begged to call the attention of the Government to an advertisement in the Edinburgh Advertiser of March 26th, from the receiver of taxes, stating, that the collector had received a communication from the Comptroller-general of Scotland, to the effect, that the public service required a much earlier collection of those taxes than had been made heretofore, and reminding all persons that the same would become due on the 25th current, and requesting early payment. He wished to know whether the advertisement in question was issued with the knowledge of the commissioners of taxes.

said, that no special directions were given by the commissioners, such matters being left to the parties on the spot.

begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it were true, as had been stated, that her Majesty's Government had entered into an agreement by which the mails were to be carried, in Scotland, six days in the week by railway, and on Sunday by coach.

said, that under the Act of last Session, the Postmaster-general had no power to compel the proprietors of railroads in Scotland to carry passengers on Sunday, though they could require them to carry the mails. Two railroads in Scotland had agreed to carry the mails, though they refused to carry passengers; but they said, that the Post-office must bear the expense of the communication by steam, in which they were quite right. The Post-office found, however, that they could convey the mails by horses cheaper than by railway, without any inconvenience to the public, and they had accordingly contracted for that purpose.

objected to the principle on the score of the expense, and gave notice of a motion for copies of the correspondence.

inquired whether the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade meant to move his proposed resolution for regulating the commercial intercourse of the West-India colonies and the United States, on Monday next, or whether the committee on the Poor-law Act was to have precedance. Because, as the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fixed an early day after Easter for the Budget, and as the resolution in question might have some relation to the general financial statement, or that financial statement have relation to the resolution it would be much more expedient to postpone the resolution till after the statement had been made, in order that the House might have the whole measure of the right hon. Gentleman before them at the same time.

said, his resolution could in no degree affect the British revenue and he did not, therefore, see any reason for the proposed delay.

said, if the resolution embraced an isolated abstract measure, then his objection could not apply; but suppose the importation of foreign sugar at a lower rate should form a part of the right hon. Gentleman's financial measures, then he apprehended it would be better for them to have the whole subject before them at once.

said, the right hon. Gentleman would see that it would be improper in him to give any answer that could in any way anticipate his right hon. Friend's statement; but he repeated, that the resolution he had to propose was quite independent of the general subject. Considering what the House had done this Session for the East Indies, he thought there should be no opposition to entertaining a question so important to the West India colonies.

said, that on the new regulation for the Post-office coming into operation, the public had been called upon to post their letters earlier. He wished to know whether there was any prospect of an extension of the time of closing, according to the understanding that such should be the case, after the difficulties of the new system had been overcome,

was sorry to say, that so far from seeing any prospect of the understanding being carried into effect, there was, on the contrary, so much pressure arising out of the increased correspondence, that there was much difficulty in carrying on the business with the present establishment of clerks.

, in rising to move that a select committee should be appointed to inquire into the state of the colony of Newfoundland, said he could assure the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, that he had no desire to interfere with the progress of the Poor-law Bill, in the principles of which he fully concurred. He hoped he should not say anything that should lead to an acrimonious discussion, or prejudice any person or party whose conduct was to be inquired into by the committee for which he moved. For some years past the colony of Newfoundland had been in a most distracted state, and for the last four years the respectable and wealthy classes of the colony had been pouring in petitions to both Houses of Parliament, laying them at the foot of the Throne, and presenting them to the Colonial-office, praying for a redress of grievances which they declared insufferable and intolerable. He felt it due to the House to state, as clearly and distinctly as he could, the grounds on which he sought this investigation, into the state of an important dependency of the British empire. He could not conceal from the House a fact which was notorious to every one who had paid any attention to the distracted state of this colony, that there was a large portion of that religious animosity prevailing there, which was happily unknown in other parts of the empire, and which could not be too deeply deprecated. He could assure the House, that he did not mean to enter on this portion of the subject, or to excite feelings of animosity against any class or person, but would turn attention to the question, whether the present form of constitution was such as would permanently conduce to the interests and prosperity of the colony. In 1832, when Lord Grey was at the head of the administration, a charter was issued granting to the colony a local legislature. Judging from the experience of the last eight years, he would say, that he thought that constitution was prematurely given. Whatever might be his attachment to the constitution of this country, he considered it a matter of serious doubt how far it was expedient to grant to small states and infant colonies the boon of a representative government. But the peculiar circumstances of this colony were such as to render the grant of the constitution to this colony peculiarly inexpedient. He would state some of these circumstances. The population was from 75,000 to 80,000 inhabitants, who were divided into Roman Catholics and Protestants. In consequence of the climate, it was impossible to carry on to any extent agricultural operations, and she greater portion of the population were therefore engaged in the fisheries, and the proportion of respectable shopkeepers and merchants exceedingly small. The natural consequence of granting a local legislature to the colony was, that the legislature was of a very democratic character, and the franchise very low—every person occupying a house or tenement for the period of one year being entitled to vote for a member of the Legislative Assembly, and every one occupying a house or tenement for two years, such as the fishermen used, being qualified to sit as a member. He did not impute the slightest blame to those who granted this constitution, as some change in the state of the colony was, at the time, absolutely necessary, and those at the head of the administration were led to believe, that it was prepared for the constitution which was given to it. The first assembly which had been called under this constitution was for the most part composed of respectable persons, and he believed there was no fault as to the manner in which they conducted the affairs of the colony; and at that time appearances were such as to justify the supposition that the experiment had succeeded. In 1836, the second assembly was elected, and he was sorry to say, that; the allegations in the petitions which had been presented to the House, stated, that at the elections the greatest tumults and disturbances occurred, and that most disgraceful acts of violence were committed, and it was clear, that many of the persons then elected could not conduct the legislation of the colony with advantage. He understood that one of the persons then elected one of the members of the House of Assembly was of the humble rank of a fisherman, while another was merely a domestic servant. He had also been informed by a gentleman connected with that colony, who was now in town, that he had been asked by one of the members of that assembly to take his daughter into his service as a nurse. In most part the persons who were elected members of the legislature were of a low situation of life, and did not conduct the affairs of the colony in a way calculated to give the slightest satisfaction; and the more respectable classes in the colony became most seriously alarmed as to the mode in which the legislature was carried on. In a short time still stronger complaints were made, and greater grounds for dissatisfaction became apparent. It was alleged in the statements which had been furnished to him, that great personal persecution of individuals had been allowed by the House of Assembly; that it had sanctioned gross acts of malversation as regarded the finances of the colony, and, above all, that it had been guilty of a disgraceful case of persecution under the pretence of a breach of the privileges of Parliament. The circumstances of this case had already been before the public, and were shortly these:—A gentleman of the medical profession happened to quarrel in the streets of St. John with a member of the House of Assembly. Strong language was used, but no assault was committed. The member complained to the Assembly, and that body chose to consider it a breach of the privileges of Parliament, and the gentleman was taken into custody on the Speaker's warrant. The case was then brought before one of the judges of the colony, who, on hearing the case, ordered the gentleman to be brought before him, under a writ of habeas corpus, and to be discharged. Upon the House of Assembly being informed of this, they, by the agency of their messengers, dragged the judge from the seat of justice, and seized the high sheriff who had officially executed the writ, and had them forced through the streets like malefactors, and committed them to prison. In order to release these gentlemen and to put an end to these disgraceful proceedings, the Governor was obliged to prorogue the Legislature. He was sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-general, who was so strong and able a sup- porter of the privileges of Parliament, would admit that this was carrying a breach of privilege to a most objectionable extent. Another matter which was alluded to, was the proceedings of the House of Assembly with regard to the chief justice of the colony. It appeared that that Gentleman had been made a Member of the Legislative Council, and in that capacity, had offended the House of Assembly. He did not know whether it was a wise discretion or not to place a judge in such a situation. The charges, however, that were brought against him had been heard before the Privy Council, and although the Chief Justice Bolton was acquitted of all the charges which had been urged against him, it was thought better to remove him from his office, and thus prevent his return to the colony. From one of the documents, however, which he held in his hand, it appeared that a great number of the most respectable inhabitants of the colony entertained the highest feelings of respect for this judge, and had expressed the strongest objections to his retirement. The document he alluded to was a resolution agreed to at a public meeting of many of the most respectable inhabitants of St. John's, Newfoundland, and contained the following words:—

"More particularly have they, and the few factious and needy individuals who have associated with them, been unceasing in their attack and untiring in their exertions to bring odium upon the present Chief Justice of the colony, Mr. Boulton, and at any sacrifice to procure his removal from the office which he so ably and impartially fills. In seeking the cause of this malignity displayed toward the Chief Justice, we solemnly declare to your Majesty that we can discover none, except it may he the apprehension that his inflexible administration of justice, unawed by their power or their threats, is calculated to divest the priests and their adherents of their undue ascendancy and to subject them, in common with your Majesty's other subjects, to the supremacy of the law. We take this public opportunity of expressing our full confidence in the integrity and ability of Mr. Boulton, and our entire satisfaction with the firm, judicious, and impartial, manner in which he has discharged his duties. We have also no hesitation in asserting that, notwithstanding the infamous attempt to create distrust in his official conduct, the public confidence in him remains unshaken, and we should lament as a public calamity any circumstance that might cause his removal or retirement from the bench of this colony, which would thereby suffer a loss not easily repaired."

