COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 21 July 1885 vol 299 cc1411-511

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MR. COURTNEY,

in rising to move— That this House cannot approve of a measure which removes an incentive to independence, and fundamentally changes the principle of the Poor Law under which pauperism has steadily diminished since 1834, said, that after the majority by which the House refused the other night to prolong the discussion on the principle of this measure, some apology might, perhaps, be expected for the attempt to renew the debate this evening. He thought the House would agree that no private end could be served by taking the unpopular side in this question, and that those who took it were rendered liable to some misunderstanding, and perhaps misrepresentation. But upon that ground alone he hoped that the House would not be impatient if, under the circumstances, those who were opposed to the Bill desired somewhat further to discuss some of the questions that were raised on Thursday. He would say nothing about the Parliamentary history of that subject, except that it was in some respects extraordinary and even painful. When the proposal was first submitted to the House it was opposed, not merely on the ground that it was one that was unfit to be discussed on the occasion on which it was then brought forward, but also because it was unsound in principle. It was opposed upon both sides of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) both opposed the proposition, on the ground of its public inexpediency; and he might say of one of them, without any breach of confidence, that he was so impressed with the impropriety of the proposal that he appealed to Members who had strong views against its adoption to take part in the debate and submit arguments against it. The late Attorney General absented himself from the division last Friday morning; but the right hon. Member for Chelsea took part in the majority in favour of a proposition which ho had before strenuously resisted upon its merits. They were, he thought, entitled to ask his right hon. Friend to explain this evening whether he had changed his opinion on the policy of the question. They had a right to ask whether one who had been so long and so honourably associated with the administration of the Poor Law, and who thought the proposal to allow the franchise to be conferred, irrespective of the reception of medical relief, was a most injurious proposal, had changed his opinion upon the policy of the question, and, if so, upon what grounds he rested that change? He would not enter into what he regarded as the contemptible question whether the enfranchisement of those who received medical relief would tell for the Liberals or for the Conservatives; nor would he examine into the numerical extent of the change proposed. He would simply remark that before the statutory provisions in the Reform Act of 1832, it appeared to be a well settled principle of the Common Law that the receipt of alms—that the dependent condition of any person receiving aid from the Poor Law authorities disabled him from taking part in borough elections. Parliamentary Committees had changed their opinions from time to time; but still the balance of authority had been clear, and it had been laid down with precision that those who had received alms or Poor Law relief were unable to to vote for Members of Parliament. It was now sought to reverse what appeared to be the sound proposition that the unfree man, the man who was unable to support himself, who wa3 in a dependent position and in the receipt of public charity, was not a person on whom it was expedient to confer the electoral right. The Bill which was now before them embodied in it something of that principle, because it contained an exception from its general enfranchising effect in this way—that those who were in the receipt of medical relief should not be enfranchised with regard to voting for Boards of Guar- dians or persons who administered the Poor Laws. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had made a very extraordinary speech on Friday, a speech in which the right hon. Gentleman had not endeavoured to explain why it was expedient that those should have the right to determine as far as they could, who should be returned to that House, were not to have the right of determining who were to be administrators of the Poor Law. Again, these persons were to have their share in electing Town Councils and other municipal bodies. As his right hon. Friend was aware, there were many schemes in the air which aimed at conferring upon Town Councils and other municipal authorities great powers of practically giving employment to those who were dependent upon public aid. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), who was the real hero of this Bill, and whose purpose had been single, simple, and honourable, had confessed that with respect to School Boards he looked for a considerable effect being produced by this Bill. This, however, he did not consider a cardinal point of the Bill. The calculations from various parts of the country brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman had corresponded in a very remarkable degree with the figures obtained by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) in 1870. The hon. Member had then come to the conclusion that about 60,000 persons would be affected, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had said that the proportion would be about 2.5 per 1,000. If this were applied to the population of the Kingdom it would amount to about 66,000, or, practically, an identical figure with that arrived at by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. It would, no doubt, be brought forward as an argument that that was a very small number, but it was a number capable of indefinite increase; and the importance of this Bill lay in the belief which they entertained that that number would be considerably increased. It had only been brought so low by the action for 30 years of well-understood and well-observed principles of Poor Law relief. The insignificant numbers affected at present by this Bill would soon grow again into something like the large numbers which had prevailed before the reform of Poor Law administration, and they would find a serious danger arising from that multiplication of the numbers receiving relief. This brought him to what he especially wished to impress upon the House—namely, that he did not oppose this Bill because it enfranchised or disfranchised more or less, or because he believed that it would have a bad effect upon the legislation of the future, but because he earnestly believed that it would injuriously affect the character and position of the labourers of England. He pressed this point because the Bill appeared to show in this tendency a threat of the possibility of developing and increasing pauperism in the country, of retarding that steady progress which during the last 30 years had been made in reducing it. and of taking them back in their political action so as to produce those evils which had formerly existed, but which many of them were now too apt to forget. It was because of this evil effect on the working classes that he opposed this Bill so heartily and must continue to oppose it. The old Poor Law had greatly aggravated the natural tendency towards pauperism. A great step had been taken towards reforming Poor Law administration and putting it upon sound principles, so that the nation had been enabled to escape from the slough of pauperism and to attain a healthy improvement. Now, it was proposed to turn back to the old system, and what, in his opinion, was most shocking in the whole question was the thoughtlessness and levity with which it was now being treated after having occupied the attention and the minds of so many people so anxiously during the last generation. He would like to recall to the House a few words written some 12 or 13 years ago by one whose reputation had been great and well-deserved, and whose character for independence and sincerity was universally recognized. Mr. Fawcett, in 1872, had used these words— The English Poor Law is distinctly Socialistic in its tendencies, and the extent to which this tendency operates depends upon the conditions upon which parochial relief is granted. If it is given with unwise liberality and injudicious laxity England would soon again suffer from all the ills which affected her under the old Poor Law. This is a danger from which it can scarcely be said that the country is safe, when it is seen how strongly the current is running in favour of State assistance, and also when the eagerness is observed with which rival politicians make Socialistic bids for popular support. Those were the words of Mr. Fawcett in 1872, and they would now be recognized as almost prophetic. He objected to the Bill because it would bring back upon us that laxity of administration in the Poor Law from which we hoped we had escaped, would lead to the revival of evils which we hoped we had got rid of, and would promote a tendency to rely on public relief from which we were slowly emancipating the popular mind. These were said to be the principles of doctrinaires; but the man whom he had quoted possessed large practical knowledge, and was acquainted with the characteristics of rural life, being himself the son of a farmer and one who had lived among farmers in one of the most agricultural counties of England, and who knew the virtues and the failings of the agricultural class. In connection with this subject he would remind the House that we had still left among us one of the Commissioners of the Inquiry in 1834—he referred to Mr. Chad wick— and what did that gentleman say? He said that this was a movement towards serious error, tending to the maintenance of what was really deadly error. This was a movement which diminished the self-respect and independence of the labourer, and would do him no good, because one of the clearest results of the Inquiry of 1834 was that all the assistance which the labourer received was taken away from him again in diminution of his wages. It was easily seen that if they relieved a labourer, or any other man, of a primary want, they removed from him the necessity of supplying something essential to his life, and at the same time deprived him of ideas of prudence and self-respect; they did not in any degree improve his condition, but left him precisely at the same level, gravitating downwards to the position he held before. The status of the labourer was, in fact, determined very much by the conditions under which he lived. Take away from him the necessity of providing for his wants and they lowered the scale of his remuneration until the remuneration he received was only just enough to supply the wants that were left unsatisfied. By the step they were now taking they were removing from the labourer the necessity of fulfilling one of the primary necessities of a self-supporting man, of providing for a contingency which befell everyone—that of sickness happening to himself or to some member of his family. This question of disqualification upon the receipt of medical relief had been raised now for the first time in relation to the counties, but it had existed ever since 1832 in respect of the vote for towns. Some five or six years ago, at the annual Conference of the Trades Unions, the question was brought before the delegates of the propriety of removing the disqualification, some thinking that it affected injuriously the enfranchisement of the working classes in towns. It was referred to the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Societies, and nothing had ever come of it since. He believed that when this question came to be discussed by the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Societies there was found to be such a division of opinion among the trades unionists themselves, so many opposed the alteration of the law on the ground of the injurious effect it would have in discouraging provident agencies, that the matter was dropped. So that here they had the practical testimony of the trades unionists themselves against the alteration of the law which a Conservative Government and Gentlemen on his own side of the House were now making. The editor of The Lancet sent him last week an earnest communication on the subject, and he would refer to an article which appeared in that journal in which the argument he had now submitted was pressed with great force. The article said that the more the poverty of the working man, if he supported himself the more was his credit. So long as the humblest labourer contrived to maintain himself and his family in sickness and health, they must consider him entitled to the highest political immunities. He had something to teach even a wealthy nation—namely, that it should live within its resources, and his views were entitled to expression and representation. In Bradfield, to which the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) referred the other night, medical relief was given at first as a loan. The result was that relieving officers seldom got an application for a medical order. If the party was able to pay he said he might as well pay his own doctor as take the order for the parish doctor on loan, or he joined the medical officer's club, in which, for a few shillings per annum, he could procure medical attendance for his family. In St. Neot's Union the sum expended on medical relief had fallen in the last 20 years, in consequence of a strict administration of the Poor Law, from £406 a-year to £101. Brixworth Union afforded another example of the salutary results of a strict administration of the Poor Law. The utmost number of cases of medical relief there in half-a-year was now about six; whereas at one time the number was 250. It was said by the advocates of the proposed alteration of the law that, while it would be hazardous to relax the existing conditions that regulated the general subject of outdoor relief, it was not hazardous to relax the conditions surrounding the question of medical relief. But was not the need for medical relief a need which, sooner or later, must come upon everyone, and was not the failure to provide medical relief for one's family a failure to provide one of the necessities of life? This necessary relief could be procured as a right, without any loss of independence, by labourers who chose to belong to clubs at a cost never exceeding 3d. a-week. The reception of medical relief was one of the most insidious modes of beginning a system of complete dependence upon outdoor relief. In fact, medical relief was the first step towards outdoor relief. This view was sustained in an interesting Report emanating from the Guardians of the Spalding Union. The following sentences occurred in that Report:— Here is an ordinary agricultural labourer who, up to the present time, has not in any shape been chargeable to the Union funds. Either he or one of his family is stricken down by sickness. As a rule, in an event of this character, only one of two alternatives is presented to him—either he may on his own responsibility call in a medical attendant, in which case, even supposing there be no hesitation on the part of the doctor to attend him, he incurs a heavy pecuniary liability which for many months he will not be able to discharge, or he may, and generally does, adopt a much easier course by applying to the relieving officer for a medical order, which at once places him in the depressing and demoralizing atmosphere of pauperism. He forthwith loses very largely his previous self-reliance and social independence, and becomes with his whole family so habituated to parochial relief that ho is sadly liable, whenever any difficulty or depression occurs, to seek periodically if not permanently to swell the pauper list. To apply for medical relief was a form of degradation, for such an application showed that the head of a family had not placed himself in a position to supply what was one of the primary wants of the members of his family. The Rev. T. W. Fowle, Rector of Islip, a gentleman who had shown himself most zealous about the extension of the franchise, had written to him the following letters:— I write in a sick-room—hardly able to hold a pen—to exhort you to resist the Medical Relief Bill so long as there is a ditch left to die in. Of me, at least, no one can say that I wish to deprive the country labourer of his vote; but I know the man and I know the Poor Law, and I denounce any relaxation of the latter as the most fatal curse to the former—historically and demonstrably so—that can be inflicted on him. It was from such trivial beginnings that all his woes arose under the old law. I am afraid the time, if any, for action will be over before I am well enough to volunteer help. The pauper voter will' go' Conservative, and thus realize in outward shape and existence what has hitherto been a somewhat hazy dream, for he will be the first product of the Tory democracy. Whatever I write is, of course, quite at your disposal, and anything that has the effect of separating my unimportant self from the serious mistake my Radical friends are committing is what I should like. The root of their error consists in their misapprehension of the character and position of the country labourer. Absurd as it was, the old 'happy and virtuous peasantry' notion was far nearer the truth than the new 'downtrod serf and pathetic figure' theory. The men I know, and of whose friendship I am proud, are worthy, sensible, good-natured folk whom the hardships of life for centuries have wrought into the soundest moral material of any class of men (so I believe) in Europe, and whose progress, owing to cheap food, declining numbers, education, and the Press, has been of late simply prodigious. But the taint of the old Poor Law (and of the new as well) still hangs about them, and they may at any time yield to the temptation of demanding out-relief, with which it is the interests of the employers and landlords to allure them. He (Mr. Courtney) believed that all efforts to raise the position of the labourers would for ever be valueless if they were not encouraged to be independent and prudent, and if their moral character were not touched. We might multiply the wealth of the country by Free Trade, but we should still have this large cloud of paupers unless we could do something to touch, the moral character of the people by inspiring them with a spirit of prudence and independence which would make them self-supporting. We might abolish the curse of drunkenness and the vice of drinking in this land, but still we should have at the bottom of our population this body of pauperized labour. It was only by touching the character of the people—and this alteration in the law threatened to touch it in a false and injurious way—and by raising in the minds of the people themselves the standard of their condition, and it was only by giving them prudence to look before and after that they could ever cure this nation of the curse of pauperism which clung to it. The late Leader of the Conservative Party, of whom that Party were justly proud, was seriously occupied with this question, and in several of his books dwelt on it again and again; and many men, and women too, had been working and thinking and striving for some solution of it for the last 20 or 30 years—all these he could call upon to condemn the change that was now being initiated. He did not oppose the measure on the ground that political danger might be involved in it; but he did oppose it because the people at large would be degraded by it, and because it would arrest that action for good that had been in operation for the past 80 years. [Mr. JESSE COL-LINGS: Working cruelty.] Cruelty! The Divine Government of this world is cruel, if it is cruelty to make the people feel the consequences of their own acts, to prevent them indulging in vice and pursuing improvidence ! There was no cruelty in that. It was strength and sternness perhaps. This was not a subject upon which it was necessary only to appeal to recent experience. Juvenal had written in the same strain, as appeared from the following lines:— Monstro quod ipse tibi possis dare; semita certe Tranquillæ per virtutem patet unica vitæ. Nullum Numen abest si sit prudentia; sed te Nos facimus, Fortuna, Deam, coeloque loca-mus. If they would raise the people of this country, they must tell them that their position in the world depended on prudence, and if they had prudence they needed no other magic to improve their position. It was through that old-fashioned teaching, and that alone, that we could raise their character and position. Otherwise, we should still have this dark fringe of pauperism which had so long disgraced our land, and which for the past generation men and women had so strenuously laboured to remove. It was because he believed that the step which was now being taken, and taken apparently with a large popular support, would produce this result and bring about the fatal consequences he had apprehended, that he proposed the Amendment which stood in his name.

MR. CLARE READ

said, he desired to second the Amendment, because he believed the Bill was a direct attack upon one of the main principles of the Poor Law. The President of the Local Government Board had in the debate on the second reading referred to the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) as an ancient philosopher. The right hon. Gentleman would most probably tell him (Mr. Clare Read) that he was an antiquated farmer, because he had been all his life long engaged in the administration of the Poor Law. It was said the other day that the Poor Law of 1834 was a charitable and benevolent Act, and that it was rendered harsh and cruel by the Guardians. That Poor Law was passed to remedy a great evil, and was a just and determined effort to curtail the wave of pauperism which demoralized and damaged the country, and the principle of it was that no man should be relieved unless he was destitute. As to the Bill before the House, it was introduced at 3 o'clock in the morning, and the President of the Local Government Board gave no reason for bringing it in, but simply compared it with that of the hon. Member for Ipswich, and told the House that its scope and duration were more comprehensive. When he had ventured to move the adjournment of the debate, the hon. Member for Ipswich had denounced him as an Obstructionist. For 20 years he had been connected with the House, and this was the second time he had moved the adjournment of the debate, and he did not think he could fairly be called an Obstructionist. The hon. Member for Ipswich seemed to imagine that the overseer of the poor was intimately connected with the poor; but in these days he was nothing more or less than a rate collector. All he would know would be that such and such a man had received parochial relief, but whether that relief had been in kind, or in money, or in medicine, he would not know. The clerks of the Boards of Guardians were the only men who would know anything about the matter, and they ought to be instructed to make out the lists of these voters. This disqualification had been universal in boroughs and in counties, and no complaint had been heard until quite recently. There had hitherto been a general concurrence that no pauper should vote. Most exaggerated statements had been made as to the amount of disfranchisement that would ensue if this Bill were not passed. The junior Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had asserted that one-fourth of the new voters would be disfranchised. The hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) said one-fifth. [Mr. HORACE DAVEY: In some counties.] The hon. Member for Ipswich talked of tens of thousands. He (Mr. Clare Head) thought these estimates were very excessive. In his Union there was a population of 12,000; the paupers numbered 1,156, or 9½ per cent, and the persons who had received medical relief alone, 275, of whom 61 were men. Some of those had received it on loan, which would not disqualify them, and it might be taken that only about 4 per cent of the new voters would be affected. The sole reason given by the President of the Local Government Board for this "great and momentous change" was that the junior Member for Birmingham, had poisoned the minds of the new electors. That might be a great compliment to the junior Member for Birmingham; but it placed a distinct premium on agitation. The Bill would encourage the first step to pauperism, and would ultimately greatly increase the number of paupers in the country. It would also deal a fatal blow to benefit and medical clubs. The Pall Mall Gazette, which, until it took to writing obscene articles, was a fair exponent of the home policy of the late Government, pointed out that those who wished to increase the number of electors in the country ought to use their influence to make the people join benefit clubs, for it would keep them from resorting to parish relief. Those clubs were well within the means of the ordinary labourer. For 7s. a-year a man could secure the best doctor in the district for himself and wife, and 1s. a-year per child. He supposed that when County Boards —which would probably deal with allotments, indoor relief, and such matters—were established they would be elected by the same constituency. We should then have Parliament elected by a majority of voters who paid no direct taxes, and County Boards elected by a vast majority of voters who directly paid no rates, and with both of these there would be a fair sprinkling of paupers. Calling attention to the sudden conversion of the Government with regard to this question, he pointed out that on the 20th of May last he received a Whip, signed by Mr. Rowland Winn, asking him to support the Lords' Amendments to the Registration Bill, the chief of which was that rejecting the clause dealing with medical relief. On the 14th of July he received another Whip, which asked him to support the Bill of the Government, and he found that it was practically the clause which they had voted against when they supported the Lords' Amendments. It had been said that Lord Beaconsfield educated his Party; but he took a great many years to do it. In these days, however, they saw a much more wonderful result in the instantaneous conversion of the whole Conservative Party. A process of this kind might be understood in the case of the Liberals, as, having no fixed principles, they were converted easily; but it was much more startling when it became demonstrated in the case of the Party with which ho was associated, who usually were not so easily converted from their principles. On the 6th of May a division was taken in the House, when the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch moved what he might call this Bill. On that occasion the proposal was rejected by a majority of 68. In that majority he found these honoured and respected names—Beach, Gibson, Giffard, Hamilton, Northcote, Smith, and Stanhope, two old Whips and two new Whips of the Conservative Party; but six Tories, and two Members of the Fourth Party— that absorbed or absorbing Party—voted in the minority. On the 12th of May, after a snatch division in the House, the hon. and learned Gentleman brought forward his clause on Consideration; it was then carried by a majority of 37. In the minority he found the names of Beach, Cross, Gibson, Northcote, and Stanhope. On the 20th of May, when the Lords' Amendments were agreed to by a majority of 41, he found in that majority the names of Beach, Cross, Gibson, Northcote, Smith, and Stanhope. They had also the following Members of the late Government voting in favour of the Lords' Amendments: —the late Prime Minister, the late President of the Local Government Board, the late Vice President of the Council, the late Secretary to the Treasury, the late Secretary to the Admiralty, and the late Government Whips. He was very much astonished and surprised at the conduct of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With his great experience in the administration of the Poor Law, with his thorough and complete knowledge of the rural labourer, he believed that his right hon. Friend in his heart still thought that this was a most dangerous experiment. No doubt, this was a very good horse to ride for the next Election. He did not believe, if there had not been a General Election pending, they would have had this Bill either from the one side or the other. He deeply regretted to see that there seemed to be no steadying, no restraining, no directing power in the State. The whole duty of one Party appeared to him to consist in outbidding and overtrumping its adversaries. He should not be surprised, if the hon. Member for Ipswich were in his discretion to move that a polling booth should be placed in every workhouse, that some kind-hearted Tory would move that there should be a polling booth placed in every gaol. He would be told that such a contingency as this was absurd; but he contended that it was not much more absurd than the recent legislation which had been passed, allowing the most degraded felon outside a prison to vote, but not allowing soldiers and constables to exercise the franchise. Ho believed that neither Party had pluck enough to be honest and truthful on this matter. He said that with great respect to both Parties. It was a good election cry, no doubt; but on reading election addresses to the new electors he could not find the candidates telling the people what their responsibilities or their duties were, or even what was best for the country or for Party, but simply an at- tempt to please the populace and to gain votes. This would probably be the last time that he would have the honour of making any lengthened observations to the House. He thanked hon. Members for the undeviating courtesy and kind attention with which they had always listened to his remarks. He hoped it would not be believed that he was afraid of Tory democracy; on the contrary, he believed in it. He thought the British workman would be as good a Tory in his way as a Duke was in his; but there was something he was afraid of, and which he detested, and that was State Socialism. Because he saw in this Bill what he believed to be the advent and germ of that detested principle he had ventured to raise his voice against the measure, and he intended to give his vote in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House cannot approve of a measure which removes an incentive to independence, and fundamentally changes the principle of the Poor Law under which pauperism has steadily diminished since 1834,"—{Mr. Courtney,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. RATHBONE

