HC Deb 11 March 1867 vol 185 cc1673-98

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 31 (Charges for Maintenance.)

EARL GROSVENOR

proposed an Amendment for the purpose of requiring that the expense of the additional buildings to be erected under the Bill should be ultimately defrayed out of the common fund.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, the Amendment could be more appropriately discussed when later clauses having some relation to the question of the expense of the new buildings came before the Committee.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 32 to 37, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 38 (Building for Dispensary.)

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he wished to ask, what was the meaning of the term, "Poor Law Board," and also of the term, "by order?"

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that the President of the Poor Law Board was joined in the Commission with others, who signed the general orders affecting parishes and unions. Three of them, at least, had to sign. Orders were in two forms, common orders being signed by the President and countersigned by the Secretary; whilst, as he had said, there were some which must be signed by three of the Commissioners. He, as President of the Poor Law Board, was responsible for everything done.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 39 agreed to.

Clause 40 (Election of Committee.)

EARL GROSVENOR

proposed an Amendment with reference to the nomination of a portion of the Boards of Guardians.

After discussion, Earl GROSVENOR said he would withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that the question raised by it should be dealt with on the bringing up of the Report.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 41 (Number, Qualifications, &c, of Committee.)

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he moved the omission of the word "Qualifications." He objected to the Poor Law Board, or, in other words, one individual, having the power to decide on the qualification of a guardian.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he thought it was immaterial whether the words were retained or omitted, because the qualifications of guardians had been to a certain extent denned by a preceding clause.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, he did not see why the hon. Member should object to what would require a guardian to be properly qualified.

MR. AYRTON

said, as a definition had already been given of the word "Qualifications," it was unnecessary in this clause.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 42 agreed to.

Clause 43 (Appointment of Dispensers, &c.)

MR. VANDERBYL

—I have already expressed my approval of this Bill; but while I admire the sagacity with which the numerous conflicting interests have been adjusted, I cannot allow what I consider a serious omission to pass unnoticed. In Clause 43, now before us, it is stated that the dispensary committee shall appoint "proper persons" to be the dispensers of medicine, &c. Now, it seems to me that a nonprofessional committee is scarcely competent to decide upon the qualifications of a dispenser. An applicant for the appointment might be a very proper person in their eyes, and still be greatly deficient in his knowledge of pharmacy. Not long ago the managers of the Bedford Infirmary appointed as a "proper person" to fill the office of dispenser a lad sixteen years of age, son of one of the nurses. This boy nearly poisoned several patients, and made so many blunders that the appointment had to be cancelled. This case is fully reported in The Bedford Times of 22nd January last, but I will not trouble the House with the details. I am happy to say that in the majority of our metropolitan hospitals such an appointment could not have been made, as all our best hospitals now require their dispensers to be duly certified as competent under the provisions of the Pharmacy Act of 1852. The army medical department also requires that its dispensers shall be duly qualified by certificate; and I can see no reason why the sick poor should not be protected in a similar way. I notice that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. H. Russell) has an Amendment on the paper similar to mine, but in different words. I am unwilling, however, to restrict the choice of the managers, and I would therefore move that the words "proper persons" be omitted, and the following words inserted in their place:— Persons on the medical register, or duly certified as competent under the provisions of the Pharmacy Act of 1852, or the Apothecaries Act of 1815.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he was as fully impressed as was the hon. Member with the importance of appointing only properly qualified men to the office of dispensers. Instead of the hon. Member's Amendment, however, he thought it would be better by inserting the word "Qualifications" a little lower down in the clause, to bring that subject under the cognizance and supervision of the Poor Law Board.

MR. BRADY

said, he should support the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board.

MR. GILPIN

said, he thought that the object which the hon. Member for Bridgwater sought to attain would be secured by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. THOMAS CAVE

said, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bridgwater, because he thought that such an opportunity of giving the pharmaceutical chymists of England that status to which from their education they were entitled, and which they found no difficulty in obtaining on the Continent, ought not to be lost.

SIR JOHN SIMEON

said, that their object was not to establish the status of any particular class, but merely to provide a good safeguard, and that he believed would be attained by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board.

MR. VANDERBYL

could not see why the suffering poor should be treated with less consideration than soldiers; a qualification similar to that which he proposed being insisted upon in dispensers of army hospitals.

MR. BRADY

said, he was authorized by the gentlemen who were chiefly concerned in the question to state that they were satisfied with the proposal of the Government.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, the Committee wanted to satisfy, not the chemists, but the poor.

Amendment negatived.

On Motion of Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, the word "Qualifications" inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 44 (Provision and Dispensing of Medicines, &c.)

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he moved the omission of the words "in receipt of relief," the effect of which would be that medicine and medical assistance might be claimed by the poor indiscriminately if they required them.

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE

said, he hoped the clause would be rendered more clear. Undoubtedly parties should receive medical relief from the parish doctors or dispensaries without being in the receipt of other relief from the parish.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, the clause merely provided that those coming to the dispensaries as paupers were to have medicines dispensed to them on prescription.

