HC Deb 08 March 1867 vol 185 cc1608-24

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Asylums to be provided).

MR. J. STUART MILL

said, he was too much alive to the extreme difficulty of carrying any measure for the improvement of the law or its administration to be over critical in regard to the present Bill, as it was brought forward with a real desire to improve the administration of the Poor Law, and really did so in many important particulars. But he wished to make a few observations, chiefly for the purpose of eliciting the views of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), and of entering a caveat in respect to principles of administration which seemed to him true and just, but which that measure was very far from carrying out to the extent which he was persuaded the House and the country would come in time to think desirable. He wished to ask the reason why the Bill, in the new system which it originated, preserved so much of the fractional character of the old system. Why was it necessary, for example, that there should be one set of managers for asylums, and a different set for dispensaries? Why were asylums to be provided according to districts marked out by the Poor Law Board, while dispensaries were to be provided according to parishes and unions? Both of those institutions, being kindred institutions, must be managed in a certain degree on the same principles, and those who were capable of managing the one must be capable of managing the other. Why was it thought necessary that the management of every separate asylum should be under a separate body, and that every separate dispensary should be under a separate management? No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman meant that there should be the same system of administration for them, and trusted to the powers reserved for the Poor Law Board for establishing it. But it was a sound rule that the administration of the same kind of things ought to be, as far as possible, on a large scale, and under the same management. A Central Board would be under the eye of the public, who would know and think more about it than about local Boards. It would act under a much greater sense of responsibility. The number of persons capable of adequately performing the duties in question was necessarily limited, and such persons would be more easily induced to undertake duties on a large scale than on a small one. It was probable that a considerable number of powers now reserved to the Poor Law Board might safely be exercised by such a Central Board; which would, to that extent, preserve the principle of the administration of the local affairs of the people by their own representatives. He was not one of those who desired to weaken the power of the Poor Law Board to guide local authorities, and supersede them when they failed in their duty, for Poor Law administration is not a local but a national concern. But there was much force in what was said by some local authorities, who did not object to the main principles of this Bill, who admitted that its proposals were necessary, who applauded the right hon. Gentleman for making them, yet had fair ground for urging that they ought to have the opportunity of themselves doing what was required, and that interference should take place only when they had failed. With a view to future legislation it would be well worth considering whether the administration of the relief of the sick poor for the whole of London should not be placed under central instead of local management, the Central Board to be constituted by election, or partly by election and partly by nomination. He did not wonder that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had not chosen to leave the sick poor in the hands of the vestries. Vestry government was hole and corner government, and he hoped the time was coming when they would not tolerate hole and corner administration for any purpose whatever. He hoped, before long, to have the opportunity of bringing this matter before the House in connection with the general subject of metropolitan local government. Of course, some of the vestries had suffered wrongfully for the deficiencies of those who had done worse; but it was in the essence of hole and corner government to be comparatively irresponsible, inefficient, jobbing, and carried on by inferior persons—objections which would not apply to a Central Board. With a Central Board in existence, the duties of the vestries would be those of superintendence rather than of execution. A numerically large Board was unfit for executive or administrative duties, but admirably fitted for looking after those who were intrusted with such duties. Administrative duties were best intrusted to a single hand, which should be responsible, and, if possible, paid; and the executive administration of the Poor Laws should principally devolve on paid officers, who would be watched in the districts by the vestries, which would consist of ready-made critics superintending others with a vigilance with which they did not like others to superintend them. The proposal to make the asylums medical schools, and thus to secure to them a high degree of publicity and the constant supervision of skilled persons, did the greatest credit to whoever suggested it, and was a proof of a real capacity for practical legislation.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he was glad the hon. Member for Westminster had taken this opportunity of expressing his opinions on the Bill, and of stating what he thought might have been made of it; but he was sure the hon. Member would recognise the great difficulties there were in making an entire change in an already existing system. An experiment would be made by the Bill which, to a certain extent, would effect the object the hon. Member had in view. He had already stated that any one devising a new system would wisely place lunatic, fever, and small pox hospitals under one Board; and the hon. Member would observe that it was not proposed to have a Board of management for each separate asylum, but one for each district; so that, if the metropolis were made one district, a Central Board would be created. If that experiment were tried, it would be seen whether the powers of the Board might, with benefit, be applied to other purposes. In this view, possibly, much of the hon. Member's objection might be removed, because the change was one which might be developed into something like the system he had sketched. Dispensaries would remain in the hands of Boards of Guardians, who had not been objected to as administrators of outdoor relief. The dispensaries would differ from the hospitals in being restricted to the relief of outdoor poor; and for that reason he thought it prudent to leave them, as they were in Ireland, under the care of dispensary committees of the Board of Guardians. It would be observed that he had provided for district Boards dividing themselves into committees for departmental administration, and by such division the evils of administration by a large Board would be obviated. A Central Board might, perhaps, be intrusted with still greater powers, such as contracting for the supply of drugs for the whole metropolis. He had kept these things in view; but he thought it wise to proceed by steps, and if we once got a Central Board, the House would consider how far the principle might be beneficially extended. He was glad the hon. Member for Westminster approved making the asylums medical schools; a plan which had been formerly adopted in connection with the Marylebon Workhouse, and had contributed to the education of some of the most eminent medical men of the day. At Galway the medical students of the Queen's College were admitted to the workhouse infirmary, with great benefit to themselves, while their admission constituted a good system of inspection. He was glad to have the assistance of the hon. Member for Westminster in carrying the Bill.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, that so far as he could understand the right hon. Gentleman, he concurred with the hon. Member for Westminster in thinking that there ought to be, sooner or later, a single Board which should control all those asylums for the sick poor, and that there should be uniformity of management. He was glad to hear it, as that was his own opinion; but he could not see that any provision, calculated to have that effect, was contained in the Bill. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any particular object in calling the places in question "asylums." He thought the appellation was an unfortunate one, inasmuch as there were peculiar associations connected with asylums, not corresponding with the purposes of these buildings, and it might give offence to that class of persons for whom asylums were set apart, who were not paupers. He would, therefore, suggest the substitution of the word "hospital," or the words "places where the sick poor shall be relieved."

