HC Deb 23 March 1898 vol 55 cc661-89

Motion made, and Question proposed— That the Bill be now read a second time.

*MR. WILLIAM F. LAWRENCE (Liverpool, Abercromby)

I rise, Sir, to move the Second Reading of a Bill connected with poor law administration, which, I think, will probably meet with the general approval of the House. In the first place the Bill does not introduce any new principle, but proceeds entirely on principles that have been adopted in a similar way in the case of county councils, both in England and Scotland. For practical purposes also municipal bodies have powers similar to those which I now invite the House to grant in the case of poor law boards, and so recently as 1897 the school boards received this power of association. Another reason why the Bill should recommend itself to the House is that it is in no case compulsory, but proceeds upon the principle of local option, so that any poor law board may either adopt or not adopt the principles of the Bill. For many years poor law conferences have been held four times a year, and those personally acquainted with the ins and outs of poor law work feel that, however excellent in the past these conferences have been for purposes of discussion, yet an association of all these bodies throughout the country connected with poor law administration will not be merely a great advantage to the Local Government Board in London in dealing with poor law questions, but will altogether raise the level of poor law work, and give it a homogeneity and a continuity of action, which are very desirable. The idea, of the Bill is that the various boards which send representatives to the conferences may, if they choose, elect those representatives to this poor law association. The members will be selected on a certain scale, beginning with two members for every poor law union that has 25,000 people in it, and increasing the number of representatives according to the increase of population. That, however, is a detail with which I need not trouble the House. No doubt, it will be under the cognisance of the authorities at Whitehall, and, if there is any reason to think that such a rate of representation is not desirable, the associations will do what is right to bring their views into harmony with those of the authorities. In addition to this power of representation on this central association, the Bill gives power to charge the rates on a certain scale with a sum not exceeding £10 towards the expenses of the association. In the matter of the County Council Associations this House, without any opposition, conceded a sum of something like £30 a county towards the expenses of the central association, and the same concession was given to the Scottish County Councils under the County Councils (Scotland) Act, 1894. The House will thus see that, in asking for this small sum for the Poor Law Central Association, we are following strictly the precedents set before us by the County Councils Act of 1890 and the County Councils Act (Scotland) 1894. I see that the hon. Member for Flint intends to oppose this Bill, and I understand his objection is that this voluntary association is to be financed out of public funds. The hon. Member argues that if he and others form some other voluntary association they will immediately demand similar assistance from the public purse, but I submit that this poor law association, being entirely composed of representatives elected from poor law guardians—that is to say, legal representatives of the various localities—if their election is properly conducted they become, in a way, official personages, and it is obviously quite proper, when they discharge a public duty, that a moderate charge on the public rates should be granted to them for the maintenance of their public work. At the poor law conference last November 170 boards of guardians sent about 300 delegates, and by a unanimous vole it was resolved that this Poor Law Association should come into operation. It is the object of the Bill to give effect to that Resolution. The Bill is not promoted merely by one or two men who are specially interested in it, but is really the outcome of the public feeling of poor law bodies met together in the poor law conferences. If might be argued that as the poor law conference meets year after year it should be allowed to continue, but the conference only meets four times a year, and if this association is called into existence there will be continued action, so that when an important Bill like the Local Government Bill of 1894 or any matter of a cognate character is to be discussed, there would be always in Session an authoritative body which would fairly express the views of the various poor law unions throughout the country. That cannot be the case under the present system of poor law conferences which meet only four times a year, and have no agency when not sitting. Again, under the present system, the poor law conference has only power to raise about ten shillings per union towards their expenses, and it is clear that the association would require to ask the House for increased support if it were called to discharge the duties of the proposed association. I only desire to repeat that this association is to be a voluntary body, and, inasmuch as the principle of the Bill has been so frequently, and without opposition, adopted on previous occasions, I think it is worthy of the support of the House. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.

MR. SAMUEL SMITH (Flintshire)

I do not profess fully to understand the nature of this Bill, but representations have been made to me by those who have taken great interest in the reform of the poor law schools, and who have pointed out that an association of this kind, supplied with public funds, will very likely be used in order to hinder those reforms and improvements which are so necessary in the interests of poor law children. Persons who are thoroughly acquainted with the barrack schools know the great difficulties experienced in dealing with them, and in saving the children from that extremely unhealthy and unnatural mode of treatment to which they are subjected. The Commission which inquired into the barrack schools three years ago revealed a state of affairs which was simply abominable. Until the House gets a much clearer view of the reasons why this Bill is brought forward, and what is to be done for the money, it will be my duty to oppose the Second Reading. I move that the Bill be read this day six months.

MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

I beg to second the Amendment, but for slightly different reasons. We have heard that this Bill ought to be an improvement, mainly because it seeks to do for poor law administration what the county council Bills have done for municipal administration. In answer to that I would point out that there is a great difference between poor law administration and county council administration. I find that under this Bill the guardians of any union or parish may pay any sum not exceeding £10 in any one year as an annual or other subscription to the funds of the association. But I should like to hear from the supporters of the Bill whether the guardians of any of the 650 unions are to subscribe £10 each out of the rates, plus reasonable expenses, and can we also have a definition of what reasonable expenses are? Sir, I wish to know if any of these 650 poor law unions, in addition to the subscription of £10 a year, will be allowed the expenses of three or four delegates putting up at the Hotel Cecil or Métropole if they are attending a poor law conference in London? The next point I wish to make is: does it mean the 13,150 poor law parishes in England and Wales? If these parishes and 13,150 poor law unions are to have the privilege of spending £10 each, and reasonable expenses, it is going to mean a considerable sum of public money, and I think the promoters of the Bill ought to give some information on that point. Will it mean that a union, in addition to this subscription, could spend £10 on three or four delegates, putting up, say, at the Hôtel Métropole, or the Hôtel Cecil, if they attended a conference in London? I come to another point: what guarantee have we that this Poor Law Unions Association, although put forward ostensibly to promote legislation advantageous to the administration of the poor law, will not also be used in the interests of officialdom? I can conceive, Sir, that the guardians are too often in the hands of permanent officials who object to new duties being imposed upon them, and who object to more work. They elect two or three officials and two or three guardians to come up here and "lobby" the Members of the House of Commons, with the avowed object of improving the administration of the poor law in the future, and giving more work to the officials. Now, I do object to public money being put to such purposes, and I also object to the representative right of Members of this House being whittled away by salaried officers of the ratepayers being sent by associations of this kind, who are to have equal power of voting with representatives who have been elected by the ratepayers, and I do protest against a poor law official coming to conferences on the poor law, who is paid for his services, exercising a vote probably upon matters which might pos sibly directly affect his own official work. Well, Sir, I believe that, deftly organised, this Poor Law Association might become an organisation for increased pensions to poor law officials, to diminish the duties of poor law officers, and in other ways add to the rates, beyond what has already been conferred upon them. I share the view of the hon. Member for Flintshire that the bulk of the changes for the better that have come over poor law administration in the past 10 or 15 years have been taken like butter out of a duck's mouth from the officials, and have induced guardians to look upon a pauper not as a person who should always be reasonably treated. I am afraid, if we establish these Poor Law Associations, supported and paid for out of the rates, and give poor law officials that voting power, we shall have these associations managed more in the interests of the officers than in the interests of genuine poor law administration. I sincerely trust that the Local Government Board will, if this Bill passes its Second Reading, so safeguard this Measure as to render such a state of things impossible, and to destroy absolutely the voting power of the officials, thus leaving the poor law administration entirely to the elected members of the Board. To show that my fears are not altogether groundless, I have received a letter from a gentleman who, however much we may disagree with him, has done a great deal for the poor children in this city. Although I do not agree with him in many things, this is one of the points I can agree with him upon. He has had some thousands of children—you can describe them almost as poor law children—pass through his schools and institutions, and he is admitted as a great authority upon this subject. Dr. Barnardo sends a letter to me in which this sentence appears— May I add that the influence of a healthy public opinion has lately been felt most markedly in the changes which have taken place in connection with the thousands of children who are under the poor law; and it is hoped that the reforms which have been begun will be carried out, until the abuses and evils engendered by an effete system have been wholly swept away. The effect of this Bill would, however, in my judgment, by setting up an association of a protective character, be practically to check all future reforms, and to paralyse the hands that are even now stretched out to remedy flagrant abuses. Now, when a gentleman like Dr. Barnardo makes a statement of that kind against this Bill, it is worthy of a moment's consideration, especially when he talks about the effete system of poor law administration which this Bill will perpetuate. I gather that this Poor Law Association will be captured either by small cliques of officers or by small coteries of hide-bound administrators of the poor law, and that we shall have the generous and humanitarian tendency of modern poor law reform set on one side and the brutalities of our poor law system will become stereotyped, and, probably, not diminished. It may be said that the Local Government Board will see that this is not done, but I am not so sure of that. Some time ago we had a Bill brought forward relating to Poor Law Superannuation, and we were under the impression that the Local Government Board were looking after the interests of the ratepayers with that Measure, and the very necessity for this particular Bill proved one of two things: either the poor law guardians are losing their individuality or collective interest in local work, which I should be extremely sorry to hear, because, generally speaking, it is monotonous work, even painful work, and I rejoice that we have got so many disinterested public men who can be found to devote so much time to the work. But the mere fact of the introduction of this Bill indicates that the local Guardians are losing their interest in poor law work; and the Local Government Board are not in touch with local Boards of Guardians, but desire to ascertain their views as they should do. This Bill will be welcomed by the Local Government Board, probably because it will focus the opinions of Boards of Guardians, and enable the Board to ascertain their collective views, and by a vote give the Local Government Board a lead where now it is incapable of leading, through lack of information. That is all very well in its way, provided that these dangers are indicated to the Local Government Board, and those opinions are not engineered by paid officials, and if the officials are deprived of voting in such associations. But the tendency is, in Local Government Board work, to give to those who have, to give larger salaries, to increase emoluments, and to improve the conditions of service out of all proportion, very often, to the services rendered. I suspect that the poor law officers are very keen on this Bill, because with a little judicial engineering they may be able to manipulate these associations to their own advantage. Unless the President of the Local Government Board is prepared to safeguard this Measure in the one or two points I have indicated, probably 10 or 15 years hence we shall have the right hon. Gentleman coming down to the House of Commons and saying: This is not a Bill framed to bring us in touch with the guardians, but experience has proved that cliques of officers have captured this association. It is one of the additional arrangements which officials know how to resort to for getting large salaries at the ratepayers' expense, for very light duties. It is for these reasons that I second the Motion.


