Commons Sitting of 17 March 1841

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Easthope, from inhabitants of Leicester, against, and by Mr. Hawes, from

317
the Medical Association of Ireland, the Delegates of London, and from Newcastle-on-Tyne, Gateshead, and North and South Shields, and other places, in favour of the Medical Reform Bill.

STAFFORD AND RUGBY RAILWAY.
On the motion that the Stafford and Rugby Railway Bill be read a second time.
Mr. Gisborne Mr. Gisborne moved, that the second reading be postponed until the 24th instant in order to allow time for the Report of the Government Railway Commissioners (presented to the House on the 15th instant), on the subject of the best line of railway communication between London, Edinburgh, and Glasgow, to be printed, and in the hands of Members, as such Report contains information bearing upon the merits of the proposed measure.
Lord Francis Egertonwas understood to refer to the Report of Sir Frederick Smith, and to say that there was nothing in it that directly affected the bill. But whatever was in it, he would give notice of a motion which should bring it under the full consideration of the committee. He thought the House would see no reason for delaying the second reading of the bill, and he should therefore oppose the motion of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Laboucheredid not rise for the purpose of expressing any opinion on the merits of this bill, but, on the contrary, he did not consider this to be a cage on which the situation in which he stood called upon him to express an opinion, He thought it was a subject on which every Member of the House could give an opinion, and he should therefore act in accordance with his general rule, namely, to abstain from all interference with the private business of the House, except some principle was involved which he thought called for his interference. The only reason, therefore, for his rising was to ask the House to allow him to make an observation on account of an allusion that had been made to the Report of Sir Frederick Smith. That Report was upon the Table of the House, but was not printed, He had asked Sir Frederick Smith yesterday what was the nature of his observations on this particular railway. Sir Frederick Smith assured him they were entirely of an incidental nature, and did not go at all into detail; consequently he felt bound to state, that he thought the House would be satisfied there was no reason to delay the consideration of that bill on account of the Report of Sir F. Smith. Whether it was advisable that the bill should be read a second time
318
to-day, it was not his intention to express any opinion, but he thought it his duty to furnish the House with such information as he possessed, to enable them to come to a correct conclusion on the subject.
Mr. Wilbrahamwished to state the reasons why he should vote against the second reading of the bill. He had voted two years ago in favour of the original bill, but it was. then in a different situation. It was then an extension bill. But the bill which the House had passed was abandoned—and therefore the whole thing now stood in a different position. It was then an extension bill, but now there was no other place to extend it to, and therefore, though he voted for the former measure, he was consistent in opposing the present. The bill was only brought in for the purpose of standing in the way of any great measure which might come before the House in the course of a few years. The object was merely to pre-occupy the ground. The promoters of the bill never intended to carry the project into execution. They desired to exclude any mare direct communication with the central and manufacturing districts than was afforded by the Grand Junction Railway. They wanted to perpetuate the monopoly of that line. He therefore thought himself bound to oppose the bill, and if it were not withdrawn he should more that it be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. Mark Philipswas surprised to hear the statement of his hon. Friend, that the only intention of the projectors was to preoccupy the ground against any other railway. On the contrary, he could assure the House that his hon. Friend had formed a very erroneous estimate of the character and motives of the Gentleman who had promoted this bill. He held in his hand a petition from a large number of the most respectable inhabitants of Manchester in favour of the measure, and he could assure the House, that the districts which weald be affected by it were almost unanimous in its favour, and that it would undoubtedly be completed if the House gave it the sanction proposed in the present bill. No bill had ever been more thoroughly sifted in committee than this. The estimates which were laid before the committee in 1839 had never been questioned, and they were as moderate as any ever known. The levels were of the most favourable kind, and the whole line was calculated greatly to improve the communication between the central counties and Liverpool, and the