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, he was of opinion that it would be better the word "hospital" should be employed. To the Bill itself he entertained the objection that it contained no provision tending to I procure the speedy and permanent restoration to health of the sick poor. Its tendency was to benefit the vicious rather than the virtuous sick poor. There was I also nothing to prevent the guardians from appointing unfit instead of well-trained nurses.

MR. AYRTON

said, he did not concur in the extremely sensitive criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers). The right hon. Gentleman's only objection to the clause appeared to be the use of the word "asylum," and if that were so, was it really a serious matter for discussion? They would never get through the Bill if such dissertations as these were encouraged. These establishments were to be provided for the reception of the sick chargeable poor, and as it was not an establishment for benevolent purposes, but associated with poor relief, one word was as good as another.

SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY

said, there was no real force in the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. They had pauper lunatic asylums established all over the country, but no objection was taken to the word "asylum." There was greater stigma attached to the word "workhouse."

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE

said, he thought there was a good deal in the name of a building. The word "asylum" was a most unfortunate one to apply to a building which was to be used for the poor. There were various kinds of asylums, but in such establishments it was a rule not to admit any one who had received parish relief. In using the word "asylum," therefore, they lessened the distinction which ought to exist between those who received relief from the pariah and those who received relief from benevolent and charitable institutions. Taking this name for the new institutions would seriously injure existing asylums. There were asylums for the blind, the deaf and dumb, for indigent gentlemen and decayed merchants. If the word were applied to receptacles for paupers, it might bring discredit on the others. It was most important to maintain the line of demarcation between those who had been in the habit of receiving parish relief, and those who had gone through life and supported their families without parish relief, but did not object to enter asylums supported by the subscriptions of the benevolent.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