I must protest in the strongest language I can command within the limit of Parliamentary rules against the speech made by the hon. Member for Battersea. This Bill was not introduced to create abuses, but to remedy them. I am not the author of this Bill, but I have had a great deal to do with an association which produced many valuable suggestions, and it was because I was certain that these meetings had tended very much to solve difficult problems that I am in favour of similar associations for poor law administration. I have been present at many of these association meetings, and as I was the chairman of the conference last year, I am perfectly sure from my experience that none of those meetings pass without enlarged views being spread amongst the guardians present. As regards barrack schools, I have nothing to say, except that in the union with which I was connected we abolished barrack schools altogether, and we have taken the children out of the workhouse and placed them in separate homes of their own, in buildings by themselves. I feel bound to repudiate the idea that this Bill has been introduced to promote the evils suggested; it is intended to carry out the views of those opposed to the barrack system, and if it does not entirely abolish barrack schools, at any rate they will be placed under such management, as far as advisable, as will minimise the evils complained of. Then, Sir, as regards the speech made by the hon. Member for Battersea. I am not at all sure whether it would be a wise thing that no salaried official should be entitled to attend the meetings of this association, and I am sure that this would not be a salutary alteration to make in Committee. I am surprised to hear a speech in this sense from the hon. Member for Battersea, because its real object is to enable a poor guardian to attend the meetings of the association who cannot afford to pay his own expenses. I think the allowances made for expenses are very necessary, because I know from my own experience of guardians that there are many of them who are able and efficient men, who render eminent service, but who cannot afford the expense of a long journey to London to attend these meetings. I do think that in the interests of poor law administration, in the interests of these poor guardians, who cannot afford to pay these expenses out of their own pockets, in the interests of the promotion of enlarged and enlightened views, it will be a wise policy on the part of this House to pass that Bill, supported as it is by precedents and by experience, the successful operations of which cannot be doubted.

*LORD E. FITZMAURICE (Wilts, Cricklade)

I hope the House will not think it out of place if I say a few words upon this Bill, because it so happens that I am at this moment the President of the South-Western Poor Law Conference Association, which embraces all the Poor Law Unions in the South-Western district. I am bound to say that the proposals of this Bill perhaps require to have a little more explanation than my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool accorded to the House, and I rather regret that he did not anticipate some of the criticisms which we have already heard from both sides of the House. Now, the first observation I wish to make is to ask how far it is necessary—considering that there is already a County Councils Association and a Municipal Corporations Association in existence, the objects of which are supported by public funds—or desirable to form another association meeting in London, and dealing with an important branch of local government. I think we ought to have some fuller explanation than we have had upon this question, because I would venture to remind the House that much of the most important work of a poor law guardian is not concerned so much with the poor law administration as with all that mass of local work which a poor law union transacts sitting as a district council. Of course, when this Bill is passed into law—and I hope the House will grasp this fact clearly—it will be altogether ultra vires for the Members sent to the meetings of this Association to discuss or touch upon any question unless it was strictly concerned with the poor law, and, therefore, we are asking that public funds should be allowed to be used for one comparatively small object, important as I quite admit poor law work is. That is the point I wish to submit to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, and I would venture to point out to him that the point brought forward by the Member for Battersea is a very important one. He has pointed out that because you have allowed certain county councils in England and Wales, counting about 54 in number, to form an association of this kind, it does not follow that you should allow the poor law unions to do the same, because these unions are, as has been pointed out by the Member for Battersea, exceedingly numerous. If every poor law union in England and Wales took advantage of this Poor Law Union Association, it would be a gigantic undertaking. Some clause must be inserted to allow some authority, either the Local Government Board or the county council, to group poor law unions for this purpose. I am speaking with some knowledge of the work of the County Councils Association, and I say that confusion will arise even in a limited body like the County Councils Association. Nearly the whole of our work has to be handed over to an executive council, because it is impossible to get all the Members, who represent the county councils, to transact the matters of business which we have to transact, and which, in character and quality, very much resembles the ordinary every-day work of this House. If this is so with a limited body like ours, how much more so will it be, as the hon. Member for Battersea suggested, if you allow all these poor law unions to send up delegates to London. I sympathise a great deal with what the hon. Member for Battersea said in regard to permanent officials, and I do sincerely hope that if the Government allow this Bill to go to the Committee, an amendment will be moved forbidding the clerks to be elected and vote as members of the Association. If this is not done, then this Association will simply become a body of clerks transacting business from their own point of view. I do not wish to suggest any dishonest or dishonourable motives, but human nature is, after all, human nature, and if you send up a large body of poor law union clerks to sit at the meetings of the Association in London, they may be very well pardoned if they look upon the business transacted from the point of view of clerks. But there is another side to the question besides that which the hon. Gentleman for Battersea has put forward. In my opinion a strong feeling exists in the Metropolitan area in regard to the poor law schools, and I understand that the fear which animates my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea is that an association of this kind will attempt to put obstacles in the way of those desirable reforms to which he has alluded. But then there is another side to this question. If an association of this kind might for a moment obstruct, it may, on the other hand, encourage reforms. I can hardly imagine anything that would be more edifying to a farmer in the west of England who all his life has been sitting on a board of guardians, surrounded by members of his own class and order, and having no outside light of day from a larger world outside shed upon his deliberations, I can hardly imagine anything more useful than for him to be brought up to London to listen, for instance, to the views of the hon. Member for Battersea, at a meeting of this Association, and from the contrast of those opinions it is perfectly possible that from the west of England farmer the hon. Member for Battersea might also learn something. Of course, we are entirely in the hands of Her Majesty's Government in this matter, and I hope that, on the whole, this Bill, subject to the alterations and suggestions which have been made, may be allowed to pass a Second Reading. At the same time I do not think that if the Government refuse to support this measure, that the promoters of the Bill could complain a great deal. This Bill is a new Bill, and it has not, so far as I know, received any very great amount of support from poor law unions; but in any case a discussion of this kind, if it leads to no legislation, will have done no harm, and when the matter has received more attention, as it doubtless will, it is very possible then that a useful Bill may be passed, and the Measure passed should also allow the boards of guardians to contribute a larger sum to the expenses of poor law conferences to which now they are allowed to contribute a very small sum. I am sure we shall anticipate with great interest what falls from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.