319
metropolis. The money had been bonâ fide subscribed, and ten per cent, had been deposited. The first bill had been withdrawn in consequence of the state of the money market. But in the short time that had since elapsed the new company had been formed, and all its capital had been subscribed, notwithstanding that it was proposed at a time when the money market was still depressed. This showed the confidence of the public in the utility of the measure, and in the intention of the projectors. [Cries of "Question."]
Sir Robert Peelsupposed that any Gentleman who called "Question," would vote for the motion that the bill be referred to a committee. He supposed they agreed with him, that the House was not the fittest arena for the discussion, and that its merits could best be ascertained above stairs. He had a duty on this occasion to perform to his constituents, who had intrusted him with a petition, signed by 700 of the most respectable inhabitants of Tamworth, in favour of the bill. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere) that a person in that right hon. Gentleman's position in that House ought not to interfere with a private measure, unless it involved some public principle. Although he was only a private individual, yet from his long connexion with office, it might be supposed that he possessed some influence with a part of the House, and he therefore abstained on the same principle as the right hon. Gentleman from interfering in private measures. But the interest which his constituents felt in this bill obliged him, as their representative, to state his reason for giving it his support, assuring hon. Gentlemen at the same time that he had never attempted to influence the vote of any individual upon the subject. The proposed railway had several recommendations. In the first place it would connect the two important termini, London and Liverpool, with the inland counties, by a communication nine and-a-half miles shorter between Manchester and Liverpool, and thirty-nine and-a-half miles shorter in the line with London, the gradients on the new line were much more favourable than on the old line, and of course it was a competing line as regarded so much of the London and Birmingham line, and so much of the Grand Junction line as extended from Rugby on the one hand and Stafford on the other. It professed to make a new line along the valley of the
320
Trent, which was the most judicious line, taking into consideration the features of the country. Now, the average of the gradients on the present line were one in 545, in a length of fifty and-a-half miles; the average of the gradients on the proposed line were one in 650, in a distance of thirty-nine miles, effecting a saving of nine and-a-half miles, and obtaining much better gradients by taking the valley of the Trent, which was the proper line of level. The subject had been before previous committees of that House, and he trusted they would not now sanction any further delay. A great portion of the same line was before the House in 1839, and it was met in this way, 459 objections of a trivial character were raised before the Committee of Petitions, and only forty-six of these objections were referred to the Standing Orders Committee, and after four days discussion the Standing Orders Committee dismissed them all. The House would bear in mind that the bill was in committee for sixty-two days, and the battle fought was a battle of delay. Five members chosen by the committee of selection, who had no local interest in the matter, were placed on the committee. They heard the whole of the case, and the whole of the five selected Members, consisting of gentlemen who had no local interest, were in favour of the bill, and came to a resolution to the following effect. It was a very singular one, and only justified by the nature of the opposition the bill had received:—.
"That the committee, after an inquiry unusually protracted, had come to a resolution in favour of the bill, and in case the late period of the Session at which their labours had terminated, would render the parties unable to submit a bill to the other House of Parliament, they advised the House that every facility should be afforded to the promoters of the bill in a future Session, that the rules of the House permitted."
Now, he did not mean to deny that the present was an important competitor to existing lines. It was a formidable one from its very nature. They could not save nine and a-half miles between Liverpool and London, or between London and Manchester. They could not have a line without tunnels and very favourable gradients without making it a formidable competitor to the existing lines. But was it right that these great monopolies the House has created should have the power of crushing every rival establishment, on the ground

321
of an interference with their interests. What became of the interests of the postmasters and the canal companies, when these railways were first established? Was it not said that these interests must give way to the convenience and advantage of the public? and now these monopolists turned round and told the House, that it must have a regard for vested interests, and that it must on no account interfere with the monopoly of the existing railway companies. If the House of Commons refused inquiry into a proposal like the present for a competing line, they would be perpetuating one of the completest monopolies that ever was established. If the opposing party said that they were a small establishment, making very small profits, and that their success was yet doubtful, there might be some ground for the present opposition. But what was the fact with regard to the London and Birmingham Railway? He could assure the House that 20,000 l. had been offered to the promoters of the present scheme to induce them to withdraw it, and the London and Birmingham Company were well able to make such an offer. What were these profits. They had divided ten per cent, upon their paid up capital. They had made that of profit, and therefore he thought they had no right to come forward and oppose the establishment of another undertaking. There was one objection to this railway, and only one; he did not wish to hide it from the House, the proposed line was intended to join the two other lines at two points of existing railways. The question for consideration was, would the public safety be compromised by such junction—would the saving in point of time exceed the delay which must necessarily take place in consequence of the precautions requisite for the public safety? That was a fit subject for consideration, but it was for the consideration of a committee; let them send the bill to a committee, and let them call Sir F. Smith before the committee, and inquire fully into the merits of the whole case. A fair case had been made out for sending the bill to be considered in committee, and after the opposition which the company had met with, he trusted the House would not permit an effectual opposition to be made to it in that stage. He appealed to the gentlemen of Ireland, and the gentlemen of Scotland—they were deeply interested in the matter, and, with their assistance, he trusted the bill would
322
be fairly considered in a committee up stairs.
Lord Stanleysaid, that whatever might be the decision to which the House might come, he hoped that they would not be led away by that argument to their own impatience which his right hon. Friend had addressed to them, because, although it might be very convenient for Gentlemen who were tired of a discussion, to say that it was not a subject fit for their consideration, there was no place where it could be so well considered as in that House. At the same time time, although questions might often be very conveniently considered in committee, yet such a plan was often attended with great expense and other disadvantages. If the House had a reasonable doubt whether there was sufficient ground for considering the matter in committee, they ought not to consult their own convenience, and subject parties to unnecessary expense and unnecessary waste of time. If he did not mistake, his right hon. Friend had lately stated to the House that the parties interested in this railway had already lost a sum of 9,000 l. or 10,000 l. in discussions and conflicts as to whether the undertaking should be continued or not. If his recollection did not deceive him, his right hon. Friend had suggested that with a view to get rid of the expense and inconvenience of referring the matter to a committee, the matter should be submitted to the decision of Sir Frederick Smith, who was to be consulted as to the propriety of sanctioning the project. For his own part he had interest, direct or indirect, in the transaction, and he had no communication with any of the parties concerned in it since the commencement of the Session. If he had any interest in the matter, it was, that as he travelled very frequently backwards and forwards on the Grand Junction Railway, his journey should be accomplished as rapidly and as economically as possible. He had, therefore, no other interest in the matter than that which must be felt by the hon. Members for Manchester, or the hon. Members for Scotland or for Ireland, to whose feelings his right hon. Friend had appealed in the latter part of his argument. His right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, had, as it appeared to him, thrown an invidious objection in the way of the motion of the hon. Member for Carlow. His right hon. Friend had said that he had seen the opinion of Sir Frederick Smith privately,

323
and that that opinion could not materially affect the question. Now he had been given to understand that Sir Frederick Smith in commenting on the best, the cheapest, and most rapid line of communication between London and Edinburgh, and London and Dublin, had expressed an opinion that the saving of ten miles to be accomplished by the proposed railway might be counterbalanced by the loss of time at the new terminus, and the fact of a change of engines being unnecessary. He would refer for a moment to the question of time. He quite agreed that many of those questions to which his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth had adverted, were questions for the committee, and not for the consideration of the House; but if it should be made clear to the House that no great saving would be accomplished, and that there was no great reason to apprehend that there would be any competition whatever, and moreover that this saving of time was to be accomplished by an expenditure of national capital, amounting to 1,300,000 l., or 1,500,000 l., then the House ought to pause before it came to such a decision. The Grand Junction Company made their arrangements in conjunction with the London and Birmingham Railway, and they so timed the arrival of the trains in Birmingham, as to leave no greater interval for stoppage than was necessary to proceed from one train to the other. When they arrived at Rugby, they had to wait till the train came in from Birmingham; Gentlemen might prefer waiting at Tamworth. They must wait till the train arrived from Birmingham, to carry them on to London. Therefore, although Gentlemen might suppose that there would be somewhat less time occupied in the actual operation of travelling, between Liverpool and London, or Manchester and London, yet it was his firm conviction that not even the saving of a single ten minutes as between Liverpool and London would be effected by the proposed expenditure of 1,300,000 l. His right hon. Friend who had just sat down had said that he would not attempt to conciliate any interest on the other side by denying that there would be a formidable competition. He did not seek to gain support on that side of the House when he declared that, in his opinion, there would be no competition whatever. The argument of his hon. Friend, the Member for Chester, was a correct one; that if the plan had been to carry on the line to Man-
324
chester, instead of merely to Rugby, then there would have been competition, because then there would have been an independent terminus. But what did this line propose to do? His right hon. Friend had said, with all the ingenuity and art with which he knew so well how to dress up a statement for that House, his right hon. Friend had said, look at the important termini of this railway—you have London on the one side, and Manchester, with the manufacturing districts, and Liverpool, on the other, and if you look to further termini, if the expression of a terminus beyond a terminus be allowable, you have Ireland as a terminus on the one side, and Scotland as a terminus on the other. Now, with all respect to his right hon. Friend, he (Lord Stanley) must be excused for saying that this statement was entirely a mistake. The termini were the highly-respectable but certainly not very important or opulent towns of Rugby on the one side, and Stafford on the other; and there was no other terminus whatever. Go where they would, travellers by this road must join the Grand Junction at one end, and at the other the London and Birmingham, and those railways might in consequence crush in the bud any infant competition. If the object was to produce competition, it should be a competition of independent lines, but to expect any advantageous competition from inferior and dependent lines, needed not the experience of the North of England and Midland Railway to prove an entire delusion. These shorter lines must always regulate their movements by the greater lines; terms of agreement would be come to between them, and whoever entertained a hope that an inferior and dependent line could successfully enter into competition with a larger and independent line would inevitably be disappointed. He was obliged to the House for the kindness with which they had heard him, and regretted exceedingly that any vexatious delay had been interposed in consequence of the Standing Orders last session. He never had been and never would be a party to such vexatious delay. He thought the hon. Member had better consent to withdraw his amendment, and take the sense of the House upon the plain question, whether in their judgment a sufficient case had been made out of saving of time and expense, of reduction of fares, and an increased public accommodation, to sanction the expenditure of 1,500,000 l., besides the

325
enormous expenses and vexatious delays which, to the great benefit of lawyers and agents, but of no other persons, inevitably attended the subjecting of any Railway Bill to a Parliamentary investigation.
Mr. Gisbornewithdrew his amendment.
The original question was again put, that the bill be now read a second time.
Mr. Wilbraham Mr. Wilbraham moved that the bill be read a second time in six months.
The House divided on the question that the Bill be now read a second time, Ayes 94; Noes 134: Majority 60.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby, hn. G.R.

Mathew, G. B.

A'Court, Captain

Maule, hon. F.

Ainsworth, P.

Miles, W.

Baillie, Colonel

Milnes, R. M.

Bewes, T.

Murray, A.

Blackett, C.

Nicholl, J.

Boldero, H. G.

O'Brien, W. S.

Brotherton, J.

Oswald, J.

Bruce, Lord. E.

Paget, Lord A.

Buck, L. W.

Parker. M.

Buller, E.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Campbell, Sir. J.

Phillips, Sir R.

Chalmers, P.

Phillpotts, J.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Pigot, right hon. D.

Copeland, Alderman

Planta, right hon. J.

Craig, W. G.

Polhill, F.

Dennistoun, J.

Rawdon. Col. J. D.

Divett, E.

Round, C. G.

Egerton, W. T.

Rundle, J.

Ewans, Sir De L.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Fielden, J.

Seymour, Lord

Fremantle, Sir T.

Smith, B.

Gladstone, W. E.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Goulburn, rt. hon, H.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Greg, R. H.

Steuart, R.

Grey, right hon. Sir G.

Stewart, J.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Stuart, Lord J.

Grote, G.

Stock, Mr. Serjeant

Hastie, A.

Style, Sir C.

Hawes, B.

Tancred, H. W.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Thomas, Colonel H.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Trench, Sir. F.

Hindley, C.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Villiers, hon C. P.

Hodgson, F.

Vivian, Major C.

Hodgson, R.

Vivian, J. H.

Hope, hon. C.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.

Hope, H. T.

Wakley, T.

Humphery, J.