Another of the grave accusations against this House of Assembly was, the misapplication and squandering of the public finances. It unfortunately happened that nearly all the officers of the colony, including even the magistrates and constables, were paid by salaries voted by the House of Assembly, and that that body determined the amount which should be paid in every ease. It was alleged, in the apportioning and paying these salaries, that the majority of the Members of the House of Assembly had manifested a disposition to reward their own friends, and to give no payment to those who had at all opposed them. He found very strong language used on this subject in a petition which had been presented to the House in 1838, from the town of St. John's, Newfoundland. It was there said—

" The numerous and useless offices connected with the House of Assembly which they have created for the sake of patronage—the prodigal manner in which they have endeavoured to squander the revenues of the colony to support themselves and their adherents, and the invidious distinctions and provisions which they have made in several instances for the purpose of prejudicing individuals against whom they entertain personal dislike, indicate with painful certainty their determination to exercise all the power they possess, or are permitted to arrogate, in extending their influence, and inflicting injury on those who presume to differ from them. We deem it incumbent upon us now to bring under the especial notice of your Majesty the important fact, that the magistrates, constables, and other subordinate functionaries in this colony, are entirely dependant upon the annual grant of the House of Assembly for the payment of their salaries. A ready method is thus afforded of controlling their independence, if not of corrupting their integrity, by diminishing, or withholding, or perhaps increasing their respective stipends, in proportion as they are supposed to be more or less favourable or adverse to the authority of the priests and their partisans, and we lament to add, that the determination to exercise this influence has been manifested in the votes of the present Session."

There was a petition, also, to the same effect, presented at nearly the same period, from the Chamber of Commerce of that colony. This body was composed of representatives of the mercantile classes of the colony, and they disclaimed being influenced by any political views; and he believed that it was composed of gentlemen of all opinions, and that some of its members were Liberals, while others were Tories, and that all that they desired was, that peace should be restored to the colony. The petitioners stated, that—

"Though established for many years, the Chamber had sedulously avoided all interference with, or the expression of any opinion: upon, the civil government of the island or its political affairs; but the perils to which the best interests of the colony are now exposed, and which threaten with ruin its trade and prosperity, compel your petitioners to depart from their accustomed course, and with the unanimous and express concurrence of the society at large, to lay before your royal council: with earnest entreaties for relief, the most intolerable wrongs they endure."

They then proceeded to notice the manner in which the House of Assembly had tampered with the finances of the colony. They stated that the members of that body—

"Have interfered with the duties of the Executive, by appropriating to individuals, by name, the most trifling salaries—depriving one constable altogether of his stipend, lessening that of another, increasing that of a third, and this, too, without any complaint being made against the sufferer, or any recommendation in favour of the one benefitted, but solely and notoriously because the individuals affected y their votes were either opposed or favourable to the Members of the Assembly at their election, or did or did not approve of their subsequent conduct. However contemptible such conduct may appear, the evil effects of it are daily felt more extensively and seriously than we can describe. The peace-officers, who are poor, and mainly depending for subsistence on their salaries, are naturally deterred from independency doing their duty; and we fear the evil is not confined to these the lower functionaries."

If such causes of dissatisfaction existed, and these allegations were true, it was clear that the ends of justice were defeated, and that the House of Assembly had scandalously violated its duty as a legislative body. Under these circumstances, it could hardly be a matter of surprise that the respectable inhabitants of the colony had sent a petition to the Legislature at home complaining in strong language of such a state of things. The petition had become the subject matter of discussion in the other House in the Session of 1839, and the noble Marquess then at the head of the Colonial Department stated, that he was aware of the nature of the petition, the allegations of which however, were denied by persons connected with the colony, but that he had sent out instructions to the Governor of Newfound- land, directing him to make a specific inquiry into the complaints made on both sides, and the grievances that were urged, and to make a report on the subject to the Colonial Department. Towards the end of the Session the noble Marquess stated that he had been informed by the Governor of the colony, that the allegations in the petition that had been presented to the other House were very much exaggerated. The report of the Governor had not been laid before Parliament, and however desirous he might be of seeing it, he did not wish to press for its production at present, as the noble Lord had stated, that it was not desirable for the public service that it should then be made public. In reference then to the serious complaints contained in this petition, he would not stop to give an opinion as to their extent, as the governor said that they were exaggerated. After what had been stated, however, he must express his regret that neither the Government nor some influential person in either House had pressed for some specific answer of the Governor to the communication from the Colonial-office; for if it was produced, it would enable them the better to form an opinion as to whether this was a fair subject for Parliamentary inquiry. Since however, this petition had been presented to the other House, matters had occurred which were calculated still further to excite feelings of alarm. In the spring of 1840 the governor—and he did not intend to impugn his motives for the proceeding—made an appointment of a person of the name of Morriss to the office of treasurer of the colony, and at the same time gave him a seat in the legislative council; he was informed that this person was a man of respectable character, but had rendered himself remarkable by the violence of his political feelings and by the strong language in which he was accustomed to indulge. This appointment occasioned a vacancy in a seat in the House of Assembly, and it became necessary to have an election for the town of St. John. At that election the most violent proceedings took place, and the conduct of the mob became at length so furious, that it became absolutely necessary to call out the military. In November last another election took place at Carbonear, which was characterized by equal violence and similar disgraceful proceedings. The most serious riots oc- curred at that place, and a magistrate in the execution of his duly was assailed and assaulted by the mob, and had his skull fractured, and was otherwise most seriously wounded. Several persons were so ill-treated that they nearly lost their lives, and a great number were injured. In the petition from the Chamber of Commerce of Newfoundland, allusions were made to other matters which had come under the cognizance of the House of Assembly of that colony. Among other things it appeared that a person in the service of the House of Assembly had committed two assaults, and bills had been found against him for them by the grand jury. In consequence of this some of the Members of that body came forward and presented themselves as bail, and the assembly ordered further proceedings to be stayed and still retained this person in their service. Another case, to which he would call the attention of the House, was one in which a young person in the colony had been seized and assaulted, and had had his ears cut off, and was otherwise wounded, and this it was believed was chiefly occasioned in consequence of the political feelings which he entertained. The magistrate, on instituting an inquiry into the subject, found that suspicion fell upon the door-keeper of the House of Assembly as having been a party in the outrage, but the House of Assembly, on that body being informed of their officer being taken up, sent for the magistrate, and ordered him to discharge the prisoner, the consequence was, that all further inquiry was stopped. If the petition presented that night by his hon. Friend the Member for Newark was examined, it would be found to contain several other allegations of a similar nature. He would now beg to call the attention of the House to perhaps the strongest part of the case which he had to bring forward, namely, the address of the Governor in- opening the session—the last session of the parliament in Newfoundland. The speech commenced with the following words:—

"Mr. President, and hon. Gentlemen of the Council, Mr. Speaker, and Gentlemen of the House of Assembly.

"The approaching period of a general election, and the scandalous events which have lately occurred in partial elections, the last of which was rendered altogether abortive by the ferocious conduct of a mob at Carbonear, compel roe to suggest for your deliberation, as an object of the first importance, the establishment of such a law as may tend to preserve the public peace, and secure the free and undisturbed exercise of the elective franchise.

"For this purpose it seems desirable that our system should be assimilated, as nearly as circumstances will permit, to that of the mother country.

"I am anxious to press this matter upon your immediate attention, because, if in the two great districts of the colony which return seven of the fifteen members of which the house is composed, elections can only be carried on under protection of bayonets if brutal force and lawless violence are to be perpetually resorted to, and, as heretofore, to a degree that can be restrained solely by military interference, the inevitable inference must be, that the island is unfit for a representative system and legislative institutions and that this ancient possession of the British Crown, is not duly prepared for conducting its own affairs, and watching over its particular interests, by means of a General Assembly."

