Lords Sitting of 17 July 1876

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Convict Prisons (Returns)* (179); Orphan and Deserted Children (Ireland)* (180); Clean Rivers* (182).
Second Reading—Bankers Books Evidence (159); Legal Practitioners (Ireland)* (170).
Committee—Poor Law Amendment (150–181); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bath, &c.)* (168)—(Bilbrough, &c.)* (169); Medical Practitioners* (157).
Committee—Report—Public Works Loans* (167).
Third Reading—Wild Fowl Preservation (134); Settled Estates Act (1856) Amendment* (151); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Chelmsford, &c.)* (161)—(Artizans and Labourers Dwellings)* (127); Customs Duties Consolidation* (162); Customs Laws Consolidation* (163), and passed.

THE DECLARATION OF PARIS, 1856.

  RESOLUTIONS.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH,who had given Notice to move the following Resolutions:—
  1458

  "1. That the object of the Declaration of Paris respecting maritime law, signed at Paris on the 16th April 1856, was, as expressed in the preamble, 'to endeavour to attain uniformity of doctrine and practice in respect to maritime law in time of war:'

  "2. That it is, moreover, obvious that the whole value of any such declaration, as changing the ancient and immemorial practice of the Law of Nations on the subject, must necessarily depend on the general assent of all the maritime states to the new doctrines:

  "3. That the fact of important maritime powers, such as Spain and the United States, having declined to accede to the Declaration of Paris, deprives that document of any value as between the governments that have signed it:

  "4. That the consequence of some powers adhering to the new rules whilst others retained intact their natural rights in time of war would be to place the former at a great and obvious disadvantage in the event of hostilities with the latter:

  "5. That Great Britain being an essentially naval power this House cannot contemplate such an anomalous and unsatisfactory condition of international obligations without grave misgivings:

  "6. That independently of other considerations the failure, after twenty years negotiations, to bring about general adhesion to its terms necessitates the withdrawal of this country from what was necessarily and on the face of it a conditional and provisional assent to the new rules:

  "7. That this House, while desiring to leave the question of opportuneness to the discretion of Her Majesty's Government, and having confidence in the repeated declarations on the subject of individual members of the present Administration, think it desirable to record an opinion that no unnecessary delay ought to take place in withdrawing from the Declaration signed at Paris on the 16th April 1856 on the subject of Maritime Belligerent Rights,"

  said, when I put these Resolutions on the Journals of the House, it was with the anticipation and belief that the whole question involved therein would have been previously fully discussed in "another place," and enabled your Lordships and the country generally to appreciate the arguments on each side. That there are cogent and weighty arguments to be urged on the opposite side I am well aware; but as this discussion in the other House has been defeated by a manœuvre, I prefer not to take up your Lordships' time by entering at length on this important subject, and I will confine myself to exposing in a very few words some of what I may term the popular fallacies which have lately been reproduced publicly, and endeavour to show that they will not bear the test of close examination. These are—first, the Declaration is of the nature of a Treaty,