MR. NEATE

said, that there were persons who only required medical relief.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that if they received medical aid they would be paupers.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he hoped the Committee would not do its charity by halves.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, there were plenty of dispensaries where medical assistance could be obtained without rendering the recipients paupers.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he would suggest that the words "such of the poor as require relief" should be substituted for "in receipt of relief."

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, that what the persons would receive was medical relief, and when they received medical relief they were paupers to all intents and purposes.

LORD EDWARD HOWARD

said, that they should agree to give medical relief to persons who were not in a position to pay for medical advice, without making them paupers or causing their homes to be broken up to go into the house. The consequences arising from the illness of the head of a family might be cut short in the beginning by receiving medical relief, and the parish money might thus be saved by rendering it unnecessary to receive, not only the father, but the rest of the family into the house.

MR. BRADY

said, they should give medical relief in the most unexceptionable manner they possibly could. He should support the Amendment by analogy to the Medical Charities Act of Ireland.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that the case of Ireland was altogether different from that of England, inasmuch as an Irish medical man would not undertake the care of any patient with a first fee of less than a guinea. He would endeavour to meet the views of the hon. Gentlemen opposite by substituting the words "entitled to relief" for "receipt of relief."

MR. NEATE

said, he had thought of proposing that alteration, but on further consideration he was afraid it would increase the difficulty.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY moved the insertion of the words "entitled to," instead of "in receipt of."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 (Appointment of District Medical Officers.)

MR. J. STUART MILL

said, he had ventured on a former clause to make some suggestions which had been received very courteously, and he was now going to make two other suggestions, which were not new, but had been frequently made by, perhaps, the highest authority on the subject, Mr. Chad wick, the only surviving member of the Royal Commission which drew up the Poor Law. That Commission was one of the most enlightened and able that ever sat, and so long ago as 1834 proposed principles on the subject of education, which, Parliament being afraid of doing too many good deeds at once, left for adoption by generations to come. He regretted Mr. Chadwick was not himself a Member of that House; there was scarcely any one whose services would be more valuable on many points of administrative improvement. The first suggestion he had to offer was this—if they wished the poor to be effectually taken care of, the medical officers appointed should not be in private practice. It was not to be expected in the ordinary run of human affairs that public duty would not be neglected for private practice. It was eminently honourable to the profession that public duties were so well attended to as they were; but medical officers should be under no temptation to postpone their public duties to private practice. Could any one suppose that in a time of epidemic and disorder, when their services would be most required by the poor, that they would not be under the temptation of postponing their public duties for their private practice: One had heard of people advertis- ing for perfection in a schoolmaster for £40 a year, which they were just as likely to get as a Board of Guardians were likely to get a competent medical officer for £100 a year. The other point was as to the mode of the appointment of the medical officers. He thought we might well adopt the practice of the hospitals of Paris, which were the best managed in Europe, where the medical officers were appointed by a medical board after examination; and he would suggest whether it would not be in the power of the College of Physicians and the College of Surgeons, in combination with the Civil Service Commissioners, to have a system of competitive examinations in order to test the capacity of those medical officers who were appointed. It was clear that the House was not at present prepared to adopt this suggestion; but he laid it before the House and the right hon. Gentleman, in the hope that it might be taken into consideration on some future occasion. He did not move any Amendment on the subject.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he did not think that in the country it would be possible to get men to take the duty if they were prohibited from having a private practice as well. In the metropolis they had been obliged to give up all private practice in certain cases, where sufficient employment was given to them in connection with the Poor Law. Some instances had come under his notice where medical men having very urgent cases in connection with the Poor Law Board had not given them that preference which they ought to have done, considering that they were receiving a regular salary for their services to the poor. At the same time, he was bound to remark that in these cases the salaries were so small that the medical officers could not be much blamed for endeavouring to get money from other sources. The second suggestion of the hon. Member was one which opened up a large question, and which, therefore, he could not discuss on this Bill. He had had no experience of competitive examination of medical men, and did not believe it had ever been tried in this country. He could not say that he should be prepared to give his adhesion to such a system. It would lessen the responsibility of those appointing these officers. Under the existing system, if complaints were made to the Poor Law Board, they were always attended to, and rigorous measures were taken in cases where these had been neglected. In his opinion the present checks were sufficient.

MR. BRADY

said, he was surprised that the hon. Member for Westminster, who was so well informed on subjects in general, should venture to speak on this subject, on which he had no information whatever. The hon. Member ought to visit "Westminster Hospital, Guy's, and St. Bartholomew's, where he would find the most eminent men in the profession attending without receiving one penny of salary. If they were to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion and not allow private practice they would only get young men fresh from the schools to accept the appointment of medical officers, men who had no experience whatever, and who would as soon as they had obtained the requisite experience throw up their situations and resort to private practice. As to competitive examination, the hon. Member did not seem to be aware that all physicians, and, still more, all surgeons, passed through an examination as severe as that of any other in the kingdom.