Warburton, H.

Irton, S.

White, A.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Leader, J. T.

Wood, Colonel

Lowther, J. H.

Wood, B.

Maclean, D.

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W.

M'Taggrat, J.

Marsland, H.

TELLERS.

Martin, J.

Phillips, M.

Marton, G.

Egerton, Lord F.

326

List of the NOES.

Alston, R.

Grimsditch, T.

Antrobus, E.

Handley, H.

Baines, E.

Harcourt, G. G.

Baldwin, C. B.

Harcourt, G. S.

Barnard, E. G.

Harland, W. C.

Barneby, J.

Hawkes, T.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hawkins, J. H.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Hayter, W. G.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Hector, C. J.

Bethell, R.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Blake, M

Hogg, J. W.

Bodkin, J. J.

Hollond, R.

Botfield, B.

Holmes, W.

Brabazon, Lord

Houldsworth, T.

Bradshaw, J.

Hutt, W.

Bramston, T. W.

Hutton, R.

Broadley, H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Broadwood, H.

James, W.

Brocklehurst, J.

Jones, J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Kemble, H.

Busfeild, W.

Knight, H. G.

Byng, right hon. G. S

Langton, W. G.

Cayley, E. S.

Law, hon. C. E.

Chapman, A.

Lemon, Sir C.

Chetwynd, Major

Lockhart, A. M.

Chute, W. L. W.

Lygon, hon. General

Clive, E. B.

Lynch, A. H.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Mackenzie, T.

Collier, J.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Courtenay, P.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Crawford, W.

Master, T. W. C.

Dalmeny, Lord

Maunsell, T. P.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Miles, P. W. S.

Darby, G.

Morgan, O.

Dashwood, G. H.

Morris, D.

Davies, Colonel

Neeld, J.

De Horsey, S. H.

Neeld, J.

Dick, Q.

Ord, W.

Duff, J.

Packe, C. W.

Duke, Sir J.

Pakington, J. S.

Dunbar, G.

Parker, J.

Duncan, Viscount

Parker, R. T.

Duncombe, T.

Patten, J. W.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Pattison, J.

Dundas, C, W. D.

Pease, J.

Dundas, F.

Pechell, Captain

East, J. B.

Philips, G. R.

Easthope, J.

Pigot, R.

Eaton, R. J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Pollock, Sir F.

Ellis, W.

Praed, W. T.

Estcourt, T.

Protheroe, E.

Evans, G.

Pryme, G.

Evans, W.

Pusey, P.

Farnham, E. B.

Richards, R.

Feilden, W.

Rickford, W.

Factor, J. M.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Filmer, Sir E.

Rushout, G.

Fitzalan, Lord

Salwey, Colonel

Forester, hon. G.

Sandon, Viscount

Gaskell, J. M.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Gladstone, J. N.

Scholefield, J.

Gordon, R.

Scrope, G. P.

Graham, rt. hn. Sip J.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Greene, T.

Sheppard, T.

327

Shirley, E. J.

Thompson, Alderman

Sibthorp, Colonel

Turner, E.

Smith, A.

Verney, Sir H.

Smith, G. R.

Villiers, Viscount

Smith, R. V.

Wall, C. B.

Somerset, Lord G.

Welby, G. E.

Sotheron, T. E.

Williams, W.

Standish, C.

Winnington, H. J.

Stanley, E.

Wrightson, W. B.

Stanley, Lord

Yates, J. A.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Strickland, Sir G.

TELLERS.

Strutt, E.

Wilbraham, G.

Surrey, Earl of

Gisborne, T.

Lord Stanleybegged to say that he was incorrect in stating that he had had no communication with any person on the subject, as he now recollected having spoken to a gentleman respecting it.
Bill put off for six months.

SEVERN NAVIGATION.
Lord Granville Somerset Lord Granville Somerset moved that the Members for Monmouth be added to the Committee on the Severn Navigation Bill.
Mr. Laboucherewould offer the motion every opposition in his power. It might be proper that the House should alter its rules for the regulation of private business, but so long as these rules existed, they ought to be strictly adhered to. There were many practical difficulties which would arise, if the present motion was acceded to. There were other Gentlemen connected with the adjacent counties who had very naturally and properly given notice of similar motions, and which, if the present was acceded to, they could not refuse. On these grounds he should certainly oppose the motion.
Mr. H. Berkeleysaid his constituents were deeply interested in the Bill, and he had voted for the second reading. He was, however, perfectly satisfied with the jurisdiction to which it had been referred. If the House thought it proper to add any other Member to the Committee, he should feel it his duty to move to add his own name.
Mr. G. Berkeleysaid, the county of Gloucester was also deeply interested in the fate of the bill, and if the House found that its rules were bad, and worked injustice, the sooner they departed from them the better. It was a complete farce to refer such a bill to the Worcester list—every body knew how they would vote. He thought many more gentleman ought to be added to the committee. He would, therefore, cordially support the motion of the noble Lord,
Mr. Winningtonsaid, the bill had been very properly referred to the Worcester List, because all the works contemplated by the bill were in Worcestershire.
Mr. Easthopeopposed the motion. He thought the county of Monmouth had no such interest in the undertaking as should induce the House to contravene the Standing Orders in behalf of its Members.
Mr. Hopesaid, the hon. Member for Worcester had admitted, that there was partiality in the Worcester Members with respect to this bill, because he said there would be eighteen against, and twelve for, the bill. Such an admission was an argument why the other interest should be represented, They did not desire to obtain a preponderating interest, in point of numbers. A great deal had been said about the practice of the House. That was the first Session, and the first case of any importance, in which the Standing Orders had come into question. On former occasions, it was usual to have all the Members upon the committee who might be supposed to be interested.
Sir Eardley Wilmotproposed the Members for Birmingham, because he believed that that neighbourhood was interested, and he thought it fair that they should be appointed.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, the hon. Member for Worcestershire had assumed that the interest of Monmouthshire was adverse to the bill. The county of Monmouth was to contribute very largely to the formation of these works, and should, therefore, have a voice in the arrangements with respect to them. If the county of Worcester would have the goodness to pay for the works, they would then be allowed to monopolise the whole matter. All he wished was to have a committee, which should fairly discuss the merits of the question.
Mr. C. Wynncontended, that a bill like the present, for regulating the navigation of the whole course of a large river, could not be considered in the light of a strictly Local Bill.
Mr. Warburtonthought the House ought to adhere to the Standing Orders. To the Members connected with the locality immediately affected by the bill, there had been added a sufficient number of Members unconnected with it, to secure impartiality. If additional Members for places interested in the bill were put upon the committee; then a corresponding number of important Members should also be added. If the Standing Orders were

329
improper, they ought to alter them, but whilst they existed they ought not to break through them for any individual case.
The House then divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 117: Majority 33.

List of the AYES.

Ainsworth, P.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Attwood, W.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Baillie, Colonel

Martin, J.

Baldwin, C. B.

Marton, G.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Mathew, G. B.

Bethell, R.

Maunsell, T. P.

Boldero, H. G.

Milnes, R. M.

Bolling, W.

Morgan, O.

Botfield, B.

Morris, D.

Broadley, H.

Neeld, J.

Broadwood, H.

Neeld, J.

Bruce, Lord E.

Nicholl, J.

Burr, H.

O'Brien, W. S.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Parker, M.

Clerk, Sir G.

Pechell, Captain

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Philips, M.

Courtenay, P.

Phillpotts, J,

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Pigot, R.

De Horsey, S. H.

Planta, right hon. J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Dunbar, G.

Polhill, F.

Duncombe, T.

Pollock, Sir F.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Richards, R.

Fielden, J.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Fector, J. M.

Salwey, Colonel

Filmer, Sir E.

Scholefield, J.

Fitzalan, Lord

Sheppard, T.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Smith, A.

Forester, hon. G.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Smythe, hon. G.

Gisborne, T.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Gladstone, W. E.

Stuart, Lord J.

Gladstone, J. N.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Gore, O. J. R.

Trotter, J.

Guest, Sir J.

Welby, G. E.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Hodgson, F.

Wood, Colonel

Hodgson, R.

Wood, B.

Holmes, W.

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W.

Hope, hon. C.

Yates, J. A.

Hope, H. T.

Humphery, J.

TELLERS.

Jones, J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Leader, J. T.

Clive, R.

List of the NOES.

Alston, R.

Brownrigg, S.

Antrobus, E.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Barnard, E. G.

Buller, E.

Barneby, J.

Bulwer, Sir L.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Busfeild, W.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Byng, G.

Bewes, T.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Blackett, C.

Campbell, Sir J.

Bowes, J.

Chalmers, P.

Brabazon, Lord

Clive, E. B.

Brocklehurst, J.

Collier, J.

Brotherton, J.

Craig, W. G.

330

Dalmeny, Lord

Miles, W.

Darby, G.

Miles, P. W. S.

Dashwood, G. H.

Norreys. Sir D. J.

Davies, Colonel

O'Connell, J.

Dennistoun, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Divett, E.

Packe, C. W.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Paget, Lord A.

East, J. B.

Pakington, J. S.

Easthope, J.

Parker, R. T.

Egerton, W. T.

Patten, J. W.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Pattison, J.

Estcourt, T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Evans, Sir De L.

Praed, W. T.

Evans, W.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Feilden, W.

Rice, E. R.

Ferguson, Colonel

Rundle, J.

Gillon, W. D.

Rushout, G.

Gordon, R.

Seymour, Lord

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Smith, J. A.

Greene, T.

Smith, G. R.

Grimsditch, T.

Smith, R. V.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Hawes, B.

Sotheron, T. E.

Hawkes, T.

Standish, C.

Hawkins, J. H.

Stanley, Lord

Hayes, Sir E.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Hector, C. J.

Steuart, R.

Hill, Lord A. M, C.

Stewart, J.

Hindley, C.

Stock, Mr. Serjeant

Hobhouse, T. B.

Strickland, Sir G.

Hollond, R.

Strutt, E

Houldsworth, T.

Tancred, H. W.

Howard, P. H.

Thorneley, T.

Howick, Viscount

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hutton, R.

Turner, E.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Verney, Sir H.

Irton, S.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

James, W.

Vivian, rt.hn. Sir.R.H.

Jermyn, Earl

Warburton, H.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

White, A.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Wilbraham, G.

Lemon, Sir C.

Williams, W.

Lockhart, A.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Lowther, J. H.

Wood, G. W.

Lygon, hon. General

TELLERS.

Marsland, H.

Grey, Sir G.

Maule, hon. Fox

Winnington, H. J.

MEDICAL REFORM.
On the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Medical Profession Bill being moved,
Mr. Shawrose to express a hope, that the hon. Member would not now proceed to move the second reading of the Medical Profession Bill. He had in his hand a letter from the governor of the Apothecaries Company of Dublin, stating that the bill materially affected their body, that they had not yet had an opportunity of petitioning against it, and hoping the House would not proceed with it at present.
Sir De Lacy Evanssaid, that the bill had been so rapidly pushed forward, that

331
many persons very much interested in it had not even heard of it.
Sir Thomas Troubridgereally hoped the hon. Member would not proceed with his bill, because it appeared to meet with very general opposition. The army and nary surgeons were against it, and every party complained that they were unacquainted with its provisions.
Mr. Wakleyhoped the hon. Member would go on with the bill to-night, if he meant it to be read a second time at all.
Mr. M'Leanunderstood that the College of Surgeons were preparing a measure on the subject, and if the hon. Member postponed his bill for a little, he might be able to improve it very materially.
Mr. Hawessaid, that very few bills had had so much circulation, previous to their introduction to the House, and publicity, as this. He did not see that any valid reasons had been urged for the postponement of the bill. He should compress whatever he had to say on the subject into as small a compass as possible. He was prepared to show that the plan he adopted was not a capricious one, taken up suddenly and without deliberation; but that it was a plan supported by some of the most distinguished medical men now living—supported not only by men who had given evidence on the committee, but by others who by their publications, and by the public proceedings of their own particular bodies, sanctioned, to a greater or Jess extent, the measure which he now proposed. The House were aware, that in 1834, a committee sat on the subject of medical education. On the evidence given before that committee he had founded the greater portion—the main principlts—of this measure. The profession, in the evidence given before that committee, had complained of a total want of uniformity—that there was no uniformity in the education of medical students—that there was no body to which they could look up, and that the medical profession generally had no confidence in the existing bodies—that the College of Physicians had employed their powers, not for the benefit of the profession, but for their exclusive advantage. The great body of licentiates were excluded from all the privileges of the institution. The College of Surgeons might be considered a voluntary body, conferring diplomas, but without the power of giving legislative protection to its members—neither obtaining the confidence, nor conferring advantages upon the profession
332
He would refer to the case of Dr. Harrison in support of that statement. That gentleman was in great practice as a physician and surgeon, without being a licentiate of the College of physicians, and yet, on showing that his practice was of a surgical, not a medical nature, he evaded any penalties which the College might be enabled to inflict upon him. The College of Physicians, as it now stood, did not represent the great body of that profession. With regard to the Apothecaries' Company, it was so constituted, that it was impossible that it could obtain the confidence of the profession at large. It was not, then, matter of surprise that the medical practitioners, who derive no advantage from the corporate body, should be desirous of some change being made. The hon. Member then referred to a pamphlet just published by Sir Charles Bell on the subject. That Gentleman had used language, with regard to the College of Surgeons, much more strong than he (Mr. Hawes) would have ventured to use. The evils of the present system, indeed, could not be denied; and this measure was intended to remedy them. Its chief provisions would be directed to the attainment of uniformity of education, an authentic registration of the medical practitioners, and the establishment of a superintending body elected by the profession, to whom should be entrusted its general management. He begged distinctly to say that he did not propose to invade any existing medical corporation, or to narrow its powers. Should such a result ensue, it could only arise in an indirect way, and only with the general concurrence of the profession. His plan was also sanctioned by high medical authority. In 1834, Sir B. Brodie, in his evidence before the committee, said that he approved of the adoption of a superintending body similar to that which he now proposed. Again, Mr. Green, who had recently published some pamphlets on this subject, suggesting another plan, had on the whole been favourable to the general principles of the present bill, approving a general council. Dr. Elliotson, Dr. Copland, Dr. Arnott, and many other eminent medical men had also sanctioned the broad outline of his plan, and he believed that instead of degrading and destroying the medical profession, that it would prove just the reverse, and would give a higher character to it—one worthy of a learned and liberal profession. It would be found

333
also, that the existing corporations, instead of quarrelling with Members of the medical profession and amongst themselves, might prove great auxiliaries to the carrying out the system. No one could say that the present system was calculated to secure what all admitted was most desirable, namely, a highly educated body of medical men. To show how it worked, he would only mention that under the operation of the new Poor-law, it was necessary to look to the qualifications of the medical men presenting themselves to fill the various offices under it. It appeared from a paper that had been presented to him, that of 1,830 medical men who presented themselves to fill the offices under the Poor-law, 327 had never been examined in surgery at all, 323 had never been examined in medicine, and 233 had never been examined by any medical body at all. He believed that the medical practitioners, generally speaking, were favourable to this bill, although particular parts of it might be objected to by some of them, and although the medical corporations might not give it their support. The profession at present was governed by nineteen self-elected medical bodies; it would, if his bill passed, be placed under the controul of a council in each of the three kingdoms, the members of which would be elected by the whole body of the medical profession. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the bill.
Mr. Ewartseconded the motion. Whoever looked at the state of the medical profession must see that it was in a state of disorder, and that it required the amendment that would be supplied by the present bill.
Mr. Darbythought that it was very remarkable that the hon. Member for Lambeth, in moving the second reading of his bill, had said little or nothing respecting the general enactments in it. The bill, as it stood, only affected the medical men connected with public institutions, and did not touch the great body of the profession. The enactments in the body of the bill did not agree with the preamble, and were altogether inconsistent with it. If a person did not intend to practice in connection with any public institution, he need sot bare any certificate under this bill.
House counted out.
Adjourned.