Everyone will recognise the authority of the noble Lord upon this subject, and due weight will be paid by the Government to his observations on the Bill. I am glad to find that, on the whole, the noble Lord thinks the Bill ought to be read a second time. That is the conclusion which Her Majesty's Government have come to, and that is the course which I, on behalf of the Local Government Board, propose to pursue upon this occasion. Sir, I am quite sensible of the objections which have been taken to certain portions of the Bill, and with the permission of the House, in a very few words, I will deal with some of them. The first is in regard to my hon. Friend's apprehension, which he feels—and I know that it is a subject upon which he entertains very strong convictions—that by some dark and curious means, if this Bill is read a second time, it will create a system of which he disapproves so strongly—namely, the barrack school system, which he deprecates so greatly. Now, I am the last person in the world to advocate a system of barrack schools, and within a very recent period the Local Government Board has been able to do something in the way of reducing the effects of that system. We have adopted a system by which we hope to do away with one of the largest barrack schools within the Metropolitan area, and if I were of the opinion that this Bill would be promoting that system, I should thoroughly oppose it. A good deal has been said with regard to the services of permanent officials upon this Association, and that objection in the Bill was pointed out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, and by the noble Lord who has just sat down. It is a subject thoroughly deserving of consideration. Then, again, objection has been taken on the ground that, possibly, the objects of poor law administration are not sufficiently great to justify the undertaking of such a Measure. I cannot, however, share that view, for I think the object of the poor law administration is a very great and deserving one, and worthy of every attention which it can receive. But there are many good reasons in favour of this Bill, and one of them is this: one of the largest conferences of poor law associations was held not very long ago, and I think they were practically unanimous upon this question. The principle proposed in this Bill is the same as that which was embodied in the Bills of 1890 and 1894, which provided for a similar association for county councils, both in England and Wales. The objections which have been urged in the appeal of one of the speakers must have been taken under a mistaken idea of the objects which the promoters have in view. I do not think I can do better than quote a few words of a Report which has reached me of one of the conferences on this subject, in which they point out that their object is— To take action in any of the subjects in which poor law unions or boards of guardians generally take an interest. That is the object which the promoters of this Bill have in view, and I do not think any objection can be taken to the attainment of such a proposal. Undoubtedly, in my judgment, it would be an advantage to be able to do that on the part of the Local Government Board, in which respect the hon. Member opposite says we are deficient already. Ha says the Government does not know enough about the views, wishes, and opinions of all the boards of guardians in the country. Well, I acknowledge the rebuke. It may be possible that, amongst 650 boards of guardians, we are not sufficiently in touch with the feeling of every one of them; but, supposing that allegation is just against the Local Government Board, I think that is all the more reason why we should have this Bill carried, for it will enable us to obtain collective information upon subjects of importance in which we are interested. Sir, the mention of the fact that these Unions are 650 in number undoubtedly points attention very directly to another aspect of the case—namely, the amount of subscriptions proposed to bring together all the representatives who are to be represented on the central association. I think, upon those points, undoubtedly, the Bill is open to amendment, and if the House allows the Bill to be read a second time, I assure hon. Members that these objections will receive the most careful attention in Committee.

*SIR JOHN E. DORINGTON (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)

I must say that I failed to learn from the President of the Local Government Board's remarks why it is so essential that this Bill should pass, because it seems to me that we have already provided facilities for gathering the views of poor law guardians and transmitting them to the Local Government Board, and also of enabling them to meet their expenses in a manner almost identical with the method put forward in this Bill. In 1883 an Act was passed enabling the guardians in any union, by a regulation of the Local Government Board, to pay the reasonable expenses of any guardian attending poor law conferences, and charge the amount to the Common Poor Fund. There is no argument put forward at the present time that the allowances are inadequate, and they can provide larger allowances for guardians at these conferences, if necessary. Those conferences were highly favoured at the time by the Local Government Board, and I think great advantage has been derived in England by them in the administration of the poor law. Now, if you set up a similar association, provided with similar funds, you first of all tax the ratepayers twice for accomplishing the same sort of object; and, in the second place, I think you will not be carrying out your object by means of an association so effectively as you would by means of the existing conferences, the meetings of which continue regularly to be held. The conferences are strictly limited to delegates, so far as expenses chargeable to rates are concerned. But ladies and gentlemen unconnected with boards of guardians, who are interested in poor law questions, are in the habit of attending in large numbers, and there matters affecting poor law administration are always fully discussed. The inspectors of the Local Government Board attend those conferences by direction and at the desire of their Board, hear what is said, and give their opinions, and much instruction and information is gained. For all these reasons I cannot think that this Bill is a necessity, or that it will in any way advance poor law administration; in fact, I would venture to suggest that it will deteriorate it very much, as you would probably destroy the conferences now existing in order to create this association, limited to that narrow circle drawn from the boards of guardians. For these reasons I regret very much the remarks which have fallen from the President of the Local Government Board, because I believe the Measure will be a disadvantage to the proper conducting of poor law administration.


The proposals in this Bill were the unanimous wish of a conference which has been alluded to, and I fail to see any reason advanced against the Measure on the other side of the House which is adequate to secure its rejection. Objection has been raised by my hon. Friend opposite that the conferences are too large, and with the same breath he wishes to add other duties—that of the representatives of the district councils, as well as poor law guardians. I hope emphatically that this proposal will be strictly limited to matters in connection with poor law administration I do not think it is necessary to go into what has been said by hon. Gentleman opposite with reference to the objects of this Bill, for I believe already that the fullest inquiry has taken place, and every effort has been made to get rid of the abuses complained of, and I am confident that in future these associations will be stronger, and will be able to do more good in the future than in the past. I hope the Local Government Board will not give way on the question of salaried officials, for there are throughout the length and breadth of this country gentlemen who have devoted their lives to this question, and their opinions surely ought to be preserved, as they are of all people those most likely to give good advice as to the administration of the future. At conferences held in London and in various districts papers have been read by salaried officials, and they have added very much to our knowledge on the subject. I hope for these reasons that the Bill will be allowed to pass, although possible amendments may be made in reference to the precise figures of the allowance—namely, £10. As to whether that is a proper contribution, or whether the principle itself is a correct one, I hope the House will allow the Bill to pass its Second Reading.