MR. J. STUART MILL

said, that as the suggestion which he ventured to make was an administrative, not a medical, suggestion, he did not see why he should be prevented from making it, though he was not a medical man. As to the question of remuneration, he had said before what he now repeated, that if his suggestions were agreed to, the remuneration to medical officers must be considerably raised. Whatever money was spent in this direction was most usefully employed, because they ought to have the best medical assistance that could be obtained for the poor.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 46 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 49 (Addition of nominated members to District Board.)

SIR T. F. BUXTON

said, he wished to move the omission of certain words in this clause which authorized the Poor Law Board to nominate to be members of the district Board such persons as they might think fit— From among Justices of the Peace for any county or place resident in the district of the school, or from among ratepayers resident in that district, and assessed to the poor rate therein on an annual rateable value of not loss than forty pounds, or partly from one and partly from the other. Their duties would be of no easy kind, as they would have to visit the workhouses, and to visit the schools, which were often, and ought to be always, out of London. Now, the nominated guardians were to be either justices of the peace or £40 ratepayers. As to the first of these, he remarked that justices of the peace were very rare in the North and East of London, and it might as well be recommended to nominate the Lord Chancellor. As to the £40 ratepayers, no doubt they could be had; but they could only give their services in the evening, being busily engaged in their various occupations through the day. The care of the schools would, therefore, devolve upon the clergy, who were already overworked. He objected to the choice of the Poor Law Board being thus restricted to classes of persons who did not reside in the poorer quarters of London, and thought it would be preferable for the Poor Law Board to exercise their own discretion in selecting persons to be members of the district Boards. He therefore proposed that the clause should be amended by striking out the qualification required for members of the district Boards.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he objected altogether to the principle of the clause, which placed too much power in the hands of the President of the Poor Law Board. He objected to the principle of nominated members altogether, but he thought they ought either to adhere to the elective or nominative principle, and not attempt to mix up the two.

MR. AYRTON

said, that the clause was drawn up in accordance with the principle that had regulated the Poor Law ever since the time of Queen Elizabeth. He hoped that the clause would be agreed to as it stood originally.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, that a large number of the principal metropolitan schools were removed from London to the country, and he objected to the nominated members of the Boards of management being taken entirely from the districts in which the schools were situated. They had abandoned a great constitutional principle by giving up even one-third of the members to be nominated by the Government. He would support the clause, because he did not like the nominative system, and these qualifications imposed at least some restrictions on the powers of the Poor Law Board.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 50 to 54, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 55 (Basis of Contributions.)

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE

said, that the rateable value of the metropolis was £14,700,000. This was spread over-thirty nine unions and parishes; of which fifteen unions had been re-assessed under the Union Assessment Act, leaving twenty-four of the wealthiest parishes which had not been so re-assessed. The latter included Kensington, Paddington, Chelsea, St. George's, Hanover Square, St. Margaret's, and St. John's, Westminster, St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, and St. James,' Westminster. If those parishes were fairly re-assessed the estimated total rental of them would be much greater than the sum at which it now stood. The time of their original assessment went back almost beyond the memory of man. Hence they escaped their due share of the public burdens. The same was the case with the nine great parishes and unions of the West of London, with a rental of £3,500,000, of which only one—that of Fulham—had been re-assessed. He thought the Bill should contain a clause providing that every parish which had not been re-assessed under the new Assessment Act should be forthwith re-assessed. It was only due to the poorer districts, and those which had fairly carried out the Assessment Act, to place the rating on a uniform basis. Every one must have expected that such a union as that of Poplar would have got some pecuniary advantage by this Bill; but the fact was that Poplar would have to pay £2,332 in addition to its present amount. He could only account for this by the fact that the union was one of those which had been reassessed. The City of London did not object to paying its full share towards the maintenance of the poor of the metropolis; but his constituents did think that, with a view to equal justice for all, every union and parish should be reassessed on the same plan.

MR. AYRTON

said, that several parishes in the metropolis were rated higher for county purposes than they were for parochial. St. George's, Hanover Square, was rated to the amount of £200,000 more for the former than for the latter. The clause provided that the sums to be paid by unions and parishes under this Act should be constituted on the rateable value according to the valuation lists, or where there were none— According to the latest poor rate for the time being for the union or parish, or otherwise as the Poor Law Board from time to time direct. If those latter words were sufficient to enable the Poor Law Board to adopt the valuation for the county rate when it was the higher one, he had no objection to make; but if not he thought words should be inserted to provide that the higher of the two valuations should be the one adopted.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that this was the meaning of the words in question.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

said, he objected to those words, because he considered that they conferred upon the Poor Law Board an almost autocratic power, far beyond what could be advantageously intrusted to them. In approaching the words "equality of assessment," it was unjust that in some parishes there should be such diversity as from 50 to 75 per cent, and at rack-rent. He should move in the place of the words "or on such other basis as the Poor Law Board may from time to time direct," to insert words to the effect that the assessment should be made "upon the estimate or basis on which the county rate is assessed."