He thought that there could not be a stronger case made out for inquiry than when the governor of a colony felt himself called upon to make such a statement. It appeared that the House of Assembly was not satisfied with the conduct of the Governor of the colony in calling out the soldiers to preserve the peace at the various elections where disturbances had taken place, and they presented an address to him, embodying their views on the subject. He must beg to read to the House the answer of the Governor to this address:—

"Gentlemen—The scandalous events which occurred at two partial elections during the late recess, the ferocious conduct of a mob at Carbonear, by which one of those elections was rendered abortive, and the necessity of military interference and protection on those occasions, are matters of general notoriety. I consider that the documents already before the House, are sufficiently demonstrative to prove those evils, and, in the exercise of my discretion under the existing circumstances of the colony, I must decline compliance with this address, believing that no good could result to the community from the publication of all the representations which I have received on this subject. So convinced am I of the absolute necessity of an amendment of the election law, that I avail myself of this opportunity to state, that should, unhappily, no legislative enactment be made during this Session to secure the free exercise of the franchise, and the public tranquillity in future elections, I will not undertake the responsibility of issuing proclamations or writs for the election of a new House of Assembly, or make myself accountable for the serious consequences, the confusion and bloodshed, so likely to ensue there from under the present system; but referring the whole affair to the Supreme Government, I will, as in duty bound, implicitly follow such directions as I may receive in that behalf. Government-house, Feb. 12. 1841."

It appeared to him that the governor lilt it to be his imperative duty to use such strong language in his remonstrance to the House of Assembly, and also in resorting to the extreme measure of suspending the Constitution. When he found this to be the case, it fully justified him in urging on the House the importance of inquiry, and in saying that the petitions which had been presented from the respectable inhabitants of the colony, embodying such serious complaints, called for the especial notice of Parliament. He might be asked whether, in suggesting inquiry, he was prepared to suggest a remedy for the evils which he had described. He might be asked, whether he would recommend the repeal of the constitution of Newfoundland; and his answer was, that he would enter upon the inquiry without giving any pledge on the subject; and as to ulterior measures that might on inquiry appear necessary, he would not go into committee fettered with so strong an opinion as that in favour of the repeal of the constitution, and for withholding and taking away from the people of Newfoundland the form of a constitution. He was free to admit, that nothing would justify such a course but the strongest necessity. If it should appear from the evidence that it was not possible to find in the colony better elements for a constitution, he thought that there might be a necessity for its repeal; but he admitted, that any other remedy should be resorted to if there was a chance of success, rather than they should go to this extreme. He had abstained from making any personal charges, and he had brought forward the subject entirely on public grounds. He considered, that the noble Lord had acted rightly in agreeing to a committee of inquiry, and he felt bound also to state, that after the case which he had made out, he conceived that, inquiry could not be refused or withheld with any regard to prudence and justice. The hon. Member concluded by moving that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the colony of Newfoundland.

had stated a few nights ago, that it was not his intention to oppose the motion of the hon. Gentleman for a Select Committee. In assenting, then, to the motion, he begged to observe, with respect to the motion of the hon. Member, that it appeared to him, that the hon. Gentleman, in the statement with which he had preceded his motion, wished to show that the disturbances which had occurred at the elections in Newfoundland, and the evils which had arisen, and which were likely to arise from the present constitution, were of such a nature, and had been allowed to continue to such an extent, that it became the duty of the Imperial Parliament to interfere. He agreed in many of the observations of the hon. Gentleman, and was ready to admit, that the statement of the governor of the colony called for serious attention. While he, in general, agreed with the governor of the colony as to many of the evils and grievances which had occurred, he had requested him to look out as much as he possibly could for elements for better working the constitution, and if he failed in his inquiry, it would be his duty to look to the measures which it would be the duty of the Government to submit to Parliament. He should not oppose a committee of inquiry, as the House seemed to concur with the hon. Member that advantage might result from it. He wished it, however, to be clearly understood, that although he did not oppose inquiry, he was not prepared to state the nature of the measures which he intended to propose with respect to the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, nor the general views which the Government took of the matter. He should propose his measures without reference to this inquiry, and without reference to the opinion which the House and the committee might adopt. He admitted that this was one of the cases on which the House in general required information to enable it to legislate. With no previous notice or information on the subject it was impossible that the Members of that House could follow the events that transpired in each colony belonging to this country. He, therefore, thought, that it would be advantageous that a certain number of the Members of that House should be made acquainted with the real state of affairs in the colony before he submitted to the House the views of the Government on the subject. He would not say whether he agreed or disagreed as to the alleged facts stated by the hon. Gentleman, or whether they were well-founded or not; but he felt bound to express his dissent from several of the general opinions stated by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman stated, that he considered that it was premature to grant a constitution to Newfoundland, containing, as it did, only a population of 80,000 inhabitants. He did not conceive the granting a constitution to the subjects of the Queen was premature, whether they formed a large community or not. The hon. Member had alluded to the franchise which had been given, to the mode of election, and to the qualification of the Members of the House of Assembly, under the constitution of Newfoundland, and to the proceedings which had grown out of its operation; but, without giving any opinion on all these points, he thought that British subjects, in the situation of the inhabitants of Newfoundland, were more likely to flourish, and to carry on their concerns for the welfare both of the colony and of the mother country, having a popular constitution, than if they had been allowed to remain without one. He thought that the general rule should be, that whenever you bad a settlement of British subjects well established in a place, that you should give them free and popular institutions. He admitted that the Parliament at home should have the power of reforming or suspending these colonial constitutions in such cases as they deemed necessary. He thought a case of suspension of the constitution was necessary in one instance, in which he did not obtain the assent of the House, namely, with regard to that of Jamaica. He begged the House to recollect, that he had proposed this at a period when the large proportion of the inhabitants of that colony were in a state of transition from slavery to freedom, and it was feared by the Government, that there would be found, for some time, considerable difficulties in the working of a popular constitution in a community like that of Jamaica; and likewise when there were many persons in a colony of Spanish descent, or of French descent, mixed with a certain proportion of persons of English extraction, he thought that they could not depend on the harmonious working of a free constitution. In a colony, however, like Newfoundland, he conceived that it was desirable to give it a tree constitution as soon as they possibly could. The hon. Gentleman had made some very strong remarks as to the working of the constitution in Newfoundland; now he (Lord John Russell) had some very important documents on this subject in his possession, which he regretted he could not give to Parliament at present, but which gave a very different view of the subject from that described by the hon. Gentleman. He would only refer to one of these papers, dated July, 1839; it was a communication from the Governor of the colony to the Colonial Minister. The noble Lord read an extract from this document, the purport of which was, that although at the present moment the Legislature did not appear constituted under the most favourable circumstances, yet, even in the midst of the jealousies which existed, Newfoundland had advanced under tire working of the constitution, and that there had been a great many roads made, bridges built, hospitals formed, mid many most important local improvements had been sanctioned by the Colonial Legislature. Now the questions to which the Governor alluded—namely, the formation of roads, and the building of bridges, and the establishment of hospitals, and the promotion of internal improvements-Were undoubtedly those matters most interesting and important to a colony situated as Newfoundland was. There might be found facts and actions very strange and discordant to our notions—there might be votes and proceedings of the Members of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, which might appear very strange in the eyes of the people of this country, who had been accustomed to the forms of a free constitution, which had been for several centuries in operation: all this might appear very shocking, and at variance with all notions of propriety, and, therefore, he might be told, that it would be better if the inhabitants of Newfoundland had no constitution; but he must utterly deny the soundness of any such inference. He would rather have those evils which had been described than place the colony again under absolute and arbitrary government. Although they might desire to hear more satisfactory accounts of the proceedings of the House of Assembly, he begged hon. Gentlemen to recollect that under this constitution they found these persons acting with energy in the promotion of internal improvement, and also that the colony was advancing in prosperity; he contended, then, that it would be better to eudeavour to amend the constitution, and to improve the working of it whenever they could, than to abolish a representative government in the colony as a remedy. He confessed that he should entertain some doubts of the attachment, of a House of Commons to a representative constitution, which would consent to the repeal of the constitution of a colony, unless on the very strongest grounds. [Cheers.] He knew not whether the cheer was intended to apply to the proceedings of the Government with regard to the constitution of Jamaica. It should be remembered, however, that with regard to Jamaica the peculiar circumstances which he had just mentioned existed at the period when the proposition was made; and, also, that at that time there was a House of Assembly which did not represent, nor pretend to represent more than a very small portion of the inhabitants of the colony. Just at that period the Parliament of this country had enacted that the slaves in our colonies should be free, and should be entitled to the enjoyment of all the rights of freemen, and it was believed that it would be difficult to combine the body of the coloured population with those who formerly elected the House of Assembly; therefore, it was thought that advantages would result from the temporary suspension of the constitution of the colony, and, above all, after the proceedings of the House of Assembly with regard to certain measures which were deemed essential for the protection of the emancipated slaves. But even for the reasons which he had stated, he was, at the present time, not prepared to say that the Government was right in the proposition which it submitted to the House with regard to the constitution of Jamaica. Thus, while they felt the necessity of proposing some measure on the subject to the House, they had since seen in the proceedings of the House of Assembly in Jamaica, results which clearly manifested the advantages of a representative government, for that body had passed measures calculated to be beneficial to all classes of the community there. He was, therefore, inclined to admit that the Government were wrong in the course which they proposed, and that their opponents were right. This, however, made him the more reluctant to take away a constitution, unless a case of absolute necessity was made out. He would not go into the particulars respecting the disturbances at the elections to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded. He had no doubt that these disturbances were of a disgraceful character, and they deserved the strongest condemnation. With respect to the elections at St. John's and Carbonear, he would only observe that he considered that the governor was perfectly-right in sending a military force to put an end to the disturbances, us they appeared to be of such a character as to set aside all law and order, and completely to destroy the public peace. He repeated, that he should not object to inquiry, but he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would be so good as to postpone the nomination of the committee until Thursday, as he conceived that it would be advantageous to consider to whom the inquiry should be entrusted, and as it was of the utmost importance that they should have an impartial committee. As party animosities ran very great in Newfoundland, he was sure that they would only be increased if it was supposed there that the House had appointed a committee determined to defend all the acts of the Assembly, or one determined to vote that every thing was wrong which was done by that body. The hon. Member had very properly abstained from entering into the personal animosities which had arisen, and into the quarrels which had been said to grow out of religious differences in the colony, for this course was less calculated than any other to increase the religious acrimony which existed there.

