Lords Sitting of 16 March 1840

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Westminster, from the Parish of Marylebone, for a supply of Purer Water By the Duke of Wellington, from Southampton, and Lord Bexley, from another place, against any Alteration in the Corn-laws.—By the Marquess of Bute, the Earls of Haddington, and Aberdeen, and Lord Stratford, from several places, in favour of Non-Intrusion.

CHURCH (SCOTLAND)—NON-INTRUSION.
The Earl of Aberdeen, in presenting petitions from Scotland in favour of the non-intrusion principle, took that occasion to observe, that he had received various communications from different parts of the country, in consequence of some words which he had addressed to their Lordships on this subject, strongly remonstrating with him for advising delay in the settlement of this question. Now, that was a mistake. He never advised

1193
that any delay should take place. On the contrary, he blamed the Government for not coming to a decision on the subject. He did, however, say, that he considered precipitation to be worse than hesitation. There was no inconsistency in that. It was proper that such a question should receive due and serious consideration; but it did not follow that those who desired it to receive that due consideration were favourable to unnecessary delay; yet, from all parts of the country he had received communications blaming him for having advocated delay. When the noble Viscount had been questioned on the subject, he had only said that Government had not, at that time, made up their minds whether they would or would not introduce a measure on the subject. They had now arrived at about the middle of March, and he should like to know what decision, if any, the Government had come to. He hoped that the noble Viscount would not now, reverting to his (the Earl of Aberdeen's) remark as to the propriety of due consideration, convert the "ides of March" into the "Greek Kalends," but would speedily inform their Lordships what the intentions of the Government were.
Viscount Melbournesaid, he could not state that Government were at that moment prepared with any measure on the subject. At the same time he admitted the right of the noble Earl, and of other noble Lords who were interested in this question, to learn the determination of the Government with respect to it at the earliest moment, in order that if Government did not take it up, others who had considered the subject might do so. He should, therefore, take care that their Lordships, at the earliest period, should receive the necessary information.

VACCINATION.
Lord Ellenborough, in moving that the House should go into committee on the Vaccination Bill, said, that since it was last before their Lordships, he had seen the Poor-law Commissioners on the subject. He had agreed to certain suggestions made by them, and they had acceded to his views on other points. He wished, therefore, that the bill should now go through the committee, and be printed with the amendments.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad no objection to such a course, but he hoped the noble Lord, at least for the present,
1194
would postpone including Ireland in the provisions of the bill, the Poor-law Bill not having yet come into operation in that country. The Poor-law Commissioners had not had time for communicating with that Member of the Board at present in Ireland.
Lord Ellenboroughthought the bill would be more favourably received in another place if it included Ireland, and, so doing, would remove the imputation that that country was neglected. He was perfectly aware the bill would be inoperative for the present, but it would gradually become so. If the noble Marquess wished to strike it out he had no objection.
The Marquess of Normanbywould not make any further objection on the subject at present. He agreed with the noble Lord the bill would be more favourably received in another place if it included Ireland. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether he had understood correctly, that he had under his consideration another clause, which not only went to the promotion of vaccination, but the prohibition of inoculation by persons with no medical qualification. He had been in communication with the President of the College of Physicians, and many others connected with the profession, and it was the unanimous opinion the bill would not effect half the objects contemplated by it unless some penalty were attached to prevent the very great evil which arose from this practice. He would suggest to the noble Lord whether it would not be possible to frame a clause, which, without preventing inoculation altogether, did so with regard to persons who had not the proper medical qualification.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, his principle was rather to lead men to do that which was proper, by showing them the benefits that were likely to accrue from such a line of conduct, than to compel them, by penalties, to pursue it. If, however, such a clause as the noble Marquess recommended were introduced, he should not oppose it, although he was adverse to the principle.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, it was right that some provision should be made to prevent the numerous and daily mischief which arose, in consequence of ignorant persons inoculating with the small pox virus. It was not enough that men should be induced by persuasion to pursue a course that tended to their own

1195
good; it was necessary, also, that ignorant people should be prevented, by legal enactments, from doing evil to others.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, it was well known that, in agricultural districts of the country, there had not been for many years past the least difficulty in obtaining vaccination gratuitously, but many of the ignorant poor were strongly prejudiced against it, and paid a much greater attention to empirics than to the advice of the clergy. He thought the bill would not do half the good that was intended, unless those persons were prevented, by penalty, from practising inoculation.
Lord Ellenboroughwould not oppose a clause calculated to produce the effect desired by the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Ashburtonthought every one practising inoculation should report the same to the registrar of the district.
House in committee.
The Marquess of Normanby'sclause, imposing a penalty on any non-professional man who should inoculate any patient, agreed to.
Bill went through the committee.
House resumed.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
The Earl of Charlevillehad examined the petition from the borough of Liverpool in favour of the Municipal Corporation Bill for Ireland presented by the noble Marquess, and found that it came from Joshua Walmisley, the mayor, and not from the inhabitants of that borough.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid he had stated, that the petition was from the inhabitants, and signed by Mr. Walmisley on their behalf, which the noble Earl would have known, if he had attended to him.
The Marquess of Westmeathcongratulated their Lordships on receiving a petition presented by the noble Marquess, desiring that municipal corporations might be extended to the intelligence, moral worth, and property of Ireland. He should expect, that when the bill came before their Lordships, the noble Marquess would adhere to the principle laid down in the petition; and he could assure the noble Marquess, that if he would show that was the use, and object, and purpose of the bill, he would give it his cordial support.
The Marquess of Normanbywas understood to say, that he would leave the
1196
noble Marquess to settle that matter with his country. The noble Marquess would surely not deny the existence of property, or intelligence, or moral worth amongst the Roman Catholic population there.
The Marquess of Westmeaththought the intelligence, moral worth, or property of Ireland was not confined to the back lanes and back streets of the country.