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he wished to ask what construction was intended to be conveyed by the phrase "or on such other basis as the Poor Law Board may from time to time direct?"

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that the words in question were introduced by him into the clause for the very purpose of meeting the difficulty which had been pointed out by hon. Gentlemen. It was, beyond all question, unfair that in some parts of the metropolis the assessment should be made upon the poor rate, in others upon the county rate; in some cases on a recent, in others upon a very ancient, assessment. The phrase was expressly intended to remedy the inequality in the assessments, by giving the Board jurisdiction as arbitrator between different unions. It would not be fair that the City of London and other unions which had gone to the expense and trouble of new assessments should be more heavily taxed than parishes where nothing had been done in the matter for many years. He wished to give the Poor Law Board the power of determining the best assessment for particular parishes and unions. He was happy to hear that the City of London was willing to bear further bur- dens, and thought this showed a very proper spirit, especially as the City had recently claimed 700,000 persons who did not sleep, though many of them doubtless were employed, within its limits. He proposed by these words to give the Poor Law Board power to deal with these inequalities in the same manner as they were dealt with in the case of the police rate. The House would remember that when he introduced the Bill he intimated his intention—which he hoped to carry out at no great distance of time—to bring in a Bill for the uniform rating of the whole metropolis, so that the present provision was, to a certain extent, one of a temporary character.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, that the parishes had secured the exemptions which had been referred to, because they had united at the time of the Act and threatened to combine against and have it rejected if their exemptions were not respected. They could not, however, maintain those exemptions (conferring the power of fixing the basis for assessment) except under their Local Acts, and unless he was mistaken one of the provisions of this Bill was to do away with those Local Acts, which would make them at once subject to the Union Assessment Act.

MR. LOCKE

said, he objected to the words in the clause referring to the Poor Law Board, and suggested the insertion of other words, which would enable them to fix the assessment on the basis cither of the poor rate or of the county rate. He suggested that the word "otherwise" should be left out, and the words "or on such other basis as the Poor Law Board may direct," introduced.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he would have no objection to that.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he would suggest the introduction of a clause compelling a re-assessment in the parishes where it had not yet been made.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers), that when the Local Acts of the parishes were got rid of they could be dealt with; but he did not think that it would be advisable to introduce a clause in the present Bill compelling reassessment in those parishes.

MR. GILPIN

said, he thought the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) would get rid of the difficulty.

MR. THOMAS CHAMBERS

said, he objected to the discretion proposed to the Poor Law Board.

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE

said, he thought the county rating was less to be relied on than any other.

Clause, as amended, agreed, to.

Clauses 56 to 58, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 59 (Determination or Variation of Contracts with Workhouse Medical Officers.)

MR. NEATE

said, he wished to ask what was to be the basis of compensation in cases where, for instance, the Board might appoint a resident medical officer in place of an outdoor medical attendant?

MR. J. STUART MILL

said, the clause, as he understood it, would empower the Poor Law Board to dismiss the officers of any Poor Law district, on grant of compensation at their discretion, though those gentlemen had hitherto held office for life, except in case of misconduct. Whatever the confidence which those officers felt in the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), they did not like to be in the power absolutely of an unlimited line of his successors. They would accordingly be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman would either sanction an appeal or a reference to arbitration, so that they might not be at the mercy or discretion of a single officer.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, it would obviously be necessary, in case great changes took place under this Bill, to have the power of dealing with gentlemen already in possession of office and emoluments. Many medical men had distinct contracts, and in their cases compensation must, of course, be calculated according to the terms of their contracts. Many of them, however, who were in the enjoyment of private practice would, of course, be unwilling to take the position of resident medical officer, or to continue as superintendent medical officers, to the asylum or workhouse infirmary, and this clause had been drawn with the simple object of doing them justice. For what the hon. Member had been good enough to say of him he felt obliged, but he trusted that any one hereafter occupying the same official position would be equally ready and anxious to do justice; remembering also that for every act his successors would be responsible to that House. Had any hon. Member suggested that the Poor Law Board should be relieved of this responsibility he should have been most willing to entertain the suggestion; but the Bill had now been a considerable time before the House and the public, no such Amendment had been suggested, and he therefore felt bound to accept the responsibility. He was quite sure that, with the assistance which any hon. Member at the Poor Law Board could command, there would be no difficulty in arriving at a right decision.

MR. BRADY

said, he believed that the introduction of the system now proposed would deteriorate the class of medical attendants.

MR. AYRTON

said, that those who wished to elevate the medical profession placed their claims too high. If a doctor joined a union, and reserved the right of going away when he pleased, it was too much for him to say that he held an office for life, and ought not to be removed without compensation. If a man claimed an office for life he ought to be liable to serve for life. The right hon. Gentleman in inserting this clause in the Bill only followed the precedent laid down in all other cases where a reform was sought to be effected, and it was necessary to remove certain officers.

