Upon another occasion observations to a similar effect were made upon the tone held by the commissioners.

Lord G. Somerset said, that with sincere respect for the commissioners and their motives, he must think that much of the unpopularity of the bill was owing to that harshness of style, and to that arrogance and assumption of infallibility which pervaded their documents and correspondence. They had interfered with every thing, whether properly within their sphere or not. The consequence was, that not only the lower orders, but the community in general, had a strong feeling against them.

Lord John Russell took credit to the government for their selection of the commissioners, which had been made without reference to political considerations; and expressed his opinion that on the whole they had executed their office very judiciously. If they had erred in any thing, it was only in some assertions of a theoretical character introduced into their documents. Arrogance was not a fault which they had deserved to be charged with. As well might he impute that fault to the noble lord, because he sometimes expressed his opinions strongly in that house. It was not fair to shift any odium which the law might have generated upon the heads of the able and deserving persons employed to administer it. Viscount Sandon was willing to do justice to the private characters of the commissioners, but could not shut his eyes to the severe and overbearing language in which they were accustomed to address all persons questioning their opinions or authority, or complaining

of any of their subordinates. They had always taken the niggardly, never the bountiful side. They had always protected their officers, never countenanced inquiry into facts. If they had made themselves, as they ought to have done, mediators between the guardians and the poor, they would have been universally beloved; but, instead of this, they had devoted themselves wholly to the enforcement of their own theory-the impracticable theory, that the law can make all men frugal, sober, and steady, and cause the poor to cease out of the land.

After a great deal of discussion, the first clause, continuing the power of the commissioners for five years, was carried by a majority of 166, the government having given up the longer period of ten years first proposed, in deference to the opinion expressed by sir Robert Peel and other members. An amendment moved by Mr. H. Hinde, restrictive of the powers of the commissioners was rejected by a large majority.

The re-establishment of the powers of the commissioners being determined on, the bill proceeded through committee, being, however, considerably delayed in its progress by a great variety of amendments, suggested by members on both sides of the house. To several of these amendments, not materially affecting the principle of the bill, lord John Russell, before they came on for discussion, announced the assent of the government. Two amendments which gave rise to discussions of considerable interest, deserve a short notice. The first of these, involving the question recently raised as to the right of the state to enforce compulsory education

upon its members, according to the Prussian system, arose upon the 10th clause, which empowers the commissioners to combine unions for the management of infant poor. It was moved by Mr. B. Wood upon this clause, that in order to authorise such a combination, the consent of a majority of each board of guardians should be required. Mr. Goulburn and lord Stanley, supporting the amendment, objected to the principle of compulsorily removing the children of the poor from their families and local connections. They also observed, upon the absence of any provision in the clause for the spiritual instruction of the children, which, they urged, ought to be afforded them according to the religion of the

state.

Lord John Russell asserted the principle of compulsory instruction. He insisted that parents, who, from necessity, threw their children on the state, had no right to prevent the state from giving them a useful and religious education. He objected to the appointment of a chaplain of the church of England to be attached to these schools as a grievance upon the dissenters, who would be annoyed at having a new tax levied for such a purpose.

Mr. Slaney advocated the system of union schools in opposition to that of a workhouse education which must necessarily be an imperfect one; but he wished that each school should be provided with a chaplain of the church of England.

Sir R. Peel said he had come to the conclusion that the best mode of education for the children of the state was by the congregation of a great number in one school. VOL. LXXXIII.

He should cordially support the proposal for annexing a chaplain of the church of England to every school. To show the benefits of such an annexation, he read extracts from Dr. Kay's report. He would not leave to the casual inspection of clergy not connected with the school so important a duty as that of instructing the ignorant and perhaps vicious children admitted into the institution. He was not willing, however, to sanction the principle of compelling parents to part with their children. A severe frost might suspend the agricultural labour of a man with a wife and six children, and force them into the workhouse. In two or three weeks the parents would get into employment again. Thus, if meanwhile the children had been sent to one of these distant schools, the parents would have become entitled to reclaim them after only a few days' sojourn there. If the children had not been sent thither, but kept in the workhouse for those few weeks, they would have been living for that time without any instruction at all, unless you had a double establishment - a workhouse instruction as well as an instruction in the school. Nor did he think it quite clear that it was right compulsorily to take even an illegitimate child from a mother to whom perhaps it was the only consolation, and who, though seduced, might not be vicious. With proper modifications he would support the clause.

Mr. Langdale objected to the doctrine that the state was to educate every child adopted by it in the state religion, without regard to the religious creed of the parents. He spoke with reference to the Roman catholic body to,

[D]

which he himself belonged, and he could scarcely believe that he had rightly understood the expressions of sir R. Peel.

Sir R. Peel explained, that if both or either of the parents objected to the child's instruction in the religion of the state, he did not desire to force that religion on that child.

