HC Deb 27 July 1871 vol 208 cc355-9

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. J. FIELDEN

moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair. The Bill, he said, was part of a measure introduced and withdrawn early in the present Session; and he objected strongly, therefore, to the course which had been taken in re-introducing it at the fag end of the Session, when the House was overburdened with Government measures, very few of which had any chance of being passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Joshua Fielden.)

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

protested against this attempt to shelve the Bill in the present Session, and urged the Committee to proceed.

MR. NEWDEGATE

opposed the Bill, remarking that the House had no conception of the number of offices which were intended to be created by that Bill, but not actually contained in its provisions. The Bill was but a fragment of a measure, and the House was asked to pass it without the slightest notion of the burdens with which it was about to saddle the Consolidated Fund.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, that the hon. Members for the Eastern Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. J. Fielden) and North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) utterly misapprehended the object of the Bill. The Bill was a measure to combine central departments into one power, which power was to assist the various local boards throughout the country. It was not only a measure of efficiency, but one of economy.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that if he had been misled, it was by the statement which was made the other day by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) himself.

MR. MUNTZ

complained that every stage of the Bill had been introduced after 1 o'clock. He did not rise to oppose the Bill, but to object to the system of discussing important measures at an hour when no one was fit for discussion.

MR. STANSFELD

said, that the Bill was only one of eight clauses, and it did not authorize a large expenditure. Neither was it a centralizing, it was a concentrating measure, confining to one department business which had previously been scattered amongst three or four; and not only that, it would encourage and develop local authority instead of detracting from it. No expense could be incurred under the Bill without coming again to the House.

MR. W. M. TORRENS

objected to proceed at such an hour and such a period of the Session with a Bill which if it did not increase the charge upon the Consolidated Fund, would certainly throw increased charges upon the rates. He denied that the Bill was a small one, and thought its effect would be to cut to pieces the very thews and sinews of local Government.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he must protest against the system which was proposed to be established by that Bill.

DR. LYON PLAYFAIR

said, that that Bill would extend the same protection to human beings that Parliament had already given to cattle. If a disease appeared among cattle there was a direct responsibility of the Privy Council to stamp it out. But when small-pox, cholera, or any other epidemic attacked human beings in this country, they could not fix responsibility upon anyone; or, at least, it was so diffused and attenuated among four or five departments that it ceased to be operative. That Bill consolidated 25 Acts from the Privy Council and Home Office with others under the Poor Law. It was a Bill to get order out of disorder, and though it gave no new powers which have not already been enacted, it made a new Health Department of the State which would be more powerful in administration. It was a Bill of consolidation and concentration. Such a Bill was at all times desirable; in the approach of an epidemic such as cholera, it was at that time indispensable.

MR. KNIGHT

said, that the Bill would create one great central authority—much, he believed, to the detriment of the country; and he denounced the attempt to smuggle it through the House before the country knew anything about it. He believed that the zeal to pass the Bill arose from the patronage which it would place in the hands of the Government.

MR. COLLINS

, while of opinion that the Bill was a good one, objected to its being proceed with at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning.

SIR DOMINIC CORRIGAN

supported the Bill, and spoke of his experience as to the results of divided authority in 1848, during the last visit of cholera to Dublin, having been fatal to the lives of hundreds.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

, while in favour of the Bill, said, he was sorry it should have been brought forward at a time when it was impossible it could be duly considered. It was a consequence of the unsatistactory manner in which the business of the House was conducted. Important Bills such as the present were taken at unseemly hours, and a preference given to measures which advanced party objects.

Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 20; Noes 142: Majority 122.

Clause 1 (Short title of Act).

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman who would be intrusted with the carrying out of that measure should occupy the position of a responsible Minister rather than of the head of a Board. He would move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "Board," and insert "office."

MR. RATHBONE

said, it was a scandal that the head of that Department should be removed on every change in the Ministry.

MR. FAWCETT

said, that while as anxious as anyone to see the Bill passed, he objected to its being forced on at an hour when the strength of hon. Members was exhausted. Unless a different system were adopted, a most important Department in the State would be sacrificed to the exigencies of the promotion of political officials. It was felt as a great misfortune that the present First Lord of the Admiralty should have been removed from the Poor Law Board at a time when he had just begun to know his business well, and it would be a grave error if such a system should be continued.

MR. STANSFELD

said, it was impossible for the Government to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith).

MR. COLLINS

moved that the Chairman report Progress.

MR. GLADSTONE

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere with the Motion, observing that the Bill was one of the greatest importance. The objections which had been raised on the question of the title of the Department were merely expedients to prevent the Bill becoming law during the present Session. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) could not properly be raised on the present Bill.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. KNIGHT

opposed the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith).

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that after the intimation of the First Lord of the Treasury, he would withdraw his Amendment; but would reserve to himself the right of proposing it on another opportunity, as he felt that it deserved serious consideration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 (Establishment of Local Government Board).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. Knight.)

Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 21; Noes 89: Majority 68.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Constitution of Local Government Board).

MR. J. FIELDEN

moved that the Chairman report Progress.

MR. FAWCETT

supported the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. Joshua, Fielden.)

MR. STANSFELD

opposed the Motion.

MR. RYLANDS

asked for a pledge that there should be no new appointments under the Bill.

MR. STANSFELD

said, that the medical officers of the Poor Law Board and Mr. Tom Taylor would be transferred to the new Department.

Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 32; Noes 68: Majority 36.

MR. NEWDEGATE

moved that the Committee report Progress.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.