  1459
  and equally binding; secondly, that we are gainers rather than losers by it; thirdly, that it abolishes the vexatious Right of Search. First, that the Declaration was a portion of the Treaty of Paris, and equally binding upon the co-signatories—the Treaty of Paris was signed on March 30, 1856, hut the Declaration on Maritime Law was not mentioned till 8th April, when it was introduced by Count Walewski. The proposal took the assembled Plenipotentiaries so much by surprise that Count Orloff and Count Buol thought it necessary to apply to their respective Courts for instructions before giving any opinion. So far from this having any of the character of a Treaty, I was informed officially that it had never received the Royal Sanction; we know that it has never received the approval of Parliament; and I challenge that Government whom Lord Clarendon was sent to represent, to show that he even received formal instructions from the Foreign Office to accede to these propositions. We are therefore bound only as by a pack-thread to conditions which strike at the very root of Great Britain's power as a maritime nation, and involve her very existence as a firsts-rate Power. The obnoxious principle laid down in the Declaration of Paris was that the neutral flag covers enemy's goods except contraband of war. It is argued that we as the greatest carriers should gain as neutrals more than we should profit as belligerents by the maintenance of this principle, and that without it we should have been sufferers in, for instance, the Franco-German War, not only as losing the advantages of a neutral carrier, but also as exposed to the intolerable hardships of being continually liable to search for enemy's goods. This is a fallacy, and will not bear examination. If we are to profit under the declaration as a neutral carrier, our obvious policy will be to remain neutral under all political complications, and, abdicating all active interference in European quarrels, to return once more to that inglorious policy of absolute non-intervention which caused us for many years subsequent to the Crimean War to be but as a geographical expression in the face of Europe, a political dummy. The very fact of the general surprise and satisfaction caused by the independent action of England in a late transaction is evidence that the people of this country
  1460
  as a body would reject the proposition that England should play the inglorious rôle, perhaps best expressed by a French term, "le rôle ďépicier." It is not true to say that by the declaration we are delivered from the intolerable liability of having our merchantmen searched. As long as it is held lawful to confiscate contraband of war, every merchant ship, of whatever nation, is liable to be boarded and have its papers and cargo overhauled and examined. If we become belligerents under the Declaration of Paris, our condition will be deplorable. All our carrying trade will depart from us, because freights will be increased 50 per cent. With the merchandize will go the sailors, the nursery of our naval reserves; our merchantmen will rot at their anchors, and our men-of-war will want crews. We have a powerful fighting navy, it is true; but in order to make it available for either offence or defence, we must find an enemy's navy that will meet it at sea, and not shut itself up, as the German navy did, in a harbour protected by torpedoes. The Declaration of Paris once signed, Russia knew we were impotent to prevent her violating the Treaty of Paris, and when we took stock of our military position we found we were powerless to prevent it, and so swallowed the leek with the best face we could. Withdraw from this fatal Declaration, break this pack-thread which binds England's right arm to her side, and you have her free once more, as she was in her most glorious days, when she successfully maintained, against Europe in arms, the right to seize her enemies' goods wherever she could find them—a principle maintained as a natural right by all standard writers on international law, with the exception, I believe, of De Hautefeuille, who wrote as against England. War cannot be waged with kid gloves. It ought to be rendered intolerable to our adversary, while at the same time we endeavour to be humane and to spare human life as far as possible. By paralyzing your enemy's commerce you deprive him of the sinews of war, and reduce him to terms without the necessity of blowing up his ships and their crews with the various diabolical engines of modern warfare. I might go on to show that it is no argument that, because you find it unnecessary to seize private property in military operations

  1461
  on land, you are thereby debarred from touching it on the high seas; but it would be entering more deeply into the question than I propose doing on this occasion. I am content to remember that in 1856 Mr. Disraeli himself denounced in the strongest terms this ill-omened Declaration, as did also my noble Friend who holds the Seals of the Foreign Office (Lord Carnarvon); and should Her Majesty's Government not have taken some steps towards withdrawing from this Declaration before the next Session, I shall be prepared to move analogous Resolutions to those which I now beg leave to withdraw.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, after the brief statement of my noble Friend, I need not detain the House with any lengthened remarks. At the same time I feel some difficulty in offering even the few comments I intend to make, as he has announced his intention to withdraw these Resolutions and has only given Notice of Resolutions which, under certain circumstances, he will be prepared to move next Session. This being the condition in which my noble Friend has left the matter, I hardly see what it is I have to reply to. I do not know that your Lordships desire that I should go into a general discussion on a purely abstract question—more especially as the subject is one of extreme importance, very complicated, and not capable of being treated adequately in a few words. I have stated that the question is a very important one, but I do not think that it is a subject which deeply agitates the public mind at the present time. A few persons hold strong opinions on the question, and they are in the habit of repeating their opinions in various forms; but, without laying too much stress on what may have been the effect of mere accident, I cannot ignore the fact that within the last few days discussion was invited in "another place;" and I do not think that it is consistent with the general experience of Parliamentary life that the House of Commons declines altogether to entertain the discussion of a subject in which any considerable number of the public are interested. The noble Earl (the Earl of Denbigh) has gone so briefly into the general question that I feel bound to follow his example; but there is one point to which he adverted on which I wish to make a few remarks.
  1462
  He seems to be under the impression that the Declaration in question is not binding upon this country because it was not in the form of a Treaty, and because it never received the ratification of Parliament, or, in any formal manner, of the Crown. I observe also that another noble Friend (Earl de la Warr) has a Notice on the Paper to ask me, to what extent such a Declaration is binding, and how far it has the force of a Treaty? That is a difficult question to answer, unless we accurately define our terms. Everybody knows there is no tribunal—no external authority—which can enforce the observations of a Treaty. It is an obligation of honour and good faith, and no penalty is provided for its violation. Therefore I do not see that the binding force of a Treaty can go beyond this—that it is a promise or engagement to do certain things on the part of the highest authority in the States concerned. Although in the case of this Declaration the formal proceedings referred to by my noble Friend were not observed, nevertheless we have the fact that this Declaration was issued 20 years ago upon the authority of the Executive Government of the day representing this country. From that time to this it has been frequently discussed in both Houses of Parliament. It has, therefore, been again and again brought under the consideration of Parliament; and Parliament, knowing that pledge to be given to foreign Nations, and knowing the tendency of the Declaration, has never from that time to this thought fit to interfere and say—"This is not an engagement which ought to be maintained." In these circumstances, the observance of this declaration appears to my mind to be a matter in which the honour and good faith of the country are involved. I do not say that we are of necessity to be perpetually bound by it, or that at a suitable time and on ample notice it would not be competent and proper for this country, if it so determined, to undo what was done 20 years ago, and withdraw from the engagement: but I think we should be putting ourselves in a position of considerable difficulty if we were to adopt the course proposed by the noble Earl. Not only have the principles embodied in the Declaration of Paris been accepted by us, but during the past 20 years we

  1463
  have been pressing them upon other countries—in some instances with success. We have induced various Powers to adopt them; and if, without special reasons, and merely on general grounds of policy, we were to withdraw from our engagements, those Powers who have framed their policy in accordance with our example, would have some right to charge us with inconsistency. Then, apart from the abstract principle involved in the question before us, it would be difficult to conceive any time more inconvenient than the present for signifying an intention on our part to withdraw from the Declaration of 1856. Everybody knows that there exists at the present time in Europe, and, perhaps, to some extent in this country, a general apprehension—an apprehension which I believe to be unfounded—as to the course which events may take. Obviously it is our duty and our interest to remove so far as we can, that feeling of uneasiness, and to refrain as far as possible from doing anything which might tend to encourage mutual alarm and distrust among Continental States. Now, my noble Friend must see that if, at the present moment, without any external pressure, and without any change occurring in our positions either internally or internationally, we were suddenly to reverse what was done in 1856, we should set every Cabinet and every politician in Europe speculating as to our motives, and the inference that would naturally be drawn from the facts would be that, whatever explanation we might give, yet we were in our minds persuaded that war was impending, and that we were making what seemed to us the best preparation for it. And I am sure, whatever may be the abstract principle involved, that is not an impression it would be desirable to produce.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHreminded the noble Earl that he had said he was quite content to leave the matter in the hands of the Government; but that if no action were taken, he would bring the matter before Parliament next Session.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: In that case I think I shall do well to abstain from entering into any general discussion of the merits of the question. It is more to the present purpose that I should state what are the views Her Majesty's Government take on the subject; and I am bound to guard myself against any
  1464
  possible misapprehension by saying that, fully admitting the question to be one of great difficulty, and one upon which the opinions of eminent men on both sides have been at variance, I myself am not prepared to assent to the opinion that it would be wise on our part to withdraw from the Declaration of Paris.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I think the noble Earl (the Earl of Denbigh) was judicious in withdrawing his Resolutions; but I disagree with his reasons for doing so. So far from thinking that this House should not discuss a subject merely because it has not been discussed in the other House, I am of opinion that there are many subjects which we can perfectly well discuss, although the House of Commons may have paid no attention to them. While I think the noble Earl is discreet in not asking your Lordships to come to a decision upon his Resolution, I should be sorry to appear to wish to avoid any discussion upon the matter, having belonged to the Government to whom the chief responsibility in regard to it attaches, and which at the time of the Crimean War found it absolutely necessary to put the whole case with regard to the position of neutrals in the form of the statement which was embodied in the Declaration of Paris. To withdraw from that Declaration would, I believe, be an immense mistake on the part of this country, which is one of the greatest maritime Powers in the world. In the event of a war in which we were neutral the Declaration would be of the greatest advantage to us; and I believe that if we were involved in a war with any powerful maritime country, the effect of its abrogation would be to enlist every other maritime Power in the world on the side of our opponents and against ourselves. Therefore it was with no feigned satisfaction that I heard the final declaration made by the noble Earl. It was quite evident from what took place in the other House a few nights ago that the Government, together with an enormous majority on both sides, did not think it opportune to make any change, and I am delighted to hear the personal opinion expressed by the noble Earl confirming that impression.
  EARL DE LA WARRexpressed great satisfaction with the statements made by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and said that he

  1465
  should not put the Question of which he had given Notice.

  LANGUAGES (INDIA)—THE INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE.—QUESTION.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose to ask the Secretary of State for India, If he will move the Civil Service Commissioners to re-distribute the marks given at the examination for Indian appointments so as to notify that Sanskrit, Arabic, or Persian are more important than German and Italian for Indian Civil Servants; and to ask him to take into consideration the expediency of making one of those three Eastern classical languages obligatory on probationers before proceeding to India; and to call the attention of the House to Colonel Yule's recommendation that a small defined number of men who have taken honours at the Universities should be nominated to the Indian Civil Service without competition. The noble Lord said that the three propositions which he had placed on the Notice Book were quite separate; but the second was the one to which he attributed most importance, and against which the fewest objections could be raised. Under the Rules of the Civil Service Commissioners, the languages and literature of Germany and Italy received 375 marks in the preliminary examination, and the same number of marks were assigned to Sanskrit and Arabic; and he wished to urge a redistribution of the marks in respect of the relative value of these languages, because the knowledge of German and Italian was inferior as an educational study to the knowledge of Sanskrit and Arabic; and because Italian and German were comparatively useless and unimportant for Indian Civil Servants, whilst the study of either Sanskrit, Arabic, or Persian might be considered as absolutely essential for them:—and not only that—the acquirement of either of these languages by an unsuccessful candidate would qualify him for other employment, and consequently the time he had devoted to the study would not be time wasted. It would be too much to ask that one of these Indian classical languages should be required of all candidates at the first examination, but he thought that a larger number of marks assigned to these languages would in-
  1466
  crease the number of students taking them up. Another stronger argument in favour of his proposition was that even a moderate knowledge of Sanskrit, enough, say, to pass an examination in the Hitopadésa, would give the student a grounding and a considerable start in the acquisition of Guzeratti, Bengali, Mahratti, and other vernacular dialects of India, which bore the same relation to Sanskrit that the new Latin languages did to Latin, and a knowledge of Sanskrit was as necessary for the vernacular dialects of India, as was that of Latin for good scholarship in French, Spanish, or Portuguese. Some knowledge of Sanskrit would also be of great assistance to the student of Hindustani, Malay, and other languages, into the vocabularies of which it entered largely. One of the writers in the Blue Book, whose opinion was asked on the point, remarked, with truth, on the difficult character of Sanskrit, and in a less degree of Arabic—difficulties which were more easily overcome earlier rather than later in life. The late Viceroy (Lord Northbrook) referred to the fact that the instruction in Sanskrit and Arabic to be obtained in India was inferior to that which might be obtained in England; but the best reason for insisting on the study of the Eastern classics in England was that the Civil Servants, when once in India, would probably not find time for Sanskrit or Arabic. The importance of Arabic could not be overrated. Some knowledge of it was necessary for the study of modern Persian, and it entered very largely into the vocabulary of Hindostani. The Arabic language was current from the Atlantic to the Pacific—and it was unnecessary to say anything of the value of its literature. Persian, though not a classical language in the sense of which Sanskrit and Arabic might be so described—for unlike them its grammar was as simple as that of English—deserved the place which the late Governor General and others in the Blue Book had given to it among the studies to be required from probationers before proceeding to India. Much of the Hindostani vocabulary was derived from Persian, and a knowledge of it was necessary for the higher Officers in the North-West Provinces and part of the Bombay Presidency. From his own experience at Cambridge and Paris he knew the value of tuition in