said, he felt most strongly the dangers which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) and the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read); but from practical experience he did not quite agree that medical advice given to people who paid rates had necessarily the same effect as ordinary outdoor relief. In Ireland they had a very large extension of medical relief, combined with a very much more stern and very much better administration of outdoor relief than there was in this country. If the leisured classes in England had all done their duty, as they had done in the parishes which had been alluded to by the noble Lord the Member for North Derbyshire (Lord Edward Cavendish) and by his two hon. Friends opposite (Mr. Pell and Mr. Clare Read), there would be no ground for this law at all. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would revert to the proposal made in the first instance by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), and confine the measure to one or two years, and that they would appoint a really strong Committee at the commencement of next Session to inquire thoroughly how those beneficial arrangements which existed in some parts of the country might be carried out; and in case that could be done generally he believed there would be no need for continuing this Bill. He spoke as the oldest but one Guardian of perhaps the largest parish in this Kingdom, and as a Guardian who had never willingly been absent from any meeting of the Belief Committee. He wished distinctly to urge upon his hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) to join in limiting the duration of the Bill, so as to give time to inquire whether they could not provide better for the wants of poor people than by such a measure. His hon. Friend had spoken somewhat harshly of Guardians in describing them as guardians of the poor rate. He assured him that in his native town of Liverpool the Guardians had erred rather by too lax than by too stern an administration of the Poor Law. One short leaf out of the book of his own experience might be given with advantage. In Liverpool they had a great demand for the labour of men, and much less demand for the labour of women, while in the manufacturing districts the labour of women was wanted much more than the labour of men. It had seemed to him strange that Liverpool should be burdened constantly with a number of women who would be welcomed by the manufacturing districts, and so he persuaded the Guardians to induce the Charity Organization Society to have one of their Visitors in attendance at the commencement of business when new cases were considered. He also got them to go through all relief cases on the parish, and pick out the cases in which there were large families of girls who would be suitable for migration to the manufacturing districts. He then engaged a friend of his to act as his agent in the matter, and go through the manufacturing districts and establish a connection where labour was required. The Guardians induced the Charity Organization Society to take charge of widows with families of girls, and insisted that where there were openings for these women in th manufacturing districts they should either go there or be deprived of relief. In two years by that system they migrated about l,200persons from Liver-pool into the manufacturing districts, and he wished his hon. Friend to give a little notice to the results. Very few of those women ever came back to the city where they had been paupers or worse. In one family, for instance, there were five or six girls. The eldest girl had already had a child, and the second was reported to be in the same way, and the whole of these girls would have been on the town in five or 10 years; but within two years from their migration they were earning £5 a-week, and were practically removed from temptation. The Guardians by such means had converted about 1,200 people from pauperism, or the verge of pauperism, into well-doing people, and most of them in the course of a year or two were not only gaining ample wages, but had repaid the manufacturers the whole expense of their furniture, which had been advanced, and the whole cost of that, beyond the salary of his agent, was under £40.

MR. SPEAKER

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the subject before the House is medical relief disqualification. The hon. Member seems to be going into the general subject of Poor Law administration.

MR. RATHBONE

said, what he was wishing to point out was the danger of a lax administration of medical relief. The effect of removing the 1,200 people to whom he had referred, and some of whom had been in receipt of medical or other relief, was that in two years the position of those remaining was so improved that it was difficult to get a charwoman at 1s. 6d. a-day. He was replying to the statement made in the course of the debate that the Guardians were hard-hearted in their administration of the Poor Law, and ho used this case as an analogy. He thought that if his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney) was right in pointing out the dangers of the system of relief, he was not going beyond the province of debate in showing that it was not hard-hearted to insist, as the Guardians in Liverpool had done, on removing those women, but that they were really doing a benefit to the working classes. What he wanted to urge on the Government and on his hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) was that they should not plunge at once into this question irrevocably, but that they should pass the Bill for only two years, and that the Go- vernment in power should at the commencement of next Session appoint a really strong Committee to inquire into the whole subject and see whether the working classes in all districts could not be placed in a position in which they were not yet placed in some districts, so as to provide medical relief for themselves without a greater amount of self-control than they could be fairly expected to exercise in all circumstances.

SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY

said, he should support the Bill. He maintained that the population of large towns had the advantage of hospitals and dispensaries, assistance from which, as long as they were not connected with parochial relief, did not imply any disqualification. This was not the case in country districts. In these circumstances, he looked upon the Bill before the House as a fair and righteous complement to the recent Act extending the household franchise to counties, and he hoped it would become law.

MR. BRYCE

said, he thought that the whole matter was one not of theory, but of experience; and he would ask the House to see exactly where the path would lead them upon which they were now entering. It had been the Liberal Party who had passed the new Poor Law Act of 1834, and who had supported the reforms it introduced against the constant opposition of the Tory Party, who had endeavoured to break down the administration of the Poor Law and bring back the old system of outdoor relief, partly, no doubt, from a charitable sentiment which did credit to their hearts if not to their heads, but largely also because they did not object to keeping the agricultural labourers in a condition of dependence. The motive which now induced the Tory Party to bring in this Bill was not merely a wish to outbid the hon. Member for Ipswich, but also a notion that the poorest class of voters, being most dependent on the squire, would be most likely to vote with the squire. He believed that the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) was correct, and that this Bill would increase the number of voters for the Conservative Party. Those who received medical relief were those who were most likely to come under the influence of intimidation, of money, or of the administrators of the poor rate itself. He had listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and he had wondered what arguments a person of his cultivated mind would be able to bring forward in favour of a Bill of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman had brought forward two arguments. In the first place, he had argued that the number of voters added by the Bill would be very small. For his own part, he thought that that seemed an argument rather the other way. If the persons affected were few, there was all the less reason why the House should sacrifice a valuable principle. The right hon. Gentleman also used another argument, that the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had so poisoned the consciences of the people that it was no use to appeal to them any more. His right hon. Friend would probably not cease to apply poison of that kind, when ho found how it affected the action of the Ministry, but would be encouraged to do so more. They had heard much lately of schemes for the nationalization of the land and progressive taxation of landed property. Why should not the President of the Local Government Board say there was no use in defending property anymore? But the argument most frequently used was, that the principle involved in the Bill had been conceded when the fees of poor parents, whose children were sent to school under the Act of 1870, were paid for them, and the provision inserted that such payment should not disqualify the parent for the suffrage. No doubt, we did pay the fees; but the reason of that was because we had made education compulsory, and we had thrown a new duty on the parent which, unless the fees were paid, he might not be able to discharge—that of sending his child to school. But inasmuch as we did not leave the parent to his own choice, he did not think we could be said to have conceded the principle of the Bill when we provided that the payment of school fees should not disqualify. But this case was an instance of the way in which political decadence proceeded from step to step. In 1870 no one argued for more than the particular point then raised. Now the instance of school fees was relied on to justify a further step in the direction of admitting to the suffrage persons who received public aid, and, probably, before long, having admitted that medical relief was no disqualification, we should be told that the receipt of Poor Law relief in any form should be no disqualification. Did his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich think that the receipt of any form of Poor Law relief ought to be a disqualification? [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: I said nothing about it.] His hon. Friend might have said nothing about it, but what did he think about it? For they knew that what the hon. Member for Ipswich thought to-day the President of the Local Government Board would think to-morrow. He challenged his hon. Friend to deny that he held that the receipt of ordinary outdoor relief ought not to disqualify. If this Bill passed, there would be a considerable increase in the number of voters whose interest it was to have a lax administration of the Poor Law. He asked the House to pause before it took a step of that kind. In the United States—and no country could be more consistent in carrying out democratic principles—-there was a considerable number of States the Constitutions of which declared that no person in receipt of Poor Law relief should have a vote. A great deal had been said about taxation and representation. We had lost our 13 Colonies in North America because we had insisted on taxing thorn without giving them representation. But now we were reversing the principle; we were giving representation without taxation. He had no fear of universal suffrage; but he had great fear of giving political power to those who were pensioners of the State and dependent on the rates for support. He had been a Representative of a popular constituency for five years. In that constituency the vast majority of the voters were working men, and during all those five years he had never heard a complaint of the disqualification in question, although the statistics produced by the Local Government Board showed that more persons received medical relief in the towns than in the country. He believed that we were perfectly safe in the hands of the working men, and during the five years he had represented his present constituency he had learnt more and more to respect and admire the working classes of this country. And why? Because ho recognized in them a spirit of self-help and independence. He never heard in his constituency a word said against the strict administration of the Poor Law which had been lately introduced into the East End of London, and which had done so much good there, because the working classes knew that such an administration was for the real advantage of the poor. He believed that self-help, thrift, providence, independence, were the most valuable possessions the working men could have, and were even more valuable than the possession of a vote, and he therefore urged the House to pause before it passed a measure tending to impair those qualities. For the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Ipswich something might be said. It was meant to meet the case of persons taken by surprise—disqualified because they had not known of the rule that medical relief involved disqualification—-and he should have hesitated before voting against it. There was also a great deal to be said in the ease of persons applying for medical relief when attacked by infectious diseases, because the State obliged people in such cases to obtain medical relief, so that the acceptance was not their voluntary act, but that of the law. But the present Bill went far beyond the case of persons surprised, far beyond the case of infectious diseases; it was a bold and reckless bid for popularity, and the Government were apparently resolved to secure this popularity, be the consequences to the country what they might. Ho regretted that the decision come to by repeated majorities in that House should now be reversed, and he only hoped he might be mistaken in predicting unfortunate results from the step which the House was taking with so light a heart.

SIR FREDERICK MILNER

said, that after the speeches which the House had heard he could not help feeling that in supporting the measure of the Government they undertook a very serious responsibility. The hon. Members for West Norfolk and South Leicestershire and Liskeard were famous for the firmness with which they expressed their convictions upon all topics. They spoke from the heart their honest convictions, regardless of their own or their Party's interests. It seemed a curious thing that politicians who differed so very much as the Member for Liskeard and the Members on the Government side of the House who had opposed this Bill should be found agreeing upon this very important question, the whole history of which, showed the grave danger of pursuing important subjects for the sake of making Party capital rather than in the interests of the questions themselves. The intemperate and unscrupulous speeches made outside the House, and especially by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), had raised passions which should never have been stirred up, and which had prevented the question being discussed impartially. The hon. Member for West Norfolk bad been rather severe in pointing out the inconsistencies of the Government Bench on this subject. When the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. H. Davey) brought forward this Amendment it was opposed by the late Government, chiefly because it ought not to have been brought forward at that time. The question then being discussed was the Registration of Voters Bill, and the contention of the Government was that the question of medical relief disqualification did not arise upon the discussion of that Bill. It was, however, true that the late Attorney General went out of his way to say he did oppose the clause on principle. He (Sir Frederick Milner) had noticed that no Member on the Front Government Bench took part in that discussion, and the only Conservative Member who spoke was the hon. Member for Portsmouth Sir Henry Drummond Wolff), who spoke in favour of the Amendment. He might therefore assume that the present Government supported the late Government on that occasion on the ground that the question ought not to have been brought forward on the Registration Bill. Hon. Members opposite were delighted with the very witty way in which the hon. Member for West Norfolk pointed out the inconsistencies of Her Majesty's Advisers; but he did not think they could deny that the inconsistencies of the late Government exceeded those of the present. It was most remarkable how the hon. Member for Liskeard had at one time been supported by Representatives of all sections of that Party which sought to find shelter under that umbrella which was so graphically described by Lord Rose- bery at Edinburgh. The clause disqualifying voters through receiving medical relief was originally introduced by the Liberal Government of 1832 into the law of the land, and since that time it had remained on the Statute Book with hardly any protest against it. It was true that 10 years ago the hon. Member who then represented Liverpool did call attention to the subject, and moved that the clause should be omitted, because he thought that it inflicted great hardship, and that at any rate it ought to be provided that medical relief for infectious or contagious diseases should not disqualify. It had been argued by the junior Member for Birmingham that the grave importance of this question was never brought home to Her Majesty's Government until the Registration Bill had gone to the House of Lords; but, as pointed out by the hon. Member for West Norfolk, as long ago as the 19th of June, 1884, the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. Commins) brought forward an Amendment that medical relief should not disqualify a voter and went at some length into the question. The President of the Local Government complimented the hon. Member on the clear statement he had put before the Committee, and went on to say that he considered that if this Amendment were adopted it would strike a very heavy blow at all friendly societies. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the hon. Member should alter his Amendment so as to provide that no person who received medical relief for himself or his family for infectious or contagious diseases should be deemed to be disqualified as a voter, and he further recommended the hon. Member to include a provision allowing a man to send a child to an asylum without becoming disqualified. The right hon. Gentleman stated that if these Amendments were not accepted he must oppose the Amendment as it stood, and he went so far as to persuade the hon. Member not only to withdraw his clause but to allow it to be negatived so that it could not be reintroduced. Ever since that time, whenever this proposal was brought forward, it received uncompromising opposition from Her Majesty's late Government, and until the measure went up to the House of Lords that state of things continued. He, therefore, did not think any hon. Member opposite could have any justification in sneering at Her Majesty's present Government for having changed its mind. It was evident, from what the late Prime Minister had said in reply to a Question, that he was in agreement with the late Attorney General, and that if he had been in the House he would have opposed the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Christ-church (Mr. H. Davey), and therefore it was pretty clear that all sections of the House had been bitterly opposed at one time or another to that Amendment. He joined issue with the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), when he said he had never voted for the Disqualifying Clause. Every time the right hon. Gentleman voted for the Bill he voted for the Disqualifying Clause which was contained in the Bill. It was, therefore, a most extraordinary thing that the right hon. Gentleman had never before last week raised his voice in the House as to the injustice of the clause. It might be asked why, as both sides of the House had at one time or another opposed the Bill, he himself intended to vote for it? Well, he confessed that his reason was a more or less sentimental one. He could not help feeling that if a felon who had been discharged from gaol was to have the privilege of a vote it would be rather hard that an honest poor man, who only received temporary relief during sickness, should not be allowed the same privilege. He did not think that if the Bill were passed it would prevent a working man continuing to subscribe to clubs which would give him assistance in distress or when he was out of work; it was, in his opinion, a mistake to make a man a pauper who only received temporary relief. Some distinction ought to be made between a man who was in receipt of regular relief and a man who only received temporary relief in times of sickness. At the same time, the question was one which ought to be discussed on its merits; and if hon. Members considered there was any weight in the eloquent arguments of the hon. Member for Liskeard and the hon. Member for West Norfolk, they ought not to be influenced by any Party motive in registering their votes. If they thought that by passing the measure they would be setting a dangerous precedent, and would be adding to the pauperism of the country, they ought, regardless of consequences, to register their votes against the measure.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he considered that the main question at issue was whether the person who received medical relief was or was not a pauper. He denied that the receipt of such relief made any man a pauper any more than his participation in the numerous charities organized for the benefit of the poorer classes. There was, in fact, no distinction between the two. A man might receive such relief and yet be perfectly solvent. What was the difference between the case of a man who received medical relief and the case of one who was given soup or wine by the squire or the clergyman of the parish? The receipt of relief was said to be demoralizing; but it was not so demoralizing as getting into debt, and when poor people obtained the assistance of a doctor they often ran up bills which they could hardly hope to be ever able to pay. He personally knew of a case in which a girl ran up a bill of £19 when her annual salary was only £10, and of another in which a man whose weekly receipts amounted only to 18s. found himself indebted to a doctor to the extent of £32. He was perfectly satisfied with the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Ipswich; but as the Government had taken the matter up he was ready to accept their Bill, believing it was a fair and equitable measure.

MR. HALSEY

said, be must congratulate the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) on his return to his allegiance to the doctrines of political economy, which he had been compelled to abjure when a Member of the late Government. He (Mr. Halsey) had always been in favour of the principle of the Bill, and if he had been in his place when the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) introduced his Amendment on the Redistribution Bill he should certainly have supported him. He supported the Bill because it appeared to him that medical relief stood on a totally different footing to any other form of relief. It might be necessitated, in some instances, by improvidence; but in the majority of cases illness came upon people suddenly, often at most difficult times, and its pressure was not unfrequently felt most severely by persons far higher in the social scale than agricultural labourers. Apart from a man's duty to his family, there was a duty that he owed to the public to prevent the spread of sickness; and, therefore, it seemed to him absolutely to the public advantage that no discouragement should be placed in the way of poor persons who applied for medical relief. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire had said that the qualification for admission to an infirmary was not destitution; but in his neighbourhood there was a hospital which was intended entirely for the destitute poor. They had heard a great deal also about the clubs and friendly societies, and they had been told that the passing of this Bill would discourage such institutions. He did not, however, anticipate anything of that sort, and he believed that all the more provident and well-to-do people would continue to use them. Many poor persons of the older generation had been regular subscribers to these clubs, but when the pinch came they found that the clubs having been established on a rotten footing all their money was gone. Surely such men ought not to be classed with the habitual and improvident paupers, because when overtaken by sickness they applied to the parish doctor for relief. They had given a large and extended measure of enfranchisement to the people, and it would be a very invidious thing to strike out a few of these poor people because from no fault of their own they had been compelled to apply for relief to the parish doctor. Were this disqualification persisted in, it would work most unequally, as in many districts the absence of a club or a dispensary would deprive a man of his vote, while in other districts no such thing would happen. The case of those who supported the Bill was far stronger than any that could be stated by those who favoured the principle of non-disqualification in consequence of the payment of school fees, a principle which already had the sanction of the law. He thought it most invidious to take the vote away from a few poor people on whom misfortune had suddenly fallen. Since the criminal was not denied his vote he did not see why the man who accepted medical relief should be disqualified. The arguments in favour of this Bill were quite overwhelming; and, in spite of the speeches of the hon. Member for Ipswich and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, which tended to sow ill-will between class and class, he should give his vote in favour of going into Committee on the Bill.

DR. FARQUHARSON

said, it was fortunate that this Bill had a strong backing out-of-doors; because, if they were to judge from what had taken place in that House as well as in the other House of Parliament on previous occasions, he thought there was little chance of it passing into law. This question, however, had got far beyond the abstract and rigid lines of political economy. The people of this country, now thoroughly aroused, were determined that they would not be disfranchised in any large numbers because they or their families had received temporary or medical aid. He looked upon medical relief of this sort as totally different from ordinary Poor Law relief. In listening to the debate that evening he found himself compelled to say that he much preferred that the House should come back to the original Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Ipswich, to whom he paid a tribute for industry and unflinching courage throughout the contest. As, however, it was intended to extend its operation, he would vote for the Bill rather than that there should be no Bill at all. He was opposed, however, to the proposal which the hon. Member intended to move in Committee, that medical comforts should be included with medical aid without disqualification. To do that it seemed to him would be introducing a large pauperizing element. He maintained that Poor Law relief, as generally understood, was essentially different in its character from medical relief; medical relief was different on account of the sudden, unexpected form of the emergency which it implied. He asked the House to consider the case of a bread-winner of a family meeting with a sudden accident, or the case of a wife struck down with sudden illness. The family had found it difficult to make both ends meet, and this blow, so unexpected, made it impossible for them to do anything on their own account to meet the difficulty. It might be said that the man ought to have been provident; but he could not very well be so on 10s. or 12s. a-week. The parish doctor was called in and attended to a family of this kind, and the man found, by the action of his wife and quite unknown to him, that he had been disqualified from exercising the franchise. This he considered to be a case of great hardship. It was most desirable, in the interests of the public health, that people should, on the first symptoms of illness, obtain medical aid in order that if they were threatened with infectious disease it might be properly treated and not allowed to spread. He wished, therefore, to ask whether any man who in such a case was sent by a parochial order to a hospital for infectious diseases, which was supported by the State, would necessarily be disfranchised under the existing law on account of being admitted to such an institution? He did not think he would; but the idea was widely prevalent among poor people that it was a disqualification. The great argument in favour of this Bill was, in his view, that as they were now introducing a large number of new electors into the constituencies they should all be allowed to start fair; and while he, therefore, sincerely hoped that the measure would be passed into law, he expressed his regret that its provisions were not to be temporary in their character.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

observed, that if he might offer a criticism upon the speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard he should say it was too big for the occasion. The occasion, he thought, did not call for such panic-stricken prophesies as those which his hon. Friend had indulged in with reference to the passing of that Bill. For himself, he regarded that as a very modest measure, and he saw nothing in it which could possibly have the effect which his hon. Friend had apprehended in the way of relaxing the administration of the Poor Law. He knew that in the country districts great strides had been made in reducing the numbers of persons who brought themselves under the Poor Law, and he rejoiced that it was so. He believed that the Poor Law had been the greatest curse to this country of any law that was ever passed. But ho took things as they were, because as practical politicians they had to regard the existing order of things, and to regulate their political conduct in accordance with it. His hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard had deseribed in glowing language the evils of the Poor Law system before 1834, and they had also been warned against State Socialism; but he denied that either the state of the Poor Law before the year 1834, or the subject of State Socialism, had anything whatever to do with the question now before the House. His hon. Friend was not very sparing in lecturing the supporters of that measure as to medical relief. The mildest thing he could find to say of them was that they were guilty of immoral thoughtlessness and levity. For himself, he did not feel entitled to use language of that kind towards those who did not agree with him. In the controversies he had to wage in daily life he allowed that those who differed from him were at least as honest as he was himself, and as anxious to form a fair opinion as he desired to be thought to be. The House would recollect the epithet which which Mr. Disraeli, in one of his happiest moments, applied to his hon. Friend's Predecessor in the representation of Liskeard (Mr. Horsman), calling him "a superior person." Neither his hon. Friend nor the hon. Member for West Norfolk had dealt with the practical considerations which attended that question. He did not remember either of those Gentlemen rising in his place when the Irish Registration Bill was under discussion and protesting against the introduction into the Irish Registration Bill of a clause based on precisely the same principle as that on which the present Bill was founded. Neither his hon. Friend nor any other hon. Member had even attempted to justify such an anomaly as that. It might have been quite wrong to have passed such a clause in the Irish Registration Bill; but if the hon. Member for Liskeard apprehended such disastrous and revolutionary consequences from the present Bill he ought to have risen in his place when the Irish Registration Bill was before them and pointed out the abyss into which the House was hurrying. In his opinion the speech of the hon. Member came a little late. The House was aware that, under the Education Act, if a person were too poor to pay for the education of his children, the Board of Guardians had power to pay the school pence for him, so that his children should not be do- prived of public elementary education. That Act expressly enacted that such acceptance of school fees should not deprive the recipient of his right of franchise. What was the difference between this educational relief and medical relief? He should have liked to have heard what the hon. Member for Liskeard had to say upon that question. The speech of the hon. Member would have been more useful if delivered on an earlier occasion, or if the hon. Member had condescended to step down from his position of lofty contempt for his opponents and to grapple with the question in a practical matter. No attention had been paid to the particular circumstances of this case. There were a number of new electors for the first time to be placed on the register, and this disqualification would not be one which existed, but would only be imported into their case. It would be annexing a condition to the franchise which would have the effect of disappointing men who had been led by Members on both sides of the House to expect and believe that they would be invested with the franchise. He had not had time to scrutinize the figures laid before the House by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board; but, accepting them as correct, they did not really displace the estimate which he had ventured to lay before them on a former occasion. He had said that he had been informed that in some parts of the country—as, for instance, in Somersetshire—the effect of maintaining this disqualification on the ground of acceptance of medical relief would be to deprive one-fifth of the new voters of their franchise. From inquiries which he had since made he believed that that estimate was not inaccurate. The number of persons disqualified was estimated by the right hon. Gentleman as 2.5 per 1,000 of the whole population. The effect of that disqualification was unevenly spread over the whole country; for instance, in Somerset, Dorset, and probably in Hampshire, it was larger than in the Midland or Northern counties, where the people were better off. Then, of course, they had to remember that a large number were not voters; the average of voters to population being about one-seventh or one-eighth, many of whom were out of the way of temptation or necessity for medical relief. Altogether he was not prepared to say that the estimate which he had formed, that in some parts of the country about one-fifth of the new voters would be disqualified, was very far wrong. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read)—whose declaration that this was probably the last occasion on which he would address the House was received with universal regret—had left out of account one important fact, and that was that the disqualification would operate most unfairly in the rural districts, where, broadly speaking, there were no public charities such as existed to a very great extent in large towns, where a man might receive relief J in almost every way without being disqualified from voting. He could not understand the justice of the proposal that a man should lose his franchise who, living in a town, obtained medical relief, whereas a man who resided in the country might spend six months in the county infirmary and yet be free to exercise his franchise the moment he came out. The main argument which had been used against this Bill was that it would tend to develop pauperism. If he thought that would be the effect of it he would not support it; but he did not believe it would have any such effect. He had not heard from any hon. Member what change it was expected, or was feared, would be made in the administration of the Poor Law in consequence of the passing of this Bill. He had been very much struck by the statistics which had been quoted by the hon. Member for West Norfolk, to the effect that the amount of medical relief received in the country districts was much smaller than that received in the towns. The inference that he drew from those figures was that while in the towns, where the population had already enjoyed the franchise, and where this disqualification had existed ever since the passing of the Reform Act of 1832, that disqualification had not acted as a deterrent against persons receiving medical relief, in the country places where the labourers had not been in possession of the franchise they had exercised prudence and thrift, and had, in very few instances, resorted to the parish for medical relief. In these circumstances, he did not anticipate that any great change in the administration of the Poor Law would result from the passing of this measure. He congratulated the country on the decline of pauperism, but he failed to trace that decline to the existence of this disqualification. He thought that decline was the result of the improvement in the condition of the people, caused by the increased cheapness of food and clothing, which had been of such enormous benefit to the working classes of the country. He should have anticipated that the possession of the votes would be the means of educating the people, and that, so far from lowering their self-respect and inducing them to seek parochial assistance where it was not necessary, the result would be exactly the contrary. For his own part, he did not think the man who, by casual misfortune, was compelled to accept parochial medical relief of a temporary character ought to be classed as a pauper and with those who habitually lived upon the rates. He desired, in conclusion, to express his personal gratification at the frank and candid way in which this measure had been taken up by the Government. He should be sorry to say one word that would embarrass the Government in dealing with it; and while he congratulated the House upon the progress made in the matter, he rejoiced in the belief that the measure was on a fair way to success.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, he was not surprised at the tone of jubilation in which the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke, since it was he who had first raised this subject, and his views were now prevailing. He (Mr. J. G. Talbot) found it impossible to change his opinions on this matter within a month; and having within that period voted against the proposal to remove this disqualification, he found himself unable to support the Government on the present occasion. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had based this Bill to some extent on the principle of equality as between dwellers in towns and rural districts. But why should they follow bad examples? It was found that there was a larger percentage of pauperism in the towns than in the rural districts. They should level up and not down, and should try and bring the people of the towns up to the same level of independence and self-reliance as the people of the rural districts. It bad been said that the people of the towns had hospitals to go to, whereas the rural inhabitants had not; but if this argument went to anything, it went to this—that indoor paupers in workhouse infirmaries ought to be allowed to vote, for the workhouse infirmaries were somewhat analogous to town hospitals. Were they prepared to set up a polling station in each workhouse? The Bill proposed to make it no disqualification to receive "medical or surgical assistance;" but those words would not cover the nourishing food which generally followed the medical assistance, and notwithstanding the Bill, very many "capable citizens" would still find themselves disqualified. If this Bill were to pass, whenever the question of free education came to be discussed, it would be found that they had been giving the vote to those who were directly interested in receiving education at the public expense. The Bill would also have this absurd result—that while the man who received assistance out of the rates was allowed to vote, the man who was late in contributing his amount to the rates would be disqualified. It would strike a great blow at the friendly and provident societies, as the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) had pointed out in a speech he made last year. He had received a letter from a gentleman of great Poor Law experience, who said that much mischief would be caused if the disqualification was done away with, and that it was impossible, in his opinion, to make a distinction between medical and other Poor Law relief. Poor Law relief would go in aid of wages, and that would tend to bring wages down. He could not conclude without saying how very much he regretted the position of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. His right hon. Friend, he was sure, had a great future before him; but let him urge him not to sully it by a departure from the great principles of political economy. He had one poor consolation, and it was this—that if he could poll the occupants of the Treasury Bench by some form of secret voting, he thought that they would vote with him rather than with his right hon. Friend.

MR. D. GRANT

said, he held that there was a great difference between the man who accepted medical relief and the man who accepted parochial relief. If in the towns they had hospitals where men were entitled to receive relief with- out losing the right to vote, why should they put the population of the country to a disadvantage by retaining the disqualification? When a man got ordinary poor relief, he felt that he was a constant burden on the community. But a man might have been so healthy all his life as never to require medical relief, and yet an accident might befall him. In such a case he would feel that he was entitled to medical relief. This was a question which affected the whole mass of the people. Men said that they had received from the Legislature the right of voting; and why should that be given with one hand which was taken away with the other? There were some things upon which it was a point of wisdom to yield, and this was one of them. He was inclined to believe that the good that would be done would far out value the little evil.

VISCOUNT EMLYN

said, that there was one part of the speech of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) which must have been heard with regret. It was when the hon. Member hinted that the next Parliament would lose what this Parliament had to a great extent appreciated—namely, the strong common sense, the manly eloquence, and the independence which the hon. Gentleman had exhibited. But the hon. Member, while strong in his own independence, was a little hard on the independence of others. The hon. Member seemed to think that those who differed from him must have lost their independence. Now, he claimed for himself that he had been independent since he had had the honour of a seat in that House. The hon. Member for West Norfolk told them that upon questions upon which he did not possess information he followed his Party, but upon questions which he understood he gave an independent vote. He claimed for himself the same credit. But the question was whether Her Majesty's Government, under all the circumstances of the case, were justified in their action or not. He would ask the hon. Member for West Norfolk, as an independent Member, as a man who always acted as he thought right, whether this question was so entirely free from complication as he seemed to suppose? Was it not a fact that it was hampered and encumbered by the circumstance that they had broken in upon the principle which the hon. Gentleman advocated? In Ireland they had practically scattered this principle to the wind. He would like to know whether the hon. Member would undertake, were he a responsible Minister, to go to any English, Welsh, or Scotch constituency, and tell thorn that while in Ireland a man who got medical relief did not lose his vote, anyone in England, Wales, or Scotland who got medical relief should lose it? Were the Bill not to become law, great inequalities would in future exist. In one parish there would be a club, and the men belonging to it would get their medical attendance and retain their vote; in the next parish there would be no club, and the labourers would consequently be compelled to apply for medical relief to the Guardians, and so they would lose their votes. He asked the House whether that would be fair? Certain hon. Members who had taken part in the debate seemed to think that when this Bill was passed a great and a radical change would come over the administration of medical relief. They seemed to think that there would be an influx of applicants for medical relief, and that the Guardians who had to administer it would change their system of administration from the very root. He, however, believed that none of those things would take place. A man who found himself in want of relief was not likely to be deterred from asking for it because its acceptance would disqualify him, nor was he likely to demand it be-cause its acceptance would have no such effect. In fact, the question of the effect of an application for relief upon his electoral rights was not likely to trouble the mind of a man who had a cherished wife or child laid low by illness. It would be desirable to guard against establishing a precedent for the enfranchisement of all recipients of outdoor relief; and they would do well, therefore, to define distinctly what they meant by medical relief. In many cases medical officers ordered food for their patients. Was this food to be included in the meaning of the words "medical relief?" In his opinion, the meaning ought to be confined to articles provided for distinctly medical purposes. He admitted that he disliked the principle embodied in the Bill; but he recognized that had he been placed in the position in which those who had to deal with this subject found themselves, he would not have acted differently for them; and, therefore, he felt bound to record his vote in favour of the Bill.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, that probably the House would expect him to give some explanation of the vote which he was about to record, and would think him wanting in moral courage if he were to abstain from voting or to give a silent vote. He was about to vote against the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), and he was aware that he must explain his conduct, having regard to the course which he had taken on a previous occasion. The question before the House was first raised on the Registration Bill, which it was his duty to carry through the House within a certain time. Perhaps he was over-anxious about the performance of his task; but his desire was, in order that the Bill might be passed, and that those who had to perform the duties of registration might have sufficient time in. which to fulfil them, to shut out any Amendment not directly bearing upon the provisions of the measure. The Amendment relating to the subject of medical relief appeared to him to be hardly germane to the Bill, as it was concerned with a matter relating to enfranchisement and not to registration. As he stated on the second occasion when the subject came before the House, the desire which ho had expressed of shutting out the Amendment was not shared by his Colleagues. Reference had been made to the fact that the Government opposed the Amendment to abolish medical relief disqualification when the Registration Bill came down from the House of Lords; but it would be remembered that if the Lords' Amendment had not been accepted, the Bill could not have been passed before Whitsuntide, and registration would have become almost impossible. What had happened since his first opinion on the subject was made known? The question, the House would remember, was first discussed in Committee on May 6, and then the attention of the country was directed to the matter. The electors treated it as a great question, and within a week much information which was quite new to them reached many hon. Members. In the Reform Bill of 1832 no one proposed that parochial relief should disqualify in counties. It might be that one of the reasons which led to that was the difference between medical relief in the counties and the boroughs. It was not till 1867—and then the question was brought forward in the House of Lords —that parochial relief was made a disqualification in boroughs. Since the question was first discussed information had reached Members of the House which determined many of them to vote in favour of the Bill. It became known that this question was being used as a weapon of disqualification, and that in counties medical relief was not only being granted, but was pressed upon people in order that they might be disqualified from the franchise. [Cheers, and"No, no!"] But even if this information were incorrect, the fact that such a weapon might be used would make Members very careful how they voted against such a measure. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had said that no candidate would venture, or would be wise to avow himself an opponent of the Bill. The real question was whether they should accept the Bill now or in the month of February or March next. Did anyone believe that the arguments of his hon. Friend who opposed the Bill would prevail upon a political platform? No one now desired that parochial relief, apart from medical relief, should not disqualify. But how was that principle endangered if this Bill should be thrown out? The question would be brought for decision before the worst possible judges of such a question. It would become a political instead of an economical question. It would be the candidates who would have to decide, under the pressure of their constituents, whether they would support enfranchisement for those who had received general parochial relief; and in 99 cases out of 100 they would yield to the pressure and promise to support a larger measure, enfranchising even those who had received other than medical relief. Thus this question, which in a Registration Bill was one of comparatively small importance, had become a burning question in the country, and, if this Bill were rejected, would become still more prominent. While that was the case, could those economical principles prevail which the hon. Member had so strongly supported, or would they not rather be endangered in fighting the tattle through an appeal to the constituencies? They were choosing an unfavourable ground for the contest, and had better deal with it at once in this House rather than on electioneering platforms. There was, besides, a great difference between the two kinds of relief. A person who received general relief was known to be a pauper; but not so in respect of medical relief—it might be afforded to his family, and its receipt did not mark him as a pauper. Beyond all questions of foreign and domestic policy this matter of medical relief was agitating the agricultural labourers. The sooner, therefore, it was got out of the way the better. His hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had deprecated the treatment of this subject with levity. He agreed with his hon. Friend; and it was because he desired to get it out of the area of political partizanship that he urged with all earnestness that it should be disposed of without delay. His hon. Friend had said that rival candidates would compete for popularity on this question. He hoped that there were Representatives who would not compete in such a bad course; but he was entitled, in reply to his hon. Friend, to ask who had created this question? It appeared to him that the electors of the country had virtually created it, and were insisting upon its solution. In his opinion, this measure having become a political question, it was necessary to judge it from that point of view, and political considerations must prevail. The hon. Member for Liskeard said he did not care how many persons were disfranchised by the present law or given the franchise by the Bill; but he would submit that that was one of the most important points which had to be considered in connection with the Bill.

MR. PELL

observed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken rested his whole argument upon one ground only—that of expediency. He did not say that the reasons put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman were bad; but this he did say—that they were most ably put forward, and would carry conviction if anything could do so. It had been urged that the disqualification which existed in respect of medical relief could be made use of to disqualify electors. He thought it more likely that some of those gentlemen who were always ready to do a good act on the eve of a General Election would come forward in those cases where from sheer necessity a really capable citizen was likely to be disqualified and prevent his vote from being lost. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had made some distinction between parochial and medical relief; but ho would remind him that a person must be a pauper in law before he could get medicine from the parish. He believed that the form of relief under the Poor Law known as medical relief was more frequently granted by Boards of Guardians in times of prosperity than in times of depression. In 1872 this country was going through such good times that it was really demoralized, yet at that time there were 695,000 outdoor paupers in England and Wales. In 1884, a year of great depression, outdoor pauperism had declined to 512,000, or a reduction of 183,000 upon the figures of 1872. To show the difference between the condition of the country in 1875 and 1882, it was sufficient to say that in the former year Schedule D of the Income Tax for England and Wales was returned at £230,000,000, while in the latter year it was only about the same amount. He thought, therefore, that there was good proof that the demand for parish assistance was not the result of poverty and bad times so much as of a weak and vicious system of administration of the Poor Law, which encouraged persons to throw themselves upon the rates. It had been argued that because a concession had been made to Ireland the same ought to be extended to England in regard to outdoor medical relief. Nothing in the history of Ireland or in the history of the legislation of the late Government with respect to that country could be more deplorable than the enormous increase of pauperism, to which the recent administration of the law in that country had led. In 1878 the number of outdoor paupers in Ireland was only 35,500; in 1884 the number had swelled to 58,000. Was that the country, he asked, where we were to look for an illustration in respect to the administration of the Poor Law? What had been its effect on Ireland? Ireland was more pauperized at the present time than it had been since 1874. The charge on the people in respect of pauperism in Ireland was 3s. 5d. in 1874; in 1884 the charge amounted to a poll tax of 4s. 9d. He maintained they could not find any encouragement from such an illustration as this. On the Front Ministerial Bench were sitting men who had advocated the imposition of a duty on the food of the poor; but it was a far more terrible thing to have for loaders men who advocated dear bread and pills for nothing. He thought it would be a wiser course to keep up the constitution of the poor man by plenty of wholesome food, and think of the medicine afterwards. It would be better also to maintain consistency on this subject of taxing food, and to retain the advantage derived from Free Trade, leaving the question of medical relief to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Col-lings). The principle of this question had never been more clearly enunciated than in 1834, when the House of Commons consisted, in a large degree, of wealthy men, who represented the people in a very inadequate manner. It was because those great men adhered to those principles, were guided by them, would not deviate from them, and trusted to them, that in the end, after many years of conflict, they were enabled to carry that great measure of the Poor Law, and to earn for themselves the gratitude and respect of men like himself, who did not entirely agree with them in general politics. It had been said that the men who had opposed this proposal would be nowhere at the Election. Well, he was consistent at any rate, and he would rather die consistent than vote for a Bill that was only intended to catch votes. He read to the House some words written by Sir George Nicholls on this question. He said the condition of the paupers ought to be less eligible than that of the independent labourer. They were going to make this condition, by such a measure as this, just as eligible in point of voting as that of the independent labourer. The hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) had asserted that this disqualification as regarded counties was created by statute in 1867. He believed this was not the case. Hon. Members, if they cared to inquire into this subject, would find that as early as 1795, in the course of a debate, Mr. Fox stated that by the Common Law of England no pauper could exercise the franchise. He believed it was utterly incorrect to say, as had been said that evening, that large numbers of the new constituencies would be disqualified by this form of relief; but if it be true that large numbers of electors would be disqualified to vote by the receipt of medical relief, then, he said, there was all the greater reason, in his opinion, for not altering the law as it at present stood. He had received that morning a letter from a clergyman, who wrote thus— Will it help you to have my experience as chairman for many years of a rural Board of Guardians, and one who has not played at the work? I have no hesitation in saying that medical relief is not only the most dangerous form of relief (everyone knows that), but also the most unnecessary. In this district—and it is, or ought to he, the case everywhere—medical clubs are within the reach and within the means of all, and are made use of by all who have any regard for their own independence. Those only neglect to do so who are neglectful about everything—namely, the 'shacks.' One of them said the other day to a doctor in this district—' Good times for your clubs now, doctor; we shall all have to join or we shall lose our votes.' During the last five years the average number of persons who received medical relief in this Union has been one in every 2,000; and during the last half year only two in 13.000. As a rule, only the 'shacks' applied to us for medical relief, and they get it only when we are unable to move them to the house. And those are they whose political independence Parliament is so anxious to protect. What a farce it is, and yet what a mischievous farce! Medical clubs—indirectly, all benefit clubs— discouraged; those of us who have been at some pains and incurred no little odium in the endeavour to teach wholesome principles slapped in the face; and the distinction between a man who is fit to exercise a vote and a man who is not obliterated. If this is not doing the Devil's work what is? I have always advocated the extension of the franchise; but if this is the first fruits of it, and if, in consequence of it, only 20 men can be found in the House of Commons with courage enough to vote for the unpopular right, the prospect is gloomy. Now, he hoped that they would have an opportunity that night of again recording their votes on that question, and he trusted that the opponents of the Bill would find their numbers increased and not decreased in the division.

MR. LEWIS

said, that at that late hour of the evening (12 o'clock) it was impossible to ask for the attention of the House while he recounted over again all the various arguments which had been used against this Bill; but he wished to call attention to one particular point connected with it which, had not yet received due attention at the hands of the House. That became the more important after the speech which had been delivered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James). Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman had never been known to be a very advanced politician, the speech he had delivered that night was a most remarkable one. It seemed to be an invitation to everyone, however extreme his principles, to insist, before the lowest classes of the electoral body, that this enfranchisement of the principles of political economy was being adopted simply because it was believed to be a matter of political necessity. He thought there was a slight deficiency in the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the history of this question. They were now asked by the late Attorney General to believe that the whole of his conduct in reference to the Registration Bill had regard, not so much to this particular question when the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Davey) moved his clause, as to the paramount necessity, as a matter of Government programme, that the Bill should be passed in some form or other. Those who, like himself (Mr. Lewis), were present in the House on the first occasion— the 6th of May—when this clause was brought forward, would never forget the readiness and eagerness with which the late Attorney General contested the proposition, not as a matter of argument, but as a matter of principle. He (Mr. Lewis) wished to say a word now with regard to the case of Ireland. His hon. and learned Friend the late Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) had described it as the first effective representation of the people of Ireland; but he (Mr. Lewis) ventured to remind the House that in regard to Ireland medical relief was a matter of arrangement, and its details were totally different from those which were proposed by the present Bill. In Ireland medical relief was not distinctly part of the Poor Law; but there was an arrangement by which medical relief was dispensed, not by the Guardians of the Poor, but by special Committees. [Cries of"No!"] He would appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for Cork (Colonel Colthurst) who, during the pro- gress of the Registration Bill, had explained the matter with the greatest care and simplicity to the House. He (Mr. Lewis) now desired to draw the attention of the House to the ground on which the Government asked the House to accept the Bill. Every hon. Member must have been struck by the very extraordinary statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour). His statement of the reasons which induced the Government to ask the House to accept the Bill was prefaced by this most remarkable observation, and he (Mr. Lewis) thought it was one which would be admitted to be of a most grave and momentous character— for, however much inclined he was to be serious in regard to the Bill, he certainly had not been prepared to hear the right hon. Gentleman use the words he had employed in describing the nature of this legislation. Let them see how the right hon. Gentleman justified the matter. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman took this form—that he had always thought this particular kind of disfranchisement formed a lesson of thrift and independence; but during the last month the whole bulk of the Liberal organization, from Cabinet Ministers downwards, had been occupied in impressing the labourers with the belief that the sole reason why they were kept out of their rights was that the Party which had been chiefly employed in keeping them out of their rights were actuated by selfish motives. This was the reason which had induced the Government to come forward now with this Bill, and to make a surrender along the whole line, not because they believed that the measure was just or expedient, but because it had become a political necessity owing to the action of their political opponents.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)

I never said that; I quoted the report of a speech which, if not accurate, had been generally received as accurate, and which gave the interpretation I placed upon the action of the late Government.

MR. LEWIS

said, he would point out how far this political principle might be extended. Suppose they were to have a Conservative Government in Office for the next five years—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laughed; but he should not be surprised at that, considering the political allies whom they had recently-secured. But, supposing they did remain in Office for the next five years, what would be the result? In the first year, remaining in the same alliance, and with the same influences at work, the constituencies and capable citizens being limited to the same class of people —with the bitter animosities and strong class prejudices to which his right hon. Friend had referred, he was afraid that one of the conditions for the exercise of the franchise—namely, the payment of rates, and of 12 months' residence, would go; and by-and-bye they would find themselves in the position of a celebrated class of American citizens, who were able to get off a steamer in New York one day, and claim the rights of citizenship the next. The next year indirect taxation would be swept away as a wicked infliction upon the lower classes. The usual emissaries would be set to work to explain that the imposition of these taxes were for the benefit of a particular class, for the preservation of their own interests and privileges. He presumed that his right hon. Friend, under such circumstances, would be ready to declare that the object of maintaining indirect taxation had been entirely frustrated; that it had been turned into a means for bringing passion and Party bitterness into play, and that the time for the surrender of indirect taxation had arrived. The next year, indirect taxation having been swept away, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), with, if possible, a few other kindred spirits more wicked than himself, would begin stumping the country against the House of Lords, who would be described as a body kept in existence simply for the purpose of serving class prejudices and class interests, and for grinding the poor. The hon. Member would be able to obtain a large amount of support among capable citizens of the lower order, and possibly this would be put forward as a reason why this concession should in some way or other be made. Then next year it would be suggested that there ought to be a graduated Income Tax, and hon. Members would go to their constituents for the purpose of pointing out how unequal the Income Tax was imposed; that, instead of serving any public advantage, it was, in point of fact, another form of oppression upon the poor man; that there was no justification whatever for keeping up an Income Tax on lower-class incomes; and that there ought to be a graduated scale in such a way as to inflict the largest amount of injustice upon the richer classes and the greatest amount of freedom upon the poor. The same reasons which had been put forward for the support of this Bill would be brought forward again, and some hon. Member would get up and suggest that this body also should be thrown to the wolf. By-and-bye the question might arise as to the propriety of continuing the Established Church. One of the most recent operations of the Liberal programme was to describe how the tithe was the property of the poor; how hardly it pressed upon the working classes of the country, and that it ought to be divided among them, instead of being retained for the endowment of the Church. Would it be difficult to teach people then that the poorer classes were sustaining injury, and that the grievance ought to be removed if they wore to do justice between man and man and class and class? He would ask his right hon. Friend how, unless he could escape from the proposition which he had distinctly laid down in his speech last week, any part of the Constitution, or any portion of the institutions of the country, could be preserved if this sort of Dutch auction was to be followed of putting the Constitution up to auction piece by piece, and selling it to the lowest bidder? This question, although it had been described as a small one, was a very far-reaching one; and it was idle to suggest that it would be possible to maintain any principle of disfranchisement on the ground of the receipt by any man of Poor Law relief if the Bill passed. It was further impossible to suggest that they would be entitled to disqualify an elector for non-payment of rates if those who received medical relief were entitled to retain their vote. A difficulty had been created at the very threshold. In what way were they going to limit the form in which medical relief was to be given? Were they going to say that the parish would be allowed to administer medicine to patients, and not give that which would keep life together and render the medicine applicable? Were they going to draw any distinction of that kind? It seemed to him impossible to commence this class of legislation without comprehending and deliberately providing that it should have its full effect. It was perfectly obvious that the whole of this discussion had arisen from the political exigencies of the candidates: but he ventured to prophesy that, supposing every Member of the House was now sitting in it for the last time, and were called upon to vote upon the question, their views would be much more in favour of the principles laid down by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) than the wild and reactionary doctrines of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings). It seemed to him that the Government considered themselves bound to hold on to the Bill, although there was so little to commend it to the acceptation of the House. For his own part, he could not help believing that this measure was one of the results of being on that side of the House—in Office without a majority. He did not believe for a moment that the Bill was supported by the good sense and intelligence of his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. No doubt, they had acceded to Office under circumstances of difficulty; but, nevertheless, he protested against that surrender at discretion which induced their Leaders to accept, in circumstances of difficulty, measures which a few years ago they would have strenuously opposed. The Members of the Conservative Party must be aware that they were voting now in favour of an alteration which had received the unanimous opposition, a few weeks ago, of every right hon. Gentleman who was now seated on the Front Opposition Bench. [Cries of" No!"] However that might be, it was perfectly clear they were now asked, all of a sudden, to make a change of front; and after having voted as a Party, on the invitation of their Leaders, against this measure, when sitting on the other side of the House, they were now asked to vote contrary to their convictions, and against the opinion they had clearly expressed on former occasions. He (Mr. Lewis), for his part, should certainly vote in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, and should do all that he could to prevent such a measure as this from being passed.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)

There was no sentence that fell from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James) in which I more cordially agree than the one in which he stated that the sooner we got this question out of the way the better. Therefore, I shall confine my remarks within the narrowest possible limits, commenting only on the new matter which has been originated in the course of the debate. It seems ungracious to criticize, nor shall I criticize, the apologia which the late Attorney General has delivered tonight; but I think he has not perfectly or accurately quoted the facts with which he was dealing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman represented that his sole motive for the action which he took on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) when it was before the House was to exclude from the Bill then under discussion anything irrelevant, and to get the measure as fast as possible through the House. But, in the first place, I should like to point out that the late Government admitted into the Irish Bill something equally irrelevant—namely, that very Amendment; and the late Attorney General, in the strongest manner, expressed his dissent from the principle of the measure. I do not wish to press this matter, or to twit the late Attorney General with inconsistency; but I do not think that his action, however kindly we may be disposed to look at it, has really been explained to the House. My hon. Friend who began the debate (Mr. Pell) made a speech which was, to my mind, of a most impressive kind. We all know the extreme strength of my hon. Friend's feelings upon this subject, and we know that he has approached it with perfect indifference as to the consequences it might have to himself. The subject is one which he is peculiarly fitted to expound to the House, for it is one upon which he has long felt strongly. The same comment may be made on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), who told the House, to the universal regret of all who heard him, that this is probably the last speech of any length which it will be his lot to make here. I am sure that I express the feelings of hon. Members, of whatever Party politics or on whatever side of the House they sit, when I say that that announcement of the hon. Gentleman was received with universal regret. But both the speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard and the speech of the hon. Member for West Norfolk, to which I allude, were primarily disquisitions on the general principle of the Poor Law, and then only in a secondary manner bore upon the particular Bill which I have in my charge. As to the general principle which animates my hon. Friend opposite, and which distinguishes him from the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), I am entirely in accord with my hon. Friend. I so far separate myself from the Conservative Party of 1834, and so far attach myself to the Liberal Party of that year, as to say that the general opinions which my hon. Friend has expressed in regard to Poor Law management have my hearty concurrence. What I deny, however, is that those opinions offer adequate reasons, under the special circumstances of the case, for refusing assent to this Bill. My hon. Friend asked me to explain, and has taunted me for not having explained before, how it was that the Bill included certain other elections besides Parliamentary elections, while, at the same time, it excluded Poor Law elections. I think my hon. Friend himself, in the course of his speech, gave an explanation of that apparent anomaly. His chief contention was that the position of the labouring classes in this country since 1834 had been raised chiefly by a rigid administration of the Poor Law. I do not deny that, and I therefore submit that if these good consequences are to be obtained by a rigid administration of the Poor Law there is the strongest ground for excluding those who accept medical relief from voting in Poor Law elections. If that is not an adequate reason for the exclusion, I am at a loss to understand what the late Attorney General would give as an adequate reason on his own principle. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman has announced his fear lest this measure should largely increase pauperism in the country districts. Of course, the only way in which pauperism can be increased is by medical relief. There is no ground whatever for that fear. The Government do not believe that if they extend the exemption of the counties it would produce more serious or disastrous consequences than long experience has shown that it has produced in the towns. The statistics which I produced the other night showed that in the towns, where the penalty of losing the vote always attaches to the receipt of medical relief, the relief is greater than in the country towns where it has never attached. With regard to the exemption of the towns, something dropped from the late Attorney General which requires an explanation. I do not at all take the ground put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) as to the number. The late Attorney General said that in certain counties labourers would be pressed to take medical relief in order to disqualify them. That appears to me to be a very grave accusation, and I certainly hope that any complaint of that sort will be brought to the notice of the Government. I believe that any such practice would be a corrupt practice; and, if not, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to supplement his late Bill and make it a corrupt practice. But what possible ground is there for supposing that this would take place in the counties when it has never taken place in the towns? Are electioneering agents so much more ingenious in inventing corrupt practices in the counties than in the towns? I never heard that they were; and yet this disqualification has existed since 1857 in the towns, and it is not pretended for one moment that it has ever been used for corrupt practices. Why should we expect a worse state of things in the counties than experience has shown to exist in the towns? My hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard says it is a most dangerous lesson to teach the working classes that by the removal from them of some primary want—in other words, by the State undertaking itself to satisfy some primary want—a most disastrous result will be produced. But, if that is so, the State has already done so. I would ask my hon. Friend what duty is more incumbent upon a parent than the education of his child? What could be more properly described as a primary want in any civilized community than education?—and yet, under our existing laws, not only can a man get the education of his child paid for by the State, but he is not thereby prevented from voting for the School Board. That is an anomaly which alone affords complete justification for the provisions of this Bill. [Mr. MUNDELLA: The education is compulsory.] The right hon. Gentleman interrupts me by saying that it is compulsory. I quite admit that. So, also, in the case of vaccination; but I have no desire to weary the House with the exceptional cases. The maintenance of health and the giving of education are both primary duties, and the means of doing both are supplied by the State in case of destitution. Allusion has been made to Ireland; but I have no wish to dilate at too great a length upon that point. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Lewis) has tried to persuade the House that there is an essential distinction between the cases of England and Ireland. I admit that there are great differences in the case of Ireland and England; but I absolutely deny that those distinctions are relevant to this discussion. In Ireland a man can get medical relief out of the rates, and all this Bill does is to enable a destitute man in England to get relief out of the rates. In that respect, the cases of Ireland and England are precisely and exactly similar; and when the House conceded relief without disqualification in Ireland it made it practically impossible to refuse to do so in England. I think that must be admitted by the bitterest opponents of the Bill. Holding that opinion, I had the curiosity to examine the Division List on the Irish question; and I find, to my surprise, that the four hon. Gentlemen who have most strenuously opposed the Bill in every one of its stages—namely, the hon. Members for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Bead), and the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot), did not even come down to the House to prevent the Proviso being inserted in the Irish Bill. Not one of them voted against the thin end of the wedge. [Mr. GLARE READ: I was ill in bed.] My hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk has given an adequate excuse. I do not know whether the other hon. Members I have referred to have an equally good excuse to offer or not; but it is singularly unfortunate that entertaining, as they did, this very strong and almost exaggerated line in regard to this Bill, they did not think it worth while to come down to the House and record their votes against the introduction of the thin end of the wedge. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) criticized my speech on the second reading, and described it as a cynical speech. He announced, at the same time, to my intense surprise, that if the Bill had not been mine, but that of the hon. Member for Ipswich, he would have voted for it. I venture to say that, in face of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, a more cynical statement was never made in the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Member and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) say that a great agitation has been got up; that the minds of the public have been very much inflamed; that it would be greatly to the disadvantage of the Conservative Party to resist the agitation; and that the sooner they cease from doing so the better. Whether that is a good argument or a bad argument, it is not the argument that I addressed to the House—I addressed to the House an entirely different argument, to which that has no semblance whatever. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets said that supposing someone of these landlords announced that there was no such thing as private property, and supposing that he succeeded in inflaming the public mind on that question, would I and others who agree with me be bound to level down and give up the opinions we have previously expressed? It is that illustration which shows me that the hon. Member has entirely mistaken my argument; because I apprehend that the retention of this disqualification is not really a matter of principle at all. It is a question of retaining a piece of machinery for discussing a principle; and the distinction is vital. I will endeavour to make this as clear as I can. I think it will be admitted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire, and the most uncompromising opponents of the Bill, that medical relief ceases now to produce the effect they say it has hitherto produced. Whatever effects it may have produced hitherto, it will no longer produce those effects, and in that respect my chain of reasoning is conclusive. Is there a single man in this House who knows the state of the public mind who is sanguine enough to believe that the result of retaining the disqualification, if it were possible to continue it, would promote thrift? Then, if I am right in thinking that the machinery has lost its virtue altogether, and has become now merely an irritating piece of useless lumber, it would be impossible to retain it, and there is full justification for the action of the Government in trying to remove it. I am not prepared to deny that what has happened within the last three weeks may, to some extent, do injury to the cause which my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard has at heart in reference to Poor Law amendment; but I say that harm is not done by this Bill, but that it has been done already by the debates in this House and the agitation in the country. This Bill, so far from doing further harm, would, I believe, prevent further harm from being done. There are those who anticipate that this Bill is only the first of a series of measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry drew up a string of measures which he thinks may possibly follow. I do not know what measures of legislation may be in store for us in the next few years, and he would be a rash prophet who would ex-press any opinion in that respect; but if encroachments on the principle of Poor Law amendment are to be stopped, they can only be stopped by the common action of men of all Parties on both sides of the House determined to maintain their principles vigorously and effectively. I do not know that there is any other point I have to lay before the House. I think I have dealt with most points which have come up in the course of the debate; and I will conclude by expressing my earnest hope that, considering the absolute necessity for passing this Bill in the next few days, the House will now agree to go into Committee upon it.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

I had not the slightest intention of intervening in this discussion when the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour) rose to address the House. I had been taking considerable interest in the sort of triangular duel which has been going on in regard to this Bill, and in the arguments which have been carried forward between hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway and their Leaders on the Front Bench. But the right hon. Gentleman has made a direct appeal to me, and I am very anxious to have the right hon. Gentleman's assistance in understanding the arguments he has laid before the House. I confess that I think the right hon. Gentleman is a little unfortunate. He has contrived to produce an impression which is not the impression he desired to convey to the House and the public. The other day the right hon. Gentleman told us, much to our gratification, that he was the author of a work in defence of religion; yet, as the House is aware, that work was, nevertheless, of such a character as to severely shake the faith of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). In the same way, the right hon. Gentleman has made two speeches in favour of this Bill; and if I were not thoroughly convinced upon the subject my faith in the necessity or expediency of any measure of the kind would be altogether destroyed by the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. On two occasions he has got up and reminded the House—as, unfortunately, it was very necessary he should do—that he was introducing a Bill, and supporting it by argument after argument, all of which tended to show that his belief was the same as that of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), that the effect of the measure would be pernicious. The right hon. Gentleman complains that he has been misrepresented. It appears that the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) was under the impression, from what the right hon. Gentleman said on a previous occasion, that the Government had introduced this Bill owing to the agitation in the country; and he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman had not introduced it, and had not, in effect, taken the wind out of the sails of the Liberal Party, it might go rather hard with the Government at the General Election. "Oh, no!" says the right hon. Gentleman, "nothing of the kind. That is not my moaning." Now, I humbly admit that I, also, had misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, and had thought that that was his idea. He says he wants the House to understand that what is at stake in the Bill is not the principle, but the machinery for carrying out a principle, and that this machinery has lost its virtue. That appears to be rather a curious expression; for I can understand a principle losing its virtue, but I do not see how machinery can lose its virtue. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it is this machinery in which he is interested, and which has lost its virtue owing to the debates in this House and outside of it. But why, if it had any virtue, has it lost it by debates, the authority of which the right hon. Gentleman does not admit? Let me apply that reasoning to some other institution in which the right hon. Gentleman may be supposed to take an interest. Does the right hon. Gentleman retain any respect for the Established Church? The Established Church is not a principle We are all agreed about that; but it is the machinery for giving effect to a principle. But that machinery has been debated outside the House and in the House, and arguments have been urged against Disestablishment by some persons which, I think, are at least as strong as those adduced by the right hon. Gentleman in favour of this Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman, then, admit that the principle and machinery of the Established Church have lost their virtue, and will he be prepared to bring in a Bill to remove that anomaly also? [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: When it has lost its virtue.] The right hon. Gentleman says—"Yes; when it has lost its virtue;" but I understand that every machinery loses its virtue when it is attacked by the Radicals, either in this House or out of it. The right hon. Gentleman complains that the arguments against the retention of this disqualification have caused irritation in the country; but I will undertake to say that the irritation against the Established Church is much greater than the irritation caused by the agitation against disqualification owing to the receipt of medical relief. It is perfectly impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to continue to represent to the House that he and his Colleagues have been influenced by these wiredrawn arguments. The right hon. Gentleman told us the other night that the conversion of the Government only occurred after they came into Office, and after the agitation in the country, which convinced them that it would be dangerous to resist. It was purely as an electoral move that the Government brought in this Bill, and it is in that connection only that they are now arguing in its favour, and I do not think they will get much credit out of the business. I do not object to their taking a leaf from the Radical programme as often as they like; but if they do steal Radical eggs, I do object to their addling them. I feel bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is not going far enough, He is going to take a clause suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Col-lings); and when he was asked by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) whether he was going to treat medical extras and assistance prescribed by the medical officer to be given to the poor upon his order in the same way as medicine he said he was not, and we know perfectly well that by omitting medical extras from the definition of medical relief he will destroy at least 70 per cent of the advantage he proposed to give under the Bill. Therefore we will take this Bill of the Government, but we will show them no gratitude for it, nor are they likely to obtain that credit and advantage which formed their sole reason for introducing the Bill.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he would not detain the House for more than a few minutes; but he found that the Bill applied to Scotland, and, as far as he had observed, no Scotch Member had as yet taken part in the discussion. He therefore wished to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, so far as the Bill applied to Scotland, it would not affect a single person in that country. No person received medical relief except those who were on the Poor Boll, and the persons upon that Boll were not called upon to pay rates. Nothing of the kind would ever be thought of. He had listened with much pleasure to the exposition which had been given by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) of his views in regard to the administration of the Poor Law; but he (Mr. Ramsay) wished to point out that the Poor Law of England was not at all analogous to the Poor Law in Scotland, inasmuch as the relief of the able-bodied poor was recognized as the law in England, and had been the practice in this country for a long period of time; whereas, in Scotland, there was no condition which gave the able-bodied poor the right to obtain relief. He thought it was absurd, under the circumstances, to include Scotland in the Bill, if it were for no other reason than that it could not possibly operate there. He might be told that it was of no consequence to Scotland, and that the Bill would apply, if it ever became necessary, to enfranchise this particular set of persons in that country. He admitted that that was the ease. If it were not for a grave apprehension as to the effect of the provisions of this Bill, he might be able to imagine that the Legislature had contemplated that people might be entitled to medical relief without being placed on the Poor Boll, and that they would not be in any respect disqualified by receiving it. He should regard such a result with grave apprehension, and would, therefore, appeal to the Government not to press this Proviso when they came to consider in Committee whether Scotland should be included or not. He regretted not to see in his place his hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick), because his hon. Friend was not of opinion that the Poor Law in Scotland was carried out with the great stringency he had pointed out. His hon. Friend thought it possible that in some of the parishes of Scotland the medical officers paid by the Poor Law might in certain oases give relief to poor persons to whom the stigma of disfranchisement was not attached; but his hon. Friend had received a telegram from the Poor Law Board intimating that if any persons received medical relief from a medical officer paid by the Poor Law Board they must be placed on the Boll, and would only be entitled to get relief on that condition. He (Mr. Ramsay) felt, therefore, that it would be absurd to apply the provisions of this Bill to Scotland. If it were proposed to apply them to that country for the purpose of securing votes in Scotland, ho hoped that it would have the effect of still further decreasing the number of persons who would vote for Conservative candidates. He felt satisfied that such would be the case, and that every right-thinking man should deprecate this political move on the part of the Government. He desired to make a protest against the extension of this measure to Scotland, because it might have, and, in his opinion, was certain to have, the effect of increasing the dis- content of the poor who were refused medical relief by the Poor Law Board. He should certainly view any encroachment upon the principles of the Poor Law with great regret.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he wished to offer a few observations with the view of explaining the vote he intended to give upon this question. He was anxious to have some credit for consistency in regard to the votes he gave in that House. Therefore, he was bound to offer an explanation as to why he was forced to vote in precisely the opposite direction from that in which he had voted on a previous occasion on this identical question. On a former occasion he had occupied a seat on the Bench now filled by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), and ho came hastily into the House to find that the discussion had been for some time proceeding. There was at that time an arrangement—a species of knock-out arrangement between the two Front Benches, which included an agreement, among other matters, on this very Registration Bill, or rather on the Bill in which this subject was included at that time. He found that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who at that time occupied the position now filled by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour), was warmly opposing the very proposition which had now been made to the House. Finding that the Bench on which he was then seated supported the views then advocated by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, he (Mr. J. Lowther) found himself, without knowing very much about it, in the Lobby in support of views which, when he became more thoroughly acquainted with the matter, he discovered to differ materially from his own. If the House would bear with him for a moment, ho would explain why those views differed from his own. He had never hesitated, in whatever part of the House he happened to sit, to express his candid opinion on matters connected with Parliamentary Reform, and the admission of any class of people to the suffrage. He had never pretended to countenance the Conservative surrender of 1867, nor had he hesitated to condemn the Tory Democratic scuttle of 1884. If Parliament made up its mind to admit any class or classes to the franchise, it ought to carry out its bargain fairly and squarely all round. Acting upon that principle, he did not hesitate to condemn the device of the personal payment of rates that in certain quarters was highly favoured in 1867; but although he had to condemn that measure of so-called Reform, he, at the same time, expressed his opinion that the people of this country ought not to allow a set of paltry Vestry Acts to stand as a barrier between them and what Parliament had declared to be their rights. In the same way, he viewed the present question wholly apart from mere political controversies; and although the right hon. Gentleman opposite had endeavoured to bring it within the vortex of Party discussion, he contended that it ought to be treated solely upon its merits. He had yet to learn that those members of the working classes who had obtained medical relief from time to time were less likely, of their own free will, to hold sound Constitutional principles than other members of the same class. In fact, the probabilities were that they might, perhaps, be brought in contact with organizations that might contribute towards the formation of sound political opinions to a greater extent than others of their class; and he had yet to learn that members of the working classes who might partake of medical relief were less likely to be influenced by the sound Constitutional principles to which he referred than other members of the same class of life. He was bound to confess that his own personal recollection of what might be called pauper electors was far from unpleasant. Twenty years ago that very month he had the good fortune to drive a very large consignment of the inmates of the workhouse situated in the constituency which at that time he had the honour to represent to the poll, and every one of them voted in his favour; and they were subsequently regaled with muffins, and, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would, no doubt, be glad to hear, on tea, and not upon what had just been alluded to under the title of medical extras, such as wine or other stimulants. For his own part, he considered that since Parliament had made up its mind that the old property qualification should no longer exist—a decision which he, for one, had never approved—it appeared absurd that where a voter had partaken of some eleemosynary aid in the course of the year it should disqualify him for the franchise. As Parliament had committed itself to the principle that property should cease to be duly represented in the Legislature, he was certainly in favour of the Bill, and he should be prepared to go even very much further than it did.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he would not detain the House for more than a few moments if it would kindly give him its attention. He wished to point out an important point to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. A. J. Balfour). When it was said that it was intended to confine the Bill to the receipt of medical articles, he had said that if that intention were carried out the measure would be shorn of a great portion of its value, because it was well known that the medical officer of health gave to patients such articles of comfort as beef-tea and port wine, which, in his view, were medicine, or would come under that head. If such things were to be refused, then the Bill would be very seriously and almost fatally damaged; and he hoped that those who really wanted to make the Bill effective would insist on the full meaning of the word being preserved. There had been two lines of argument, and only two, used in respect of the Bill. One was the argument against parochial relief altogether, and the other was a fear lest the present measure should be extended, so as to include parochial relief in other matters. If that did happen, no one would be more responsible for it than the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), because he had declared that there was no difference in this respect between receiving bread and receiving physic. He (Mr. Jesse Collings) hoped that would be remembered. It had been said that this matter had been taken up as a question for the elections. He could not, for his own part, see why that should not be so. Elections were not for the purpose of returning certain men, but to secure certain measures which the constituency wished; and he trusted, therefore, that it would be a question for the electors. There was one point which had not been touched upon, and which he would recommend to the notice of the hon. Mem- ber for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). In the Municipal Corporations they found hospitals established, maintained out of the rates, to which children and others suffering from epidemic and other diseases were removed, and where they were furnished not only with medical relief, but with food and lodging. No one in his senses would ever dream that these persons, or the heads of their families, should be disqualified; but the money came out of the rates, and the only difference was that they were relieved by the Municipality instead of by the Poor Law Guardians. What answer had his hon. Friends to give to that? The fact was that they were arguing, and his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard especially, against Poor Law relief altogether, or free libraries, free education, or any of those institutions which society thought might be set afloat for the good of the people generally. There was another argument which had also been submitted to the House by the hon. Member for Liskeard; and he (Mr. Jesse Collings) would conclude his remarks by a reference to it. His hon. Friend said that pauperism had decreased a great deal during the last few years, and he had claimed as the cause of this the repressive measures such as he had now advocated. He had certainly been sorry to hear his hon. Friend apply the word "degradation" to poverty. But how had that decrease of pauperism taken place? Simply by the action of Boards of Guardians, who had been more strict in imposing labour tests, and in hunting down and running to ground poor people—servant girls in service in towns—in order to make them pay 6d., or 1s., or 2s. a-week towards the relief which some of their relatives were receiving. He would just quote one case to show that the reduction of pauperism was not due to a decrease of poverty; and ho could give scores of similar cases to illustrate the cruel manner in which the Poor Law Guardians at present acted, in order to secure a diminution in the rates—cases in which the action of the Poor Law brought about much suffering. The case ho was about to cite he was acquainted with personally. In the parish of Fairford, in Gloucestershire, which he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would know well, there was an old man, 80 years of age, who had lived in the parish 60 years, and who for nearly 50 years had belonged to a club, but who had now broken down in health, and become chargeable to the parish. The club having failed, the old man received 2s. 6d. per week from the parish, and the Guardians had recently summoned his son for a contribution of 1s. per week to his father's support. This son had five children, two of whom were afflicted and were on his hands, and he had just buried his wife, for whom he had incurred a considerable doctor's bill, for which he was now paying 2s. a-week. He received 13s. a-week in wages, and the cottage and potato ground which he occupied increased his earnings to 15s. a-week. He was only enabled to earn this amount by working equal to 8½ days a-week, reckoning 10 hours a day's work. Yet that poor man had been summoned before the magistrates, at Cirencester, by which he lost a day's work, and was ordered to pay 1s. a-week, or £2 12s. a-year, to the Guardians of Fairford for his father's maintenance. That was a most cruel and wicked proceeding, to summon a man before the magistrates under such circumstances and punish him by a fine of 1s. per week in order to save the parochial rates. He was satisfied that no Member of that House, in his individual capacity, would ever sanction such a proceeding for a moment. Of course, the same sort of proceeding was followed up all over the country, and it explained how the rates were being saved and pauperism going down— simply by acts of what he ventured to call cruelty, which he trusted would be reviewed by the new electorate, and the Guardians of the Poor taught that they must really be the Guardians of the Poor, and that if they were to save the rates they must do so in a humane manner. If necessary, he was prepared to give the man's name in Fairford. [Cries of" Name!"] The name of the man was Thomas Hignall, and there were scores of cases of a similar kind which ho could lay before the House. He had given the name of this particular person because he knew his employer, and he did not think the man was likely to come to any harm. Nevertheless, there he was with 15s. a-week, and five children—2s. being paid for an old medical debt—working after the rate of 8½ days in the week. [A laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh; but if they would inquire, and would take 10 hours as a day's work, they would find that he was working equal to 8½ days in the week for the miserable pittance he had named, and yet he was ordered by the Guardians to pay 1s. a-week for the support of this poor old man, after having been summoned to Cirencester and compelled in consequence to lose a day's work. This and similar reasons were the reasons why pauperism had decreased.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he could not help expressing his respectful sympathy with Her Majesty's Government, for, whether they might be good men or not, they were certainly men who were struggling with difficulties. He did not think there was another instance of a Government which, in the first fortnight of its existence, had been so utterly discredited as the present. A fortnight ago they had a perfect horror of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and opposed every suggestion he made for the relief of Ireland; but now they submitted to his dictation in the most humble manner. What was it that was now taking place? How had they passed the evening? The House had that night listened to protests on the part of their most honoured and respectable followers in regard to the course they were pursuing, and they had been denounced for their inconsistency and opportunism. Yet they sat there, and said that all these things were mere matters of detail. They were ready to pass any Bill which they thought would be of advantage to them at the next General Election. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had made a very exhausting—he begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon—a very exhaustive speech at the beginning of the debate, and the hon. Member summed up his speech by saying that cruelty was the basis of Government, and was following a divine example. He (Mr. Labouchere), as a result, had felt that he was going to be converted. But the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) pointed out that if they gave a vote to the man who obtained medical relief, they ought logically to give a vote to the man who obtained other relief. He (Mr. Labouchere) agreed with the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and he could not understand why the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James) should have made a long speech to tell the House that it was perfectly monstrous on their part to give votes in other cases, and yet that they ought to give votes to those who received medical relief only. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that if a poor man asked for medical relief for his sick child it would be cruel to refuse him a vote. But if a poor man were to ask relief for his starving child, should he be denied a vote? Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House did not seem to understand what a vote was. They regarded the vote as a privilege, whereas it was a right; and, therefore, the man who received not only medical, but other relief from the poor rates, was entitled to a vote. This was a view which a number of people held throughout the country, and those persons he (Mr. Labouchere) represented in that House. He believed it to be the view of his constituents, and he was there to represent the views of his constituents. The course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) might point a moral if it did not adorn a tale. There had been accusations bandied about on both sides of the Table, as to how hon. Gentlemen had voted on previous occasions. He did not care how any person on either Front Bench voted on any measure in the world. What the people understood was this—the House of Commons, in which there was a Liberal majority, had voted in favour of this Bill, and the House of Lords, in which there was a Conservative majority, throw the proposition out. Then the Conservatives changed sides, and, ceasing to be the Opposition, became the Government. What did they at once do? They brought in the Bill they had previously opposed; they were going to send it up to the House of Lords, and the House of Lords would pass it, simply because their Friends were in Office. He thought the country would understand the system, because it was not by any means the first time that it had been pursued by hon. Gentlemen opposite. When the Liberals were in power, and passed a good measure, the Conservatives, with their permanent majority in the House of Lords, threw it out. But when the Conservatives were in Office, and took up the Bill they had before opposed, their Friends in the House of Lords would pass it and say—"See what good, kind people we are. See the deep interest we take in the country; we have passed this measure not only in the House of Commons, but in the House of Lords." Of course, the Conservatives passed Liberal measures. They were there to do the Liberal bidding. They had no will of their own. They were the Ministry of the minority. The Liberals were the majority; it was they who dictated to the Government what to do; it was at their dictation that the Government were bringing in this Bill; and it was that they might retain the position of dummy Ministers that the Government had brought in this Bill, and would induce their Friends in the House of Lords to carry it. The House and the country understood the position of affairs perfectly well, and that view would be fully pointed out to the country at the next General Election.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)

Sir, I assume that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), in the remarks he has just addressed to the House, has spoken as the representative of that large contingent of two Members who followed him into the Lobby the other night. We have introduced this Bill, because we think it necessary that a change in the law should be made. It is by no means the same measure that, in the shape of a clause in another Bill, was rejected in "another place." But, Sir, I do not intend to discuss whether we, or hon. Gentlemen opposite, or any Member of this House has, or has not, changed his opinion. I wish to ask the attention of the House for a few minutes to the peculiar position in which we stand. The second reading of this Bill was affirmed by an overwhelming majority of this House. I may say there is a unanimous desire to proceed with this measure as rapidly as possible. The hon. Member for Northampton twitted us with having taken up the Bill which had been invented by himself and his Friends. Well, Sir, if that be so, they ought to do all they can to aid us in forwarding the Bill. We have had this evening, and also on the second reading of the Bill, not only such speeches as those delivered by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), and by the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), who oppose the measure, and whoso opinions are listened to with respect, but we have had speeches also from the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collins), who, while professing to be in favour of the Bill, are doing their best to talk it out. This, Sir, is a very simple matter. It has been discussed several times in this House during the present Session; it was discussed for several hours the other night on the Motion for the second reading, and it has been discussed for something like seven hours this evening. The Bill contains only one clause; we are now at the 21st of July, and I venture to suggest to the House that, if they really desire to pass it into law, and to proceed with the other Business that lies before us, the time has come when we may fairly close this debate.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, as one of those who had spoken on this matter from the opposite side of the House, he desired to explain why this evening he intended to give a vote in the opposite direction. When the question was first raised on the Registration Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman the then Attorney General (Sir Henry James) argued that it was not germane to the measure, and that it ought to be considered separately. To that hon. Members now sitting on the Ministerial side of the House agreed; and although he regarded it as a matter to be settled at a future time, he could have wished the Government had postponed the matter until there had been an opportunity for further discussion. But he thought they should now agree to the principle of the Bill, and seeing that there was no reason why people should be disqualified by receiving medical assistance, he should vote for the Motion before the House.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: —Ayes 22G; Noes 22: Majority 204.—(Div. List, No. 236.)

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Short title).

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he hoped the Government would resist the Motion.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH)

said, that before the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) rose, ho intended to ask the Committee to proceed now with the Bill, which really only consisted of one clause.

MR. THOMASSON

said, he trusted that the Committee would, considering the hour (12.45), consent to report Progress.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, he thought the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) was a very reasonable one.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he hoped the Committee would go on with the Bill. It was only right they should do so, having regard to the period of the Session, and the overwhelming vote just given in favour of the principle of the Bill. The details lay in a very small compass, and there was practically nothing in them of a controversial character.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he supported the Motion to report Progress. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) spoke of the overwhelming vote in favour of the Bill; but how many of those who formed the overwhelming majority voted against the principle of the Bill a short time ago, and what was the reason of their sudden conversion? He (Mr. Hopwood) had not had an opportunity of speaking earlier in the evening, and he would like to record his opposition in some shape or other to the Bill. He thought the Bill was a mistake, and he did not think either Party had done otherwise than cover itself with something like political disrepute by the course it had followed. They ought now to report Progress, and thus afford a further opportunity of considering the matter.

MR. BRYCE

said, that although he disapproved of the Bill, and would be glad if the House would not proceed with it, he thought it was a pity that those who were opposed to it should maintain an opposition of delay which could not now have any effect. His hon. Friends must feel that the majority in favour of the Bill was so large that nothing was to be gained by delaying for a day or two more the progress of the Bill. Unless there was some substantial Amendment to be made, and he believed it was not yet too late for such an Amendment to be moved, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Pell) might withdraw his Motion, and let the Committee proceed with the consideration of the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (Medical relief not to disqualify).

MR. ACLAND

said, he proposed, as an Amendment, to insert at the beginning of the clause— From and after the passing of this Act, until the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven. In moving the Amendment, he did not intend to take up the time of the Committee longer than was absolutely necessary to explain his object. Although he had throughout supported the Bill most cordially, because he was strongly of opinion that, under the circumstances, it would be exceedingly unfair to deprive those of the vote who had been led to expect it, and who it was practically impossible could have had any warning of their being deprived of it, he thought there was room to doubt whether it was the duty of Parliament to go into the question of medical relief disqualification wholesale. He desired to draw attention to the figures which were given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour), because he considered that by those figures the right hon. Gentleman had misled the House in a very important matter. As he understood, the right hon. Gentleman produced the figures to show the number of persons in town and country who would be affected by the disqualification. He (Mr. Acland) ventured to say that that was not the real consideration. The right hon. Gentleman would admit the truth of his remark—that the real question was the proportion of persons in towns who were sick, and who would be affected by the disqualification, as compared with the proportion of persons in the country in a like position. It would be admitted that the sick rate, considered by itself, was considerably higher in towns than in the country; consequently, the number affected by the Bill would be larger in towns than in the country districts; but he submitted that the figures given did not prove the case so strongly as the right hon. Gentleman imagined. Then, Parliament was bound to attach a considerable amount of weight to the real distinction between sick relief and the ordinary poor relief.

MR. WARTON

rose to Order. He begged to submit that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) was not addressing himself directly to his Amendment, which related to the duration of the Act.

MR. ACLAND

said, he was giving the reason why they should give an opportunity to the Representatives of the new constituencies to decide, according to the desire of the new constituencies, what should ultimately be the law of the country with regard to this question, and he did not think that could fairly be done if, as proposed by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), the limit were placed at the end of 1880. They ought to allow a full 12 months, at least, before they permanently removed the disqualification which must have a great effect upon the prosperity of benefit or sick clubs. Of course, the number of persons who were in benefit and sick clubs varied in different parts of the country; but he believed it would be found that there was a large number of the new voters who were members of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, and other societies of that kind, who would look with considerable doubt on the expediency of removing this disqualification. Under all the circumstances, he asked the Committee whether the whole question did not require very much more serious consideration than it had been possible to give to it in the course of the last few weeks? He hoped the Committee would not object to go to a division.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 7, before the word "There," to insert the words "From and after the passing of this Act, until the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven."—[Mr. Acland.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)

said, he objected to the Amendment. If it was decided to give this relief, did hon. Members anticipate they would ever be able to withdraw it? If they did not anticipate they would ever be able to withdraw it, was it worth while to adopt an Amendment of this kind? He thought it was not, and for that reason, if for no other, he was inclined to resist the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. RATHBONE

said, he hoped the Government would give greater consideration to so very important a subject. He had long been in favour of some alteration of the law affecting medical relief; but he asked whether, considering the rapid change which had come over the House—he did not attribute any motives for that change—and considering the bias which could not help to weigh with the House at that moment, it would not be better to defer the permanent settlement of the question—to pass this clause for two years, as suggested by his hon. Friend (Mr. Acland), and then to have a strong Committee to decide what precautions and safeguards might be attached to the disqualification? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) asked whether it was likely, if they once granted relief, to be ever able to withdraw it? He (Mr. Rathbone) thought it was not likely they would if they passed this permanent measure; but he did believe it would be possible to reverse or modify their decision if they passed a temporary measure, and if, on inquiry, they found there was a better way of managing the thing, or that the provision could have certain safeguards attached to it. He could not help thinking, judging from the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, that he had considerable doubt in his mind as to the wisdom of the change except as a matter of making a concession to popular demand. They ought to know a great deal more than they did about this subject, and he would urge on the Government and the Committee to agree to the present proposal. He believed the suggestion would meet the views of the majority of hon. Members.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he did not agree with his hon. Friend who had just spoken. It seemed to him that the course proposed was an exceedingly weak one. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) had said the adoption of the Amendment would give room for a strong Committee to reconsider the question; but it would be a singular course on the part of the House of Commons, after having passed the Bill by an overwhelming majority, to carry an Amendment which contemplated the appointment, at some future time, of a strong Committee which might reverse the decision of the House. That was a course which he did not think could commend itself to the Committee. It seemed to him that what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had said was perfectly true—if they once granted the relief, there was not much likelihood of their ever being able to withdraw it. He (Sir William Harcourt) was one of those who had not to stand in a white sheet on this question. He had never voted against the principle contained in the Bill. He had, for many years, thought the disability for medical relief was very unjust. The House of Commons had said that the disability should not be imposed; and, therefore, to make this a temporary measure was an altogether idle proceeding. It was a course taken by people who did not like what they were about. It was remembered perfectly well that the other House of Parliament passed the Ballot Bill on condition that it should only last for seven years. Courses of that kind were only taken by people who did not approve of what they were doing. He was one of those who approved of this Bill, and therefore he should oppose any proposition to make it a temporary measure.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON

said, it seemed to him that, considering the history of this Bill, the proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) was a very proper one. It was notorious that this Bill had been introduced in deference to public opinion out-of-doors; but he thought that the feeling which led to the Bill being brought in would have been very different if the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had been quoted at an earlier stage. The success of the sick and benefit societies of the country was far more important than the possession of the franchise by two people in every 1,000. Public opinion ought to have a chance of reconsidering this question, and therefore he should support the Amendment.

MR. HENEAGE

said, the operation of the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) was limited to one year, because a question of Order arose with regard to introducing a Bill in that House after a clause dealing with the same subject had been already rejected by the other House. The promoters of the Bill did not wish to evade the question at all, but thought that to limit the operation of the measure to one year was the best way of getting over the difficulty. He hoped the Government would stick to the Bill as it now stood, for it was absurd to pass a temporary measure. The law when once passed must be permanent.

MR. WARTON

said, he doubted whether this was the proper place at which to make the Amendment. It was usual to propose an Amendment dealing with the duration of a Bill at the end of the clauses.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he did not intend to pursue the question whether the Amendment should be put in this particular place or not; but he did suggest to the Committee that there really was some reason for considering the Amendment on its merits. His right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt), who was never so great as when he was in a good thumping majority, said he had no occasion to stand in a white sheet on this matter, because he himself had never voted one way or the other. But the solidarity of the late Cabinet was not yet destroyed, and his right hon. Friend must remember that more than one leading Member of the late Government was found to be opposed to the Bill. It would not be unbecoming if the two Front Benches, both of which had resolutely opposed this matter on principle, should, as a mere question of decency, and to ease off the great transition they had made, consent to take this as a temporary measure. There was a real reason why it should only be a temporary measure. No doubt, it would be a great disappointment to the persons who were now admitted to the franchise if they were to be deprived of the opportunity of exercising it. That was an argument which weighed with a great many Members. When the right hon. Gentleman said that a large number of Members approved of this Bill, ho was no doubt stating that which was perfectly true; but the Committee would not know, until they came to a division, how many of the 200 and odd Members alluded to assented to it as a permanent measure. Even if it were true that what was once assented to, even temporarily, was sure to become permanent in the end, he did not see why the measure should not be made temporary now; and he would make this observation in reference to many of the points made in the course of the debate, especially in justification of the action of the two Front Benches, as to the difficulty of arguing this question before a popular audience, that he did not think the difficulty was so great as was represented. He believed that if hon. Gentlemen addressed themselves frankly to popular audiences, even to audiences of working men, and submitted the argument on its merits, they would not find they were fighting so hopeless a battle as the two Front Benches seemed to think. He thought they might fairly go before the constituencies at the General Election on a temporary measure; and, if they thought it desirable, make it permanent when they came back again. They need not be afraid of stultifying themselves; no other reason had been urged why the Bill should take this permanent form, or why they should not consent to have it limited for two years, to enable it to be settled permanently by the new Parliament.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, that, acting on the idea of his hon. Friend, and the idea which influenced a great many hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House, he would propose that they should assent to an Amendment altering the date from 1887 to 1886. That would give them the Bill exactly for a temporary purpose. The object contemplated by the measure would be fulfilled during the General Election which would take place this year, and the constituencies, through their Members, would be left to decide the matter for the future. Ho begged, therefore, to move that the figure "6" be inserted in place of the figure "7." He wished to point out that in this matter "a little firmness" were very unused words in the Liberal creed; they were afraid to speak out to the constituencies. They were afraid to teach them their duty, or to give them their ideas with regard to government, and simply went before them at a time of election to receive a fleeting impression of their opinions, and come back to Parliament to register them as the decrees of those who sent them here. For his own part, he altogether disclaimed any such cowardice, he was going to say, but, perhaps, that would be a little too strong; at any rate, he did not read his duty in that way, and he thought it would be well in this matter for a good many hon. Members to turn over in their minds what were likely to be their future proceedings, and to consider whether they could not, instead of going ahead of every expectation, and distancing every wild idea of those whom they were addressing, induce them to consolidate the opinions they possessed, and to strengthen and improve some of the laws and institutions that existed already, before proposing new ones.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out the word "seven," and inserting the word"six."—(Mr. Hopwood.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I would point out to the Committee that the course the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hopwood) is taking will really waste the time of the Committee. Surely we can take a division as to whether the Bill is to be a temporary one or not. If this Amendment is put, it will involve two divisions; hon. Members will have to vote that the word "seven" stand part of the proposed Amendment, and afterwards that the operation of the Bill be limited to 1887. That seems to me to be unnecessarily complicating the issue. The question between the one date and the other does not seem to me to be very important, and I think we ought to allow the matter to be settled by one division.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he had no objection to withdraw his Amendment if he understood from his hon. Friends who were proposing that the Bill should he a temporary one, that it would be better to have the new system in operation for two years than for one. If that was their feeling, he should be quite content to give way. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Yes, yes!] Then he should be glad to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. PELL

said, it was a singular thing to see hon. Members distrustful of the view they had been insisting upon. They were now, like sensible men, beginning to say—"Let us take time on this matter." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), however, was averse to taking time. He at once rose and said—"Let us have no consideration— let us commit ourselves to the principle; we do not know exactly what medical relief is, but let us commit ourselves to the principle." There was an important matter they had to consider in connection with this question, and that was one bearing upon the rates for the relief of the poor and personal property. He thought the original proposal to limit the operation of the Bill was a very reasonable one, but that of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) seemed still more so. He hoped the Committee would now take a division upon the matter.

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. DALRYMPLE)

I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman does not press the Amendment?

MR. HOPWOOD

No; I withdraw it.

Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, "That the words 'From and after the passing of this Act, until the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven,' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: —Ayes 43; Noes 155: Majority 112.—(Div. List, No. 237.)

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. DALRYMPLE)

What are the words which the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing) desires to move?

MR. ORR-EWING

said, he wished to exclude Scotland from the operation of the Bill. It was well known that the Poor Law of Scotland was very different from that of England or Ireland. In Scotland no person had a right to medical relief, except paupers; and it was, therefore, in his opinion, unnecessary to provide for what could not occur.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, leave out the words "the United Kingdom," in order to insert the words "England and Ireland."—(Mr. Orr-Ewing.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'the United Kingdom' stand part of the Clause."

MR. RAMSAY

said, there could be no medical relief in Scotland in the sense contemplated by the Bill, and it was, therefore, absurd to include Scotland, because no case of the kind could occur there. The persons who obtained medical relief in Scotland were immediately inserted in the list of paupers. Medical relief was given in Scotland; but it was under the Public Health Act, and not under the Poor Law. Therefore, it was absurd to say that medical relief given out of the poor rate should not be a disqualification. For these reasons, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, this was a question of Poor Law. As no Member seemed able to say what the law was exactly, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) would do so?

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

said, he understood the point of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire to be that they could not in Scotland have poor relief of any sort given to able-bodied men. It was quite true that in Scotland medical relief out of the rates could only be given on the same footing as poor relief. But he could suggest what appeared to him to be a case in which the Bill might apply. There was the case of a man not able-bodied, but who could provide everything else except medical relief. That man would be able to apply for medical relief.

