that the Government would be firm on it.

MR. NEWDEGATE said, he would remind the Committee that the division to which the hou. Member for Cork had referred took place at two o'clock in the morning. He apprehended that the real purpose of the provision was that the children should be put out to nurse. If that were to be so, let it be clearly understood; but let them not exonerate the guardians from what was their obvious duty. If the Committee chose to accept the compromise, it was not for him to divide against it at that time.

MR. BEAMISH said, he was still of opinion that the maximum age ought to be twelve years, but for the sake of good feeling he hoped the compromise would be accepted.

MR. KER was in favour of altering the wording of the clause, so as to meet the objection to the words "or otherwise."

« PreviousContinue »