  1467
  Eastern languages in Europe, and he doubted whether he should ever have acquired the little he knew of any Eastern language without having first obtained a grounding in them there. In conclusion, the noble Lord quoted the following opinion of Colonel Yule as given in his Minute of the 22nd of January last in support of the third proposition in his Notice:—
  "Taking the mass of our candidates young, I should be disposed to support also the scheme which would provide for the nomination of a small, defined number of older men who had taken honours at the Universities without competition. In this way we should get a few men of maturer culture who might be valuable in various special lines of employment."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, his noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) wished the Arabic, Persian, and Sanskrit languages to be included in the competitive examination by which candidates for the Indian Civil Service were selected, and also to enter into the probationary course through which the candidates had to pass before proceeding to India. Now, the object of the competitive examination was not to select persons ready at once to take part in the Indian Civil Service, but to select the raw material out of which Indian Civil servants might be manufactured. The probationary course was the process of that manufacture, and those languages to which the noble Earl referred might form a part of that course. But, if they allowed those languages to be a principal element in the preliminary competitive examination, they would not attain their object—which was to get the best educated English youth of the time. Therefore he could not recommend any great change in the arrangement of subjects for the preliminary examination. Butas to the subsequent probationary course, there was such an amount of authority in favour of the cultivation of Sanskrit, Arabic, and Persian that his noble Friend might rest satisfied there was no danger of their being neglected. The third part of his noble Friend's Question raised on a very small point a very large controversy—namely, as to competitive examination. Now, he (the Marquess of Salisbury) was himself no superstitious admirer of competitive examination, and if sufficient cause were shown he would not object, in certain cases, to an alter-
  1468
  native system. But the principle of competitive examination had this advantage—that it was suited to our present social and political condition. It did not inflict a sense of injury or of inequality in those persons who might be anxious to obtain appointments in the Civil Service; while it also saved our public men from the temptation, or—what was still more important—from the suspicion of using their patronage for Party ends. For those objects—and especially for the last—competitive examination, though it might not be the best system that could be devised, was a good one; and from what he had seen of official life, he thought in these days the position of the head of a Public Office would be simply intolerable but for that system; whatever effect it might have on the candidates or the public, it was the very charter of safety to the heads of those Departments. But it nevertheless had drawbacks. For instance, it treated literary proficiency as if it were the sole qualification, or rather as if it were a sufficient guarantee, for all other qualifications requisite for the government of men—whereas there were historical examples in which men of no literary proficiency whatever had shown remarkable fitness for the government of men and the administration of kingdoms. But, whatever those drawbacks might be, they had the satisfaction of knowing that in the opinion of the highest Indian authorities they had not been serious. Moreover, the suggestion of his noble Friend that they should take men who had won University honours would not meet the difficulty of the case. If there was any other way of getting at the qualities they required besides literary proficiency to fit men for high position, he should be glad to know it. For himself he had given up the search in despair. In their present political condition he did not think any principle of selection which savoured of nomination would work satisfactorily. He was now only speaking of the Indian Civil Service, with which he was acquainted.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Marquess as to the two reasons he had given in favour of competitive examination. He could not conceive of a more complete answer to the objections which had been taken to that system than was furnished by the Blue Book on that subject. The evi-

  1469
  dence contained in those Papers was most conclusive that not only did the principle of competitive examination enable them to avoid the difficulty of selection on which the noble Marquess had laid great stress, but also to hit upon a method which, upon the whole, gave them the best material for their purpose. With regard to any advantages to be held out to young men undergoing a probationary training for the Indian Civil Service at the Universities, he hoped that the University of London would not be excluded from the benefits of such an arrangement. Young men trained at King's College and University College, London, would not only have the advantages of University discipline and instruction, but could follow the practice of the Courts much better in London than in a University town.
  In reply to Lord WAVENEY,
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,said, that in the regulations which had been made in reference to the teaching of the languages in question, there had been no desire to make any special provision which should be more favourable to Oxford or Cambridge than to any other University, but simply that an advantage should be given to the University which made provision for such teaching. The University of London had a concrete form, various Colleges being combined with it. There was nothing in the regulations which limited them to Oxford and Cambridge, and it might be desirable to bring the University of London within them.

WILD FOWL PRESERVATION BILL.
(The Lord Henniker.)
WILD FOWL PRESERVATION BILL.

  (NO. 134.) THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS,who said he had placed an Amendment on the Paper, pointed out that grouse and blackcock shooting commenced on August 20th and ended on December 10, and yet all through the months from December to May blackcock was offered for sale at a shop in the Strand. He might be told that the birds came from Norway; but that was no reason why the law should be evaded, and thus be an inducement to persons to resort to poaching in this country, He would
  1470
  not move his Amendment because he did not desire to obstruct the passing of the Bill, though it was in an imperfect form.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he also had an Amendment on the Paper, but for the same reason would not move it. He hoped next Session a Bill amending the law would be brought forward.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he must thank the noble Earl (Earl Granville) and the noble Lord (Lord Colville) for not impeding the progress of the Bill by inserting Amendments, and so, perhaps, defeating it for this Session, not only in the interest of sport, but in the interest of the consumer. He must state, in justice to the large dealers, that they were in favour of the Bill. He thought the thanks of the House were due to the noble Lord for calling attention to the fact that black game and other birds were sold out of season in London, but that hardly came within the scope of the Bill. Surely, the law was sufficiently stringent now to prevent these illegal sales. If, too, these birds came from Norway, he must remind the noble Lord that the game laws in Norway were far more stringent than our own. He had every hope the Bill would work well. It was drawn on the same lines as the Seabirds Protection Act, and that had worked well. However, he would certainly take the suggestions made by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, and if it did not work well, he would endeavour to deal more completely with the question another year.
  Bill passed.

BANKERS BOOKS EVIDENCE BILL.
(The Lord Aberdare.)
BANKERS BOOKS EVIDENCE BILL.

  (NO. 159.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD ABERDARE,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to facilitate the proof of transactions, according to bankers'ledgers and account books in legal proceedings. The Bill accordingly provided, first, that entries in such books should be admissible in all legal proceedings as primâ facie evidence, on affidavit by a partner or manager that such entries had been made in the usual course of business; secondly, copies of such en-

  1471
  tries might be admissible on affidavit by a person who had examined them, that such copies were correct—in which case the originals need not be produced; and thirdly, on application of any of the parties the Court might order that such party be at liberty to inspect and take copies of any such entries relating to the matters in question.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had no objection to the principle of the Bill; but before it was finally passed, it would be necessary to have an accurate definition of what was a "banker," within the meaning of the Bill; otherwise the books of private firms might be brought within its operation.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord President.)
POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 150.) COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  EARL FORTESCUEexpressed his regret that owing to indisposition he had been unable to be present on the second reading. He now wished to express his general approval of the Bill, and his hope that Her Majesty's Government, encouraged by the success which had attended their efforts to codify the sanitary legislation of the country, would persevere until they had reduced to order and system the chaotic mass of Poor Law legislation which had accumulated since the passing of the new Poor Law in 1834. He would remind their Lordships that in the discussion on the second reading, the question was raised by several noble Lords as to the expediency of making Unions coterminous with counties. A Return when presented to Parliament in 1869, showed that out of 760 Unions in England, 590 were wholly in counties, and 170 were as to their great bulk in the counties—that was to say, not comprising more than a few parishes which were in two or more counties. The question of having Unions coterminous with counties would be a very difficult one to deal with. He thought the powers proposed to be conferred on the Boards of Guardians by the clauses comprehended under the division of "Poor Law Amendments" were so many steps in the right direction.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 1 to 32, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  EARL FORTESCUEmoved, after Clause 32, to insert a new clause, having, for its object the granting of medical relief, in urgent cases of accident or disease, on loan—that was to say, where the circumstances of the family or individual were not fully known at the time, the Guardians should pay for the medical relief, and obtain payment when the person or family relieved could afford to discharge the debt. Now, if a relieving officer gave an order for medical relief, and the Guardians did not afterwards sanction it, the medical practitioner could sue the relieving officer for the debt, and that became a matter of great hardship. The course which he now proposed would prevent many persons from becoming pauperized.
  Moved, after Clause 32 to insert new clause—
  "Where medical relief is granted on loan, the guardians may declare that the same is so granted, and they may recover from the person to whom such, relief is granted the reasonable cost of the same as if it were money relief granted on loan."
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that he could not accept the clause, as he thought the present law enabled the Guardians to do all that was necessary.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought that many persons now obtained medical relief, who were perfectly well able to pay for the advice and medicine given.
  After some discussion, in which Lord Henniker, Lord Winmarleigh, and Lord Egerton of Tatton took part,
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONwas understood to say that though he would not promise that any alteration in the clause could be made, yet he would before the Report consider the question again, and see whether anything could be done.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  EARL FORTESCUEmoved to insert another new clause—
  "All medical or other relief given or ordered by the relieving officer or overseers in cases of emergency during the interval between the meet-

  1473
  ings of the board of guardians shall be deemed to have been given on loan and be recoverable accordingly, unless either disallowed or allowed as relief by the board of guardians at their first or subsequent meeting.'
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he objected to the clause on the same ground as he had objected to the previous one—namely, that the Guardians had now full power to do everything which, the Amendment would enable them to do.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 181.)

  CLEAN RIVERS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for making further provision against the pollution of rivers hitherto free from pollution—Was presented by The Earl of Doncaster; read 1a.(No. 182.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.