COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 30 July 1885)

LORD BALFOUR,
in moving the insertion of a new clause for the purpose of amending the Bill by limiting its operation to two years, said, he ventured to think that a matter of this great importance had not received that calm and deliberate attention which it ought to have done. There had been a great deal of recrimination and a desire, if he might say so without offence to either side, to make Party capital out of the proposal. He should like, therefore, that the final decision of the question 499 should be referred to the new Parliament. He admitted that if this Bill were not passed a certain amount of in justice might be felt for the first year; or two. But he thought that in a matter of this kind they ought to be very careful not to go beyond: the strict necessities of the case. By adopting his Amendment their Lord-ships, while giving no ground for complaint on the part of those who from ignorance of the law might have incurred the risk of disqualification through having accepted medical relief, would minimize the evil effect which would flow from the adoption of a principle which might render the working classes less thrifty than they had hitherto been, and might cause the administration of the Poor Law to become more lax than it was at present. He thought it was extremely doubtful whether the mass of the working classes wished this change made; certainly that was his information as to Scotland. The opinion was that the class which would most profit would be the loafers—the men who stood about the street corners, and who, when work was found for them, were not ready to do it. The judgment of the House of Commons had, he believed, never been taken on the point as to the limitation of time of operation of the Bill. All he pleaded for was that time should be given to the working classes to show what their real wishes were in the matter, and if they did so he should be perfectly satisfied. He begged to move the new clause.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN
said, he hoped their Lordships would not agree to this Amendment. His noble Friend had taken it for granted that the principle of the Bill was wrong, and that it therefore ought to be law as short a time as possible. If the working class were opposed to the Bill, nothing would be easier than to repeal the measure; but in what was virtually a Franchise Bill, to insert a clause limiting it to any period was, he thought, absolutely unprecedented. The noble Lord had mentioned a case in which a sewing machine 500 had been given under the name of relief; but relief with which this Bill dealt was medical relief, and no one, he thought, had ever heard of a surgeon prescribing a sewing machine for a patient. His noble Friend seemed to think that the receipt of medical relief was a crime.

LORD BALFOUR
said, he was not conscious of having made use of such an expression. He thought the remark of the noble Lord might subject him to some animadversion. His Friends near him had not heard such an expression.

§ LORD FITZGERALD
said, he had distinctly heard the word crime. It struck him as remarkable in such a connection.

THE EARL OR CAMPERDOWN
said, he could assure the noble Lord that he did use the word "crime."

LORD BALFOUR
said, in that case he would withdraw it, as he had no intention of using it in such a connection.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN
said, he was glad to give his noble Friend the opportunity of correcting the expression. He must oppose the Amendment, and he hoped it would not be entertained.

§ LORD FITZGERALD
also opposed the Amendment, and pointed out that the Government had in taking up the question dropped the clause in Mr. Jesse Collings's Bill which was to remain in operation for only a year and a-half.

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)
said, that the principal argument in favour of this Amendment was that the Bill would demoralize the poor; but he did not believe it would have that effect, because it would not interfere with the administration of the Poor Law. He hoped his noble Friend would not press his Amendment. It was quite clear what the opinion of their Lordships was upon the subject.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he was very grateful to the noble Earl who had taken charge of the Bill for the argument which he brought forward to day in favour of the measure. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment argued against the whole Bill. He said his proposal was a very modest one, and so it was from him considering that he was opposed to the entire Bill. He did not think that occasional disqualification would deter a man from making application for medical relief. The noble Mar- 501 quess (the Marquess of Salisbury) the other evening used one argument with which he agreed—namely, that on a subject of this kind it was not desirable that this House should differ from the House of Commons. When a proposal such as that which had been by the noble Lord was made in the House of Commons by a county Member it received absolutely no support.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, it appeared to him that the effect of the Amendment would be to enact that the Houses of Parliament should consider this question again two or three years hence. He did not think they had so distinguished themselves on the present occasion that that would be a desirable prospect.