said, it was not of much consequence what word was used as long as proper relief was given to the sick, insane, and infirm. The relief ought to be confined to them exclusively, and he should move to omit from the clause the words "or other class or classes," under which even able-bodied paupers might be admitted into these asylums.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state clearly what classes it was intended to provide for under the clause. He wished to defend the metropolitan guardians. There were 35,000 persons receiving relief in London workhouses, and only four cases of had usage had been established. He did not care what they called the new buildings. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," but if this was to be a national scheme, the cost should not be levied on the metropolitan unions, but on the Consolidated Fund.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he must express his regret that so much discussion had been provoked by this clause, which, he had thought, did not contain anything likely to lead to misapprehension. In bringing forward the Bill he had stated in the most distinct manner that its object was to give to the Poor Law Board power to classify the different kinds of paupers in the metropolis. It was an essential part of the scheme that the classification should be undertaken under the direction of the Poor Law Board. He never intended to mix up the sick with other paupers, nor was there any indication of such an intention in the Bill. On the contrary, his object was to separate them. It might be advantageous in some cases to have a building for one class, even, perhaps, the able-bodied, in a particular district. The object of the clause was to give the Poor Law Board the necessary powers to classify the whole order of paupers, lying-in women, able-bodied and so on, and to that end it was essential that the words proposed to be omitted should be retained in the clause. It would be hardly necessary for him to say anything about the word "asylum." The word "hospital" would be open to the same objection. In the writings of the persons who urged this measure upon the House the question was asked why these places were called work- houses any longer when they were, in fact, places for the sick, insane, and infirm.

MR. THOMAS CHAMBERS

said, he thought that no satisfactory explanation had been given about the words proposed to be omitted. If they were allowed to remain the Poor Law Board would have the power of taking any class of paupers out of the workhouses and sending them to special establishments, and the guardians would then be defunct.

MR. AYRTON

said, he hoped that the manner in which his hon. and learned Friend had responded to the appeal that he would address himself to the subject of the clause would be generally followed in the House. He thought the best feature of the Bill was the prospect it offered of a classification of metropolitan paupers. If the poor were classified, the result would be not only economy, but efficiency and greater humanity. He trusted the Amendment would not be pressed.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, he did not want to oppose the classification of paupers. On the contrary, he fully acknowledged the advantages that would result from such a procedure. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to have a separate building for every class of the poor distinct from the other?

MR. GILPIN

said, he had come to the conclusion that the Bill perfectly and simply carried out what it professed in its title, and also what the right hon. Gentleman declared to be its object. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis) would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Formation of Districts.)

MR. THOMAS CHAMBERS

said, he should like to know whether there was power given to the Board to constitute one large parish into a district? If there were not such powers given he should like to introduce words to effect that object.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that there were such powers given to do it or not; and therefore if nothing were done, the parish or union would remain as it was.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Number of Asylums.)

MR. THOMAS CHAMBERS

said, that some districts, especially the East of Lon- don, would be unable to find funds to erect those asylums, and suggested that they should be enabled to avail themselves of the existing charitable institutions of the metropolis, such as the small pox and fever hospitals, which had a much better medical staff than the local authorities could command.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, it was notorious that the different districts availed themselves of the Lock Hospital and other institutions, and there was no reason why the same system should not continue. But, as a general rule, those hospitals to which the hon. and learned Member referred were intended for a different class of persons altogether than those who were likely to enter the asylums to be constituted under the Bill.

SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY

said, he thought it highly proper that those asylums should be established in the various districts of the metropolis.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Constitution of Managers.)

MR. THOMAS CHAMBERS

said, he should move, as an Amendment, the insertion of the words, "The Managers shall be elected," and the omission of the words, "Partly elected and partly nominated." He desired that the experiment about to be tried should be tried in a modified form, and that there should be no nominated managers; but if it were found that the system he proposed did not work well, it could be altered, and nominees might be appointed. He had been told by all who were competent to form an opinion on the question, that the system of nominating the managers was one that would not work well. The nominated guardians would either attend the Board, and have it all their own way, or would not attend it at all, except when something special was to be done, and thus a bad feeling would arise.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 5, after the word "shall," to insert the words "be elected."—(Mr. Thomas Chambers.)

MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENS

said, he was one of those who were sincerely anxious that this Bill should pass. He gave the right hon. Gentleman the greatest credit for the measure, but this clause was, in his mind, fatal to the whole Bill. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether he would make the principle involved in the clause a sine quâ non. He had heard no one out of that House give any opinion but one—namely, that this was the first step towards taking away the control of the ratepayers in Poor Law expenditure and management. The House ought to weigh well the magnitude of this question. He would raise no other difficulty, because he wished the Bill to pass; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to let the clause remain open until the other portions of the Bill were disposed of.