MR. THOMAS LOUGH (Islington, W.)

I think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has really raised a very large question which cannot easily be disposed of. He appears to be in favour of this nondescript association being formed for the purpose of discussing these particular principles. It seems to me that nothing can be more dangerous, and this House ought not to assent on a Wednesday afternoon, in the face of the warning we have received from the opposite side of the House, to the principles which are embodied in this Bill. There is no attempt to define what sort of discussions there are to be. I say there is no room for them, and they will probably make violent changes in the system the people have got at present. I am sorry that I missed one or two of the speeches at the beginning of the Debate, but I did not think the other interesting Debate before the House would have ended so soon. I heard the President of the Local Government Board give most of his reasons why the Local Government Board assented to this Bill. So far as I can make out, this was the reason: the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Local Government Board did not at present do its duty. [Mr. CHAPLAIN: No, no!] Well, the right hon. Gentleman went a considerable way towards making that admission. He was using words to that effect, although I did not write them down. His criticisms were levelled at the way the Local Government Board discharged its functions with regard to these unions. Now, that is good enough for me. The effect of his criticisms was that the best thing that could be done was to call into existence that association described in the Bill to be a sort of rival to the Local Government Board in order to make good its defects. That is a very large principle indeed for this House to sanction. The various unions through-out the country know what their duties are, because they are strictly defined, but to form this association without any definition whatever of its function, except to discuss broad principles, as my right hon. Friend said, would seem to me to be a very unwise step for this House to take. I noticed my hon. Friend stated that this would be the way to get rid of the barrack schools, and the evils in connection with them, which had grown up in our present system. It is a curious thing that a very influential committee in London dealing with this question of barrack schools, as far as I understand it, looks with the greatest dissatisfaction on the proposal to form this association. Very little interest is taken in this reform of the poor law, because guardians know who they have got to deal with, and they have got a very troublesome business now. Poor law reformers do not receive a very good reception from existing boards of guardians, and often received a very bad reception from the Local Government Board. But, still, they would rather deal with the evils they have got than face a larger one, the end of which they do not know. Therefore, this committee, and I think I may also speak for other bodies interested in the reform of the poor law, look with a great deal of fear at the proposals of this Bill. It has been recommended to this House because it is a "one clause" Bill, but even a "one clause" Bill can do a great deal of harm. The attempt to get a Bill into one clause generally means that you say nothing about the proposal you make in the Bill so long as you get something into existence without anybody understanding what it is, and once in existence the country can never get rid of it. I find there is a proposal to allow a subscription of £10 to these representatives who are to attend these conferences. [An Hon. MEMBER: And expenses.] Well, that makes it still worse, because the committee might increase this amount. If the Bill were once passed through there is no reason why the amount should not be made £100. Therefore it is now, while the principle is being admitted, that it ought to be properly discussed and properly defined before it is finally accepted by this House. There is no limit to the discussions of these conferences, and there is no limit to the extent of country to which they may spread themselves. We may have all the unions joining themselves together to create a formidable rival to the Local Government Board. I think by the smiling face of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he does not think that state of things will arise. It seems to me that the proposals in this Bill are of a most important character, and I sincerely trust the Measure will not be received by the House without further discussion. Certainly, if it proceeds to a Division, I shall vote against it.

MR. ARTHUR F. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

I do not object to the principle of this Bill, because I think it will be to the benefit of the guardians that a certain number of their members should meet together and discuss these matters; and I do not object to it because it will follow exactly the same lines that the County Councils Association now conforms to. I have the honour to be a member of that association, and we meet constantly and discuss all matters connected with county councils, and our officials take care to scrutinise all Bills brought before Parliament, and thus we are enabled to form opinions on these Measures. Now, Sir, boards of guardians never have had any common ground to meet upon except at these conferences, and I imagine that if we had this association it would rather tend to stimulate conferences, and there would be more of them. There is one matter upon which I ought to say a word. There is a board of guardians to which I belong which has passed a resolution enjoining me to support this Bill, and my neighbouring board of guardians also adopted a similar resolution. So, judging from these two instances, I imagine that boards of guardians wish the Bill to be passed. There is one matter I rather object to in the Bill, and that is the part which gives power to pay the reasonable expenses of the attendance of representatives not exceeding four at the meetings of the association. I am quite willing to allow boards of guardians to pay smaller subscriptions so that the amount is not to exceed £10, because it might possibly not come to more than three or four guineas. I think that in the interests of the ratepayers that clause should be omitted from the Bill. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea has said with regard to salaried officials, I also say that I object to them being paid extra to attend these association meetings. I remember, Sir, that on the County Councils Association frequently the clerks come up to London, and are paid extra money, in addition to the large salaries they receive, to come and discuss these questions. But although these officials come up to the meetings of the association, and are paid for coming up, when the county councils meet they have no voice whatever in the discussions of the county councils, and, therefore, it seems to me that their expenses and fares up here are absolutely thrown away. It is the same with clerks to boards of guardians. Very seldom in meetings of guardians do the clerks join in the discussion, except to give advice, for the guardians themselves know how to carry out the poor law system, and they do not ask the clerk. Therefore, whilst approving the principles of the Bill—and I am quite willing to do all I can in support of it—I must ask my hon. Friend who proposed the Bill not to press that part of it with regard to paying the expenses of the four members. If he will do that, I shall have great pleasure in voting for the Second Reading of the Bill.