was quite satisfied that the result of inquiry would be to elicit the truth. He, therefore, was glad that a committee was to be appointed. All that he wished was, that the inquiry should proceed with the full knowledge of all classes in the colony. He trusted that it would not be pursued in a way to suit the views of the gentleman who had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Droitwich, who was the representative of the minority in the colony, but that ample time should be given to the majority to answer the charges which had been brought against them. He said this because his hon. Friend, the Member for Dublin, and himself last year presented two petitions from the mass of the inhabitants of the colony, complaining of grievances, and he was sure, therefore, that the majority would not object to inquiry. He trusted that the inquiry would not be hurried to a close, but that ample time would be given, and due notice would be sent to the colony, for he did not know whether there was, at present, any person in England who represented the feelings and opinions of the majority. The hon. Gentleman had referred to a resolution of some of the inhabitants of St. John's with respect to the Chief Justice of the colony, and they paid him compliments as if he were not under censure for his conduct. It appeared that after full inquiry, although he was acquitted probably oil a technical ground, it was the recommendation of the commission that he should not be allowed to return to Newfoundland. He hoped and trusted, that the statements before the House would be fairly and fully examined, at the same time he thought that it would be better to agree to the motion now, and proceed with the inquiry next Session, by which time they could get witnesses from the colony.

thought it rather unfair towards the colony that these statements should have been made when there was no possibility of answering them. He did not wish to detain the House on the present occasion, but he could not avoid noticing the almost exclusive preference given to one class of persons not professing the religion of the majority. Out of 19,000l. paid in salaries, not less than 18,000l. went to the minority. With respect to the chief justice, he believed that his conduct had been the cause of almost all the confusion which had occurred in the colony. He trusted that the hon. Member would postpone the committee until after Easter, in order that the inhabitants of the colony might be able to come forward with a fair statement of the facts of the case.

said, that whatever objections might be made on the part of certain persons to the appointment of a chaplain for these schools, he was satisfied of the necessity for such appointment. He was no advocate for imposing upon the Dissenters any additional contributions for the maintenance of a Church from which they conscientiously differed in religious opinion; but he believed most confidently, though he had had no communication with any of the Dissenting bodies upon the subject, that so attached were they in heart, in feeling, and in principle, to the union of religious instruction with secular education, that rather than see two or three hundred children belonging to the United Church of England and Ireland left to secular instruction only, or to a chance religious instruction, they would sacrifice their feelings and their convictions as Dissenters from the Established Church. He entirely assented, therefore, to the proposition for the appointment of a chaplain. But he hoped, at the same time, that the duties of the chaplain would be strictly confined to the instruction of those who properly belonged to him, namely, to those children who had been brought up in the faith and the doctrines of the Church of England; and that his instructions would neither directly nor indirectly be extended to those who honestly dissented from the Church. He believed, that the Dissenters would receive this proposition not merely without reluctance, but with great satisfaction, if it were applied in such a spirit; and he hoped, that if they did so receive it, when their feelings upon other subjects came to be discussed in that House, they would find that such conduct had been duly weighed and justly appreciated. Regarding the subject in this point of view, he confessed, that when he first considered the original amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, it appeared to him to go infinitely further than it ought to go, raising many difficulties and exciting many religious prejudices by the sweeping and comprehensive terms in which it was worded. The clause then before the House was, in the wording at least, though not perhaps in substance, totally different from that which was originally proposed, and contained a great variety of additional matter, which he confessed himself unable entirely to comprehend. It first proposed the appointment of a chaplain, and secondly, that the appointment should be sanctioned by the diocesan. To both these propositions he assented. However liberal might be his opinions with respect to those who dissented from the Church of England, he had ever strenuously maintained the superintending power of the diocesan in all matters connected with the Church of England. He thought that no clergyman should be appointed to so important a trust without the sanction of the bishop. If he rightly understood the matter, the hon. Gentleman had taken certain provisions of the old Poor-law as the basis for protecting from all violation the religious scruples of Catholics and others who dissented from the Church. He was not altogether satisfied with the mode in which the hon. Gentleman had in that respect framed this clause, and his objection to it was one upon which, in his opinion, the fate of the clause would ultimately depend. What was the object to be effected? They all agreed that those who belonged to the United Church of England and Ireland should be placed under the religious instruction of the chaplain; but the difficulties were twofold—first, to ascertain who belonged to that Church, and secondly to devise a protection for those who differed from it. With respect to the first of these difficulties, he doubted whether the hon. Gentleman had expressed himself in terms sufficiently clear. He admitted, that the great majority of children in these unions would be members of the Church of England; and that they had a right to assume, when nothing appeared to the contrary, that the children belonged to the Church, still he was not satisfied with this part of the clause. He had apprehended, as was the case with the amendment originally proposed, that the hon. Member would, instead of introducing the subject into this clause, have reserved it for further consideration in a subsequent stage of the bill, and after mature reflection and consideration. In such a matter they should proceed with the greatest caution. The subject would always be involved in considerable difficulty. But, notwithstanding the difficulty which must be felt in laying down an invariable rule, and the uncertainties which must exist from the very nature of the subject, they should endeavour to adopt that principle, and to lay down that rule, which for the most part would be consistent with truth and justice. Now, assuming the general proposition, that the children should be taken as belonging to the Church, he thought the exception proposed was not broad enough to meet the difficulty. It took the case of a parent, and it said, that the surviving parent—of course while both alive—the father should have a right to state in what religion he wished his child to be instructed; It even went further, and said godfather and godmother. Now, he contended, that this exception was totally inadequate. He would suppose the case of three or four orphan children, whose parents had been of the Catholic faith, and who so far as initiatory rights could discover their intention, must be inferred to have intended to bring them up in their own faith. To instruct those children because they happened to be orphans totally destitute of parental care and authority, in any other faith than that in which their parents lived and died, would be in his opinion a violation of the first principles of religious freedom. Therefore, he contended, that the exception was not sufficient, and that they must establish some other principle than that contained in the clause. The relations of the child, whether Baptist, Independent or Roman Catholic, should be allowed to come forward and state in what faith the child had been instructed. Upon these grounds, he objected to that part of the clause. He hoped that the subject would be postponed for the present, until a clause had been framed, which upon just and reasonable principles should provide, as far as human wisdom and ingenuity could provide, for all these exigencies. Taking the old Poor-law as his guide, the hon. Gentleman had next provided for the access of religious instructors to children who had not been brought up in the Church of England. To that proposition he entirely acceded, conceding all circumstances would permit to those who dissented from the Established Church. If they called upon the Dissenter to contribute to the support of a chaplain of the Church of England, the Dissenter had at least a right to demand the fullest and fairest opportunity of educating pauper children, whose parents were Dissenters, in the principles of their own faith. Entertaining this view, he had endeavoured to frame a clause which was in accordance with it, though it did not materially differ from that of the hon. Gentleman. He would now take the liberty of reading it to the House. The clause read by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was to the following effect:—

"And be it further enacted, that in every combined parish or union school-house for the education of the infant poor, a chaplain of the United Church of England and Ireland shall be appointed rot the purpose of administering religious instruction to such infant poor, according to the doctrine of the said united Church, to all such children belonging to the said Church: provided always, that such clergyman shall in no way interfere with the religious instruction of the other portions of such infant poor; and that it shall and may be lawful for any minister of such other persuasion, at all reasonable times of the day, to visit such school for the purpose of instructing such children (not being members of the Church of England) in the principles of their religion."