MR. BRADY

said, that instead of claiming for life, a large proportion of the medical officers were in the position of tenants-at-will. Their duties were performed in a most trustworthy manner, and their claims ought to be taken into consideration.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, he wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to make the decision of the Poor Law Board communicable by "general order?"

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that no order could be made without instructions from the person properly responsible at the Poor Law Board—that was the President—and it did not carry the matter any further if the papers were sent round in a box for the signature of the President's colleagues. As soon as they saw his signature there, they added theirs as a matter of course, and there was an end of the matter. Last year he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) as having signed a particular order some years ago, but he shook his head, saying it was very likely, but that he knew nothing of it.

MR. GILPIN

said, that the claims of medical officers were sufficiently met by the provision for compensation. One part of the clause had attracted considerable attention out of doors, and that was whether in the appointment of resident medical officers, the oversight of the first-class medical outdoor officers would be dispensed with. He trusted that no such practice would be introduced.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, it was intended that the resident medical officer should not be one of the highest class, but capable of attending cases as they came in. The infirmaries would still be under the supervision of one having the highest professional knowledge; in fact, it was intended to copy the plan pursued in hospitals.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, he thought there was a great distinction between a general order and a simple order. If the former were signed by three Cabinet Ministers who knew nothing of its contents, they must repose great confidence in those who drew it up. Though the powers given by the Bill were very useful, they were very great, and some of them remarkable. There were powers for buying land, for taking buildings, for selling houses, and for giving compensation, all to be executed by the simple order of the President who represented the Poor Law Board. If there was a mode of making the President's act more solemn than the mere signing of his name, he thought that mode ought to be adopted. Every order should be very carefully considered before three Cabinet Ministers were called upon to sign it. He thought the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Sir Harry Verney) a very useful one.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Baronet with respect to the dismissal of an officer, would be introducing quite a novelty. At the present moment an officer was dismissed on an order signed by the President of the Board. He had not had much experience in general orders; but in signing orders as the President of the Poor Law Board, he had always felt most deeply the responsibility resting upon him, and had always studied the papers on any particular matter very carefully before giving directions for the preparation of an order upon it. He thought the responsibility of the President, who was the responsible officer so far as the House of Commons was concerned, was sufficient in these matters.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 60 to 62, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 63 (Account at Bank of England.)

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, the representatives of the Bank thought its wording disrespectful to them; accordingly he moved that the clause should be altered, so as to require the Receiver to open an account with the Governor and Company of the Bank of England.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64 agreed to.

Clause 65 (Collection of Common Fund.)

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE,

said, it appeared that under this clause the Poor Law Board could, under their seal, make the various parishes pay up their contributions. He took it to be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), that the unions or parishes should pay the whole amount of their quota into the common fund after each half-yearly audit. That, however, seemed to involve a larger amount than some of the parishes would be able to pay, because the entire £350,000 would be paid away by the parishes to the managers of the asylums and dispensaries before they could get repaid from the common fund, so that they should really pay twice before they could get recouped. It appeared that in the western districts the parishes would have to pay in £33,285 and receive out £2,625; in the northern districts pay in £14,000 and receive back £1,200; in the central districts pay in £28,000 and receive back £15,000; in the eastern districts pay in £2,300 and receive back £35,900; in the southern districts pay in £8,500 and receive back £31,000; so that the amount paid in would be £86,215, and that received back £86,215 likewise. He wished to leave it open to the Poor Law Board to make arrangements not to call on certain parishes in such a way as to oblige the latter to spend thousands in interest for raising the money. He thought some arrangement might be made by which the parishes which had spent the money in paying the managers of the asylums, dispensaries and schools, might be credited with the amount disbursed when they came to pay their quota to the fund.

MR. AYRTON

said, in point of fact, the rates would have to be raised twice—once from the union and once from the common fund; but by a slight alteration in Clause 70 that difficulty could be obviated.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, it was quite true the unions would have to raise the first half-year. They would then be recouped all they had a right to from the common fund; and for their next half-year they would only raise what was sufficient. It would not be necessary for parishes afterwards to raise these very large sums, because they would have money coming in from the common fund. He should be happy if any practical way of doing that differently were suggested.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that according to the provisions of the clause, the parishes would be constantly in advance of the common fund, and this would weigh very heavily on the poorer parishes. It would be well if the right hon. Gentleman made some alteration in the clause.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, the Receiver would be able to make arrangements with the parishes for the payments.

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE

said, the rate for the first half-year would amount to £170,000, and as that must be all raised beforehand, the interest, which at 5 per cent would amount to something-like £8,000, would have to be thrown away—in other words, an additional rate of 3d. in the pound would have to be made.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 66 to 68, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 69 (Application of Common Fund.)

