[BILL NO. 229.] COMMONS' AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED. (Hansard, 28 July 1862)

§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE
said, that the Commons had agreed with several important Amendments introduced into the Bill by their Lordships; but they disagreed with some others. One of the most important of those to which they objected was that which consisted in striking out the clauses inserted with the object of creating union hospitals. Their Lordships would remember the arguments which had been used when it was proposed to strike out those clauses; and he would now read to their Lordships the Reasons which the Commons had submitted for not agreeing to the Amendments. The noble Duke then moved— Not to insist on the Amendment made by the Lords to leave out Clause 3, to which the Commons have disagreed.

THE EARL OF DESART
, on the contrary, moved, that their Lordships should insist upon their Amendments, and contended that the establishment of union hospitals would be a heavy burden upon the ratepayers; the people would have strong objections to avail themselves of such institutions, and their creation would have the effect of destroying the existing county infirmaries.

§ LORD STUART DE DECIES
said, the county of Waterford had no infirmary; and where county infirmaries did exist, they were not of much use to the poor. The machinery, as proposed by this Bill, for working the workhouse infirmaries would be much more easy, and therefore he would, both on the score of expediency and humanity, entreat their Lordships not to insist on their Amendments.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
said, the argument of the noble Lord was a very good one for the establishment of an infirmary in the county of Waterford; but it also went to sustain the objections of those who maintained that these clauses were an indirect means of substituting poor-house infirmaries for the ordinary county infirmaries. The county infirmaries were very well-conducted institutions, and were far superior to anything of the kind connected with Poor Law unions; but still there was no doubt that in large counties the infirmaries were such a distance from portions of the county, that a large part of the population was practically excluded from their benefits. No doubt this was a very serious objection; but, on the other hand, he confessed that there was very great objection to their placing in the hands of the Poor Law authorities a system of hospital management which was wholly separate from their main duty of attending to paupers. He would ask the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) whether the difficulty might not be met by some fair and reasonable compromise in one of two ways—either by permitting the establishment of Poor Law hospitals in any case where the county infirmary was more than a certain distance—say fifteen or twenty miles—from the Poor Law union, or by making the provisions which had been inserted originally in the Bill to continue for one or two years only, so as to afford time to increase the number of county infirmaries in those localities where they were not sufficient at present.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
approved the suggestions to limit the 904 operation of the clauses to a period of one or two years, and hoped the Government would accede to it.

LORD DENMAN
spoke in favour of the suggestion to render the Bill a temporary measure.

§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE
regretted that he could not agree to either proposal made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby). He felt that the first proposal would not work at all; and with regard to the second, limiting the operation of the Bill in point of time, though it appeared at first very plausible, yet it must be recollected that there had been for years an infraction of the law in Ireland; and what the Government now proposed was, to render that legal which was at present done illegally. By making the Bill temporary, the effect would be to deprive persons of advantages they had hitherto enjoyed.

THE EARL OF LEITRIM
was understood to oppose the provision as sent up from the Commons.

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH
thought the experiment of setting up the hospitals ought to be tried. He was not afraid that the county infirmaries would be put down by them; and seeing how important it was to provide surgical relief for the poor, he should vote not to insist on the Amendment.

VISCOUNT DUNGANNON
supported the Amendments made by their Lordships. The establishment of the hospitals proposed in the clause would tend in a great degree to injure not only the infirmaries, but the dispensaries.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
said, considering the narrow majority by which the vote the other day was earned, and the error into which he had fallen with respect to the majority in the House of Commons, he regretted he could not support their Lordships' Amendment. However, he felt so strongly the inconvenience of mixing up the administration of the Poor Law with a question of that kind, that when the Motion before their Lordships was disposed of, he would move to insert words which would make the proposed measure temporary.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
then moved, in line 19 of Clause 3, to insert the words 905 "during the next two years from and after the passing of this Act."

CONTENTS.
Manchester, D.	Churston, L.
	Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)
Bath, M. [Teller.]
Salisbury, M.	Colchester, L.
Derby, E.	Denman, L.
Desart, E.	Ravensworth, L. [Teller.]
Powis, E.
Stradbroke, E.	Redesdale, L.
Dungannon, V.	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Melville, V.	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Berners, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)	Walsingham, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Worcester, Bp.
	Camoys, L.
Newcastle, D.	Churchill, L.
Somerset, D.	D. Freyne, L.
	Ebury, L.
Westmeath, M.	Foley, L. [Teller.]
	Harris, L.
De Grey, E.	Llanover, L.
Ducie, E.	Methuen, L.
Fortescue, E.	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]
Granville, E.
Russell, E.	Saye and Sele, L.
Saint Germans, E.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Yarborough, E.	Stuart de Decies, L.
	Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)
	Wensleydale, L.
Sydney, V.