MR. ORR-EWING

said, it was a most grievous thing that they should be expected to make provision for cases which had never happened, but which might happen. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would agree to his Amendment and relieve Scotland from the operation of this Act.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he would call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. B. Balfour) had adduced a case of a suppositious kind which he (Mr. Ramsay) had never known to occur. He challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman to state that ho ever knew of a case of this kind. Ho hoped his hon. Friends from Scotland would join with the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire in pressing the exclusion of Scotland upon the Government.

MR. PELL

said, as had been pointed out, a man could not apply for medical relief in Scotland without making himself a pauper. They had been told by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing), and it had been almost assented to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Lord Advocte, that medical relief was not given out of the poor rate.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

I beg the hon. Member's pardon; there is plenty of medical relief given under the Poor Law.

MR. PELL

said, that was true; but then it was not medical relief of the nature included in the Bill. As he had said, the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire had been corroborated in his statement by the late Lord Advocate, whose experience on the point should, in itself, have been conclusive. Why, then, had the Bill been framed so as to include Scotland? The intention was to procure Scotch votes, and to call the attention of Scotch voters to the good things which the Government were prepared to give them, even though they were not wanted. Ho should move that they report Progress, in order that the country might understand the contents of the Bill.

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, ho entirely disagreed with the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) with regard to the Poor Law of Scotland, which, as far as he understood the mat- ter, was, in respect of medical relief, exactly the same as the English Poor Law. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that no case had been quoted. Of course, not—

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

rose to Order. He had understood that the Motion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) to report Progress was put from the Chair. It was not permissible to discuss the Bill upon that Motion.

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. DALRYMPLE)

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) had not concluded his sentences.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he was about to remark that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire had moved to report Progress on the ground of the condition of the law of Scotland. He did not desire to go into any lengthened argument on that question. He understood that the law of Scotland, in reference to medical relief, was exactly the same as the law of England. ["No, no!"] It appeared that an hon. Member behind him did not agree with that view; but he (Sir William Harcourt) would take up the same ground as his right hon. and learned Friend the late Lord Advocate on this point. He did not think that any reason had been shown for reporting Progress.

MR. ORR-EWING

said, the point of difference was that, in England, able-bodied persons received relief; in Scotland, they did not. All he could say was, that no person who knew the law of Scotland, not even the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Lord Advocate, could quote a single case to which the Bill would have applied.

MR. T. T. O'CONNOR

said, he must again call the attention of the Chairman to the way in which the Amendment was being discussed, on the Motion before the Committee that Progress should be reported. He wished also to say, in reference to the expression of the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary, that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had not founded his Motion for Progress on the difference between the laws of Scotland and England, but upon the ground that the country ought to have time to know what were the contents of the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. DALRYMPLE)

said, the hon. Member for Dumbarton- shire (Mr. Orr-Ewing) was, to some extent, discussing the Amendment on the Motion to report Progress. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) to give reasons why Progress should not be reported, and he had, therefore, not interrupted him. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire was somewhat exceeding the Rule in Committee.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he thought they had a right to know what was the view of the Government on this question. The Committee had been told that the Bill was exceedingly urgent. He should like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. A. J. Balfour) thought the effect of reporting Progress would be, and how much time there was to be played with before the Bill would be rendered inoperative?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)

said, there was no time whatever to play with. He thought that among those who had been most playing with time were some right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench opposite. The time at the disposal of the Government was very short, so far as the Bill was concerned; and, moreover, as was always the case at that time of year, time was very valuable. The discussion on the Motion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) to report Progress had been lengthened by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), very well intended, no doubt, but which had had the effect of delaying Progress. The Government intended, however, to resist the Motion, and in that he trusted they would receive the support of the Committee.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS,

said, he wished, in the most indignant manner, to protest against the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken on this subject, with reference to the action on the Front Opposition Bench. He had spoken in similar terms of his (Mr. Jesse Collings's) speech a short time since.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

rose to Order. Was the hon. Member for Ipswich in Order in arguing a different question under guise of entering a protest?

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he was simply replying to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Government.

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. DALRYMPLE)

said, that the hon. Member, having made his protest, must strictly confine himself to the question before the Committee.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he would content himself with protesting against the undignified conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MR. THOMASSON

said, he also protested, in the most emphatic manner, against the way in which the Committee was, at that hour of the morning (1.40), conducting its Business. The most sensible thing for them to do, particularly as they had to be at the House again at 12 o'clock, would be to go home to bed.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. HENDERSON

said, that, as the Representative of a Scotch constituency, he intended to support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing), and ho did so because the Bill could not apply to Scotland in any practical way. According to the present law of Scotland, no medical relief could be given, unless the recipient of it was on the Roll of Paupers, and in receipt of the ordinary relief, which would disqualify him from having his name put on the Register of Voters. He could not find that any person in Scotland would be disfranchised under the present Registration Act, and that this Bill would enfranchise anyone. There was, therefore, no necessity for any reference in this Bill in Scotland in regard to medical relief. It was because he believed that if the Bill were to pass with the Amendments which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Gentleman who now presided over the Committee (Mr. Dalrymple), it would operate mischievously, that he proposed to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire. Medical relief was afforded in all the large towns of Scotland to the vast number of the poor people who required it by institutions supported entirely by voluntary contributions, and to those institutions the working classes paid. In the borough which he had the honour to represent (Dundee), a very large proportion, of the revenue of the Infirmary was contributed by the working people. By a voluntary arrangement with their employers, 1d. a-week—in some cases a large sum— was deducted from their wages, and this went in support of the Infirmary, which furnished them free with all the medical relief they required. If the Committee were to mention Scotland in the Bill, and introduce the Amendments suggested, they would inevitably create an impression amongst the people, that they were entitled to relief from the Parochial Board, and they would naturally draw the inference that if that were so, there was no necessity for them to contribute so much per week, under an agreement or arrangement with their employers, in support of the local institutions. Scotland was proud of those infirmaries and hospitals, which were most willingly supported by the whole population. He believed the working classes themselves were proud of them. Every £1 subscription entitled the subscriber to an order for the admission of one patient in the infirmary, and he knew that in his own town there was no subscription more willingly paid than that in support of these institutions, for in return for it they really got all the medical relief and surgical assistance they might require. The Bill would be entirely inoperative in Scotland so far as enfranchising anyone; but it would give rise to an impression amongst the people that they were entitled to make a claim upon the Parochial Board, and it would dry up the resources from which these valuable institutions were supported and maintained in the large towns. He, therefore, most earnestly supported the proposal of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire that Scotland should be excluded altogether from this Bill. He believed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) purposely avoided, in his Registration Bill for Scotland, any reference to medical relief. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knew—no one knew better—that no one in Scotland was disfranchised, or could be disfranchised, on the ground of receiving medical relief, because it was contrary to law for Parochial Boards to give medical relief to anyone who was not already on the Roll of Paupers.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, there appeared to be present five hon. Members who knew what the law in Scotland in regard to this matter was. Four of them said the Bill would not apply to Scotland, and the fifth said it was just possible that it might apply. Under such circumstances, he asked the Government whether it was at all fair to include Scotland in the Bill?

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, the only voice raised in countenance of the Bill as it now stood was that of his right hon. and learned Friend the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour), who had confirmed the statement of the other hon. Members, that the law with regard to medical relief in Scotland was in a condition which would render the Bill practically inoperative in that country. Her Majesty's Government should speak out on the subject. If the Government were not prepared to go the length of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing), he submitted the time had arrived when the Committee should pause before they proceeded further. In the absence of any satisfactory reply from the Treasury Bench, he was quite prepared to move to report Progress.

THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)

said, he had not spoken before, because he was very anxious not to prolong the debate. The Government included Scotland in the Bill, because they wished that the provision of relief should apply to every part of the Kingdom; but he was bound to say that the whole weight of Scotch opinion, as displayed to-night, appeared to be against the proposal. If hon. Gentlemen would leave the question over until Report, he would in the interval make it his business to consult every Scotch Member in the House, and if he found it was their general wish, he would be very glad to exclude, at a later stage, Scotland from the operation of the Bill.

MR. PELL

said, he listened with great interest to the most instructive speech which had just been delivered by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Henderson). With every word the hon. Gentleman said he (Mr. Pell) entirely agreed. The hon. Gentleman said that the provisions of the Bill would dry up the resources from which the infirmaries and hospitals of Scotland derived their incomes. The same might be said with regard to England; but observe, after all, the course which had been pursued by the canny Scotch Members. They had not shrunk from obtaining all the popularity they could by voting for the Bill; but now they were quietly proposing to strike Scotland out of the measure, though they admitted that, in Scotland, the measure would be inoperative. They had the advantage of having a countryman in the person of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour), and the right hon. Gentleman was about to make the concession to them which was not made to the English Members—namely, that the country should have time still to consider the complexity of the question. The way in which the political market had been rigged by this measure was most astounding. The speeches they had heard to-night from the Government Bench and from independent Members convinced him that there was only one course open to hon. Members who wished to secure for the people time to consider the gravity of this question. The Scotch were clannish, and they appeared to have made up their minds—they would have none of the Bill. But what about England? Why was England only to suffer from this Bill? If the measure was objectionable from a Scotch point of view, it was equally objectionable from an English point of view. He was glad the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrook) intended to move to report Progress. If he (Mr. Pell) could only get one other Member to assent to the Motion he would be glad to go to a division.

MR. ORR-EWING

said, he could not agree with all that had been said on this question by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). There were five or six Scotch Members now in the House, and every one of them had supported the Amendment to exclude Scotland from the operation of the Bill. He was sure that all Englishmen must sympathize with the position in which Scotland stood in this matter. He would rather his Amendment had been accepted, and that the Government had consented to reconsider, by Report, whether they should restore the Bill to its original shape. However, as he did not wish to be guilty of obstruction, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. He trusted that, on Report, the Government would be able to accede to his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ACLAND

said, he proposed, as an Amendment, to insert after the word "medicine," in page 1, line 9, the words "or surgical appliances." Anyone who had the least acquaintance of the work of Boards of Guardians must be aware that poor men were constantly applying for medical relief in the shape of surgical appliances for their children. Some of their children could not walk, and it was necessary they should receive the benefit of surgical appliances. There could be no harm in adding the words he suggested.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, after "medicine," insert "or surgical appliances."—(Mr. Acland.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)

said, he had no objection in principle to the Amendment of the hon. Member; but he was anxious it should not be pressed, because it was unnecessary. The words of the Bill were the words in the Irish Act; they were in a previous Act, and they were held to include "surgical appliances." By a Definition Clause in the Regulations of the Poor Law Board it was laid down that the word medicine included all medicine and surgical appliances, and that the words "medical attendance" included surgical attendance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW,

in moving, as an Amendment, to insert in page 1, line 9, after the word "medicine," the words "or such relief prescribed by the medical officer," said, it seemed to him that if the word "medicine" were alone employed, the Bill would practically be inoperative. Having had for upwards of 10 years the responsibility of the administration of relief in perhaps the largest district of London, he had had a good deal of experience of the change which had taken place in the treatment of sick persons. The change had been in the direction of giving less medicine and more extras. The Bill was called a Medical Relief Bill, and if the words meant anything, they meant that a person who received any kind of relief the medical officer thought was absolutely necessary should not be deprived of his vote. That was the meaning placed on the words throughout the country, and therefore he asked that the words he suggested should be inserted. Whatever the medical officer prescribed was medical relief just as much as medicine. If hon. Members were to walk through the hospitals of London, they would see scores of beds over which was printed "milk, tea, condensed beef." If they were to give patients medicine, and nothing to sustain them while the medicine was at work, they had better give them nothing at all. He understood it was thought by some persons that there should be an interpretation of the word "medicine;" but he asked the Committee if his words did not cover everything? If they wore to limit the relief to medicine, the Bill itself would be inoperative, and would not give relief in the direction which the House by a largo majority had demanded.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, after the word "medicine," to insert the words "or such relief prescribed by the medical officer."—(Sir Sydney Waterlow.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)

said, that as the Bill stood at present, the distinction between medical relief and other relief was perfectly clear; it was perfectly well understood in Ireland, and also in this country. If they once ceased to deal with medical advice and medicine, and got to "extras," as they were called, they could not draw the line between medicine and food. If once they gave a vote to people who received food from the parish, he did not see how they could help giving it in all cases of outdoor relief. As the Bill was drawn, there was a clear and well-defined line, and if they defaced it they would have to go outside medical relief. That, he confessed, he should greatly regret. He would just give one illustration of the cases in which medical officers might be called upon. Take the case of a family that had a sick child. The child might be very ill, and in the greatest need of medical assistance; its illness might be simply want of sufficient nourishment; the doctor was called in, and what distinction was to be drawn between that case, if the medical officer ordered for the child the nourishment it was in need of, and the case of a man who applied to the parish for ordinary relief to keep his family alive? The administration existing at the present time was ingrained in the system of the country, and he felt if they altered it they would be plunging themselves into great difficulties in the future.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Notwithstanding that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has forbidden me to speak, I must say that he has acted in a most extraordinary way — in a manner never yet adopted by anyone holding a position similar to that of the right hon. Baronet — [Cries of" Question!"] I never yet heard of a Cabinet Minister behaving in such a way as the right hon. Gentleman has done.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL)

I rise to Order. I wish to ask you Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to the Question before the House?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I was addressing myself to the manner in which the Cabinet is behaving.

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. DALRYMPLE)

I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman has gone beyond his rights; but I trust we shall speedily reach the subject before the House.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I have said all I wish to say on that point. I strongly support the Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet behind me (Sir Sydney Waterlow). I must say I entirely agree with the distinction drawn by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour) with reference to medical relief. The question is, what is medical relief? Take a case of sickness—of fever. There are two kinds of fever; there is one kind for which they give bark, or what is called quinine; but there is another one—namely, typhoid, for which the usual remedy is port wine, champagne, and so on. Here I would say that the medicine to cure one disease is medical relief; but that which is required in the case of the other—namely, port wine and beef tea, is not; but, as I a matter of fact, they are both medical' relief. The real distinction which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has not drawn is this—that if you give food as a cure for disease, that is medical relief; but that where you give it in consequence of destitution, it is not medical relief. What is obtained on the order of the doctor is a cure or remedy for disease; and that is purely medical relief, whatever form it takes. It is absurd to say that a particular kind of relief is not to be treated as medical relief where applied to the case of disease. An hon. Member behind me says that doctors have become much more reasonable in late years, and that it is now their practice to give less drug and more nourishment. But nourishment, where it is required, is as much medical relief as if you gave a patient calomel or some other powerful drug that is requisite; therefore, the Amendment I regard as being pure common sense.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)

said, the main and principle argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) had satisfied hon. Members that they ought to support the Bill as it stood. A man might be able to support a family, and might be able to find food for the family. It might be that himself, or his wife, or his child might meet with an accident, and require medical assistance; and when assistance was given in a case of that kind it should not be allowed to disqualify the man from exercising the franchise. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite said that supposing champagne or port wine were given, it ought to be placed in the same category as the relief in the case he had suggested; but he (the Attorney General) thought the right hon. Gentleman scarcely remembered what was the universal, or, at any rate, almost the universal, practice in Poor Law Unions with regard to the bestowal of relief. He (the Attorney General) believed he was correct in saying that champagne, port wine, beef tea, and so on, were never given by the medical officer. In most Unions they could not be given. These things were ordered quite distinctly — they were ordered to be given by the Board of Guardians themselves in the shape of relief. It did not come within either the description. "medical or surgical assistance" or "medicine;" and he submitted it was a step in advance to say that they would recognize the fact that where one had relief of this kind from the Guardians he should not be disqualified from exercising the vote. It was a distinctly separate step, and one which the Committee ought not to take —to say that, in addition to medical and surgical assistance, where, what in the true sense of the phrase was food, was given, it should be reckoned as medical assistance.

MR. CROPPER

said, that as one who had for a very long time been connected with parish work, he must submit that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down was perfectly right in what he had said. A medical officer once put on a case gave a certain amount of attendance and of physic, and it might be of medical and surgical appliances. But when it came to the ordering of food and diet, that was done by the relieving officer. He (Mr. Cropper) did not see how they were to confuse the two on the present occasion without going a great deal further than was proposed. He could not see what difference there was between the two kinds of relief. Where food was necessary in the case of sickness, it ceased to be ordered by the medical officer, and was given by the relieving officer. If they came to break into the existing practice with regard to the bestowal of food, he did not see where they could stop, and he certainly should support the President of the Local Government Board on this question.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, he wished to make one more appeal to the Government. He was sure that if they gave way on this, notwithstanding the influence of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt), they would be opening the door to enormous alteration in the law. The right hon. Gentleman posed as the friend of the working man, and said that this concession was demanded in the interests of the poor; but he (Mr. J. G. Talbot) declared, in the interests of the working men themselves, that ho was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman asking for such an Amendment. He considered it a direct discouragement to those hardworking, honest men who were striving to make a provision for themselves and their families. Illness came to all families, and all families wanted more nourishment when there was sickness amongst them; and if they said that a person who sought public relief when he was ill, or when his child was ill, was to stand on the same footing as the thrifty man who had provided for a rainy day for himself, his wife, and his children, he contended that they were absolutely disheartening the thrifty and provident. In the name of the working men of the country, he asked the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

I cannot help thinking that the distinction that the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) says we are going to establish is really not one of principle, but of words. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, with perfect truth, that when relief and medical extras are given they are given by the order of the Boards of Guardians. Yes; but they are given on the recommendation of the medical officer. Just in the same way as he, in his discretion, prescribes the medicine, so also in his discretion, which is hardly ever varied by any Board of Guardians, he prescribes the food which he considers to be as important for the cure of the disease as medicine.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

These medical extras are generally given, or, at any rate, given quite as often, on the order of the relieving officer as upon the order of the medical officer.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

The hon. and learned Member is now referring to a totally different class of cases. We are talking of medical relief—of medical extras given as a part of medical relief. Those are given on the recommendation of the medical officer. What is the Amendment before the Committee? The Amendment is that these medical extras, when prescribed by a medical officer, not when given by a relieving officer, are to be treated as purely medical relief. But the hon. and learned Gentleman says, or, at any rate, his argument is, that men may be able to provide food for their families, and yet be unable to meet the emergencies when medical relief is wanted. Surely the case is the same when such things as champagnee and port wine are wanted? Men may be able to provide their families with ordinary food, and yet be unable to buy such articles of food as port wine and champagne when the necessity for them arises. All I have to say to the Government is this— that without this Amendment the Bill is not worth a rap. I put it to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), who probably knows more about this matter than anyone else in the House, whether, in almost every case where medical relief is given, these medical extras are not required? [Mr. PELL: No, no!] Take such cases as confinements, accidents, fevers, and I will undertake to say it is the ordinary practice to prescribe one or other of these medical extras; and if these medical extras are not to be prescribed without a man losing his vote, I contend that you keep the word of promise to the ear and break it to the hope.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)

said, he denied that the Government gave the word to the ear, and broke it in the substance. The words in the Bill, which were now the subject of controversy, were the precise words that were contained in the Irish Act, and had been borrowed. But that was not all. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), who had originally brought the subject of this Bill before the House, in the speeches in which he introduced it distinctly explained that what he was doing was giving medical relief, pure and simple, and not granting any of these medical extras. The Bill which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Ceilings') brought in was exactly of the same character as the provision the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch had sought to get the House to accept. It was the Bill of the hon. Member for Ipswich which hon. Gentlemen opposite had been going round the country declaring to be the one thing which these "mean Tories" would not give; and now they contended that this provision was one given to the ear, but broken in the substance, and was not "worth a rap." This, like other discoveries in the same direction seemed to come rather late in the day Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We were before you] One illustration would show how difficult it would be to carry out the principle which hon. Gentlemen opposite wished the Committee to accept. Let them suppose a case of two adjoining houses, in each of which there was a child suffering from sickness; let them suppose that the sickness in each case arose simply and solely from privation; the father in the one case might call in the relieving officer, whilst the father in the other case called in the medical officer.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

He cannot call in the relieving officer.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)

said, he begged pardon; he could call in the relieving officer. Well, the one called in the relieving officer, and the other the medical officer. The relieving officer immediately ordered food, and the medical officer ordered medical relief and food. One of these voters would be disqualified from exercising the franchise, whilst the other would not be so disqualified. Where, he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) asked, was the distinction between these two cases? Was it not that they were breaking down the barrier that separated medical relief from outdoor relief; and were they not justified in adhering to the actual terms of the Bill which Liberal Parliaments had publicly announced it to be their intention to abide by?

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, that he took it the sending for a medical officer would be the act of the patient. He could exercise his discretion in the matter. But directly the medical officer was in the house, if he said—"I will prescribe medicine only," the vote remained; if, however, he gave medicine and a glass of wine, or a cup of tea, the vote was gone.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

asked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that no working man could provide his own cup of tea?

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he could not but think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was speaking on this matter without seeing the real substance of the question he was dealing with. The right hon. Gentleman said that this Bill, which was originally his (Mr. Jesse Colling's), was merely a copy of the Irish Act. That was true; but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in Ireland what were called "medical comforts," which was the same thing as medical extras, were taken to be included amongst the things that could be given by the medical officer without destroying the vote. But since his Bill had been brought in something had happened. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), had defined what this medical relief meant, and had put a definition upon the clause which was different to what had been generally understood in Ireland. He would appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who sat below him (Colonel Nolan), and who had great experience in the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland, whether he did not agree that what they called medical comforts in Ireland were generally given under the clause they were now discussing? If the hon. and gallant Member did not answer in the affirmative, he should be very much surprised. The right hon. Gentleman had described a little child in a state of semi-starvation. Starvation developed into disease, and disease destroyed appetite, and the child could not even look at the ordinary food, much less eat it, which the agricultural labourer could afford to give it. In such a case was the child to die? ["No, no!"] Then what did the right hon. Gentleman's argument tend to; was the labourer, in order to keep his child alive, to lose his vote? If the child wanted these extras to restore health, he supposed the giving of them was a medical process which the doctor would think was necessary to restore health. In common sense it was medical relief. It was irksome to the Committee to keep on bringing instances before them; but there was just one he should like to mention. He was in a cottage not long ago where there was a woman, within eight days after her confinement, trying to do her ordinary house-work. She had been trying to do her house-work, but had failed, and was in such a condition that if any hon. Member present had seen her, he would immediately have obtained relief at his own expense for her. Did she want physic? No; she simply wanted medical care, and perhaps some nourishment. Now, were such cases as these cases in which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite seriously meant to insist on disfranchising the husband if the relief was given? Did they intend to give a less meaning to this Bill in England than they had given to legislation in Ireland? ["No, no!"] Then why did the right hon. Gentlemen give a different meaning to the law in England to that which it bore in Ireland? He sincerely trusted that the Government, who had got hold of this Bill, and who had told the Committee and those concerned that they were going to give them a Medical Relief Disqualification Removal Bill, would give that Medical Belief Disqualification Removal Bill. He had referred to 64 serious cases where disqualification would result in one single Union in one half-year if this Amendment was not accepted; the cases were those in which the administration of brandy and other articles was necessary. Were the Government going to refuse to allow brandy to be administered in these cases?

MR. BROADHURST

said, he should like to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to alter his mind. He would make that appeal on the strength of one fact—namely, that they all understood that this Bill was to relieve the voter from any disability on account of any order that a doctor might give for the restoration of health. He thought that was the whole essence of the Bill, and the whole intention of the Bill, and that was what they understood that the Bill meant, after the reply given to a question that afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman stated just now, that a great deal of disease amongst the labouring population arose through the want of the necessaries of life. But, then, he (Mr. Broadhurst) apprehended that it was the case with the great body of the agricultural labourers that they did not get sufficient of the necessaries of life. ["No, no!"] He begged pardon of the hon. Gentleman who said "No!" but ho thought that would be found to be the case. He did not see how agricultural labourers could obtain the necessaries of life under the miserable pauper dole which some people seemed to call wages. It was impossible for them to obtain even the necessaries of life; and therefore he asked the Government to yield on this question, and not to oppose the Amendment under discussion.

MR. PULESTON

said, he thought that the time had come when it was desirable to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. A. J.

Balfour) whether it was not proper to report Progress?

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, he had been for 12 years on the Board of Guardians at Oxford, and he ventured to think that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would say that that was one of the best-managed Boards in the country. Although they had a Private Act, they gave the Local Government Board very little trouble; and, besides that, they had reduced the rates from 2s. 6d. in the pound to 1s. 5d. One of the processes by which they had effected that reduction was by giving no outdoor relief to any person who had not endeavoured to provide for himself by becoming a member of a club. If he had been in a club, and had exhausted his resources, they gave him relief. They had also established a dispensary. They paid their doctors a reasonable salary of £120 a-year. No doubt, as had been said in the course of the debate, there was a good deal of difference between a good and a bad doctor; but there was very little difference between a bad doctor and none at all. His meaning was that the best thing the Guardians could do was to put a man in a good state of health.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) had fallen into an error in supposing that, under the Irish dispensary system, what were called medical comforts were allowed. Those matters were supplied from some other sources. If the words which had been suggested were adopted, they would constitute an entire departure from the Bill as introduced.

MR. DEASY

said, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman's (Mr. Holmes's) knowledge of Irish affairs was to be judged from the statement he had just made, Irish Members were likely to get very little satisfacture from his tenure of Office. He (Mr. Deasy) had been a Guardian for six years, and he could assure the Committee that the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the subject of Poor Law administration in Ireland was entirely wrong. It was the practice to give medical comforts in addition to ordinary medicine. He had taken an active part in the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland; and he had scarcely ever known a case in which the family of a labouring man in poor circumstances had not had medical comforts supplied when ill. If this Amendment was not passed, there would be a large number of persons disqualified. He sincerely trusted that in this discussion the Committee would not be influenced by what had fallen from the last speaker, because it was an utter perversion of facts.

MR. PELL

said, the Bill was drafted on the terms of an earlier Bill. He thought no argument could be adduced in its favour from the Irish system. It was confessed that they wore not quite clear as to the Irish law on the subject; and, therefore, he thought it probable that they were not altogether right on the subject of the English law. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had said that, in all serious cases, medical relief was accompanied by a recommendation for medical extras. But in the part of the country in which he lived they had never had a case of the kind. This Bill could only apply to out-of-door poor; and, therefore, the illustration of the right hon. Gentleman was of no avail. At that hour (2.40) the Government would do well to report Progress. He had made a Motion to that effect so often that it really looked as though he desired to obstruct the Bill. He assured the Committee that such was not his desire.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) founded his objection to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) on the Irish precedent, having the same ideas with regard to the practice in Ireland as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes). As he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) understood the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, it was a perfectly fair and reasonable one. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Irish Act applied distinctly and definitely to those cases where relief was confied to medicine, and medicine only; and the right hon. Gentleman went on to argue, quite logically, that Parliament had no right to give in England and Scotland a greater amount of relief than was given in Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman found that he had argued upon false premises and inaccurate information, he would, no doubt, see his way to change his position on the question. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Deasy), who was as intimately acquainted with the practical working of the Poor Law system in Ireland as any man in the House, pledged his authority to a perfectly opposite view to that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes). His hon. Friend the Member for County Water-ford (Mr. P. J. Power), who was Chairman of a Poor Law Board in Ireland, stated that medical comforts— that was to say, food—was frequently ordered by the medical officers in Ireland. The medical officer did not give wine and the like himself, because he had not that in his dispensary; but he had a right to call upon the relieving officer to give it in the shape of medicine. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) gave his testimony to the same effect. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not suppose that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland was practically acquainted with the working of the Poor Law system; but Irish Members in that House who did know the system, were agreed in the statement that medical relief in Ireland included medical comforts, in the shape of port wine and the like. As the whole case of the Government in resisting this Amendment was founded on the Irish precedent, this was a case in which the Government ought to yield to the unanimous opinion of the Committee. Of course, he did not include the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), who did not count in this matter, becaused he was opposed to the Bill in toto.

THE CHANOELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)

Sir, in the opinion of the Government, this Amendment is one of considerable importance, and we have to ask the Committee very earnestly not to engraft it in the Bill. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has compared the Amendment of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Sydney Waterlow) with the system in Ireland. I understand the system in Ireland is this—the medi- cal officer has power, under the Dispensary Acts, to do certain things, and to order certain medicine; but that, if anything is required beyond that, the medical officer can only suggest or recommend it. Well, now, that is precisely the distinction which we have endeavoured to maintain by the words of the Bill. We have taken the words which, as far as we understand it, embody the Irish system, and adopt it for the rest of the United Kingdom. We have endeavoured to meet this argument—that whereas the poorer classes in our large towns are able to obtain medical relief through dispensaries and by becoming outdoor hospital patients, without disqualifying themselves for the exercise of the franchise, the poorer classes in the country should not be disqualified for the lack of similar resources. But outdoor patients of hospitals do not got these comforts, but are simply supplied with medical and surgical relief. We have adopted what we thought was desired by the House, and what was felt by ourselves to be right in this matter. We stated, some days ago, that we would endeavour to carry into effect what practically had been accepted by the House upon the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), and subsequently rejected in "another place." We extended that by applying the alteration of the law to all elections, and also by making it a permanent, instead of a temporary, measure. We confess we thought we had met the reasonable wishes of the House on the subject, and that the Bill would have been taken as a practical settlement of the question. But now, Sir, we are asked, so far as I can judge, after listening to this debate, and pretending to no very minute acquaintance with the system of the Poor Law, such as some hon. Members possess—we are asked to extend the provisions of our Bill in a way which would apparently fail to draw-any real distinction between the different classes of outdoor relief. We think that, in the Bill as it stands, we have adopted a definite line which may fairly be adhered to by Parliament; and I must say—and I do not say it as a threat—we do look at this Amendment as one of a grave and important character, and it is impossible for me to say what may be the consequences to this Bill if the Committee should adopt the words proposed.

LORD EDWARD CAVENDISH

said, ho agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this Amendment was one of a grave and important character, and on that account he considered it was too late an hour (2.50) to discuss it. He had hoped he should never move to report Progress—ho had never done so before, and he hoped he would never have occasion to do it again. He regretted very much the tone of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He had hoped they had done with bids for popularity; but it appeared there was no end to where they might go in that direction. If this Amendment were carried, it was perfectly impossible to know where they could stop in conferring the franchise. Justice could not be done at that hour of the morning to the Amendment; and, therefore, be moved to report Progress.

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

MR. PULESTON

said, that no one was more strongly in favour of the Bill than ho was; but he thought the request of the noble Lord (Lord Edward Cavendish) was a very reasonable one. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to acquiesce in the suggestion.

MR. COURTNEY

said, it was very evident that the question which was raised was one of the utmost importance. It was regarded by the Treasury Bench as a matter almost vital to the Bill, and by some hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House it was regarded as of the utmost consequence that the words proposed should be inserted in the Bill. When an Amendment of this kind was raised at that time of the morning, without having been on the Paper, was it not perfectly reasonable that they should report Progress? He pronounced no opinion whatever upon the question, because he had no opinion; but he did suggest it was fitting they should now report Progress. If he might allude to himself for one moment, he might say he had been in and about the House ever since 12 o'clock. He sat upon a Committee to inquire into the Admiralty expenditure from 12 to 4 o'clock; he had been in the House, except during the dinner hour, from 4 until now, and he would have to be in attendance again at 12 o'clock. He had no doubt there were other Members of the House in the same position. The point at issue could not be settled that night, and, further, it was absurd to go on longer. He earnestly hoped the Committee would now consent to report Progress.

SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW

said, he hoped there would not be any objection at 10 minutes to 3 to report Progress, and to consider the Amendment on another occasion. When he moved the Amendment he did not anticipate the Government would have so strong an objection to it. He had hoped the Government meant the word "medicine" to include what was prescribed by the medical officer. If they had no such intention, and it was evident they had not, it was clear the Committee ought to have a longer time to consider what was to be done. If the Government persevered in resisting the Amendment, or were not prepared to add words which would have the same effect, it was clear they would give with one hand and take away with the other. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would afford time to consider the question by reporting Progress.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he hoped the Government would stick to their guns, and not accede to the Motion. He also had been in attendance since 12 o'clock, but did not desire to leave until this question was settled.

Question put.

The Committee divided; —Ayes 19; Noes 144: Majority 125.—(Div. List, No. 238.)

Question, "That the words 'or such relief prescribed by the medical officer' be there inserted" again proposed.

SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW

said, he should like to have an opportunity of saying a word or two, and a word or two only, in reply to statements that had been made in opposition to the Amendment he had proposed. He would not dwell on the strength with which the Government relied on the words in the Irish Act, because it was clear that the Irish authorities in the House were at variance with the Government, and that the Government were mistaken on the matter. It was clear that the Irish Act did contemplate medical comforts. If the Amendment were not accepted, the medical officer could only prescribe drugs; and they had arrived at the conclusion that in nine cases out of 10, especially in cases of fever, milk and beef tea were more necessary than drugs. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had put a case that he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) must say a word in answer to—namely, the case of two children. [Cries of" Divide!"] He was dealing with the principle of the Bill; unless the Amendment were carefully considered the measure would not be worth anything. He would not detain the Committee more than a minute or two if hon. Members would allow him to conclude. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the case of two children in adjoining houses suffering side by side not so much from disease as from starvation. Well, if the right hon. Gentleman had been a Guardian, as he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had been for 25 years, he would know that it was the relieving officer who attended such cases. If the relieving officer found the cases to be cases of want of food, he would take them into the house. If, on the other hand, he found them to be cases of disease, he would send the medical officer, who would prescribe what was necessary as medicines. [Cries of" Divide!"] He must appeal to the House to let him finish; he very rarely troubled it, and he should not now do so if it were not a question upon which he felt very strongly. [Cries of"Divide!"] Ho hoped the Government would con-sent to the Amendment; and he must say he thought the public would feel that without it the measure was worth absolutely nothing.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 68; Noes 71: Majority 3.—(Div. List, No. 239.)

New Clause:—

(Provision for registration in the present year.) (1.) In the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five, in England, where the overseers have entered "objected" against the names of any persons in the list of ownership voters or in the old lodgers list, or have omitted the names of any voters from any list of voters made by them, and such entry or omission has been made on the ground only of those persons having received such medical or surgical assistance or medicine as in this Act mentioned, and such names would not if this Act had previously passed have been so objected to or omitted, the overseers shall make a list of such persons, and such list shall be published, re. vised, and dealt with in all respects as if it were part of the list of claimants in respect of the occupation of property with the qualification following (namely): — The revising barrister shall, without the appearance of or any proof by any such person, retain his name in the list made by the overseers under this section, unless he is objected to, and the objector proves that such person is not entitled to be registered; and if such objection is made the revising barrister shall, notwithstanding the absence of the said person, take the evidence of the overseers as to his right to be registered. (2.) The clerk of the peace or town clerk shall insert in their proper place in the register the names of the persons in the said list, when revised. (3.) Every clerk of the peace and town clerk acting under the Acts relating to the registration of Parliamentary voters shall forthwith after the passing of this Act issue precepts to the overseers informing thorn of their duties under it,"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, if he read the clause rightly, it required a small addition to be made to it. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to insert words and instructions that the lists should be made out quickly—that was to say, that there should be an interval of 21 days, between the making of the list and the time when it reached the Revising Barrister. He understood that, as the matter stood at present, the overseers might prepare the list on one day, and that it could be dealt with by the Revising Barrister to-morrow; and in that case there would be no time to examine the lists on the church doors and correct any errors which it might contain. Ho therefore suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should insert, at the end of the ninth line, the words— And published at least 20 days before the revision of the voting list by the revising barrister,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)

I will agree to insert that on the Report.

MR. CLARE READ

said, he wished to call attention to the fact that throughout the clause there was no mention made of anyone but the overseer. It was, he thought, utterly impossible for the overseers to carry out this clause throughout the whole of England. They were perfectly ignorant of the facts of the case; they simply knew that a pauper had received relief; but as to whether it was in money, medicine, or in kind, they knew nothing whatever. This point had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) on the second reading of the Bill; and he (Mr. Clare Read) would put it to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board whether he could not issue an order to the Clerks to the Boards of Guardians to furnish this important information to the overseers? The overseer had no more to do with the poor than the churchwarden; he was simply a rate collector. As he had observed, there was no mention made of anyone but the overseer; and under the existing arrangements ho would be quite incapable of carrying out the instructions.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added accordingly.

MR. HEALY

said, he wished to move that the Bill should not apply to Ireland, where, as far as he could see, it would be quite unnecessary. In Ireland municipal elections were provided for under the Municipal Election Act, and Parliamentary elections were provided for under another Act. Under the circumstances, he thought the Government should agree to insert words to the effect that the Act should not apply to Ireland.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)

said, he presumed the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) wished to see no inequality established between the two countries. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow the matter to stand over till Report, and, in the meantime, it should be considered.

MR. HEALY

said, that having raised the point, he was content to follow the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. Ho hoped the right hon. Gentleman would put down a clause in his own name.

COLONEL NOLAN

asked the right hon. Gentleman to accept the assurance of his hon. and learned Friend and himself that the Bill was not required in Ireland.

MR. HENEAGE

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman had promised to consider the case of Scotland in reference to the Bill between then and Report, he hoped he would also deal with the case of Ireland at the same time, and that the House would allow the Bill to be passed through the Committee stage now.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.