EARL GROSVENOR

said, he had to move an Amendment. The object of his Amendment was to put these buildings upon the common fund. They were not at all specified in the Bill, and he wished them to be placed upon the common fund.

Amendment proposed, In page 14, line 31, after the word "say," to insert the words "for the purchasing, hiring, building, repairing, fitting up of buildings for the asylums, and any sum in the nature of rent or other compensation payable by the managers to the guardians, in respect of the use for the asylum of a building previously used as a workhouse: Provided always, That all estimates and contracts made by the managers shall be submitted to the Poor Law Board, or to an officer by it appointed, for approval, before any agreements are signed."—(Earl Grosvenor.)

MR. AYRTON

said, he trusted the President of the Poor Law Board would have no hesitation in accepting this Amend- ment, considering the quarter whence it came. If it were proposed in a spirit of hostility, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would be justified in opposing it; but, considering that it had reference to charges which would fall upon the mover, it indicated an extreme desire on his part to bear his full share of the burdens of the metropolis. He was not aware that any one objected to the Amendment, and the Members for the City had expressed their readiness to bear their share of the burden. The right hon. Gentleman might have been justified in limiting the Bill at first, but he was now justified in accepting the proposal of the noble Earl, which was highly honourable to him, considering the position which he occupied.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that no one in the House appreciated more highly than himself the honourable intention of the noble Earl; but he had received deputations on the subject, and he felt bound to resist the Amendment, because it seemed to him to be unjust in itself. A great number of unions had gone to great expense in getting their buildings into good repair, so that with very little additional expenditure they would be able to provide the accommodation they required. It was not only a question of the present condition of these workhouses, but large numbers of lunatics and others would be removed, and many wards would thus be set free for other uses. There were twenty-four of the unions and parishes that had done much to supply efficient buildings, and Parliament was bound to take into consideration the expenditure they had freely incurred to supply what was needed in their own district. The parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, had expended enormous sums upon their workhouse, and when the lunatics, &c, were removed, the present building would provide accommodation for their own sick. St. George's-in-the-East had also done much in the same direction. What he objected to in the Amendment was that a new burden would be cast upon such parishes, if other parishes which had not expended so much as they ought to have done were to profit by this expenditure. Several parishes had been suspending their buildings for a short time in order to see what took place in that House, and complications of which the House was not aware would occur, which would render the difficulty of carrying out the Bill much greater than it would otherwise be. So far he had limited the power of the Board to what was reasonable and fair, but that would be the case no longer if these buildings were to be used as asylums for the whole of the metropolis. If one of these buildings was used for the whole metropolis then the Poor Law Board could make the whole metropolis pay for it. If these parishes had not sufficient accommodation let them build for themselves, and not come upon those who had expended large sums for these buildings.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that in judging whether the Amendment should be carried a great deal would depend upon whether the metropolis were or were not to be one district for asylum purposes. If one it would be immaterial whether the expense came out of the common fund or the individual fund. But if the districts were to be numerous, and differing in size and wealth, the difference of placing the expense on one or the other fund would be very great. Under the 6th clause the Poor Law Board would have power to form the districts as they pleased, and afterwards to remodel thorn; and in this way the Board would be able to make an approach as near as it chose to an equalization of the rating. He took the proposal to be that the whole expense of the asylums should be put into one common pot, so to say; and then remuneration would have to be given to those parishes which had already provided asylums, and in this way justice would be done. He would ask whether it was intended to place the small pox and fever hospitals as well as the asylums on the common fund?

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, his view was that with respect to lunatics, fever, and small pox patients this was a metropolitan question, and he would make the district equal to the whole of the metropolis, with asylums conveniently situated east, west, north, and south. When one asylum was full they must be sent to another, but they would all be managed by one body. But with regard to other classes of the poor it had never been his intention so to act. Many of the parishes were of large size, and some had already provided either a separate hospital for their workhouses or a hospital which at very little expense might be made available as such. Those who had upon their own ground provided all that could be required ought not to be called upon to contribute towards places that were not so provided. He was not aware how the metropolis would be di- vided, and he could not, therefore, answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman. Some of the parishes which were among the very poorest had provided everything upon their own ground, and he did not think that justice would be done to them under this Amendment.

MR. LOCKE

said, that he was surprised that any difficulty had been found in this matter. Originally, it was intended that the expense of erecting these asylums should be borne by a common fund, and why that intention was not adhered to be could not understand. What would be the operation of the Act in the case of several poor parishes, say on the Surrey side of the water, having to build an asylum for the purposes of the Act. Would they have to pay for it out of their own funds? Some arrangement was desirable whereby an equitable adjustment of these charges might be made in respect to the building of asylums. These districts would probably be formed in one case by joining several poor parishes together, and in another by the union of several rich parishes; but the duty of building asylums must fall at the outset indiscriminately upon the rich and poor. This would involve a serious outlay in the case of the latter, and he hoped that some arrangement might be made for throwing the cost upon the common fund.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, he was of opinion that if the proposal of the noble Lord, were rejected, a serious burden would be thrown upon the poorest and most unhealthy parishes.

