§ (Mr. Mellor, Mr. Merewether, Sir Charles Forster, Mr. Phipps, Mr. Cowan, Mr. Hibbert.)
§ Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
940§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Amendments be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Mellor.)
§ MR. MELLOR moved that the House do not agree to the Lords' Amendments, as they would, if acceded to, defeat the object of the Bill, which was to relieve trustees and managing bodies of provident societies from the arbitrary requisitions which were now made upon their sick funds for Union purposes by the partial repeal and modification of that paragraph in the 23rd clause of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, which empowered the Guardians of a Poor Law Union to recoup the expense of maintaining paupers and pauper lunatic members of a friendly society by attaching for this purpose any periodical payment or sick allowance which might accrue to them as members of a Lodge, and by ignoring the claims of their families, apply the money in aid of the rates so long as they remained chargeable to the Union as inmates of a workhouse or of a lunatic asylum. To give effect to the object of this Bill, they were told would be a violation of the policy on which the Poor Law was administered; and in order to prevent this violation of a policy, the Bill had been mutilated and reduced to the smallest dimensions by eliminating from it the words "pauper or," and thereby limiting its operation to the case of lunatics only. The reason assigned for not extending the operations of the Bill to members of benefit societies generally when suffering from the effects of contagious disease—such as fever, or from injuries sustained at work, and which might render their removal to the workhouse hospital absolutely necessary—was that they would be giving an artificial bounty to members of those societies which was not enjoyed by any other class in this country. But as a concession had been made in the case of pauper lunatics, whose families were to enjoy special privileges, he hoped that the other House—should this Bill be reconsidered—might be induced to extend those privileges to the families of sick and temporarily disabled members of a benefit society, and that the words "pauper or" would be restored to the Bill. Should this concession be made, and the other Amendments be modified, 941 the Bill would be accepted by the societies, and the existing excitement in regard to it would be allayed. But if those words were not to be restored, and the other Amendments were retained, he had much rather the Bill were rejected. He, therefore, moved to disagree to the Lords' Amendments.
§ MR. FAWCETTdid not want to offer any opposition to the Motion; but from the short conversation which took place this afternoon at 2 o'clock, he felt certain an impression was produced that the Government would use their influence with the hon. Member not to bring the subject before the House to-night. His right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), who had devoted great attention to this subject, was particularly anxious to make some remarks upon the alterations which had been inserted by the House of Lords; but he had left the House under the impression that the Bill would not be taken to-night. The Amendments of the Lords were carried by the large majority of 20, and his right hon. Friend, while not prepared to go to the extent of saying that they should disagree with the Lords, was very desirous, in the interests of the people connected with friendly societies, to come to some compromise, if possible, which could alike be agreed on between the Government and the hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Mellor); and which would be likely to be accepted by the House of Lords. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be better if the Bill could be postponed until the right hon. Gentleman was in his place.
§ MR. PELLdesired to confirm what had just fallen from the hon. Member as to the impression that the Bill would not be taken to-night. He was entirely taken by surprise on observing that the hon. Member for Ashton rose and moved that the Lords' Amendments be considered; for he had himself told several hon. Gentlemen that it had been definitely settled the matter should be adjourned, and on the faith of that understanding, those hon. Gentlemen had left the House. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Member would consent to postpone the Bill, because he would gain nothing by pressing it forward to-night. The object the friendly societies had in view would be best promoted by an adjournment to a future day.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFwould like to have some assurance from the Government as to the course they intended to pursue in regard to this matter. The Bill passed this House unanimously, and it was the universal wish of the friendly societies of the country that it should pass; but in the House of Lords it had been opposed by a set of Liberal Peers.
§ MR. FAWCETT rose to Order. He did not think it was competent for the hon. Member to refer to what had taken place in the House of Lords, and certainly he ought not to say that the Bill was opposed simply by a set of Liberal Peers, because such was not the fact. The Earl of Redesdale and other Conservative Peers equally opposed it.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFrepeated that "elsewhere" the Bill had been principally opposed by Peers of Liberal principles; and the Amendments which destroyed the character of the Bill were moved by a Liberal Peer. This was a question upon which there ought to be no trifling. It was the unanimous wish of the House that the Bill should pass as it was sent to the House of Lords, and he hoped they would stand by their previous decision.
§ SIR CHARLES FORSTERjoined in the appeal that the Bill might not be proceeded with to-night.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, what passed at 2 o'clock was this. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen's) Question as to whether the Bill would come on to-night, he said that he had no knowledge that it would come on. Of course, in giving that answer, he was entirely ignorant as to what course his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton (Mr. Mellor) intended to take, and his hon. Friend was not in any way pledged by what he had stated. At the same time, he felt bound to say that there appeared to be a strong desire that this matter should be dealt with in a way that would be agreeable to the friendly societies, without placing themselves in antagonism with the views expressed in the House of Lords. Under these circumstances, he thought his hon. Friend would be perhaps well-advised if he consented to the adjournment which had been suggested, say until Monday, though no doubt it was a hardship at this reasonable hour of the night to forego the chance of proceeding with the Bill.
§ MR. MUNDELLAalso considered it would be better not to go on with the Bill to-night. At the same time, it was fair to consider that it had been a very difficult business to carry the Bill through to its present stage, and at this period of the Session the hon. Member could not well afford to lose an opportunity. On the other hand, if there was an understanding that the measure would not be taken to-night, that ought to be honourably adhered to. He also wished to remark, that seeing how strong the Government were in the House of Lords, if they had wished to see this Bill passed in the form it left this House, they could easily have procured its passing. The friendly societies had been misunderstood, and what they wanted to do had been exaggerated. It had gone forth that the Bill was an infraction of the principles of the Poor Law; but this, he considered, was not a true charge, and friendly societies, by the action they had taken, had done more to save the poor rates than anybody else. If the Lords' Amendments were agreed to, it would be a discouragement to thrift in connection with friendly societies in this country.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI think the first object we all ought to have in view is strictly to observe an honourable engagement; and I had not heard until the Bill was called upon of anything having passed in reference to it at 2 o'clock to-day; and from what has since been said, I do not understand that the hon. Member for Ashton is bound by anything which has occurred. At the same time, it has, obviously, had the effect of inducing the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) to absent himself, in the belief that the Bill would not come on. Therefore, it would be inconvenient, and might lead, perhaps, to some complaint, if we proceeded with the Bill to-night, though, as I have already said, I do not think the hon. Member is bound by what took place at 2 o'clock. I supported the Bill in the form in which it left this House; and now it has come back, altered in some material respects, I think the hon. Member is taking a natural and proper course in endeavouring, I will not say to restore the measure absolutely to its original shape, but to consider whether some compromise may not be 944 effected. I understand the hon. Member wishes to re-insert in the Bill the words "pauper or," which have been struck out by the Lords, and the other Amendments he will not object to. Therefore, I would suggest to him, in his own interest, to consider whether it will not be better to postpone the Bill until Monday, in order to see what understanding may be come to? If, however, the hon. Member thinks he ought to take this opportunity of proceeding, I shall support him in whatever he does, as I have previously voted for the Bill.
§ MR. MELLORsaid, in deference to the views which had been expressed, he had no objection to withdraw the consideration of the Bill from to-night, and he would proceed with it on another occasion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Lords' Amendments to be considered upon Monday next.