A division took place on Mr. B. Wood's amendment, which was carried against ministers.

Mr. Colquhoun then moved an amendment upon the same clause, providing for the annexation to each union school of a chaplain belonging to the church of England, with liberty to those children whose parents, or whose sponsors after the parents' death, should disapprove the church doctrines, to be attended by other religious teachers. The words "natural guardians of the child," were afterwards, at the suggestion of viscount Sandon, substituted for "the sponsors."

Mr. Hawes and Mr. Ward, on behalf of the dissenters, opposed the proposition, and lord John Russell at first objected to it, but afterwards upon the terms of some slight alteration acceded to the clause as amended, which was affirmed upon a division.

It was justly observed at the time, that this amendment of Mr. Colquhoun's, although apparently sanctioning a principle favourable to the church, in reality by no means involved any concession on the part of those who represented the dissenting interest, since the clause, expressly provided, that in the event of the parents or natural guardians of the children objecting to the doctrines of the church, a minister of their own persuasion should be appointed and should

receive such salary as the poor-law commissioners should decide. The practical effect of this amendment if it had afterwards become law, would, it is obvious, have actually carried the recognition of dissent by the state somewhat further than has been hitherto thought consistent with the principle of an exclusive religious establishment, since under its regulations, upon the mere expression of an opinion on the part of the parents or guardians of children, the commissioners would have been not only empowered, but required, to appoint an unlimited number of salaried dissenting chaplains to every district school. Such a consequence was perhaps hardly attended to, as it was not distinctly pointed out during the discussion, or it is probable that many members of the house would have objected to the unquestionably large concession which it involved.

It would be tedious and useless, considering the fate which this bill eventually met with, to pursue the history of its discussion upon the several clauses, which occupied a large portion of the time of the house of commons during this session. Our object has mainly been in this account of the progress of a measure which ultimately proved abortive, to illustrate the state of feeling and opinion prevalent in the house respecting that most important alteration in the laws affecting the poor, which had been recently introduced. To enter further into detail would be superfluous, as this measure, after undergoing so much discussion, finally shared the fate of several other important measures, as we shall have occasion to relate when we come to

the transactions which immediately preceded the dissolution of parliament.

It would be improper to conclude our account of the transactions relating to the poor-law in this session, without some notice of the remarkable result of an election of a member for the town of Nottingham, which took place in the latter part of April. Nottingham had for thirty years been a stronghold of the liberal party; and the chances of a Conservative candidate would have seemed under ordinary circumstances to be very small. Upon the death of sir Ronald Ferguson, however, Mr. Walter, formerly M.P. for Berkshire, and well known as a principal proprietor of the Times newspaper, announced himself as a candidate. -The politics of this gentleman were well known to be strongly Conservative, and he was opposed by Mr. Larpent on the whig side; but throwing aside all other questions, Mr. Walter boldly took his stand upon the ground of an uncompromising hostility to the new poor-law, and so successfully did he appeal to the feelings of the electors that, by inducing them to merge all other differences in a cordial sympathy on this one question, he was returned by a majority of 238 over his liberal opponent. This result produced a great impression at the time throughout the country, and tended much to animate the zeal of the enemies of the obnoxious law. That the effect was owing entirely to a temporary junction of opposite political interests was clearly evinced by the

very different result of the contest which followed upon the general election, when Mr. Walter was left far behind his former unsuccessful opponent on the poll. The

warmth of feeling on the subject of the poor-law had apparently by that time subsided or given way to the pressure of other questions of still more exciting interest.

The annual report published by the poor-law commissioners for the year 1841, contains an account of the progress which had been made in carrying that measure into effect in Ireland. They state that the total number of unions which had been declared was 127, and that only three more remained to be formed, which would make the total number required. Great progress had been made in building the necessary workhouses, fourteen of which, at the date of this report had been completed and opened for the paupers. Of course, the system had not been sufficiently long in operation to warrant the commissioners in expressing a decided opinion respecting its working and effect, yet they state that their experience, so far as it enabled them to judge, afforded good hopes of the results of the measure, and that it would produce very important indirect benefits to the several localities.

A protracted enquiry took place in the house of lords, in the early part of the session, respecting the falsification of certain returns from the office of the poor-law commissioners in Ireland, relative to the election of a returning officer for the Clonmel union. union. The subject was brought before the house by the earl of Glengall, and Mr. Nicholls, one of the poor-law commissioners, and several of the assistant-commissioners, were examined before the house. The result of the enquiry was to fix the misconduct upon

Mr. William Stanley, the secretary of the poor-law commissioners. The conduct of this gentleman was affirmed, upon a resolution moved by the earl of Glengall, to be a contempt of the house, but Mr.

Stanley having resigned his office, and being stated to be in a very weak state of health, the house agreed to waive further proceedings against him.