HL Deb 04 June 1866 vol 183 cc1791-2

Commons Reasons for disagreeing to a certain Amendment of the Lords considered (according to Order).


said, that with regard to this Bill, the Commons had disagreed to an Amendment, made by this House in Committee after some discussion, and for reasons which were substantially the same as those which the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War had used on that occasion, although he had not then thought it worth his while even to say "Not-Content," on the question being put. The Commons had sent up their reasons for disagreeing, which in substance were as follows. They called this a new kind of relief. Now this was not a Bill for the relief of the destitute poor, but for the decent burial of the dead. Incidentally under this Bill, in some cases, the relations of poor deceased persons might be relieved from the expense of burying them; but the object of the Bill was to provide for what until two years ago was done by the churchwardens out of the vestry cess (at which time when that fund was abolished)—namely, to pro- vide for the the burial of deceased persons whose relatives could not be found, or were unable to bear the expense of burying them. However, he did not attach any great importance to this point, but what he did object to was the unsatisfactory way in which the opposition to the clause had been conducted. When he took charge of the Bill, he found there would be objections made to it, and he told the hon. Member who introduced the Bill into the House of Commons, that without some such clause the Bill was very likely not to pass. That hon. Gentleman communinated with the Irish Government, who thought that this was a necessary Bill, and he (the Earl of Belmore) was authorized to say that under the circumstances the Government would waive their objections to the Amendment. The noble Lord opposite contented himself with the mild protest he then used, and the Bill passed with the Amendment. When it went back to the other House, however, it appeared that the Government had changed their minds, and without giving any notice they caused the Amendment to be disagreed to. Under these circumstances, he would move, pro formâ, "that this House do insist on its Amendment." If noble Lords thought it ought to be retained, he would press his Motion, but if not, and the noble Lord (Lord Dufferin) opposite chose to move, as an Amendment to it, "not to insist," he would accept that Amendment.

Moved, To insist on the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Belmore.)


on behalf of the Government, said, he hoped the noble Earl would not press his Motion.


supported the Motion, believing that if it resulted in the Bill being dropped it would be so much the better.

On Question, Whether to insist? Resolved in the Negative.