MR. J. STUART MILL

said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman, and did not see any reason for the provisions in the Bill by which the Poor Law Board were empowered to appoint a certain number of guardians. According to his view, the guardians were, or ought to be, quite competent to perform their duties without any assistance from the Government of any kind; but in the case of the appointment of a manager, in whom special skill was required, popular election might not be altogether so satisfactory as the appointment of a responsible functionary. He was therefore fully disposed to support this particular clause, although he should oppose, with his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, that part of the Bill which left the nomination of the guardians in the hands of the Poor Law Board.

MR. DOULTON

said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consider the objection which had been made to the clause as it stood.

MR. AYRTON

said, he trusted the objection would not be pressed. It would be extremely inconvenient to ask the Committee to divide on an abstract question. Under the present system of Poor Law administration the nominative principle was adopted, as was instanced in the fact that in country unions justices of the peace were ex officio members of the Boards of Guardians. It was very desirable to have some responsible person connected with the administration of the Poor Law.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, he took for granted that the object of this legislation was to provide a better system of relieving the sick poor in the workhouse. The past system had failed chiefly on account of certain views taken by the guardians as to the requirements of the medical officers and the medical relief; and also from their not observing the rules and regulations of the Central Board. These regulations were apparently perfect for their purpose; but so far had they been neglected it was perfectly impossible to know whether they were observed or not unless they had somebody on the spot, who could observe what took place in his establishment, and would communicate the result to the Board. This required some close relations between the Board of Guardians and the Central Board. He certainly should have suggested that there should be some person in these Boards generally more immediately under the control of the Central Board, than those contemplated under the system of nomination—some person connected with the Central Board, almost in the pay of the Board, and who had an interest in discharging the duty of seeing that the rules and regulations of the Board were carefully carried out. Without such person there might be a recurrence of the abuses recently disclosed. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman had found some difficulty in having such a connection between the Central Board and the Boards of Management, and he had substituted for it a provision that there should be some person nominated. He hoped, if this Bill passed, that the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever might be his successor in office, would be able to make provision as to the fitness of the persons to preside over the medical establishments. The number of managers ought to be limited, and that would limit the number of nominees. The fewer these Boards were composed of the better, and the stronger would be the administration. He should think three would be enough, and then there would be one Government nominee. The only doubt he felt was as to the persons supposed to be willing to accept the office of nominated members. He objected to a man's qualification for the office of guardian being measured by the rate able value of the tenement he occupied. Also, he could not conceive any persons giving up their whole time to the duties of an office unless they were paid for it. At the same time, the measure was tentative, and in the right direction; for those reasons it was entitled to favour, and, if in practice it should prove defective, the right hon. Gentleman or any of his successors would doubtless be willing to amend it.

MR. BUTLER

said, that as the representative of eighteen parishes in the eastern part of the metropolis, he could say that the feeling of the guardians was strongly opposed to the novel principle embodied in the Bill. He was sure the clause would not work well.

MR. OLIPHANT

said, he wished to ask whether there was any possibility of strengthening the inspectorate? Nobody in this world would do an thing for nothing. Gentlemen opposite who were governing the country were paid for it—the members of the actual Executive he meant. Men might be excellent guardians; but unless they were guardian-angels they would not give up so much time, I which was giving up so much money, with out any equivalent whatever. The fact that men did not get an equivalent in hard cash only proved that they must get an equivalent in some other form.

COLONEL HOGG

said, he admitted that in some respects the guardians had not done their duty, but no guardians had ever received any remuneration of any sort for the work they did. If the hon. Gentleman had inquired into the affairs of the metropolitan workhouses he would have found that all the guardians, whether rich or poor, had given their time gratuitously. The manner in which they had discharged their duties was a credit to them.

MR. OLIPHANT

said, he did not mean to cast any aspersions on the guardians, he had simply contended that the proper principle to act upon was to pay these men, and then their work would be efficiently done. As long as guardians were not paid for their work they might be expected to attend to their work as it suited their convenience, just as Members of the House of Commons attended the House, not every day and night, but as it suited them. In the case of hospitals and asylums great care was required, and the way to secure a proper superintendence of them was to pay for the superintendence.

MR. CANDLISH

said, the President of the Poor Law Board could make this clause work as he pleased. The House admitted that the principle of the Bill was excellent, but this clause would introduce an entire novelty in legislation. The House, on account of the general excellence of the Bill, was prepared to meet its blemishes leniently. But he asked the right hon. Gentleman to discard from it this new principle of nomination.

MR. NEATE

said, he thought it was much better to have paid representatives from the Poor Law Board on the Boards of Management. The managers would have to dispose not only of the parish funds, but of the common funds. A certain portion of the managers should be taken from the nominated guardians, and he would support the clause as it stood.

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE

said there was a great deal of difference between allowing justices of the peace to act as ex officio guardians and permitting the Poor Law Board to nominate one-third of those managers. It was assumed that the metropolitan Boards of Guardians had neglected their duty, but he denied that that was the case. Some Boards of Guardians of the metropolis might have acted improperly, but the majority of the Boards of Guardians of the metropolis had devoted a large portion of their time to the discharge of their duties. His hon. Friend on his left (Mr. Oliphant) had a small acquaintance with the management of those matters; otherwise he would know that the persons elected Poor Law Guardians received no pecuniary reward, and were quite content with the thanks and kindly feeling of those around them when they had performed their duties. It was unfair to say that because there was mismanagement in the parishes under the control of the Poor Law Board from the commencement, a general rule should be laid down by which the whole of the guardians of the metropolis should be deprived of their present power. The President of the Poor Law Board had admitted that when he visited the City of London Union he had been pleased with everything he saw. He warned the country Members that if the proposed innovation was adopted in London it would soon spread throughout the country. He hoped this new principle would not be introduced.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, the number of Boards in London would be a serious argument against the proposal to appoint a paid officer to attend each of them. He repeated that the eyes and ears of the Poor Law Board were not sufficiently numerous, and to remedy this defect he hoped to meet with persons who would take their places at the several Boards in behalf of the Central Board, not from the love of money, but from the love of doing good. He had already received a letter from a medical man, who had filled some of the highest positions in India, and who had recently retired from practice, a friend of Sir John Lawrence, as he had been also of his brother, offering to place himself entirely at the disposal of the Board for the parish in which he resided. He agreed that the Boards should not be too large nor the nominees too numerous. The hon. Member for London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), who had spoken with great emphasis on the question, forgot that the nomination system bad not yet been tried, and he could assure country Members that if it failed in London it would not be proposed to extend it to the country.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he thought it would be found that the nominees and the guardians would not agree. His constituents greatly disliked the provision.

MR. THOMAS CHAMBERS

said, that the Poor Law Board should effect the object they contemplated by the employment of inspectors, and not by the employment of spies, for as such they would be treated. What set of gentlemen would like to conduct business with persons appointed to watch their proceedings with a view to report them to the head office?

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, it was not a novel proposal that the Central Board should know what was going on at the Boards of Guardians; that was stipulated in the general Act, but hitherto the Central Board had not possessed the machinery requisite for informing itself.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 10; Noes 115: Majority 105.

MR. VANDERBYL

I have carefully perused the Bill now under consideration; and while I fully concur in the favourable opinions expressed concerning it by different Members of this House as well as by the public generally, I cannot refrain from proposing two Amendments. And first with regard to the clause now under discussion—Clause 9. This clause states that the managers shall be elective and nominated; and the two following clauses describe the necessary qualifications, which it will be observed are of a purely monetary character, founded upon the rateable value assessed. Proceeding to Clause 22, we find some of the duties of these managers defined. They are to provide medical appliances and requisites for the treatment of the sick; and I may add they will have to attend to the construction and ventilation of wards, to decide often whether certain applicants are suitable for admission to those wards, and to consider a variety of subjects involving the health and comfort of the sick poor. Now it seems to me that some scientific qualification is essential; and considering the nature of the subjects that will constantly be coming before the managers, I know of no man bettor qualified to explain matters or give advice than the medical officer. His hospital training prepares him for this, and his daily intercourse with the sick poor in the asylum renders him better able than anybody else to describe at the meetings of managers what may be required—better far than any manager can. It is on these grounds that I propose as an Amendment that the medical officer for the time being shall be ex-officio a member of the Board. I am aware that many hon. Members think he can he called in when his opinion is wanted; but I think it is inconsistent with the dignity of the medical profession that the medical officer should be called in when required as if he were a nurse or a porter; and what is more important, I believe the sick poor will never be so well cared for while the medical officer (who so thoroughly understands their wants) is debarred from representing them on the Board. Supposing he has not a seat, what usually happens? Why, he has to describe what is required to some friendly manager, who will, of course, report what has been told him to the Board. Now we all know how much ordinary statements gain by repetition, and I also know how much scientific statements often lose thereby. By giving the medical officer the position to which his education and scientific knowledge even now so justly entitle him, I believe that men with still higher qualifications will apply for the appointments, especially as the Bill provides for the establishment of medical schools in connection with the district asylums. I have been asked by the noble Lord the Member for Chester to substitute his Amendment for mine, and as it is more comprehensive, I have no objection to do so. I therefore beg to move that— The medical officer for the time being of any workhouse infirmary, and the resident medical officer of any asylum under this Act and the district medical officer attached to any dispensary under this Act, shall be a member, without power of voting, of the Board of Guardians, Board of Managers, or Dispensary Committee, respectively.

EARL GROSVENOR

said, he approved the Amendment, which would do away with the necessity of medical officers, who were educated men, being compelled to knock their heels about outside the Board- room while questions of interest to them, and in the discussion of which they were well qualified to take a part, were being considered within.

COLONEL HOGG

said, that the ratepayers could now, if they thought it desirable, elect medical men as guardians, and often did so; and it would be adopting a new principle, and one which, in his opinion, would not work at all well if the Committee agreed to the Amendment. When questions were discussed in which the advice of the medical officer was advantageous that officer was generally requested to appear before the Board and give his opinion, and if that course were not adopted on such occasions the guardians would fail to perform their duty.

MR. AYRTON

said, it was often desirable to have the medical officer's opinion in writing for the guidance of the Board; but if that officer became a member, even without the power of voting, he would not only be oftentimes placed in a false position, but his efficiency would frequently be destroyed he was an officer to the Board; he ought not, therefore, to be a member of it.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, that guardians were not to be blamed that they wanted knowledge in law and medicine, and when sanitary questions arose it was advisable that decision should not be come to in the absence of the medical officer. If the medical officer was only present to give advice, it would be productive of good, it would lead to a great improvement in his position, and would tend to prevent a repetition of the disgraceful circumstances which had occurred under the existing system.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, that as the medical man was an executive officer, he ought not to sit upon a Board which might have to pass judgment upon his acts.

MR. BRADY

said, the failure of the Poor Law had hitherto been because the medical men had not had power, and therefore, as this was a step in the right direction, he should support the addition of the words.

MR. THOMSON HANKEY

said, he could not conceive anything less useful than putting medical men upon a Board where they had no vote, and where it would virtually amount to a waste of their time, which might be more usefully employed elsewhere.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he strongly objected to the Amendment in the interest of medical men themselves, on the ground that it would place them in a most unpleasant position. They had now power to report anything they pleased to the Board of Guardians, or to the Poor Law Board.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 (Election of Managers.)

SIR T. F. BUXTON

said, he moved the omission of certain words at the end of the clause, on the ground that if they were retained the guardians would be limited in their choice of managers for these asylums.

MR. AYRTON moved, after the word "ratepayers," to insert the words "qualified to be guardians."

Clause amended accordingly.

Sir T. F. BUXTON'S

Amendment negatived.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 20 (Furniture, &c, for Asylum.)

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he strongly objected that, as provided by the clause, the guardians should be mere servants of the Poor Law Board even in the matter of providing furniture and fixtures. In this, as in everything else, everything must be done according to the order of the Poor Law Board.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that was exactly what this clause did not provide. It provided that the managers should provide the necessary fixtures, furniture, and conveniences, and if they did not do enough then, as the Poor Law Board might from time to time direct.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 29 (Use of Asylums as Medical Schools.)

MR. THOMAS CHAMBERS

said, objection had been taken to the provision for constituting the lunatic asylums medical schools. In cases in which that had been done it had been found a great nuisance.

SIR HARRY VERNEY moved that the words "and for the training of nurses" should be added to the clause.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30 agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock, till Monday next.