Commons Sitting of 2 July 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—Conveyance of Mails by Railways.
2° Ecclesiastical Residences (Ireland); Churches and Chapels (Ireland); United Church of England and Ireland; Pharmacy.
Reported—Burgesses and Freemen's Parliamentary Franchise.

ECCLESIASTICAL RESIDENCES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. NAPIER, in rising to move the

105
Second Reading of this Bill, which related to residences for the Parochial Clergy, said, he would observe that there were two other Bills of his on the paper of the day, one referring to the erection and support of Churches and Chapels by private endowment; and another, entitled the United Church of England and Ireland Bill, having in view the consolidation, amendment, and repeal of old statutes, save so for as existing rights were concerned. His object was to introduce such provisions as might make a complete and satisfactory code on the subject. In attempting to do so he had taken care that there should be no interference with vested rights. The 3rd George II., c. 12, and the 31st George III., c. 19, were fair specimens of the patchwork system of legislation. He had gone over all the Acts relating to the subject, and had extracted such of their provisions as had appeared to him just. Forty-one statutes had been consolidated and amended, and selections had been made from fifteen other statutes, some of which applied only to England. With regard to the Bill respecting the residences of the clergy, he had to observe, that by a recent Act of Parliament residence was a duty enforced under a penalty; and, therefore, the providing and maintaining a suitable residence was properly considered as a charge on the profits of the benefice. One of the earliest Acts, 10th William III., c. 6, recited—
"That the mansion houses of the clergy had been ruined and destroyed by the frequent wars and rebellions that have happened in this kingdom, whereby residence has become very difficult, and is like to continue so, unless due encouragement be given to rebuild and repair the former houses, and to erect new houses."
That was the first Act on the subject. Under that Act, and those connected with it, the person who first took the benefice and built a mansion for the purpose of the benefice, was allowed to expend one and a half year's income, and was at liberty to charge two-thirds against the successor who first received a year's income. That Act was subsequently modified, and the law at present was, that two years' income might be expended when the building was on a new site, and one and a half year's income when it was on an old site. There seemed to be no reason now for this distinction, and he proposed in the new Bill to make two years' net income the limit of the expenditure in all cases. With regard to
106
the claim of the original builder against his successor, he could recover from his successor at present the entire sum expended. That person recovered three-fourths from the next, who recovered one-half from the next, who recovered the remaining fourth from the next. That system worked with great injustice, and it was well illustrated by a case that recently came to his notice. The case was that of an original builder, who had built in 1795, and who had a charge exceeding 600 l. He lived twenty-two years, and his successor thirty-four years. The present incumbent was presented lately by the Bishop of Limerick; but the living is not worth now more than 150 l. a year, and yet he had to pay three-fourths of the charge—that was to say, more than three years' income for a house fifty-six years old. Now, in such a case, the liability was not equally distributed. What he had to propose was, that the first party going to build should present a memorial, stating the necessity for building, and that the report made thereon should be certified by the bishop. It was then proposed to give the first builder a certain number of years' enjoyment of the charge, which he proposed should be liquidated at the rate of 2 per cent annually, so that each person would recover against his successor the amount of the charge, minus the reductions for the period of time which he had enjoyed it. The charge would thus exhaust itself, and every person would pay a proportion of the entire building in reference to his period of enjoyment. The next point he proposed in the Bill was the adoption of the principle contained in what are called in England the Gilbert Acts—viz., a power of raising funds by mortgage for the purpose of building, to be repaid by easy instalments, payable by the incumbent for the time being. The present mode was to compel by sequestration; but that was expensive—it was only available when an incumbent had been two years in possession, and it handed over the proceeds sequestered to the refractory party to expend them. Under the new code the bishop would be bound to superintend the proper expenditure. The next point related to perpetual curacies. Formerly, by Act of Parliament, the power of charging was limited to 50 l., because, when the law was made, the Board of First Fruits were empowered to make free grants in aid; but that fund was now transferred to the Eccle-

107
siastical Commissioners, and was now wholly diverted from its original purposes, so that the limitation which, when made, was a boon, was now a grievance. He proposed to remove that grievance, and to put perpetual curates on the same footing as other incumbents with respect to it, and to give all classes of the resident clergy equality of privileges, and open facilities for private endowments. The next point related to a registration of charges, so that every incumbent might know the extent of his liability. He now came to that part of the Bill relative to the law as to dilapidations, than which law in its present state nothing could be more unjust. It too often happened that clergymen in Ireland died in a state of poverty, and that their families were left with scarcely any means of subsistence, and yet, according to the present law, a heavy charge might be brought against them for dilapidations. It was always assumed that the residence was to be, and could be, kept in a state of undiminished repair. He hoped the House would allow him shortly to refer to the opinions of several eminent prelates on this point. The Bishop of Limerick wrote, "It has added many a bitter ingredient in the cup of the fatherless and the widow." The Bishop of Down and Connor, "The law is in a very uncertain and unsatisfactory state," The Bishop of Kilmore, "As to the building charges and dilapidations, the law requires complete revision and explanatory enactments." The Archdeacon of Cork, "There is no subject requiring legal revision so much; the results sometimes so distressing to the families of deceased incumbents." The return made to the Bishop of Tuam by the archdeacon and rural deans stated—
"The necessity of providing for building charges upon institution o a benefice has at all times been inconvenient and embarrassing; but the difficulty is much increased by the reduction of parochial income, and the subdivision of benefices. To promote a poor clergyman to a benefice for which he may be in every other respect peculiarly eligible, would be in many instances to consign him to hopeless insolvency. The practice with regard to dilapidations is grievous and ineffective. If a clergyman dies in distress (as many do now-a-days), his successor must either resort to legal proceedings against the widow and children, or make himself responsible for repairs."
The return then referred to the state of the present incomes, and showed the average of the beneficed clergy to be an average of 190 l. net per annum, The return
108
from the Bishop of Killaloe, after going over similar complaints pf the oppression and injustice of the present law, stated, "It is most earnestly desired that the law of dilapidations were altered." It stated the average income of the beneficed clergy at about 120 l. net per annum, and in some places that the incumbent was actually out of pocket, and concluded thus:—
"That as matters stand at present, the income of the clergy is scarcely more than the interest of the money which it costs to educate them for the ministry."
Now, what he proposed to do on this part of the subject was, that the repairs should be classified and divided into branches; first, ordinary annual repairs; secondly, substantial and permanent repairs, He proposed that the first should be executed at the exclusive charge of the occupier; and that the second should be a charge on the benefice as a building charge In estimating dilapidations, he. proposed it should be considered: first, what should have been done by the incumbent at his own cost; second, what by way of charge; third, whether there had beep negligence in not executing the latter at the proper time; and, fourth, whether proper diligence had been used in obtaining indemnity for dilapidations which existed before his incumbency. Under the present law the incumbent could rebuild and charge; but if he made repairs he could pot charge. He thought all would be placed on an equitable basis if permanent repairs were placed on the footing of building charges. He also proposed to introduce a provision to enable a clergyman to ask for a commission to inspect the house, and to see that it was in proper repair, and to obtain a certificate that it was so. There were also provisions for insuring, and with respect to unsuitable residences. The residences built in former times, by incumbents were in many cases not suitable to the present time, and yet the incumbents were obliged to keep them in repair. He should propose that such large pr unsuitable houses might be gold, and more suitable ones purchased, The Bill also provided a power of leasing the glebe, and of securing uniformity both as to charges and dilapidations. There were several minor matters of improvement in detail, which were more fit for consideration in Committee. Such were the leading provisions of the Bill regarding ecclesiastical resi

109
dences. The second Bill related to the endowment of Churches and Chapels. It had become necessary in consequence of the public aid formerly given for the building of Churches and Chapels having been withdrawn. Rates and cesses had been abolished, first fruits had been transferred, and public grants had been refused. It was important that religious earnestness should be challenged and voluntary aid stimulated for the building and endowment of Churches and Chapels. Of these there were three classes, namely, Proprietary, Parochial, and District chapels; and endowments were necessary as regards the site, the fabric, and the minister. The object of the present Bill was not to give any new powers, but to combine the provisions of the several statutes, commencing in the reign of George II., and to concentrate in any case in any class the separate provisions for a peculiar class. In the margin of each section the previous Acts and sections were given. The grounds for the Amendments were two important facts: first, the large and increasing demand for Church extension; and, second, the inadequacy of the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to meet these demands. In the Report of the Committee on Ministers' Money in 1848, it was stated that upwards of ninety-nine school-houses and other places were licensed for public worship, and that in every one there was a sufficient congregation, but no church. In the diocese of Cork alone there were from forty to fifty such places. In many of these cases a contribution from private funds was ready. It also appeared that of 249 applications for rebuilding, 116 had been granted, and 133 postponed for want of funds; that of 294 applications for enlargement, 51 had been granted, 243 postponed for want of funds; that 17,458 l. had been contributed by private subscriptions to the first, and 14,806 l. to the last. He might mention that in two Gounties—Down and Antrim—thirty-three churches had been built within the last twenty years, and that eight had been rebuilt. In 1845 the Lord Primate stated that 100,000 l. of private subscriptions and upwards had been contributed within twelve years for the purpose of church accommodation. By the abolition of church cess in Ireland, the cost of building, rebuilding, repairing, and enlarging of churches was defrayed out of Church property, and by voluntary effort. In the Report of the Ec-
110
clesiastical Commissioners last year it was stated—
"In noticing the aid afforded by private subscriptions, we have to add that in many cases the commissioners have been unable to avail themselves of similar assistance, as the state of their funds did not admit of the necessary contributions, on their part, for the completion of the works proposed. It is with great regret that we feel called upon to state for your Excellency's information, that the revenues of the commissioners are quite inadequate to meet the demands upon them. And in order the more accurately to inform themselves on this subject, the commissioners directed an inquiry to be made, and an abstract prepared, of the nature, and extent of applications received for the rebuilding, enlargement, and internal painting of churches, and the enclosure of churchyards, the result of which has been that the estimated cost of these and other necessary church works amounts to the sum of 260,000 l.; and it is to be observed, that even this sum does not represent the entire wants of the churches, for the commissioners are assured by the episcopal members of the board, that many applications are withheld by the clergy from their knowledge of the total inefficiency of the funds at their disposal."
That showed that there were wants to be supplied, and demands to be met. With regard to the number of chapels built and not yet endowed, it appeared that their number from 1834 to 1847 was seventy-one, and that several were in progress, and many not specified. His object was not to give new powers, but to combine the provisions of former Acts together, so that parties might more readily avail themselves of the Acts in existence relating to churches and chapels. Trustees, where the present endowment was inadequate, might co-operate with persons who were willing to endow or to augment present endowments, of course giving them corresponding rights of presentation. It would be a very great advantage to combine public sanction with private effort; but, unless private aid were large and liberal, the public sanction could not afford a permanent and adequate supply. His object was to put the Church in good working order, and to enable it faithfully to fulfil its mission. He had never wished to sanction any of its abuses, and had ever been willing to remove every obstacle which prevented it, becoming really useful to the people. But as every prudent and solid improvement should be encouraged and promoted by Parliament, he hoped the House would now give its assent to the Second Reading of these Bills.
Bill read 2° as was also—
Churches and Chapels (Ireland) Bill, and
United Church of England and Ireland Bill.

PHARMACY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR, J. BELL, after presenting several petitions in favour of this Bill, moved, that it be now read a Second Time. The hon. Member said, that the object of the measure was, to improve the qualifications of pharmaceutical chemists, and to establish the principle, that all those who were to compound the prescriptions of physicians and surgeons ought to receive a certain amount of education, and pass an examination, as a test of their fitness for the performance of their important and responsible duties. If it were necessary for surgeons and physicians to pass a preliminary examination, surely it was equally important that the persons who prepared their prescriptions should be also competent to discharge such an onerous duty. The principle of the Bill was not a new one. It was recognised more than 200 years ago, and laws had been since enacted for the purpose of providing for the establishment of that principle, and of protecting the public against the mistakes of ignorant practitioners. In the year 1617, the first incorporation of apothecaries took place. The apothecaries at that time occupied the place now filled by the pharmaceutical chemists, and 114 of them were incorporated together, whose numbers afterwards increased. In 1699, apothecaries were exempted from serving on juries, and from other parochial engagements. In 1748, the body obtained a new charter of incorporation, by which they were invested with new powers. In 1794, an association of apothecaries was formed, which was called "The Pharmaceutical Association," and from that year down to 1815, no further important change took place. For three years previous to 1815, considerable agitation prevailed among the apothecaries in consequence of an attempt that was made to insist upon a certain qualification for the sale of medicines; and in that year an Act was passed, called "The Apothecaries' Act," which, to a certain extent, answered its purpose, and made provision for establishing a test of qualification; but it was accompanied with particular exemptions, which contributed to defeat its object. Amongst these exemptions was one for chemists and druggists, who were at that time so powerful a body, that it was found impossible to carry
112
the Bill in face of their opposition, and so a compromise was made, and they were exempted from the operation of the Act. The examination of the Apothecaries' Company was a general one, and comprehended medical practice in all its branches. From 1815 up to the present time, apothecaries, who have now assumed the name of general practitioners, had been gradually receding from pharmacy, and identifying themselves with medicine and surgery, and, at the same time, chemists and druggists had taken the place which had been left vacant by the apothecaries. If, therefore, it was found necessary in 1748, and at other periods, to introduce laws for the regulation of apothecaries, because they were dispensers of medicine, was it not necessary now, when the system they administered had come into other hands, that similar regulations should be made in the case of chemists and druggists? In 1834, a Parliamentary Committee was appointed, for the purpose of taking into consideration the laws relating to the medical profession. The proceedings of the Committee were going on for several years, and since the date of its appointment no less than nine Bills were introduced for the regulation of the medical profession. Amongst these, four, at least, professed to apply to chemists and druggists, the object being to provide an examination for the dispensers of medicine as a test of qualification. To these measures the most determined opposition was brought to bear by the chemists and druggists themselves, and it was founded upon this reason—in all the Bills that were introduced it was proposed to put the chemists and druggists under the Apothecaries' Company, for the purpose of examination; and it could not be supposed that the chemists and druggists should submit to such a provision. Accordingly, they strongly opposed those Bills which would have referred them for their diplomas to the Apothecaries' Hall. They had no objection to the improvement of the education of the body, but they opposed the Bills that referred them to the Apothecaries' Hall for their diplomas. In the case of one of the Bills, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Kinsale (Mr. Hawes), the remonstrances of the chemists and druggists were so far attended to, that their name was withdrawn from the Bill. But they considered that this course was the worst of all, and that

113
it added insult to injury, as it deprived them of an advantage which was being conferred on others. After a time the leading members of the body assembled together, and agreed upon a plan for the organisation of themselves into a society, as a stepping-stone towards the regulation of the entire body of chemists and druggists. In 1843 they obtained a Royal Charter of incorporation, and had since been in active operation, carrying out the best means of improvement that suggested themselves. It would be admitted by the whole medical profession, that great improvements had taken place in this body during the last eight years. The pharmaceutical bodies in France and Germany had been also improving, and they had been looking to England with some degree of curiosity to see the results of this movement. He knew that it must be admitted that the chemists and druggists in this country were far behind the pharmaceutical bodies in other countries; but if the Bill which he had now the honour of submitting to the House should pass into a law, there was no reason to doubt that, in the course of ten or twenty years from the present time, the pharmaceutical body in England would be equal, if not superior, to that of any country in Europe. According to the present arrangements, the examination of candidates by the Society was a voluntary matter; and accordingly, if a person presented himself for examination, and he was found to be incompetent, and unfit to receive a certificate, he might commence business without one, ignorant though he were, and could snap his fingers at the examiners. In 1846, the late Sir Astley Cooper, when examined before the Parliamentary Committee, said it was necessary to enforce examinations, and that, if they were not enforced, the profession would never be one of much usefulness to the public. It was the object of the Pharmaceutical Society, in introducing the Bill, to make the examination obligatory, to avoid the error into which the Apothecaries' Company had fallen, namely, that of giving a medical character to their examinations, and to make the body strictly pharmaceutical. He had not heard of any serious objections to this Bill, for, though medical men did not pledge themselves to all its details, they were generally favourable to its principle; and all the suggestions that they had made would be carefully considered. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) objected
114
to the Bill on the ground that it would be injurious to individuals who had a vested interest in the trade of drugs; but the Bill was not so strict as any pharmaceutical Bill hitherto introduced. It did not impose a penalty upon persons for merely selling Epsom salts; it simply imposed a penalty upon persons who assumed a name to which they were not entitled. It would, indeed, be an injustice, if, after a man had commenced business in any particular department, the law were to step in, and prevent him from obtaining his daily bread by it; consequently, any improvement which must take place amongst the chemists and druggists in this respect must be of a very gradual nature. All that they could do was to prevent the evil spreading any further than it had done; and as each individual who was now employed in the trade went off the stage, his place must be supplied by a person who had received a competent education. He believed that in the course of ten or twenty years—for it was not for 1851, but for 1870 that they were now to legislate—the advantages of the proposed system would become apparent. The entire subject before them was one of great difficulty and complexity; and it was only by a union between that House and the parties concerned, that they could meet the emergencies of the case, and effect the desired object. It had been said that there was no chance of carrying the Bill, because it was connected with the intricate and various interests of the medical profession, and because the condition of that entire profession ought to be legislated for in one measure. But great care had been taken to keep it separate from medical interests, and not to interfere with them in the least. Upon this account he saw no reason why the Bill should not be passed without difficulty, and that, too, in the course of this Session; for if there were no serious objections to it, there would be no benefit from keeping the question open and undecided for six or eight months longer, while infinite mischief might arise from the adoption of that course. It might be said that a Bill of this nature should have emanated from the Home Office, and ought not to be brought forward by a private Member of that House. On this point he would only say, that he would not have introduced the measure if he could possibly have induced the Ministry to undertake it; and even now he should be very happy, if the right hon. Gentleman the

115
Home Secretary so desired, to hand over the Bill to him, and he (Mr. Bell) would lend his best assistance towards the passing of a measure which was, in his opinion, calculated to confer so great a service upon the public.
MR. HUMEsaid, that when the House had had before it for the last twenty years one Bill after another legislating for the medical profession, he had not much faith in the success of any measure professing to regulate that profession. This and preceding Governments had found difficulty enough in dealing with the three medical bodies already in existence—the College of Physicians, the College of Surgeons, and the Apothecaries' Company—and now it was proposed to add another incorporated body to the number. The chemists and druggists were exempted by their own request from the provisions of the Apothecaries' Act of 1815. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bell) said that the Apothecaries' Company had gone to another sphere, and that they had become medical practitioners. But in his opinion the duty proposed to be devolved upon this pharmaceutical body ought to be the duty of the Apothecaries' Company. He wished to know whether any inquiry had been made by the Government of the three established bodies to know whether the duties proposed to be given to the new body could or ought to be performed by any of them? It appeared to him that the addition of a fourth Parliamentary body of medical men, invested with a monopoly in its particular business, would only complicate the difficulties of the subject, and interfere with that general measure which it was so essential to have enacted for the regulation of the medical and surgical profession at large. The chemists and druggists were doubtless a very valuable set of men; but it was quite undesirable to remove them from the sphere to which they properly appertained, and in which their usefulness developed itself.
MR. BERNALthought that his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) had been inattentive to the progress which had taken place in public opinion on this subject during the last twenty years. Was he prepared to assert that all the different districts of Great Britain were in such a state of improvement with respect to chemical knowledge that any man might trust his own life and the lives of his family to the care of every person who stuck up the insignia of a druggist's trade over his door? Why,
116
it was well known that the greatest ignorance prevailed amongst this class of men, and that some of them did not know the difference between oxalic acid and Epsom salts, or between iodine and aconite. At the same time, he was happy to say that there were persons who followed the profession of chemistry, who were so well acquainted with their business that they were able to exercise a wholesome vigilance over the prescriptions that were sent to them. Was his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) aware of the beneficial proceedings of the Pharmaceutical Society, and that some of the best chemists in London were members of that society? All that the Bill proposed was, that a certain society, which was already incorporated, should have the power of examining parties and giving certificates, and without these certificates persons should not be allowed to enter the profession. The chemist belonged to one of the most important professions for the benefit and weal of the human race; and a man to whom so much was entrusted ought to be educated and well informed in his business. Up to the present moment the Bill had not received the slightest scintilla of opposition from the medical profession; and his hon. Friend (Mr. Bell) had promised to take into consideration in Committee any suggestions that might be offered. Believing that the Bill would prove highly beneficial to the public at large, he should be happy to give it his best support.
MR. HENLEYthought that the Bill was rather curiously drawn up. The mover of the Bill disclaimed any wish to turn chemists into apothecaries; but that examination to which he proposed to subject them was so large and comprehensive, that it was not easy to instruct them how the distinction was to be drawn after they had passed that examination. The hon. Member (Mr. Bell) had said be would be willing to make certain alterations in Committee; but he had not intimated to the House what those alterations were, or how he would define the parties he meant to deal with. There were four distinct classes of persons mentioned—namely, the pharmaceutical chemist, the chemist at large, the druggist at large, and the dispensing chemist. Now, he should be puzzled to describe, if asked to do so, precisely what the term "Pharmaceutical Chemist" meant. [Mr. J. BELL said they were all the same class under different names.] In that case the fourfold designation in the Bill only encum-

117
bered it, and at all events there must he an interpretation clause. It would be most difficult to exclude from the penalties of the measure a useful class of general dealers in small towns, who sold salts, turpentine, saltpetre, &c. The real state of the ease was, that a society set up about seven years ago by Royal Charter, induced many chemists to pay two guineas a year for a fine label, which they put in their window, with the hard words "Pharmaceutical Chemists" upon it; but he believed the bubble bad burst, and that the same importance was not attached to the richly-framed label as the poor and ignorant were at first inclined to bestow. People now went for their drugs to some honest respectable tradesman whom they were accustomed to trust, and had lost all faith in these gaudy labels, which were nothing better than show advertisements. The hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Bernal) said that no petitions had been presented against the Bill. That was the natural consequence of its provisions. Every party now in trade was protected by it. It did not pretend to interfere with patent or proprietary medicines, however injurious they might be. There was no evidence before the public with respect to the examination which parties claiming to be pharmaceutical chemists would have to undergo. He saw a great many difficulties in the way of that measure and its objects, and for the present he should oppose the second reading.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought what had taken place with regard to this Bill would convince the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bell) that he was rather too sanguine in supposing that the Bill would give general satisfaction. He had intimated to him privately that there was no chance of its passing at this advanced period of the Session. It was a Bill that ought to he before the public a considerable time before he could ask them to agree to it. He thought also this branch of the subject ought not to be considered except in connexion with the medical question generally; and he felt very strong objections to creating in this body a monopoly, giving them au exclusive right to determine who should, and who should not, be dispensing chemists. To the first part of the Bill he did not see any material objection. So far as power might be required for the purpose of appointing examiners, and granting certificates, he was not aware that there was any objection, if that were not
118
followed by a monopoly. If, as he had learned, the hon. Gentleman proposed to make some extensive alterations in the Bill, he should have no objection to its being read a second time pro formâ, provided it was understood that it should not be proceeded with any further this Session,
MR. CARDWELLapproved of the Bill, but recommended the hon. Gentleman to assent to this arrangement, or to move for a Select Committee to investigate the subject.
MR. EWARTunderstood the term "Pharmaceutical Chemist," which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) affected not to understand, to mean one who applied remedial measures for the cure of disease; and he begged to refer the hon. Gentleman to his Greek Lexicon if he were desirous of investigating the etymology of the word. There had of late years been a general resort to the examination of candidates on the part of the learned professions, and he considered the Bill before them to be a step in the right direction.
MR. J. BELLhad great pleasure in accepting the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, that the Bill should be read a second time pro formâ, in order that it should be printed with amendments, and circulated throughout the country.
Bill read 2°.

PUBLIC HOUSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. FORBES MACKENZIEsaid, that at this late period of the Session he did not intend to proceed further with the measure than its second reading. He was sure, however, that the House would be anxious to diminish drunkenness, and to prevent temptations from being cast in the way of the young and inexperienced; and he should, therefore, bring in a similar Bill next Session. He might also spate, that in adopting this course, he had the perfect concurrence of the noble Lord who had carried the Bill through the other House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. ELLIOTwas as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to check as much as possible the prevalence of drunkenness in Scotland, but he considered that there were such serious objections to the Bill, that he hoped it would be very greatly modified ere it came before them again.

119
With the understanding that his vote would not prejudice his further opposition to the Bill, which he thought was faulty, he should not oppose the second reading.
MR. HUMEcould not think what the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken meant. He was entirely opposed to the Bill, and yet he was ready, by supporting the second reading, to affirm its principle. The Bill was objected to by almost every man in Scotland, and hon. Gentlemen did not know the annoyance he had experienced in continually having to receive deputations requesting him to oppose it. If the Motion before them were carried, he should have to undergo the same trouble next year; and he should therefore move, with the view of getting rid of it altogether, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day Three Months."
MR. EWARTseconded the Motion.
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
VISCOUNT DUNCANobjected to committing the Bill even pro formâ, as it would only lead to useless discussion.
MR. FERGUSsaid, he must protest against the principle of the Bill altogether. He believed that the consumption of ardent spirits in Scotland had been much exaggerated. Drunkenness was common now chiefly amongst the lower classes, and if they were only raised by education, they would soon cease to be guilty of the vice complained of. He thought, too, that if hon. Gentlemen would exert themselves to promote the domestic comforts of their dependants, they would much more effectively arrest the progress of intemperance than by passing the Bill now before them.
MR. FORBES MACKENZIEsaid, he would withdraw the Bill.
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill withdrawn.

MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Appointment of Inspectors).
LORD NAASmoved that the medical inspectors should be practitioners of at least ten years' standing, instead of seven years', as proposed.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 35, after the word "being," to insert the word "practising."
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEdid not think the Amendment would be an improvement, or, indeed, that it was so well calculated to secure efficient inspectors.
Question put, "That the word 'practising' be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 44: Majority 7.
Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were Clause 3 to Clause 5 inclusive.
Clause 6, which empowers the Commissioners to divide a union into medical districts.
MR. CLEMENTSmoved the omission of the words which empowered the Poor Law Commissioners, as they saw occasion from time to time, to regulate the amount of salaries or allowances payable to the medical officers, and the time and mode of payment thereof.
After some conversation, this Amendment was withdrawn.
MR. H. HERBERTmoved an Amendment giving the Boards of Guardians, in certain cases, a power of appeal to the Lord Lieutenant in Council against the division of districts effected by the Poor Law Commissioners.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 18, after the word "necessary," to insert the words "subject to an appeal in Council as hereinafter provided."
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, there were so many Amendments on this Clause that perhaps the best way would be to move that it be expunged altogether.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he had endeavoured so to frame the Clause as to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He thought it desirable that the Commissioners should have the same power under this Bill as they had with reference to the administration of the Poor Law generally.
MR. HATCHELLdefended the Clause as it stood, on the ground that it would work in the most satisfactory manner. The Amendment now proposed would look like a distrust of the Poor Law Commissioners.
MR. GRATTANthought they had had too much of the Lord Lieutenant.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, if the hon. Gentlemen who represented Ireland considered this appeal to the Lord Lieutenant in Council necessary, the Committee would doubtless accede to the proposition; but for his own part he could

121
not see that the result of such would be satisfactory.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsupported the proposition of appeal, because the experience of the past showed that the appeals to the Commissioners were treated with perfect indifference.
MR. FRENCHsaid, that the appeal would not be resorted to except in cases where the great majority wished it.
MR. WAKLEYhoped the Government would yield on this point. It was not surely reasonable that the Commissioners should have the power of making electoral districts without any appeal whatever. The Guardians were an elected and responsible body, and the Commissioners were not. He had seen the condition of Ireland last year, and he considered that such a measure as this was a complete farce. He could state, from his own obseraation, that in districts through which he passed the people were dying for want of food, or from diseases produced by starvation. The medical officers of districts were not empowered to order relief for the people in the shape of food; but here was a measure to give them as much jalap and Epsom salts as they wanted! He entertained different notions of Ireland until he visited the country; and he should say a more noble, generous-hearted, and industrious people did not exist; but they were badly legislated for. The fact was, that the Bill did not give medical men any power to order such food as might be requisite for the sick poor; and he did not think, therefore, that it would be attended with any practical benefit. He had been told last year, by a Guardian of the poor in Ireland, that in the previous summer, between the 18th of June and the 3rd of October, 1,100 persons perished in the workhouse at Listowell, and that they were nearly all taken into the house in a dying state from starvation. He thought, therefore, that medical officers should have the power of ordering food and nourishment for the people when they thought it necessary.
MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGHsaid, that what the people of Ireland wanted was efficient control over an arbitrary hoard with irresponsible powers. In cases of abuse or misuse of power, it was absolutely necessary that there should be an ultimate appeal to the Lord Lieutenant in Council.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwished to know what would be the expense of those appeals, and who were to pay the costs.
MR. WHITESIDEapprehended that the Guardians would have to pay the costs, which would not be as great as hon. Gentlemen seemed to think.
Mr. HATCHELLsaid, that as the law at present stood, the Guardians could not pay the costs out of the rates.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 70: Majority 12.
MR. H. HERBERTthought this Bill would invest the Commissioners with tremendous powers, giving them authority to appoint local officers in each district. It was a perfect farce to pretend that the Bill would be carried out by local government, for it took away all control from the ratepayers. He moved to strike out the word "number" from the 30th line of the Clause, which, as it stood, gave the Commissioners unlimited discretion as to the number of local officers.
Amendment proposed, in line 30 to leave out the words "Number and."
MR. GRATTANdid not pity the Irish Gentlemen. It was all their own fault. They had parted with the power to legislate for their own country and affairs; and it was foretold them what would be the consequence. The Government were about to take all control in local affairs from the country gentlemen. The condition of Ireland was daily becoming so degraded that no gentleman would be found resident there in a few years. Its revenues were expended by absentees in this country; and its Crown rents applied in beautifying London. Had they a Legislature of their own, no such proceedings would be sanctioned. Whilst he lived he would never cease to denounce these things; and doubtless the day would come—he hoped not in his time—when those millions of the bone and sinew that were being expatriated to America would lift their arms against this country, whose legislation impoverished and disinherited them.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, that in promoting this Bill, their object was to give relief to the poor of Ireland. He was surprised at the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. H. Herbert) complaining of the powers which this clause gave. No new powers were given by the clause.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that the dispensaries in Ireland were conducted under local administration; but this clause proposed to give the Commissioners of Poor Laws the whole control over them, both as

123
regarded salaries and numbers. There would be no end of extravagance and mismanagement under such a system.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONhoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland would reconsider the clause: He trusted the word "number" would he left out of the Clause. At present dispensaries were generally superintended by one medical gentleman.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYthought that local authorities should not be destroyed where they existed, and should even be Created where they did not exist. Above all, he did hot think that the central authority should have the power of regulating salaries and allowances.
MR. VESEYsaid, he did not object to the Poor Law Commissioners being empowered to decide upon the qualifications of the medical officers; but they were not willing to entrust the Commissioners with the power to decide what should be the number of medical officers in each Union.
MR. SCULLYsaid, the operations of the Commissioners of Health in Dublin were a sample of the evils which might be expected to flow from giving the Commissioners the power to decide upon the number of medical officers necessary for the poor-law districts throughout Ireland. He believed that if they were entrusted with such a power, a door would be opened to gross jobbing.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISthought this Clause had been much misunderstood. He could not account for the jealousy which seemed to be entertained against the appointment of medical officers by the Poor Law Commissioners. He thought that if they empowered the Commissioners to appoint these officers, it would be wise to leave the Commissioners to say what should be the precise number In particular districts, inasmuch as in times of disease it might be found necessary to increase their number, and at others it might be desirable to assign at least two districts to one medical officer.
MR. REYNOLDSthought that the word "number" should be retained in the Clause, and the power of appointment vested in the Commissioners, who were responsible for their conduct to that House. He found the poor of Ballinasloe, of Kilrush, Enntistymon, and Ennis, so badly treated, that he thought it best for the poor to have the power vested in the Commissioners.
MR. H. HERBERTthought that the
124
power should rest with the Guardians, on the principle that taxation and representation should go together. He thought the persons who were best qualified to form a correct opinion as to the medical necessities of the district, were those who had to pay the rates.
MR. CLEMENTSsaid, his opinion was that the whole power should rest with the Guardians; but the Committed having already decided that the Commissioners should have the arrangement of the medical districts, he considered it would be wrong to limit them as to the number of medical officers.
CAPTAIN JONESsupported the Clause because the Commissioners had the power of naming the districts, otherwise he should have preferred to vest the power in the guardians.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, that his experience led him to believe that it would be more economical, and would be safer td vest this power in the hands of the Commissioners. If it were left in the hands of the local board, the chances were that they would not make a provision which would be sufficient for an emergency, although it might be for ordinary cases.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that there were evils in the present system; but those evils would be aggravated fourfold by this Bill.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 44: Majority 13.
House resumed.
Committee report progress.
The House adjourned at six minutes before Six o'clock.