With respect to the hours of the day at which such clergyman should be admitted for these purposes, he was content to leave that matter entirely in the hands of the board of managers. Now the committee would perceive that there was a wide difference in the proposition of the hon. Gentleman and his own. The hon. Gentleman in his clause directed that the clergyman of the Church of England should, in all cases (without previously defining who were or were not Dissenters) bring up the children in the doctrine of the Church of England, unless prohibited from so doing according to the tenor of his provision. They were now about to legislate for the poor of this country, and he would not confer upon them even the boon of a good education by the violation of still more sacred principles. Unless prejudices were raised against the system, he had no doubt of its ultimate success. He would go the whole length of the hon. Baronet, and say, that in the case of the mother of a natural child, he never would consent to take her child from her thinking that no object, however bright or holy, ought to induce them to violate the natural affection of a mother for her child. He had now stated his views on this subject, and he asked both sides of the House, seeking, as they all did, the benefit and advantage of the poor to set at defiance the foul outcry against the attempt to confer upon them this inestimable benefit. He trusted there was not to be found in the walls of that House one man so abject a slave to avarice, so totally destitute of all human feelings, as to vote for this measure with the simple view of diminishing the poor-rate without regard to the blessings that it conferred Upon the people. He should have rejoiced if they could have so framed the clause as to combine in universal harmony and contentment the Churchman, the Catholic, and the Dissenter; and so as to assure the poor, and also all people of this country who were truly religious, that they had nothing more at heart than the sound religious education of the people.

had listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman with great pleasure, but there were some parts of it from which he was compelled to dissent. He thought that in this country, where there was a church by law established, all whose religion was not known, or who were indifferent on the subject, might be assumed to belong to it, and brought up accordingly in its doctrines. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had overrated the difficulties of this question. In the parish in which he resided, and which contained 153,000 inhabitants, the whole education of the poor was under the superintendence of a chaplain of the Church of England; and though no child could be taught the Church Catechism if the parents objected to it, the chaplain informed him (Lord Teignmouth) that no objection had been made daring the whole time he held the office of chaplain. The mistress of the girls' school, who had tilled that situation for eighteen yours, and who had an average of 170 children under her charge, had also told him that she never knew an instance of any child or parent objecting to instruction in the Catechism of the Church of England. He thought that the clause which had been proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock offended no prejudices, whilst its practical effect would be to afford spiritual instruction and consolation to the meet desitute portion of the community.

said, he thought it was to be assumed, that the children were of the Church of England. But there were exceptions, to provide for which he thought there should be a separate clause.

thought that the least cautious way of determining the religion of the children was, to assume that they belonged to the Church of England, unless an objection were made by the parent or natural guardian.

begged to know, in the case of children received into the work-house, with no near relations or guardians, but the belief of whose parents was known to be different from that of the Church of England, in what way the right hon. Gentleman would proceed?

said, his own notion was, that they should assume, in the first instance, that all children who were brought into the workhouses, or the schools, belonged to the Established Church; and having made that assumption, that they should leave the door open, not merely to the parents or natural guardians of the children to go further—he would not say to what precise extent at that moment—but that they should leave a just and fair opening to those who were interested in the welfare of the children, to show what was the belief of the parents, and to ask them to bring them up in that faith; bat, if no one interfered, then he granted that up to a certain period of age, they should assume that the children were of the Established Church.

said, he thought, if any system of religious instruction were adopted at all, it should be interwoven with the course of secular education. It would be most undesirable to separate the two, as he believed many of the Dissenters of the present day would rather their children received spiritual instruc- tion, according to the doctrines of the Established Church, if it were interwoven with good secular education, than that the two should be separated, and they should receive no spiritual instruction at all.

said, he had recently presented a petition from a large body of Dissenters, and another had been also presented to that House from a congregation of the Society of Friends, distinctly objecting to the appointment of paid chaplains, but not objecting to the religious instruction of children in workhouses being placed in the hands of competent persons. Did they mean, that those chaplains should be paid out of the poor-rates? They must recollect, that competent chaplains could not be paid less than from 100l. to 150l. a year; and was that additional charge to be imposed at a moment when by the Tithe Commutation Act, at least 1,500,000l. had been added to the revenues of the church? Let hon. Members look at the returns which had been made to that House, and they would find there had been an augmentation of from 20 to 30 per cent. His right hon. and learned Friend knew, that many of the most respectable Dissenters entertained those opinions, and yet the clause he had proposed, as far as he could understand, would, if adopted, place the whole instruction of these children, secular as well as religious, under the control of the chaplains. Those chaplains, too, must be approved of by the bishops; so that, by a side wind, they would place the education of these children entirely in the hands of the clergy. The people would be exceedingly astonished to find that, by this simple proviso, the whole matter of instruction was placed under the control of the Church. He meant to vote against the clause altogether; but, in his opinion, it had much better be postponed.

certainly felt the full weight of the objection stated by the hon. Gentleman with respect to the children of Dissenters. At the same time, he could not but confess there was very great force in the argument urged, as to the impropriety of allowing 300 or 400 children to he brought up, without any regular provision being made for their religious instruction. This difficulty had been experienced at the Norwood establishment, and be concurred with what was stated by some of the commissioners, as to the expediency of appointing a chaplain to the school. Therefore, upon the whole, he did not object to the principle involved in the proposition of the hon. Member, so far as the appointment of chaplains was concerned. The objection urged by the hon. Member for Lambeth, related only to some few words of the hon. Gentleman's proviso, but it certainly was of very great importance. The hon. Gentleman proposed that clergymen should be appointed to "regulate and superintend the instruction and training of the children." These words, it was clear, would have the effect of placing the whole instruction of the children in the hands of the chaplains. Now, this was not the case at Norwood, nor, as far as he knew, at any of the schools in the establishments formed by the Poor-law commissioners. Chaplains had been appointed to superintend the religious and moral training of the children; but with respect to secular education a different course had been pursued. It appeared, that in the establishments at Glasgow, young men were instructed in the most improved methods of education, and it was thought desirable to procure them to teach in the workhouses. They instructed the children according to what was called the "simultaneous method," and he had seen it practised at Norwood. But if the secular instruction were left to the chaplains, they might think the method practised half a century ago, better than any improved system of the present day. He was, therefore, disposed to object to the proviso, unless the word "religious" was inserted before "instruction," and the word "training "was omitted. He should not, however, oppose the adoption of the proviso, on the understanding that it should be considered matter for future discussion.

had no objection to the appointment of chaplains; but he thought, in allowing the right of objection to having a child educated in the established religion, they might go a step farther. Suppose an orphan of Catholic or Dissenting parents, twelve or fourteen years old, and fully instructed as he might be supposed to be in his own faith, to be admitted into the school, he thought the objection of the child himself ought to be sufficient, and that provision should be made for allowing it.

observed, that the board of guardians, as well as the board of management, had the power at present of appointing chaplains.

would strongly impress upon the House the necessity of postponing this clause, for great differences of opinion must necessarily arise in the discussion of this amendment, which were not likely to be overcome by the momentary attention which could now be given to it. He was of opinion that if the number of children in the schools belonging to the Established Church were greatly beyond the Dissenters, the majority should have the largest proportion of the funds which would be allotted for this object; but at the same time those children who asserted different opinions should also have a claim to a portion of the funds allocated to the purpose of being educated according to their peculiar desires. If, for example, he took the town he represented, Sheffield, containing upwards of 100,000 inhabit ants, they would find themselves placed in the same position with regard to the Poor-rates as the Church-rates, for there was not a Church-rate levied there for a length of time. In that town there were Dissenters of every class, who would of course assert their right of being educated according to their own particular tenets. He should, therefore, beg the House to postpone the clause for the present, until they had the exact proposition of the hon. Member opposite submitted to the House in print.

said, he would prefer i rejecting the clause altogether rather than such enormous power should be given to the commissioners.

hoped that a proper spirit of conciliation would induce hon. Members to agree upon the clause rather than to propose its rejection altogether. He thought that the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock had very nearly met as to the particular justice of the case, mid he hoped that some amicable under standing would be come to upon the points in dispute.

observed, with respect to the proposition of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, that certain restrictions would be necessary in the case he wished to provide a remedy for, so as not to make it imperative on the board of guardians, when a child made objections to a certain religious education, to consult the opinions of the latter, although many other motives might influence the child's objections than those which would arise from conscientious objections

said, the point was very important which they had to determine, namely, whether the rate-payers generally should be taxed for the support of those children that belonged to the Church establishment exclusively.

said, he thought it was understood that no inquiry should be made upon the subject of the religion of the child unless in the case of some party objecting upon behalf of the child. It was proposed that a certain discretion should be vested in the board of management of acting as they thought proper in the case of a child making conscientious objections against being educated in the principles of the Established Church. He should think, that such objections, coming from the child himself, would be much more sacred than those which might be made by an adult person on behalf of such child. He did not consider that any thing serious remained for discussion as to the details of the clause. If there had been an objection made upon principle as to the details of the clause, then a postponement would be but reasonable. The question resolved itself into this—whether they were to tax the whole nation in support of a certain system of religion exclusively? This he thought they were as fully competent to decide now as in a week or a fortnight hence. He therefore hoped there would be no postponement.

said, that one of the reasons which would induce him to support the postponement was this, that the printed proviso was totally silent as to the payment of chaplains, and the hon. Member opposite had, therefore, taken the House by surprise.

objected to the postponement. It was these postponements which drove all the business to the end of the Session, when it was hurriedly got through.

said, it, was no novel principle to tax the people generally for the payment of chaplains. This was the case with the chaplains of county gaols, who were paid out of the county-rates. He thought it absolutely necessary that the children should have a religious education, and they could not have that effectually without providing a chaplain, and he thought that, he should be of the Church of England.

said, that in point of form there could not be a postponement of this proviso. The committee must either approve of it or reject it with a view to its being introduced at another time. As he was ready to agree to the proviso, with the amendments suggested, he thought it was better to introduce the proviso now, leaving it open to his right hon. Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, and the hon. Member for Knaresborough, to propose their alterations afterwards, when they thought fit, rather than to reject it altogether. He thought, likewise, that rejecting the proviso at present would be taken as an objection to the clause without there being an intention of refusing it. He should, therefore, be ready to support the hon. Gentleman in his proviso, if he thought fit to divide the committee upon it; but he would not support the rejection of the clause.

said, the committee knew nothing of the amendment to which the noble Lord referred. He had never heard it.

thought such a proposition ought not to be brought before the House without distinct notice. He would take the sense of the House against the payment of chaplains out of the poor-rates.

said, his original proviso, of which notice had been given some days ago, was to appoint chaplains to these schools. It had never entered into his head to suppose that they would expect the whole services of literary men, of men educated as gentlemen, and devoting themselves to a very laborious and anxious calling, without giving them a farthing. He was surprised that such a proposal should be gravely made by any man within those walls, and not at once be scouted. That was a proposal he had never made, and never would make, before that committee; he, therefore, in giving his notice, implied the necessity of a salary.

should be willing to adopt this clause if the hon. Member would add these words "that the salary of the chaplain be provided for by proportionate payments out of the poor-rates."

said, it appeared to him that there was a great deal said about pay. He saw no reason why these schools should not be built in the neighbourhood of the workhouses, and why the clergymen who did the duty as chaplains to the workhouses should not be made to do their duty and teach in these schools. It appeared to him that there was a multiplication of clergymen—clergymen for workhouses, clergymen for gaols, clergymen for schools, clergymen for everything, and nothing but a deluge of black coats running about the country doing nothing, and taking away the whole property of the people.

, hoped his hon. Friend would not persist in his motion. The effect of the motion would be to put Dissenters upon an establishment which was altogether contrary to their principles.

opposed the clause. He found that it gave the commissioners the power of determining how a board of management should be appointed by the guardians. The salaries of the chaplains were also to be left to the commissioners. But his main objection to the clause was, that it exhibited a strong symptom of the perpetuity of the Poor-law commissioners, who were to have in their hands the appointment of certain officers—the clergymen, whose salaries were to be determined on by the board of guardians under the direction of the commissioners. That alone would be sufficient to induce him to divide the committee on the clause. There was scarcely a town in the country which was not provided with a school for the poor, who could much more easily attend these parochial schools than schools twenty or thirty mites off. The Poor-Jaw commissioners acquired additional power in every clause of the bill.

trusted his hon. Friend would not divide upon this clause. He could not agree that the largest schools were necessarily the best schools. He thought the hon. Member had better wait till a subsequent clause came on, by which the board of management were empowered to contract for the maintenance of the poor for seven years.

considered that the clause as it stood extended the powers of the commissioners, by giving them that of taxation, which it was not before intended they should have. The establishment of district schools might be an excellent thing; but it should be the subject of separate legislation. To take from the board of management the power of regulating the salaries was an insult to the common sense of the country, and most offensive to the respectable gentlemen who composed the boards of guardians. He re- commended the noble Lord not to listen to the Poor-law commissioners and to their extraordinary schemes. He objected to such a provision being introduced into a law for the relief of the poor.

said, he understood that the clause could not now be postponed, so that they were driven to the necessity of dividing upon it. As the clause stood, he thought it would give great additional offence to various classes of the community. He agreed with the hon. Member for Macclesfield, that this was matter for separate legislation. Here was a clause introduced into a poor-law bill, incidentally relating to a large proportion of the children of the poor, and the power was given and confined entirely to the Poor-law commissioners. This bill, however, could not last five years. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, for no doubt he would then be on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, would come down to the House at that period and say that he could not propose its continuance. The commission could not outlive the term proposed in this bill, and yet the commissioners were to fix the salaries of the chaplains, and the commissioners were to have additional power and additional patronage, and there was nothing in the clause to lead the public to suppose that the commission would terminate in five years, or in fifty-five years. But the House would find that the feeling of the country against this bill would be so strong that it would be utterly impossible to stem the torrent. Could the House legislate upon this subject with the care and deliberation and caution which the circumstances of the country demanded? Where the feeling and the aversion of the country were so strong, could the House legislate in this manner, by introducing a clause incidentally, and containing a proviso differing from the clause? He believed that the clause as it stood would increase the strong feeling out of doors against the bill. The clause gave extraordinary power to the commissioners, and seemed to contemplate the perpetuity of the commission.

considered that if the boards of guardians were the best judges of who were fit to be chaplains, they must be the best judges of what their salaries should be. He had no faith in the efficacy of the clause as it stood, and he should vote against it.

could not vote for the rejection of the clause altogether; he considered it one of the most important parts of the whole bill.

thought that clergymen of all denominations should be permitted to attend to the spiritual wants of the infant poor, and he hoped, that whatever their creed might be, they would be animated with sufficient zeal to perform their duties without the hope of any positive pay to stimulate them.

rose to move the amendment of which he had given notice:—

"To insert at the end of clause 11,'Provided always that so soon as any such board of management for any union shall be instituted, it shall forthwith prepare and publish the rules and regulations relating to the training of the infant poor aforesaid, and the admission into such building, from lime to time, of the parents and relatives of such infant poor."

admitted the propriety of publishing the rules for the instruction of the infant poor generally, at the same time that he objected to the publication by each separate board of guardians. He had rather that his hon. Friend would leave these regulations in the hands of the commissioners.

said, that if the parents of poor children knew that under certain regulations they might visit their children, they would be most anxious to avail themselves of the privileges of these schools. He would not object to the alteration of his amendment where it might be found objectionable.

thought it probable that, after a great expense in erecting buildings had been incurred, a sufficient number might not be found of orphans and others for whom these establishments were intended to fill them. In the event of any miscalculation of this kind, he would propose to make these receptacles subservient to the public good, by admitting the children of the adjacent poor, who were willing to pay a trifling sum towards their education. By this course he thought a great benefit would be conferred on the community.

thought, that if the wishes of the parents were consulted, especially as the plan proposed gave industrial employment to the children, the system would make its way as soon as it became known.

feared, that unless the proposed plan were carried into effect with the greatest possible discretion, it would cause a great departure from the principles of the Poor-law Amendment Act.

held that the question now under consideration was worthy to be made the subject of separate legislation. He deprecated the interference of the Poor-law commissioners in a matter of this nature. The clause now under consideration ought to have no place in the present bill.

expressed his intention of withdrawing the amendment, his object in proposing which was, that infant children who were not compelled to go to those schools might have the benefit of them if their parents wished.

thought that this might not be an improper time to state that he had a clause prepared to carry out the proposition which had been suggested by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, upon the understanding that in the first instance pauper children should be provided for, but that in the event of vacancies occurring, those vacancies should be placed at the disposal of such children of the poor not actual paupers as should be anxious for education.

expressed his concurrence in the sentiments of his right hon. Friend, and observed that he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Maule) would find them already acted upon in the management of county lunatic asylums, which were, in 'the first place, open to paupers from all districts, at an expense to the parish of a small sum; next, to criminal lunatics, upon payment of another sum; and thirdly, in ease of vacancies, to private families who might suppose that patients would be better accommodated there than in the county hospital, upon payment, also, of a certain sum; which sums went to relieve the county-rates, while they afforded a facility to the pauper lunatics of obtaining the best accommodation upon the cheapest terms.

begged to know what the principle of the contribution was to be, and said it ought to be defined in the clause.

replied, that the rate of contribution for the building of those district schools would be with reference to the size and population of the unions, and that afterwards it would depend on the number of children sent to those schools. He was not then prepared to introduce a definition of it into the clause; but he would take the suggestion into consideration.

ventured to say that it would be impossible to devise any scheme for general contribution which would be palatable to four-fifths of the board of guardians, unless they defined beforehand what the principle of that contribution was to be.

observed, that if the former suggestions of the right hon. Baronet the member for Tamworth met with the approbation of the House, he thought they might regard those schools as a part of the national system of education, and that therefore there ought to be a portion of the public funds voted for their support.

was of opinion, that this subject should be brought under their consideration in a separate bill. If it were intended that the commissioners should be continued not in perpetuity, but for five years, and no longer, were they to assume that those schools were only to last for the same period; or was a separate commission to be appointed for the purpose? It would be absurd to set about establishing such schools as, were proposed by this bill for the period of five years, and if the period were to be longer, then must the commission be also continued, or a separate commission appointed. Another objection he had to the proposed arrangement was, that a kind of degradation would attach to those children who, not being themselves paupers, should be sent to the schools of pauper children. Far better would it be to frame a separate measure on the subject, and to establish schools for children who were not paupers, and then send to those schools the pauper children at the expense of the parish.

hoped, that the suggestion he had thrown out would not be misunderstood. A large district school having been established, and the children of paupers in the house having, undoubtedly, the first claim to participate in its advantages, he contemplated the possibility of a number of vacancies, and therefore he proposed, that a power should be taken to render that accommodation available for the education of children whose parents were not in the workhouse. A poacher, for instance, might not be willing to enter the workhouse, but, having some regard for the education of his children, it was most desirable that day scholars, living in the neighbourhood and paying a certain sum, should be admitted. This case he had no doubt would frequently occur. A benevolent gentleman seeing profligate parents, who would not go into the workhouse, might be disposed to undertake the education of their neglected children, having an opportunity of paying for them in the district school upon certain prescribed conditions. Sure he was that in acting thus with the consent of parents, and having a clergyman of the Church of England presiding over the education so communicated, great good must be effected. He could not too strongly protest against the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Essex, (Mr. G. Palmer), that they should teach the class just above the pauper to shrink from allowing their children to be educated with paupers. He maintained that pauperism was no test of vice. A man might be a pauper and go into a workhouse without being degraded. But to say that the fact of being in a workhouse so degraded a family that those immediately above them should refuse to have their children educated in the same establishment with the children of paupers, would be to introduce into their bosoms all the feelings and prejudices which accompanied a state of slavery.

thought the clause very objectionable in its present shape. It was scarcely practicable to frame such regulations in an Act of Parliament as would meet the likely contingencies of so complex a system. The only tiling intelligible about it was, that it would entail enormous expense on every district, with out securing any efficient plan of education.

suggested, that some words should be inserted referring to the principle upon which the commissioners should proceed in fixing contributions. Another clause was promised in order to define that principle; but, if no such clause were forthcoming, the commissioners might proceed most arbitrarily upon the present clause. Unless some restrictions were introduced, he should vote against the clause.

had no objection to the insertion of words to that effect; and the following proviso was then added:—"Provided always, that such proportion of rated contribution shall be fixed by the commissioners in the manner hereinafter enacted."

put it to the noble Lord (J. Russell) whether this clause had not been framed with reference to the perpetuity of the Poor-law commission? He expected a frank reply to this question. If he did not, he should draw his own inference, and so would the country.

.—Not to my knowledge.

asked why its provisions were restricted to the metropolis, and not extended to populous towns in the country.

was understood to say, that he should have no objection to extend the clause if other populous towns desired such an arrangement.

proposed to insert in the clause, after the words "for relieving and setting to work therein," the words, "of casual, and vagrant poor;" and he wished to do so in order to remedy an evil which had been seriously felt by the constituency he represented. He would state to the House, that for the purpose of affording relief to the poor, the City of London was divided into three unions—namely, the City of London within the walls, the East London union, and the West London union. The City of London within the walls contains a population about equal to the aggregate of the other two, and was, besides, the most wealthy of the three. Of course it was not surprising, that in a district so populous as this the applications of the casual and destitute poor for temporary relief should be very numerous; but inasmuch as it happened that the City of London within the walls had no workhouse of its own, it was the custom of the relieving officer in that district to give to vagrants a shilling and a loaf of bread each, and to send them away. These same people afterwards went to the East or West London union workhouse for a night's lodging; and the number of persons who made these applications in the evenings, at most inconvenient hours, was so great as entirely to break through the good order and tranquillity of those establishments. He held in his hand a list of the admissions into the West London union workhouse, for the first week of the present month, and he thought the House would be astonished to hear that in that week there had been no less than 245 of those vagrants claiming and receiving admission. But what made the difficulty and inconvenience greater was, that a very large proportion of these vagrants were of the worst and most disorderly characters. The list he held in his hand contained the names and ages of each of the persons admitted; and he regretted to stale that by far the lager proportion of persons so admitted were persons in the full maturity and vigour of life, both males and females, between eighteen and forty years of age. They conducted themselves in the most riotous and disorderly way, refused to submit to restraint, and, in fact, behaved in a manner that was completely inconsistent with the maintenance of tranquillity or good order in the establishment. Moreover, it appeared, that many of them were in a state of infection and disease, and, from the reception of such persons, the effect had been most serious as regarded the inmates of the workhouse. He thought, therefore, it would be seen, that, for the preservation of good order in the workhouse, it was necessary that some change should take place; and his object was to give the board of management power to combine the three unions in the City of London for the purpose of providing a separate building for the relief and setting to work of those casual and destitute poor. He was sure that that would be found a material convenience in every point of view, and would lead more effectually to the prompt relief of those who laboured under extreme want, and in whose cases prompt and effectual relief would be most required. In the report of the Poor-law commissioners for 1838 and 1839, it would be seen that this subject had engaged the attention of the commissioners, and that they had found it necessary on more than one occasion to insist upon the board of guardians relieving those casual and destitute persons prior to any inquiry as to their character; for, inasmuch as it had happened, that so many of this class of poor were really riotous and disorderly and worthless characters, the boards of guardians had felt a disinclination to relieve them which they would not have entertained in ordinary cases. If hon. Gentlemen would consult the report they would perceive that the most urgent and peremptory recommendations had been made by the commissioners to the boards of guardians in London, against their omitting to relieve these casual and destitute poor. This report with the testimony he (Mr. Grote) could adduce from his own knowledge and examination, was sufficient evidence of the great inconvenience and evils now felt, and which would continue to be felt until some special building should be provided for such individuals. He believed, however, that something more even than this would be necessary. It was his belief that in the case of vagrants who applied for relief, the guardians should be invested with the power of detaining them until the next day, or for a certain number of hours, in order to force them to render to the parish a certain quantity of work in consideration of the relief they received. To meet the evil of vagrancy some such measure as this was certainly requisite. In looking over the returns recently laid before the House, and which contained the circular of the Poor-law commissioners to the various boards of guardians on the subject of vagrancy, and the answers thereto, he found that those boards of guardians, with hardly a single exception, completely approved of and strongly desired to be invested with the power of detaining vagrants for a certain number of hours, with the view of compelling them to render a certain quantity of work. Such a provision as that would have the effect of greatly abating the evil of vagrancy; but if such a measure were proposed, it ought to be a general measure, and not confined to the City of London. Therefore it did not now form any part of his recommendation to the House. The hon. Member concluded by proposing his amendment.

said, he should have been very glad if the present clause had not appeared in this bill, a bill to the principle of which he was strongly opposed. He was against the bill, the whole bill, and every clause in the bill. There was nothing in the bill, in his humble opinion, which rendered it worthy the adoption of the House. He must say he very much regretted that the hon. Member for the City of London had brought forward this proposition, which was levelled against a class of unfortunate people, many of whom, perhaps, had been driven to the commission of crimes under circumstances, which he lamented to say, though they afforded no justification, must be regarded as some palliation of their conduct—circumstances to a great extent, in his humble opinion, which were the fruit of the enactments of that former bill, which the noble Lord opposite was pleased to call an amendment of the Poor-law Act. He would not enter into the details given by the hon. Member for the City of London, of these poor creatures applying for a shilling, with which to procure food and lodging for the night at most inconvenient hours. He would not pretend to say what hours that hon. Gentleman thought most convenient or inconvenient for giving relief. The hon. Member had stated, that in one week 245 persons of the description he termed vagrants had applied for relief at most inconvenient hours. Probably Saturday nights were not included in the hon. Member's return, those seasons which were holydays in that House, and therefore most convenient to hon. Members who wished to look after such matters. Who was to decide upon the character of the persons presenting themselves for casual relief? Who was to have the task of declaring which were disorderly persons? Was the Attorney-general to do it? He would not say to what party in that House, or to what disorderly Member of it, this business should be referred, or whether it should be left with the Secretary for the Home Department, or the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, or the Colonial Secretary, as the fittest person to execute it; or whether they should all be formed into a board of management having power to decide who were disorderly and lewd persons, and then to consign them to those places which had been recommended by the hon. Member for the City of London. But would the House give to boards of guardians a power to come to decisions which would be inconsistent with the rights and liberties of the subject? Would they consent to give any person or persons the power of detaining unfortunate individuals, of which he lamented to say, there were too many, and compel them to work for a day, because under extreme circumstances of distress they had applied for relief? What was to be the proof of their being the persons answering the description in the clause? Were they to be dealt with according to the mere caprice or passion of individuals, who probably might be more guilty themselves of disorderly and improper conduct? Would the House adopt a clause which would press harshly and unjustly upon a class of persons towards whom the commisseration of the House ought rather to be extended? He was sorry to find, that the hon. Under Secretary of State for the Home Department seemed to feel so little for this class of people. He made no charge against the hon. Gentleman, nor would he make any, however gratifying it might be to the hon. Gentleman, In the name of poor persons driven to the commission of crimes which would have been totally repugnant to them under other circumstances, he protested against the clause.

withdrew the words "casual destitute," retaining these, "vagrant poor," instead.

thought there was not sufficient information before the House with regard to the persons contemplated by the clause to justify its adopting the amendment at present.

proposed to leave out the words of the clause which made it applicable to "women having been prostitutes, or habitually of lewd or disorderly behaviour," and to insert instead,—"common prostitutes, who shall have been duly convicted as idle and disorderly persons." As the clause stood, the master of a workhouse, or, at all events, the board of guardians upon his complaint, would send any decent woman who might not happen to be as submissive or obedient as bethought proper to these receptacles, which were professedly for very different persons; for he would have nothing to do but to say that she was habitually disorderly. Some independent authority ought to be appointed to decide who came under the description of this clause. It should not be left to persons who might desire to get rid of an individual whom they deemed disagreeable, or who might wish to gratify some ill feeling.

recalled the noble Lord's recollection to a petition which he had recently presented from the parish of St. George, Southwark, and which showed that other unions besides that of the City of London required some such plan as this now proposed. He was disposed to support the amendment of the noble Lord, the Member for Monmouthshire.

saw some difficulty in agreeing to the amendment. Women who were convicted of disorderly behaviour would be sent to the House of Correction. Was it meant that, having once been convicted, they should then be brought within the operation of the bill?

said, the clause as it was originally proposed was liable to the same doubt.

said, that the governors of Bridewell complained of the enormous expense occasioned by disorderly paupers being sent to that establishment.

hoped that the clause would not be made applicable to all persons who might, at a former period, have been convicted of being disorderly, or who might have fallen into vice, because, if it were so, it would put a stop to all reclamation and reform of character. The great objection to the clause was this very thing—the incomplete definition of the persons who were to be set to work. Was it safe, he would ask, to intrust such an authority as the master of the workhouse with the power of declaring any individual female to be a person of habitually lewd and disorderly behaviour, and sending her without due examination to a workhouse, which, if not absolutely a prison, was still a place of restraint? He wished for some clearer definition of the persons who were the subjects of this clause, as with the present words it would be possible for masters of workhouses to act with the greatest unfairness and cruelty. He should support the amendment of the noble Lord.

said, that while contemplating the possibility of abuse on one side, they must not entirely forget the evil on the other, of relaxing all power over persons who might come into the workhouse. It was quite right to say, that you would not subject a woman to punishment unless she were convicted of some intelligible offence; but suppose a woman came to the workhouse as a casual pauper, and asked for relief, and by the grossness of her conduct disturbed the other inmates, behaving in a manner that would be with perfect justice styled lewd and disorderly; if there were no control over that woman, unless she had been previously convicted of some offence, she might defy all restraint. Scenes of the grossest impropriety would occur if a general statutable exemption were given to all females not previously convicted.

said, if any person behaved in a disorderly way in a workhouse, there not only should be, but actually was, the power to correct that person; but by this clause the master would have the power of judging and pronouncing on the conduct and character of parties at their entrance into the workhouse. He could not but think, that such a power would be dangerous, and likely to be abused.

said, as this clause had so very important a bearing on those whom he had the honour to represent, as it concerned the interests of a great many persons in the extensive parishes of the metropolitan districts, he must offer one observation to the House. If he understood the clause, its object simply was to make a classification of persons of this description, to place one set in the workhouse and another in a distinct receptacle, in order to obtain the good effects of a separation. No one could contend, that vicious persons should be allowed to enter the workhouse, and instantaneously corrupt those who, though destitute, were innocent. Therefore some security must be had against contamination. But if the House adopted the words of the noble Lord, they might as well negative the clause altogether, for how was the master of the workhouse to get a list of persons previously convicted for disorderly conduct, or how was he to prove their identity? Persons of this description were quite notorious, and was it to be supposed, that the master of the workhouse would, without any reason whatever, inflict on a decent woman the penance reserved for those of the character mentioned in the clause? You must trust something to the discretion of the master, for it was impossible to define the objects of the clause with perfect clearness. If the clause were not adopted, scenes might be expected to occur which would render the workhouse a disgrace to the country.

observed, that all he required was, the appointment of some independent person, who would not be likely from caprice or worse motives to send a person to these penal workhouse. He asked, would be safe to give the power of affixing a stigma into the hands in which it was proposed to vest it? It was desirable to have a separate establishment for women of that class, but he did not think it safe to give the master of a workhouse the power of saying, that this or that woman was a disorderly character. The master might be actuated by improper motives; he might, for example, have made overtures to the woman which she had rejected, and from a feeling of revenge he might consign her to the separate workhouse.

thought the amendment of the noble Lord would render the clause entirely useless. Where could the record of previous conviction be found? Did the noble Lord propose to have a trial, at which evidence should be brought? He apprehended it would be necessary that some discretion should be left with the master of the workhouse, even with the possibility of its being abused. He thought, however, that the words as they now stood "Women who have been prostitutes, or who may be habitually of lewd or disorderly behaviour, chargeable to the poor-rates," were too general. He should, therefore, propose to leave out the words "who have been prostitutes, or who may be."

withdrew his amendment.

denied that there would be any coercion. The question was simply whether persons of the class described should be dealt with in one workhouse or another.

thought the clause so wholly objectionable, so arbitrary and oppressive, that he should move it be expunged altogether, and he would lake the sense of the House upon the question

, we understood to say, would oppose the clause if it was to be the means of bringing taxation upon the metropolitan districts for the maintenance of these workhouses.

stated that his objection to the clause was very strong, and it was his intention to divide against it.

stated, that he had an important amendment to move, which he should be averse to call on the House to take into consideration at that late hour of the night.

admitted the importance of the amendment, and would not oppose the motion to resume.