MR. AYRTON

said, he had understood that the President of the Poor Law Board would make one district for the purpose of providing these asylums so that the charge would extend over the whole of the metropolis; but in that case some provision ought to be made for equitable adjustment in the case of parishes which had already erected buildings at considerable expense.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he hoped the clause would not be altered. He knew some districts which had built largely for the poor; but under the proposed Amendment they might be treated as if they had done nothing.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, those districts would be entitled to compensation.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

But the compensation might be neutralized by charges for new buildings.

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

The Committee divided;—Ayes 35; Noes 97: Majority 62.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, he rose to move the addition to the clause at page 14, after line 31, of the following words:— For the maintenance in a sufficient number of duly regulated hospitals, and under the care of trained nurses, of the sick poor; together with the cost of training nurses. His object was the cure of all the sick poor of the metropolis. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept that Amendment in the interest of the sick poor. The treatment of the sick poor in the metropolis was so bad as to have roused public indignation, and to have called for the introduction of that Bill, which it was desirable to make, as far as possible, a perfect measure. It was the common interest of all the inhabitants of the metropolis that all the sick poor who could be cured should be so, and the charge for that purpose ought to be defrayed from the common fund. The President of the Poor Law Board had admitted that the cost of the lunatic poor of the metropolis should be borne by a common fund; and what reason could be urged why the charge of the sick poor of the metropolis should not be borne by a common fund? All sick cases should be taken out of the category of pauper cases. It was to give effect to that principle that he proposed this Amendment.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he gave every credit to the hon. Baronet for his benevolent intentions; but the carrying out of his principles would be injurious rather than beneficial to the sick poor. The Amendment was entirely inconsistent with the framework of the Bill. The effect of the Amendment would be to bring-about what the hon. Baronet himself would deprecate—namely, a levelling of the sick poor who had hitherto not been relieved by the poor rates with the vicious and degraded poor. That would be one of the greatest wrongs that could be done to those of the sick poor who were distinguished from paupers. As the Poor Law Board was not yet prepared to supply trained nurses to the metropolitan hospitals no charge could be put on the rates for nurses, because it was only nurses who had been trained like those trained by Miss Nightingale in respect of whom the ratepayers could be charged. It was, of course, desirable that nurses should be duly trained; but who was to decide when they were so? He rejoiced that there was a prospect of obtaining efficient nurses, and that there would be the means of training them; but if he accepted that Amendment, he could not have the power of paying any nurses unless they had been trained, which in many instances they had not been. His desire was to treat the sick poor in the workhouses with humanity in every respect, taking care that they should, as far as possible, be free from physical and moral associations calculated to do them harm.

Amendment negatived.

EARL GROSVENOR moved, in section 2, after the word "smallpox" to insert "cancer or syphilis."

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, there was no occasion for any new hospital for cancer. The number of cases were so few that it was scarcely worth while to throw them on the common fund. He had a report from a workhouse to show that out of 476 cases there were only two of a cancerous kind. In another workhouse out of 463 cases there were only two cases of cancer. In a whole month, in forty workhouses of the metropolis, there were only nineteen cancer cases. It was most undesirable that such cases should be brought to the workhouses at all; they should be brought to places where they would get surgical treatment. A great many of the workhouse authorities had sent patients affected with the other disease referred to to the Lock Hospital. It was necessary to treat such cases separately. It was objectionable that a person of excellent character with an ulcerated leg should be placed in a ward with a person afflicted with the other disease, and brought into connection with persons with whom he would never wish to associate. He did not think this was a class of patients that had any particular claim on the common fund. If they could keep those persons in until they were cured there would be some advantage, but they could go in and out as often as they pleased. At no time did their number in the workhouses exceed 150.

EARL GROSVENOR

said, he thought unless the Amendment were adopted that it would be impossible to keep the Lock patients separate from the rest. Would it not therefore be better to put those patients on the common fund in order to insure that object? The fact of the unions having subscribed to the Lock Hospital, showed the necessity of keeping these cases separate. He would not press the Amendment as far as cancer was concerned.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, that two objects which had been confused, though quite distinct in themselves, were aimed at by the establishment of the common fund—the one to relieve the poor parishes, the other to secure better treatment for the sick. The question was why, if fever and small pox were cast upon the common fund, should not cancer and syphilis also? The cases were very numerous or they were not. If they were very numerous, then the burden of providing for them would be very heavy if left upon poor parishes; if they were not, the additional expense that might be cast upon the common fund would not be much.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 70 to 78, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 79 (Addition of nominated Guardians.)

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

said, that the elected guardians were decidedly averse to this power of nomination on the part of the Poor Law Board, and its exercise was likely to create great dissatisfaction. It would practically set aside the present Boards of Guardians. He hoped that the clause would be omitted.

MR. BUTLER

said, that by the principle of this clause a blow was struck at local government. The largest parishes in the metropolis were without resident justices of the peace. In St. George's-in-the-East there were few persons rated at £40 a year, and 21 per cent of that large parish were absolutely receiving relief at the present time.

MR. AYRTON

said, that the ex officio and nominated guardians, taken together, should not exceed one-third of the full number of elected guardians, or they might have no ex officio guardians. He did not see why they should have both ex officio and nominated guardians.

MR. HIBBERT

said, that the effect of the clause would be to make the Poor Law Board guardians for the whole metropolis.

MR. LAYARD

said, his constituents on the south side of the water were highly satisfied with the Bill as a whole; but they entertained a strong objection to this clause, which he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw.

SIR JOHN SIMEON

said, he trusted that the President of the Poor Law Board would not withdraw the clause. The poor felt that the Poor Law Board was their protector, and the real guardian of the poor.

MR. LOCKE

said, he thought the clause unnecessary, inasmuch as its object would be sufficiently met by the existing law, which made justices of the peace ex officio guardians. If this clause were persisted in the effect would be to ultimately to do away with guardians altogether.

MR. CANDLISH

said, he considered the clause to be objectionable, dangerous, a great blot on the Bill, and a serious inroad on representative Government, and he wished to ask if it were really essential to the Bill.

MR. J. STUART MILL

said, he wished to ask if it were worth while risking the popularity of the measure for the sake of the clause. Boards of Guardians, who had hardly any power left, except in relation to the outdoor poor, would be quite as fit to inspect asylums, &c, without nominee guardians as with them.

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE

said, that as the Poor Law Board would have power to nominate one-third of the managers of dispensaries, asylums, and schools, the additional power of nominating one-third of the guardians would practically give the Poor Law Board more than one-third of the power of control, and that no provision was made for the nominee guardians going out of office.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that the clause was entirely permissive; the word was not "shall" but "may." It was inserted because of the special duty the guardians had to perform in reference to the asylums. It might happen that in some districts there might be no district asylums, but a hospital or infirmary confined to a particular union. Having asked for nominees in the case of the managers, it was thought only right to ask for the permissive power to nominate guardians in large unions. If, however, the Board were well supplied with ex officio guardians, he should not think of forcing nominees upon them, and there need be little apprehension that the power of the Poor Law Board would be abused. If the power of nomination were to be given to the Poor Law Board with reference to managers, it seemed more important that it should be extended to guardians than to dispensary committees, upon which he understood there was some anxiety to have nominees.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, nothing had been said for the ratepayers in this question. He thought a due consideration of their interests should induce the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this clause. He upheld the principle of representation as opposed to nomination. In the words of the popular song, he would say, "Oh, woodman, spare that tree!"

MR. AYRTON

said, he hoped that in any event the number of nominated members would not be allowed to exceed one-third of the whole.

MR. WYLD

said, he thought the Committee were really much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the care he had bestowed on this Bill. He believed it would effect great and permanent good; but this clause would go far to nullify its beneficial effects. If the Bill, excellent as it was, applied to the whole country, it would be simply impossible to carry it with such a provision; but in such cases the metropolis was always victimised. The clause introduced a perfectly novel principle, that of nomination, in the case of a body which, to a certain extent, would possess taxing powers.

MR. AYRTON

said, he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the suggestion which he had made?

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he had no objection to the clause being amended to the extent suggested by the hon. Member.

An hon. MEMBER

said, if the clause were applied to the whole of England, the right hon. Gentleman would run great risk of losing this good Bill. In fact, the clause ran counter to the principle of the constitution, and allowed the nominees of the Poor Law Board to override the will of the representatives of the ratepayers.

MR. A. SMITH

said, he differed entirely from the last speaker, and thought the experiment of allowing perfectly impartial persons to interest themselves on this subject ought to be encouraged. He sincerely thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his Bill.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 27: Majority 65.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

MR. PERCY WYNDHAM

said, it was of great importance to prevent the dissemination of infectious and contagious diseases by the conveyance of sick persona to asylums in ordinary vehicles. Properly constructed carriages ought to be provided for the purpose, and, indeed, this principle had already been recognised by Parliament in regard to parochial matters. Under the present system be believed all kinds of conveyances were used; but this practice was obviously objectionable and ought to be put a stop to. He therefore moved the insertion, after Clause 28, of the following clause:— Where the asylum is provided for the reception and relief of the sick, every such asylum shall be provided with a hospital carriage, of such a pattern as the Poor Law Hoard shall approve, for the conveyance of persons suffering from smallpox, fever, or other infectious disease.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he thought that, under the 20th clause, everything which the hon. Gentleman desired would be provided for. That clause was to the effect that all necessary Fixtures, Furniture, and Conveniences should be provided, and he thought those words would meet the case. The suggestion of his hon. Friend was a most excellent one, and he believed it would be carried out under the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Preamble agreed, to.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday.