§ MR. CHARLES LEWIS (for Mr. MELLOR)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering that this House on two occasions has unanimously insisted on disagreeing to the Amendments made by The Lords to the Poor Law Amendment Act (1876) Amendment Bill, he can explain the position in which the Bill now stands; and, whether he can state if any, and what, steps should be be taken to bring about its reconsideration by the Lords?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI am sorry to say that the state of this matter has now become such that its further re-consideration appears to be impossible. The Bill has been twice before this House, and twice this House has agreed to disagree with the Lords' Amendments. The question has been twice argued in the House of Lords, where the Government, I am informed by my Colleagues, did what they could to support the view of the House of Commons, but were outvoted on two occasions; and the Bill is now, I believe, dead. Therefore, I apprehend nothing more can be done in the present Session.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Bill, though not one of the first importance, was one in which a very large number of people took an interest. He was rather surprised to hear that in consequence of the disagreement between the two Houses the Bill came to an end. Generally the result of a disagreement was a Conference. He did not know whether the Government considered the Bill unworthy of a Conference.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI think that all I can do is to appeal to the Speaker on a point of Order. No doubt, this matter is one of importance; and, as far as the Government is concerned, we should be anxious to give the Bill any chance of being accepted by the House of Lords. If it is in accordance with the Rules of Parliament that a Conference between the two Houses should be held, that course might be followed.
§ MR. SPEAKERUpon the Motion of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill (Mr. Mellor), the House insisted on disagreeing with the Lords' Amendments, and thereupon the Bill was dropped. If the hon. Member had thought proper he could have invited the House to appoint a Conference; but on neither occasion when the Lords' Amendments were before the House was such a course taken.