Mr. Speaker, my name is on the back of this Bill, but I only desire to say one or two words with reference to what has fallen from the noble Lord who sits on this side of the House and the hon. Gentleman who has last spoken. I merely wish to say that I fully concur with the suggestions which have fallen from both those hon. Members, that it is desirable, probably, that some modification should be made in the direction of the amount to be subscribed by the poor law bodies, and the purposes for which it is granted. These are matters of detail which may be generally dealt with in Committee; but, so far as experience enables us to form any judgment as to how the poor law bodies will exercise these functions, we have found, in the case of municipal corporations, that the constituents of those bodies are satisfied with the way in which those delegations, if I may so describe them, discharge their functions, and are satisfied, further, that no undue extravagance is incurred. I do not think there will be more extravagance on the part of poor law guardians, for there would be a check upon extravagance in the exercise of the control given by this Bill. But I should be sorry, after what has fallen from the hon. Member who has last spoken, to do away with the power of paying expenses, because, as has been pointed out by one or two hon. Members already in the course of this Debate, there is no doubt that many clerks to the guardians who are most useful as experts for the purpose of discussing these matters would be precluded from attending unless some reasonable contribution was given for expenses. Now this Bill, after all, lies really in a nutshell, and the grounds on which we claim that this Bill should be read a second time is the very ground on which my hon. Friend suggested it should not be read. He said it was a very dangerous thing to discuss general principles. Well, Sir, I do not think that remark comes very well from this side of the House, for we indulge very largely in that practice. My experience is, not that it is dangerous to discuss general principles, but that it is dangerous to attempt to apply them; and these delegations of boards of guardians would meet together for the purpose, first, of informing themselves as to how to apply general principles, and, secondly, of informing the people at large as to the best way of managing our poor law system; and I have ample authority, though I will not weary the House with it, for saying that the selected bodies of men forming these delegations such as the boards of guardians will send will be exceedingly helpful in the way of securing uniformity—I mean uniformity in the proper direction—in the application of the principles of the poor law; and, secondly, most useful in the direction of informing the public mind, and of interesting the public mind on the questions upon which reforms are required. It is on these broad grounds that I say, with all due deference to what has fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Cricklade and the hon. Member opposite, that I hope the House will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill.

CAPTAIN BETHELL (Yorkshire, E.R., Holderness)

I think, Sir, that, having taken the trouble to set up these democratic bodies, we should consider a great deal before curtailing any reasonable extension of the powers they may require for carrying out the work they have to do. Therefore, if boards of guardians are asking to be authorised to spend a certain amount of money in order that they may join these associations, upon that ground alone I think we ought to give them that authority. As to whether the associations when formed are likely to be extremely useful I will not express a very positive opinion, but this, I think, may probably be said, that, quite apart from the great principles of the poor law, and the discussion of broad, abstract principles, a great deal of the routine that poor law guardians have to go through may very properly be unified and brought into some sort of system on the recommendation of the delegates from the various boards of guardians. For this reason I am disposed to disagree with the hon. Member for Hants and the hon. Member for Battersea when they say that officials ought to be excluded. I do not think they quite appreciate how very much the advice of the clerk to the guardians in rural districts is followed, and how closely they attend to the business, and how essential it is that the clerks of these bodies should meet from time to time in order to find out the best way of unifying the work to be done throughout the country. I do not say that applies to large towns—I do not know that it does—but certainly in rural districts the clerks perform a very difficult and prominent part, perhaps more so than they ought to do, and probably they are best entitled to give advice to the boards of guardians. Upon the whole, therefore, I should recommend my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to hesitate before he agrees to cut off these officials. For, after all, it is better to take a different course. When we have got these large bodies—democratic, says the hon. Member for Battersea, and I am more democratic than he is—when we do set up these large democratic bodies, do not let us be shabby, and hesitate about entrusting them with full and ample powers. Those of us on this side who have some belief in principles which we have had no small share in spreading will agree that boards of guardians and district councils are composed of men quite able enough and wise enough to be reasonably economic in carrying out the duties which Parliament may place upon them.

*SIR JOHN T. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

I think, Sir, any hon. Member who has followed the proceedings of the poor law conferences in several quarters of the country will agree with me when I say that their discussions have been, on the whole, very wise and productive of much good in the administration of the poor law. Now, Sir, so far as this Bill secures to us the advantages of such discussions, I am heartily in favour of passing it; but when I come to multiply the number of boards of guardians by this figure of £10, I come to an income of over £6,000 a year, and I for one am not willing to entrust the officials of this association with an income of £6,000 a year. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea told me a few minutes ago that the Municipal Corporations Association spent £1,000 last year. If this figure of £10 were cut down to £2, it would give an income of £1,200 or £1,300 a year to this association, and to my mind that is a thoroughly ample figure. The hon. Member for Hants has spoken of the work of the County Councils Association. I have not the honour to be a member of that body, but I watch its proceedings with very great care, and I am convinced that the result of its work is extremely wholesome and very valuable indeed to the country. Now, Sir, if this Poor Law Association were to become a body like the County Councils Association, we might all of us facilitate its coming into being with great satisfaction to ourselves. It is an economical body, and for that reason it is to be greatly commended. The number of boards of guardians is very much larger than the number of county councils, and it requires, I think, a different organisation, and I would recommend hon. Members who will discuss this Bill in

Committee, whether in Committee of the whole House or in a Grand Committee upstairs, to consider whether it would not be advisable to divide this proposed association into a number of smaller associations, equal to the number of poor law districts. I believe, and the right hon. Gentleman, who I see is listening to me, will correct me if I am wrong, that there are under a dozen districts; and if there were an association for each district the expense of travelling to the particular place of meeting would be brought within reason, and these various associations might send delegates, very few in number, to some central place once a year to discuss those matters which might be referred to them. I think facility for discussion amongst those who administer the poor law in this country is greatly to be wished, and on that account I am heartily in favour of this Bill.

