LORDS' AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 29 July 1858)

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, he must complain that they had not the Amendments of the Lords before them before they were called upon to consider them. 2276 The Bill was far from a good one as it was sent up from the Commons, and, as he understood, it had come back far worse. He believed one of the Amendments made by the Lords was to give a power to appoint a medical council or a medical officer permanently. As the Bill left that House, it provided that that appointment should be temporary only; but the word "temporary" had been struck out. Another Amendment was a violation of an arrangement made between the Government and the opponents of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) would remember that on condition that the Bill should expire on the 1st of August, he (Mr. T. Duncombe) consented to waive his opposition to the Bill. But the Lords, by their Amendments, had given a two years' life to the Bill. The Bill was a bad one; at all events no inconvenience would follow from its postponement till another Session, and he therefore would move that the Lords' Amendments be considered that day six weeks.

§ MR. PALK
said, he quite agreed that the Bill was a bad one; indeed, he thought it the worst Bill that had ever been brought in. The faith of the Government was pledged that the Bill should only continue for one year, and the adoption of the Lords' Amendments therefore would be a violation of that pledge. It was also clearly understood that no power should be taken in the Bill for the permanent appointment of a medical council. If they were to have a paid medical Board, let them know what the duties of that Board were to be. He, for one, saw no necessity for even one medical officer, and certainly it was unnecessary to keep a medical Board attached to the Board of Health, with salaries of £1,500 a year, to make an annual report.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
said, he understood that the ground for the omission of the word "temporary" after "from time to time" was, that it was simple tautology. As the Bill stood, there was no power to appoint more than one medical officer. The Bill merely defined his duties. The Amendments made in the other House were three, two of which were verbal only, and the last was for continuing the Act to 2277 the end of next Session. As, however, this was a longer period than the time fixed upon by the House of Commons, and his hon. Friend and the House appeared to consider it a violation of the arrangement entered into, he proposed that as to that Amendment the House should disagree to it.

§ MR. COX
said, that the effect of another of the Amendments, which the right hon. Gentleman stated to be a more verbal one, made the appointment of the medical officer a permanent one. He therefore considered the word "temporary" necessary.

§ MR. WALPOLE
remarked, that the Act being only a temporary one, no permanent appointment could be made under it. The one paid medical officer which the Act authorized them to appoint could therefore hold the appointment only for the year to which the operation of the Bill would be limited.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
complained of the practice of calling upon the House to agree to Amendments made by the Lords, without those Amendments being previously printed and placed in the hands of Members.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he believed the usual practice was, that when there was no opposition anticipated to the Amendments, for the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill to give notice to move the consideration of those Amendments on a certain day; but when opposition was expected, then the practice was to print the Amendments.