VACCINATION BILL. (Hansard, 5 August 1898)

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
My Lords, I regret that I do not see the noble Marquess at the head of the Government and the noble Lord (Lord Lister) who spoke on this subject yesterday in their places to-day, but I wish to call your Lordships' attention to two statements which were made, both by the noble Marquess and by Lord Lister. They stated that if your Lordships' House threw out the conscience clause the Bill would go back to the House of Commons, where the clause would be reinstated, and if, when the Bill is then returned to your Lordships, you insist on the omission of the clause, the Bill will be lost. That is to say, that we are to take the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, or else the Bill will be lost. That is a serious matter. This House has, it is true, very little power as a legislative assembly, but we have the privilege—the ancient privilege—not yet dead, of revising the deliberations and the decisions of the other House of Parliament. But if, however, we are to be told that if we make a single Amendment in any Bill which has come up from the other House that Bill will be lost, and that the country is not to have all the benefits of the other clauses which are not struck out, then I maintain that the action of this House is rendered nugatory. It seems to me that it would be useless, under such circumstances, to go through the form of entering into the details of any Bill which may be sent up to your Lordships. Knowing the long and distinguished career of the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, and the manner in which he has from time to time maintained the privileges of this House, I cannot believe that he would wish to do anything which would in the least degree be derogatory to the dignity or privileges of this House. I believe that in the action we took last night we had the support of public opinion. I really think that the majority of the people of this country are with us, and would support us, in the elimination of that clause, 250 and I regret all the more, therefore, the position in which the intimation which was given by the noble Marquess at the head of the Government places this House. I hope that even now it is not too late to appeal to the Government whether some compromise cannot be arrived at between the decision of this House and the other House of Parliament.

§ TEE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)
My Lords, I think my noble Friend has entirely misunderstood what the noble Marquess at the head of the Government said when he referred to the possible action of the Commons on this Bill. What the noble Marquess was referring to was that if both Houses disagree on the same thing, the Bill ipso facto is killed. The noble Earl suggested that the noble Marquess had uttered something in the nature of a threat, but I think the noble Earl has entirely misunderstood what passed.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
My Lords, with the majority the Government have in the other House, it is useless for them to say that they could not pass this Bill without this clause. It would be suicidal on the part of the Government, after what has been said in the Press, and by the public on this subject, for them to persist in this clause. I think it is very unconstitutional for the Government to bring before this House at this late period of the Session a clause which was sprung upon their own supporters at the last moment in the other House.