The House divided:—Ayes 196; Noes 56.

Allan, Wm. (Gateshead) Carlile, William Walter Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.
Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.) Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson- Finch, George H.
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Anstruther, H. T. Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Firbank, Joseph Thomas
Arnold, Alfred Cayzer, Sir Charles William Fisher, William Hayes
Ascroft, Robert Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose
Ashton, Thomas Gair Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond
Atherley-Jones, L. Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Flannery, J. Fortescue
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Charrington, Spencer Flower, Ernest
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Cochrane, Thos. H. A. F. Garfit, William
Bailey, James (Walworth) Coghill, Douglas Harry Gibbous, J. Lloyd
Baillie, Jas. E. B. (Inverness) Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Gilliat, John Saunders
Baker, Sir John Colston, Chas Ed. H. Athole Gold, Charles
Balcarres, Lord Commins, Andrew Goldsworthy, Major-General
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gold W. (Leeds) Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd.) Gordon, Hon John Edward
Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. Blair (Clackm.) Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Goschen, George J. (Sussex)
Banbury, Frederick George Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. Gourley, Sir Ed Temperley
Bartley, George C. T. Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. Graham, Henry Robert
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Cox, Robert Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)
Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire) Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Gull, Sir Cameron
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristl.) Cross, Herbt. Shepherd (Bolton) Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Cruddas, William Donaldson Hanson, Sir Reginald
Beresford, Lord Charles Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.) Heath, James
Bethell, Commander Dalbiae, Colonel Philip Hugh Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Dalrymple, Sir Charles Holder, Augustus
Blake, Edward Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) Hickman, Sir Alfred
Blundell, Colonel Henry Denny, Colonel Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arth (Down)
Bowles, Capt H. F. (Middlesex) Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Hoare Samuel (Norwich)
Brassey, Albert Doxford, William Theodore Holden, Sir Angus.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Duncombe, Hon Hubert V. Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh
Brvce, Rt. Hon. James Ellis, John Edw. (Notts.) Howard, Joseph
Bullard, Sir Harry Engledew, Charles John Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn
Burt, Thomas Fardell, Sir T. George Hughes, Colonel Edwin
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. More, Robert Jasper Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)
Jacoby, James Alfred Morrell, George Herbert Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)
Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'rd) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Jenkins, Sir John Jones Mount, William George Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jno. M.
Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed. Newdigate, Francis Alexander Stone, Sir Benjamin
Joicey, Sir James Nicholson, William Graham Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U. Nicol, Donald Ninian Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Parnell, John Howard Thorburn, Walter
Kitson, Sir James Pease, Arthur (Darlington) Thornton, Percy M.
Knowles, Lees Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Tollemache, Henry James
Lafone, Alfred Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.) Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray
Laurie, Lieut.-General Pryce-Jones, Edward Verney, Hn. Richard Greville
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Purvis, Robert Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Ed. H. Rankin, James Walrond, Sir William Hood
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Renshaw, Chas. Bine Warkworth, Lord
Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlpl.) Warr, Augustus Frederick
Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Sw'nsea) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas Thomson Wayman, Thomas
Logan, John William Roche, Hon. James (E. Kerry) Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Royds, Clement Molyneux Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon
Lowe, Francis William Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Whiteley, Geo. (Stockport)
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Rutherford, John Williams, Jno. Carvell (Notts.)
Maclean, James Mackenzie Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Willox, Sir Jno. Archibald
Maclure, Sir John William Savory, Sir Joseph Wills, Sir William Henry
M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool) Schwann, Charles E. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
M'Ewan, William Sharpe, William Edward T. Wilson, J. W. (Worc., N.)
M'Kenna, Reginald Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)
Maden, John Henry Shee, James John Wylie, Alexander
Malcolm, Ian Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.) Young, Samuel
Melville, Beresford Valentine Simeon, Sir Barrington Younger, William
Milward, Colonel Victor Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Yoxall, James Henry
Monckton, Edward Philip Skewes-Cox, Thomas TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch) Mr. William Lawrence and
Sir Francis Powell.
Arrol, Sir William Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbt. E.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Healy, Maurice (Cork) Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)
Burns, John Healy, Timothy M. (Louth, N.) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Caldwell, James Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. Morrison, Walter
Causton, Richard Knight Holburn, J. G. O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Cawley, Frederick Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.) O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)
Colville, John Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Crilly, Daniel Jordan, Jeremiah Owen, Thomas
Crombie, John William Kearley, Hudson E. Randell, David
Daly, James Kinloch, Sir Jno. Geo. Smyth Spicer, Albert
Dillon, John Lambert, George Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Doogan, P. C. Leng, Sir John Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Dunn, Sir William Leuty, Thomas Richmond Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)
Farrell, Jas. P. (Cavan, W.) Lewis, John Herbert Wedderburn, Sir William
Flavin, Michael Joseph Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Wilson, John (Govan)
Flynn, James Christopher Macaleese, Daniel Woods, Samuel
Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Ghee, Richard
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hammond, John (Carlow) M'Killop, James Mr. Samuel Smith and Mr.
Harwood, George Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Lough.

Bill read a second time.


