accord with my views; and if the Bill should not come out of Committee in a shape consistent with those views, I shall be prepared to give it my opposition on the third reading; but from what my hon. friend has stated, I believe that he will not object to such alterations. If so, I shall be ready to support the Bill. they imagine that they could prevail on the public to confound the religion of the Established Church with its wealth, dignities and emoluments? Yet the Dissenters wished to touch none of thesethey claimed nothing which could fairly be denied to them. Those who wished to support and maintain the Established Mr. O'Connell begged to protest against Church would do well to concede this the doctrine laid down, on two or three demand. He could not conceive on what heads, by gentlemen who had grounded ground it could be opposed. Indeed it themselves on the Catholic Relief Bill, was his most deliberate opinion that the and insisted that this measure was required Church was in more danger from her by the Catholics to extend the provisions friends than her enemies. Such fanaof that Bill. This, on the part of the ticism for interference with the reliCatholics, he entirely disclaimed. Where gion of others was fanaticism - was was the petition in favour of this measure inconsistent with the spirit of the from the Catholics. He would go fur- age. The days of sanguinary persether, and say that were not that Bill cution were gone-fanaticism in its most founded on the principle of freedom of revolting form was at an end, but the peconscience, the Catholics would not sup- cuniary fanaticism still remained. The port it. As far as the Irish Catholics piety which they upheld, the persecution were concerned, they, less than all, wanted which they inflicted, were the piety and the it; for in Ireland the Universities were persecution of the pocket. The sacredness open to them, and they could take the of religion had given place to the sacredhighest degrees in medicine, civil, or ness of office, station, wealth, and common law. They strictly obeyed all dignity-these had survived, but survived the University rules, except attending even, as he believed, only to excite the chapel; which was, on account of their execration and contempt of every libereligion dispensed with. This was not a ral and enlightened mind throughout question on which the cry of "No Po- Europe. The right hon. Gentleman pery" could be raised. The cry must seemed to look with great satisfaction on be "No Dissenters;" a cry not very the prospect of conversions likely to ensue likely to meet with much favour in that to the Church of England from openHouse. He must confess, that the debate ing the Universities; in short he wanted of that night had inspired him. He had to convert them into Church-traps to but very little respect for any party who catch dissenting rats. He would not would attempt to get back into power trespass further on the exhausted patience upon a cry of " No Dissenters," or "No of the House, but just to refer to some Popery;" yet a man must be blind, not of the attempts recently made, to seduce the to see that there was such a party in that Dissenters. He had seen a proclamation House. Here, however, it would not headed "Winchilsea and Nottingham." answer. Tom-foolery would not tell there, It was a most amusing one. It praised though, to listen to the speeches they had the Dissenters to the skies, as holding the heard that night, one might almost have pure doctrines of Christianity, and called fancied that one of the grave doctors of on them to join all their influence against Oxford was suddenly transported thither infidelity, scepticism, and popery. Temfrom the more congenial soil where they pora mutantur. In looking back to the had lately figured. Oh, how gloriously Parliamentary Debates of 1828, he found consistent were these elite of wisdom! a speech headed "Earl of Winchilsea," Think of a whiskered hussar, in a doctor's whether the same Earl whose name he cap and gown, preaching morality. had recently seen figuring in the papers, Surely the House must catch new enthu- he knew not. That Earl of Winchilsea, siasm from the vociferous shouts of beard- however, remarked of the Dissenters, that less bigots. He pitied the party who, in he found them all claiming credit for a the echo of these shouts, aided by ancient belief in Christianity, but he would state, drivellers and dreamers of by-gone into- and could positively affirm, that some of lerance, fondly imagined themselves list- them were no more entitled to the appelto the voice of public opinion. Did I lation of Christians than the followers of not wish to interfere with the Established Church, but merely desired to establish a principle which would afford satisfaction to a large body of the people, promote harmony and good will, and strengthen the institutions of the country, by uniting all classes in their support. Mahomet, indeed, not so much; for whilst the former denied the existence of Christ, the latter believed in it. Yet these were now the pure Christians who were called on to join in a crusade against infidelity, popery, and scepticism; and this was in the 19th century, and sprung from a party who imagined that, by these means, they would gain place and power. But they were not such attempts as the Government had to dread. If they would only stand by the people, they might laugh all such attempts to scorn. conjured them not to do the work of their enemies, nor attempt to trample on a people who would die sooner than forego the principles of justice. He Lord Sandon said, he should be very sorry to see those who stood by the Church and State following the advice of the hon. and learned member for Dublin. The support of the hon. Member was of very great value to the Government, but he should like to hear what the hon. Member would have to say next year to the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer if that noble Lord should not wish to advance a step further in the way the hon. and learned Member might desire. It seemed, that all the hon. and learned Member's notions about fanaticism had a connection with his pocket. The question before them had other considerations besides the danger of the pocket. It was a question of honour, and one that involved the best interests of the whole country. After this Bill had passed he could not see how next Session they could refuse to interfere with the rights and discipline of private Colleges. When the hon. and learned Member, as a friend of the Church, gave his advice, he could not help saying a few words about that advice and cautioning the House against it. Mr. George Wood briefly replied. He contended, that there was nothing in the objection of the opponents of the measure which touched the provisions of the Bill, and he felt great satisfaction in saying that nothing had occurred to render him doubtful of its success. It was the right of all classes of the people of this country to enjoy a University education if they desired to avail themselves of it; and he complained, that they could not at present obtain that advantage except by complying with objectionable conditions, which were not necessary for the support of religion or of the Established Church. He did The House then divided on the Motion for the second reading: Ayes 321; Noes 147; Majority 174. The Bill was read a second time. List of the NOES. Agnew, Sir A. Campbell, Sir H. P. Finch, G. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Saturday, June 21, 1834. POOR-LAWS' AMENDMENT-COMMITTEE.] On the Motion of Lord Althorp, The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Poor-laws' Amendment Bill. The Question was put on the first of the Clauses relative to bastardy, which had been postponed. Mr. Miles rose to submit the clause of which he had given notice, as a substitution for that proposed by the noble Lord. It was important the House should know in what situation it stood with regard to the law of bastardy. By the 69th, 70th, and 71st clauses, they had declared that in future the burthen of an illegitimate child should be entirely thrown on the mother, and that all responsibility should be removed from the putative father, or in other words that the woman was the seducer, and the man the seduced. He could not view such an enactment without the most serious apprehensions, the clause he proposed would therefore place some portion of the responsibility on the head of the father. It would also remedy another very considerable evil. At present it was the system of the parish rather to consider the circumstances of the putative father, and his ability to pay the demand made upon him, than what would be a sufficient indemnity for the maintenance of the mother and child. Now, the clause which he meant to propose, with a view to the relief of the parishes, would have the effect of rendering that indemnity more adequate to the support of the child, and thereby diminish the burthen. It proceeded upon the principle, that the child should not come to the parish until it was actually chargeable. He also proposed to give the putative father the power of meeting the charge of affiliation against him by witnesses before the Magistrates, instead of being sent to prison, and being compelled to appeal against the decision of the Magistrates at the Quarter Sessions. The hon. Member moved a clause to the effect he had described. Mr. Frankland Lewis said, this clause was rather explanatory of the views recommended by the Commissioners. Its effect would be to throw the child upon the settlement of the mother, and thereby prevent the evils arising from unpleasant interference of different parishes, and those scenes which so frequently took place before the Magistrates. He thought it was most desirable that the parish should have no inducement to interfere until interference had become absolutely necessary. Admitting that a responsibility should rest upon the putative father of the child, it was of the greatest importance that the charge made upon him should be confined to the actual expenses incurred, so that a surplus should never remain in the hands of the parish. Lord Althorp had before stated, that he preferred the clause contained in the Bill. He considered that the effect of the hon. Member's Amendment would be so to punish the man by imprisonment, that he would be induced to marry the woman in order that he might escape the punishment. This would be most injurious, as it would lead to many improvident marriages. With regard to the question of whether the order of the Magistrates upon the father should be for the support of the mother and the child, or the child only, he thought it should be of such an amount as would cover the expenses of the mother from the period of her being with child till her confinement, but that afterwards the father should be called on to maintain the child only, and not the mother. With respect to a surplus remaining in the hands of the parish, he was of opinion that would seldom occur, because the parish had no right to come upon the father | pecuniary indemnity on account of an unless the mother was actually chargeable. illegitimate child. He would not discuss It was said, the mother would leave the the principle of the economists as acted workhouse when she was able to work and upon in the Bill. He understood it to maintain herself, and it was asked in that be the new theory, that women were case what was to become of the child? to be alone liable to all the conseBut by the present Bill, the mother was quences of having an illegitimate child. bound to maintain the child. The only The principle might be wise; but was difficulty was, what course ought to be the noble Lord prepared to say, that pursued when the mother was able to sup- there were no exceptions to this rule ? port herself, but not the child. He saw It was his opinion that, especially in no alternative but the parish supporting towns, the great mass of women were led both; otherwise he admitted one of the astray by men from age and experience objections to this Bill-namely, that the most likely to practise unfairly on a young workhouses would become to a certain ex- woman. Would the noble Lord or the tent foundling hospitals, which were a sort Committee contend that in such cases of institutions not very desirable to be es- the woman should have no remedy? tablished in this country. The law giving a claim was repealedwas there to be no substitute in cases of unfair dealing when the relative ages of the parties or any clear facts would go to establish that the woman had been unjustly dealt with? The noble Lord seemed to think the higher and the lower classes were on a par. That was not the case. The rich father might obtain damages (per quod servitium amisit) from a wrong doer; but how was a poor woman or a poor father to enter a Court of Law? It would Mr. Ayshford Sanford observed, that at present the woman did not become chargeable, but only the offspring; but the words of this clause rendered the mother herself chargeable. Now, he did not wish to charge the father with the mother's maintenance; but if he were not charged, an additional burthen was thrown on the parish. He did not see how this difficulty was to be got rid of. Mr. Robinson regarded the clause as an Amendment to the Bill; but he still ob-cost at least 1007. in the country to mainjected to all the liability being cast on the woman, while the man was allowed to go free. Sir Thomas Freemantle thought the inconvenience of being obliged to receive relief only in the workhouse would be sufficient to deter the woman from again coming on the parish. tain such an action, and thus a woman suffering under a grievous wrong would be without a remedy. The Committee could not be justified in passing a law repealing former securities, and establishing no new ones. He limited his observations to cases of unfair dealing, and he contended the noble Lord was bound to afford such tribunal to redress their wrongs, which no one would attempt to deny. Mr. Wolryche Whitmore objected alto-injured women an easy and effective gether to the Amendment of the hon. Member. The Bastardy-laws, as they had hitherto been administered, were a great cause of immorality, and the most effectual check to it would be to discontinue the relief to the woman. As to the amount which was paid to parishes by the reputed fathers of illegitimate children, all he would say was, that the expenses of getting at the father and making him pay any thing were often more than was received from him, so that in fact the parishes gained but little in this way. He hoped the clause would be allowed to stand as it was originally. Sir Henry Willoughby said, that he was anxious to draw the attention of the noble Lord to an important question. The proviso enacted, that no woman shall have any claim, title, or interest to any Lord Althorp said, that as he saw that the opinion of the House was in favour of agreeing to this clause in its amended shape, he should offer no further opposition to it. He supported it, however, as matter of expediency, in consequence of the excitement which had been raised against it in the parishes; but he must state that, upon strict principle, he could not at all agree with its propriety. Mr. Grote wished it to be understood, that if the noble Lord was willing to admit the clause, he made the concession to public feeling rather than to reason or argument. He did not consider the clause as an improvement in the Bill. The House divided-Ayes 114; Noes 39; Majority 75. HOUSE OF LORDS, Lord Althorp proposed a new clause to the effect that no rules or by-laws made or sanctioned by commissioners should be such as to oblige the inmates of a workhouse to attend any religious service that they did not conscientiously believe in; or to oblige the children in a workhouse to be educated in any faith that their parents did not approve of, and that the ministers of all religious persuasions should be at liberty to visit workhouses at any period of the day, at the request of any of the inmates, for the purpose of affording them religious instruction. The noble Lord said, he thought this new clause would meet all the purposes which the Amendment that the hon. Member (Mr. Langdale) had proposed was intended to accomplish. With regard to orphan children, he believed it would be admitted that it would be most desirable to educate them in the religious principles of the Established Church of the country. Mr. Langdale, though he considered that this clause did not go far enough, would his Amendment. not press The Clause was agreed to. The other postponed Clauses were agreed to or struck out. The House resumed, and the Report was brought up and agreed to. On the Motion of Lord Althorp, the Bill was recommitted pro formá, that the several Clauses and Amendments might be printed, and the Report was ordered to be taken into further consideration on a future day, Monday, June 23, 1834. MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By the Duke of WEL LINGTON, the Marquess of DowNSHIRE, and Lord ELLENBOROUGH, from four Places,-for Protection to the Established Church, and against the Separation of Church and State. By the latter, from the North Riding of York, for a different Law concerning the Collection of County Rates. By the Bishop of CHESTER, from three Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.-By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Glasgow and Renfrew, in favour of the two Bills respecting Entails (Scotland).-By the Earl of RADNOR, from two Places, for Relief to the Dissenters.— By the Dukes of CUMBERLAND and WELLINGTON, Earls HAREWOOD and ELDON, and Lords ROLLE and LYNDHURST, from a Number of Places,- for Protection to the Established Church, against the Claims of the Dissenters, and against the Separation of Church and State.-By Lords KENYON and ROLLE, from several Places, to the same effect.-By Lord DENMAN, from Debtors confined in the King's Bench Prison, for Abolishing Imprisonment for Debt. ANNANDALE PEERAGE.] The Duke of Hamilton presented a petition from Sir Frederick Johnstone, relative to his claims to the Annandale Peerage. He prayed for one month's delay, in order to make out his case. The noble Duke, in support of the petition, went into a long and detailed statement of the pedigree of Sir Frederick Johnstone, in order to show that he was entitled to the indulgent consideration of the House. The noble Duke, who said he had not the slightest connexion with the parties, concluded by moving that the petitioner might have a month's notice to bring on his case in due form. The Lord Chancellor objected to any delay. The case had been fully argued before the Committee of Privileges, and the petitioner had had sufficient time to bring up his evidence. If the Motion were agreed to, the consequence would be almost endless delay and expense, which would be a great injustice to the other party. Lord Wynford supported the Motion. Lord Melville contended, that after the many years the question had been before the House, their Lordships were bound to refuse any demand which might cause further delay. The Earl of Eldon said, the claimant ought to be called to the Bar of the House, and state why he had not appeared before. Their Lordships divided--Contents 27; Not-Contents 42; Majority 15. DISABILITIES OF THE JEWS.] The Marquess of Westminster rose to move the second reading of the Bill for repeal |