I beg to move that this Bill be referred to the Grand Committee on Law.


I do not think that it is at all a practical course that the hon. Member has suggested. There is already a great deal of work before the Grand Committee on Law, and if this Bill is referred to the Committee it will lead to the scamping of some of the work they already have in hand, and to their giving quite inadequate attention to this Bill. If it is to be proceeded with at all, I think it can be efficiently dealt with in this House. Even the friends of the Bill admit that in principle it requires considerable amendment, and further discussion as to details, and some of the principal arguments used to obtain assent to its Second Reading were that it would be amended in Committee. I think that before we make such a drastic change in the poor law as this Bill will inevitably make we should have every facility offered us for adequate discussion as to its provisions.

Motion made, and Question put— That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc."—(Mr. William Lawrence.)

The House divided:—Ayes 200; Noes 71.

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden Engledew, Charles John M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)
Anstruther, H. T. Fardell, Sir T. George M'Ewan, William
Arnold, Alfred Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. Maden, John Henry
Ascroft, Robert Finch, George H. Malcolm, Ian
Asher, Alexander Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)
Atherley-Jones, L. Firbank, Joseph Thomas Melville, Beresford Valentine
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Fisher, William Hayes Milward, Colonel Victor
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose Monckton, Edward Philip
Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. Smyth Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond More, Robert Jasper
Bailey, James (Walworth) Flannery, Fortescue Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)
Baillie, Jas. E. B. (Inverness) Flower, Ernest Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Baker, Sir John Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Morrell, George Herbert
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Grld W. (Leeds) Garfit, William Morrison, Walter
Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.) Gibbons, J. Lloyd Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'rd)
Banbury, Frederick George Gilliat, John Saunders Myers, William Henry
Bartley, George C. T. Gold, Charles Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Goldsworthy, Major-General Nicholson, William Graham
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) Gordon, Hon. John Edward Nicol, Donald Ninian
Begg, Ferdinand Faithful Goschen, George J. Parnell, John Howard
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Graham, Henry Robert Pease, Arthur (Darlington)
Beresford, Lord Charles Greville, Captain Pease, Joseph A. (Morthumb.)
Bethell, Commander Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Pender, James
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Gull, Sir Cameron Philipps, John Wynford
Blake, Edward Hall, Sir Charles Priestley, Sir W. Over'nd (Edin.)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm. Pryce-Jones, Edward
Brassey, Albert Hanson, Sir Reginald Purvis, Robert
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Heath, James Rankin, James
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H. Renshaw, Charles Bine
Bullard, Sir Harry Helder, Augustus Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlpl.)
Burt, Thomas Hickman, Sir Alfred Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Carlile, William Walter Hill, Rt. Hn Lord Arth. (Down) Robinson, Brooke
Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson- Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampst'd.) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Holburn, J. C. Rutherford, John
Cayzer, Sir Chas. William Holden, Sir Angus Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh Savory, Sir Joseph
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Howard, Joseph Schwann, Charles E.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Sharpe, William Edward T.
Charrington, Spencer Hughes, Colonel Edwin Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Shee, James John
Coghill, Douglas Harry Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Jenkins, Sir John Jones Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)
Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed. Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Commins, Andrew Johnstone, John H. Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd) Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U. Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D. Kitson, Sir James Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)
Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H. Knowles, Lees Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)
Cox, Robert Lafone, Alfred Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Laurie, Lieut.-General Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jno. M.
Cross, Herbt. Shepherd (Bolton) Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cruddas, William Donaldson Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Ed. H. Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.) Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Lees, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) Thorburn, Walter
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Thornton, Percy M.
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) Leuty, Thomas Richmond Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray
Denny, Colonel Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Sw'nsea) Vernev, Hn. Richard Greville
Dillon, John Logan, John William Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Doxford, William Theodore Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Walrond, Sir William Hood
Drage, Geoffrey Lowe, Francis William Warr, Augustus Frederick
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Loyd, Archie Kirkman Wayman, Thomas
Ellis, Jno. Edw. (Notts.) Maclure, Sir John William Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon- Wilson, J. W. (Worc, N.) Younger, William
Wharton, Rt. Hn. Jno. Lloyd Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) Yoxall, James Henry
Williams, Jno. Carvell (Notts.) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Willox, Sir John Archibald Wylie, Alexander TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Wills, Sir William Henry Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. Mr. William Lawrence and
Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) Young, Samuel Sir Francis Powell.
Allan, Wm. (Gateshead) Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe
Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.) Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbt. E.
Arrol, Sir William Hammond, John (Carlow) Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Harwood, George Moss, Samuel
Balcarres, Lord Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Mount, William George
Baldwin, Alfred Healy, Maurice (Cork) O'Brien, Jas. F. X. (Cork)
Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire) Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth) O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Burns, John Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.) Owen, Thomas
Buxton, Sydney Charles Jacoby, James Alfred Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)
Caldwell, James Joicey, Sir James Randell, David
Causton, Richard Knight Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Roche, Hon. Jas. (E. Kerry)
Cawley, Frederick Jordan, Jeremiah Simeon, Sir Barrington
Colville, John Kearley, Hudson E. Spicer, Albert
Crilly, Daniel Kinloch, Sir Jno. Geo. Smyth Strachey, Edward
Crombie, John William Lambert, George Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Daly, James Leng, Sir John Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lewis, John Herbert Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Doogan, P. C. Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Wedderburn, Sir William
Dunn, Sir William Macaleese, Daniel Wilson, John (Govan)
Farrell, Jas. P. (Cavan, W.) M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall) Woods, Samuel
Flavin, Michael Joseph M'Ghee, Richard
Flynn, James Christopher M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Forster, Henry William M'Kenna, Reginald Mr. Lough and Mr. Samuel
Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Killop, James Smith.

Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure.