Sitting of 7 August 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Medical Practice.
Reported.—Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal.
3o. and passed:—Insolvent Debtors.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Colonel Verner, from Protestant Association, against Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal Bill.—By Mr. Lascelles, from Westmoreland (Jamaica), against Reduction of Differential Duties.—By Mr. Hawes, from P. W. Crowther, and Mr. Kemble, from Bermondsey, against Insolvent Debtors Bill.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Colliers of Northumberland, and Durham, complaining of Poor Law.

COLLIER'S STRIKE.
Mr. T. Duncombepresented a petition from the delegated miners of the counties of Durham and Northumberland, complaining that hundreds of persons had been introduced into those counties for the purpose of displacing the labour of the men who had struck work, and that it had been done under the authority of the Poor Law Commissioners. He would take that opportunity of asking the right hon. Baronet a question upon this subject. He had been informed that Sir John Walsham, an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, had been instrumental in sending into these counties hundreds of persons from Ireland and Wales, for the purpose of interfering in the dispute, unfortunately so long protracted, between the miners of those counties and their employers. He wished to know whether this report were true, and if so, whether the right hon. Baronet thought that the provisions of the New Poor Law gave any power for such an interference with the rights of labourers?
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that since yesterday, when the hon. Gentleman gave him notice of his question, he had not had an opportunity of applying to the Poor Law Commissioners on the subject, but he was quite prepared to state that in his opinion

1869
the provisions of the New Poor Law gave no such power as that adverted to. Sir John Walsham's duties, as an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, were wholly confined to the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. He had formerly been in the northern district, and he was possessed of property in Herefordshire and South Wales, so that he might have been instrumental in procuring labour for some of the proprietors in Durham, but he had not so acted in his capacity of Assistant Poor Law Commissioner. He deeply deplored the long protracted struggle which had existed between the workmen and their employers in these counties, and the importation of fresh labourers must be productive of much misery, but it was a course which the masters were driven to adopt and which must have been foreseen. He deeply deplored the importation of fresh labour into counties where it was already abundant, but there were no means available for preventing it.

FRENCH AGGRESSIONS IN AFRICA.
Viscount Ebringtonwished to ask a question of the First Lord of the Treasury, of which he had given notice, respecting an agreement prejudicial to our commerce, reported to have been obtained by the French from the chiefs of the Gaboon river, on the west coast of Africa. From the memorial, signed by the chiefs of the banks of that river, which was addressed to Her Majesty, it appeared that the French had, in the month of March last, obtained from the King a paper, conferring upon the French authorities the power of regulating the commerce of the territory, and requiring the French flag to be raised in their towns above those of all other nations. It was said that the King and several of his chief men had been intoxicated, and in that condition induced to sign a paper, transferring the sovereignty of their territories to the French, under the impression that it was a mere formal letter of civility to his Majesty King Louis Philippe. This was said to have been done by M. Amouroux, master of a French merchant brig, and the natives, it appeared, were greatly indignant as soon as they had discovered the imposition practised upon them. As any addition to the settlements of the French on the Guinea coast was of importance to the commercial interests of this country, he wished to know whether Government had received infor-
1870
mation as to the transactions in question, and whether they had taken any steps with relation to them?
Sir R. Peelsaid, his right hon. Friend had received a memorial from some merchants trading to the western coasts of Africa, complaining of certain acts done by the French authorities in the Gaboon river, and which were stated to be prejudicial to the commerce of this country. The memorial had been presented to Her Majesty, and by her referred to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. But it was drawn up on a total misapprehension of how matters stood upon that coast. For instance, it stated that the Board of Customs had always looked upon the settlement on that river as a British settlement, and that our flag had been flying there for years. Now, that was a total misapprehension of the facts of the case. Our flag had never been hoisted there by any one having authority to do so, and he was informed that the goods imported from this country were always looked upon to be, and paid duty as, foreign goods. He could give no assurance of any proceeding being taken by Her Majesty's Government upon the memorial, but undoubtedly the facts it detailed would be inquired into.
On the Motion of Sir R. Peel, that the Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal Bill be read,

FOREIGN POLICY OF MINISTERS.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, I do not mean to advert to the subject of the occurrences on the west coast of Africa, but I wish to take this opportunity of making a few observations with respect to the position in which the Foreign Affairs generally of the country now stand, as it is the last occasion which will present itself. I am anxious to call the attention of the House and of the Government to the inconvenient consequences which have arisen from the system of policy pursued by Her Majesty's present advisers — a system which appears to be one of resistance at home and of concession abroad. When the right hon. Gentlemen opposite came into office, they adopted a course which they probably thought would lead to a state of tranquillity abroad, and secure to them the good-will of Foreign Governments. I doubted at the time the success of that line of policy, and affairs which have arisen since must have convinced

1871
Ministers, as they have convinced the country, that it is not a system calculated to advance the interests or to uphold the honour of this country. They commenced by making a great concession to the United States, in the hope, no doubt, that by such means they would restore perfect harmony between the Governments of the two countries; but the result instead was, that after the cession of the greater portion of the disputed territory, another question arose, namely, that concerning the Oregon territory, which promised to lead to as many difficulties as that respecting the north-east boundary. Then there were the questions of the right of visit, and the annexation of Texas to the United States, which were of great importance to the interests of England, and which yet remained to be resolved. In like manner with regard to France; the policy they adopted towards that country was of the same character and tendencies. In Spain, shortly after their accession to office, there occurred questions of considerable difficulty, the embarrassments connected with which were fomented by French intrigue, and Ministers, out of deference to the French Government, counselled the Regent of Spain to submit to great indignity in the question which had arisen with M. Salvandy, the French Ambassador, and also in the affair regarding the conduct of M. Lesseps, the French Consul at Barcelona. The consequence of this was, that the Spanish nation had felt that the Regent had lost the moral support of this country, and his enemies were allowed to prevail. He fell, and British interests, in my opinion, were sacrificed in his downfall. In Otaheite a question arose as to whether France should accept the Protectorate of the island, which had been refused by England; which, indeed, had been twice refused by England; but, be it always remembered, that the former Government who had declined the offer, had assured the Government of Tahiti, that England would always give it the support of her good offices in any difference which might arise between Tahiti and any Foreign Power. When that question presented itself, Her Majesty's Government again acquiesced, and that acquiescence in French aggression led that Power to take another step which may be productive of very serious consequences. No doubt that line of policy was undertaken for the purpose of obtaining temporary quiet, and
1872
without foresight or regard as to what the eventual consequences might be, putting aside all care for the ultimate sacrifices which must be made in following such a course. Ministers, in fact, appear to shape their policy not with reference to the great interests of their own country, but from a consideration of the effect which their course may produce upon the position of Foreign Governments. It may very well be a desirable object, and one worthy of consideration, that a particular individual should continue in the administration of affairs in another country, but it is too much that from regard to that object, the interests of this country should be sacrificed, and that every demand of Foreign Powers should be acceded to. The same course, indeed, was pursued by the party opposite on former occasions. In 1830, the French were allowed to obtain possession of Algiers. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite were then in office; they remained quiescent, in order that the Ministry of Prince Polignac might be maintained in power, and we were all aware of the consequences which have arisen from their acquiescence on that occasion. No doubt it is for the interest of this country, it is for the interest of France herself, as well as for the interests of the world, that M. Guizot should remain Minister of France, but the Government of this country has no right to sacrifice either the honour or the interests of England, in order to continue M. Guizot in power. What is the consequence of pursuing such a course? When questions arise between the two countries—when the British Government wishes that something should be done, or that something should be refrained from—all that the French Government have to do, in order to avoid compliance with the demand, is to get the so-called war party and the opposition newspapers to abuse them, and to call for their expulsion from office. The French Government then come to the Government of the right hon. Baronet, and represent that if they were to be compelled to do one thing, or were required to refrain from doing another, their existence would be endangered, and then Her Majesty's Ministers frightened at the notion of a change of Government in France, sacrifice the interests of their own country for the purpose of saving the Government of France, It seems to me that the system of purchasing temporary security by lasting sacrifices, and of placing

1873
the interests of Foreign Ministries above those of this country, is one that never can be worked out with advantage either to the honour of this country, or to that of the Administration which pursues such a course. Since the accession to office of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, no one can have failed to observe, that there has been a great diminution of British influence and consideration in every foreign country. Influence abroad is to be maintained only by the operation of one or other of two principles—hope and fear. We ought to teach the weaker Powers to hope that they will receive the support of this country in their time of danger. Powerful countries should be taught to fear that they will be resisted by England in any unjust acts either towards ourselves or towards those who are bound in ties of amity with us. But after the abandonment of Spain by Her Majesty's Government, what weak power can retain any hopes of moral support or of effective aid from this country? And after we have ceded and given up the disputed territory in North America, what powerful country can entertain any apprehension of our resistance to encroachment? Although Her Majesty's late advisers had sometimes the misfortune to be in a minority in the House of Commons, still in their Foreign Policy they had the good fortune always to be in the majority on the Belgian negotiation. When the Dutch were intractable, we had the assistance of France and Belgum, and we controlled the Dutch; when afterwards the Belgians grew unreasonable, we had the support of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, and we restrained the Belgians. In Portugal, when we wished to establish the Constitution and Donna Maria, we had France and Spain on our side, and we carried our point. In Spain, when we were desirous of upholding Isabella and Liberty, we had France and Portugal with us, and we carried our point. When we decided to affect an arrangement in the Levant, which we thought essential for the peace of Europe, as well as to the interest of England, we had Austria, Russia, Prussia, and Turkey with us, and that arrangement was carried into execution. In all these great questions Her Majesty's late Government had the concurrence and co-operation of all those Powers which were nearest to the scene of operations, and were, from their local position, the
1874
best informed upon the subject, the most able to co-operate, and the most interested in the policy pursued. What may be the influence of the present Government I know not, but while it is exercised upon the system I have pointed out, and when important and permanent interests are sacrificed for the temporary convenience of Foreign Governments—it can never be exercised in a manner which will be satisfactory to this country. I am most anxious that the House, the country, and the Government itself, should direct their attention to the results which have already arisen from the mistaken system on which Ministers set out, and which they appear still to pursue. It is a system of all others the most likely to lead the country into serious difficulties, and which has already produced occurrences which may involve us in war. It is said, that there are parties in other countries, whose constant cry is for war, but I am totally incredulous about these so-called war parties. No doubt there may be individuals or small knots of men, in other countries, who may fancy that they can promote their own political views by holding warlike language; but I do not believe that in any country there is any party sufficiently powerful by their weight and numbers to influence the policy of their country, who really wish for unprovoked and unnecessary war with England—I believe nothing of the kind. Even under the present Government, this country is still powerful enough to make any other nation pause before they enter into a war with England, unless it be in their own defence. I would not have Ministers stand out with any other country upon other than just grounds, but having once laid down their ultimatum, it will never be satisfactory to the country if they recede except upon open and fair reasons. I will only add a single observation with respect to the recent occurrences at Otaheite. It has been alleged, certainly not in this House, but it has been asserted elsewhere, that Mr. Pritchard was not a British Consul at the time of his imprisonment and expulsion, and that the French were at that time entitled to exercise the right of sovereignty over the island. Now, most undoubtedly an officer of any Government can only assume for his Government the sovereignty over another nation provisionally, and subject to the approbation and recognition of the act by his

1875
own Government: until that approval is given, no act of sovereignty on his part can be valid. If the French Government had adopted the act of its officers in Otaheite, there is no doubt that its adoption would have operated restrospectively, and any act of sovereignty which might have been previously done, would have become valid; but the French Government repudiated the whole of the acts of its officer, and recalled him. Therefore, all pretensions to any right of sovereignty fall to the ground. But even if the French Government had thought fit to adopt the act of its officer, and if the sovereignty of France over Tahiti, had been thus retrospectively established, even that would not have justified the manner in which our Consul has been treated. To say that Mr. Pritchard was not a British Consul at the time of his imprisonment and expulsion, is an assertion totally unfounded, and which might lead to consequences which may hereafter prove very prejudicial to important interests of this country. What is it that makes a man a Consul? Why a commission from his own Government. But Mr. Pritchard had such a commission, and it had not been revoked. He held his commission as Her Majesty's Consul to the Government of Otaheite, and when that Government was deposed, he very properly said, his functions were suspended till the decision of the two Governments upon the usurpation at Tahiti should be known; he said to the French, that he was commissioned to the Queen of Tahiti and not to them, and that he could not communicate officially with them, till he received orders from his own Government to do so. But that circumstance did not make him cease to be a British Consul; and British Consul he still was. His position then was similar to that of an Ambassador who has broken off communication with the Government he is accredited to, upon some disagreement arising. That is a step short of demanding his passports, but even if an Ambassador should actually go the length of demanding his passports, he still retains his character of Ambassador. So also was it with Mi. Pritchard, although he had ceased to exercise his functions, he was still invested with that character which the commission of his Sovereign conferred upon him. He had still the full character of a British Consul, and was entitled to such respect as was due to that character
1876
even had the full sovereignty of the island been adopted by the French Government. I have not said so much with any intention of adding to the difficulties of the Government; I am perfectly aware of the serious nature of those difficulties; but they will not be lessened by placing the ground-work of the case upon other than a fair and just footing. If you are preparing to deal with the matter more lightly than you were disposed to look upon it at first, let it be upon grounds that will not lead hereafter to dangerous consequences, let it be for reasons, if any there be, consistent with honour and justice, otherwise it will be vain for you to expect to give satisfaction to the nation. There may be a departure from the tone and temper in which the news was first received, but there ought to be no concession which will tend to the dishonour of this country.
Sir Robert Peel: The House will not expect from me any reference to the latter observations of the noble Lord, considering the circumstances in which the question is at present placed. I confess I was not prepared for the speech of the noble Lord, entering, as it did, so widely into the whole foreign policy of the country, upon the Motion for reading the Order of the Day for the Report on the Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal Bill. Upon such a question I could not have anticipated that the noble Lord would have questioned, as he has done, the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Ministers, as especially during the last fortnight he had two different opportunities of expressing his sentiments upon the present state of foreign affairs. The noble Lord was in the House yesterday; but he had not the courtesy to give me notice of his intention. It seems to me that the speech which the noble Lord has just made, is intended to supply omissions in former speeches—it seems to have been delivered, in fact, to pass a panegyric upon the noble Lord himself. If that were the object of the noble Lord, in my opinion it is a work which the noble Lord has not neglected before. The noble Lord began by imputing to the Government a system of resistance at home, and concession abroad. Now, that is a very antithetical and fine-sounding sentence, but it is no more. It was only yesterday that the Government was accused of adopting the policy of their predecessors. That was the charge

1877
yesterday, but now the charge is that our system is one of resistance to all wise and liberal measures. That is the charge made by the noble Lord; but it is mere assertion, without one particle of proof; therefore I shall decline following him into that part of his impeachment. The noble Lord asserted that Her Majesty's Government had made large concessions to Foreign Powers; it is assertion, and nothing more. I deny that Her Majesty's Ministers have made any concession to any Government which can in any wav injure the honour of either the country or the Government. I perfectly agree with the noble Lord that the leading principle of any British Administration ought to be a firm support of British interests, and an unflinching regard to British honour. The noble Lord began his strong assertions by a reference to the United States; and he said, "True, you have settled the question regarding the north-eastern boundary, but the Oregon question remains." Now, I beg to ask, what did the noble Lord do with that question during the ten years he was in office? In what state did he leave even the question of the north-eastern boundary? Did he bring it near to a settlement? Was not he, on the contrary, sending troops for the purpose of taking possession of the disputed territory, and for the removal of the squatters? Were not both countries in the utmost alarm at the probability of hostilities on account of that question? This Government, on their accession to office, undertook the settlement of that question, and they did settle it. The noble Lord seems to think it is a personal grievance that they have succeeded. It forms, no doubt, a most injurious contrast to his own conduct while in office. True, the Oregon question is not yet settled; but what did the noble Lord do during his term of office, that he had a right to blame the Government on account of the present state of that question? We have succeeded in settling a question which formed the source of much danger to the maintenance of a good understanding between the two nations. I know not whether that settlement had anything to do with the loss of power which has befallen Mr. Webster. A great outcry was raised against him in the United States for the concessions he agreed to. A map was produced in this country to prove that we were entitled to the whole of the territory in dispute between
1878
us and the United States, which was made the ground of great complaint against the Treaty subsequently concluded; but there was just as much dissatisfaction, just as great outcries were raised in America against the maps that were discovered, proving the claim of the United States to the whole of that territory. Maps were referred to by each party which were thought to substantiate their own claims. Whether or no the settlement of the question by Mr. Webster led to his quitting office, I know not, but I know that in the performance of the duty which he owed to his country in removing one imminent cause of war, and settling this question, that honest statesman incurred great obloquy from his own countrymen. The noble Lord disapproves of the settlement of the boundary question; undoubtedly that was not the opinion of the British House of Commons. This House cordially approved of the policy of the Government; it did not think that the terms of the settlement were injurious to this country. We did not want to establish the policy of returning thanks to a Minister for the successful termination of his mission; but so strong was the feeling of the House of Commons upon the subject, so totally did they differ from the noble Lord opposite, so small an impression did the speech of the noble Lord of three hours' duration make upon the House, that an hon. Gentleman sitting behind the noble Lord (Mr. Hume) stated that he would have been perfectly silent, he would have done nothing, if it had not been for the speech of the noble Lord, but that he did feel it to be necessary we should depart from our usual course, and that the House of Commons should leave upon record its sense of the high acknowledgments that were due to Lord Ashburton for his conduct in the negotiation, A Motion was accordingly made by him to the effect that this House, looking to the long, protracted, and unsuccessful negotiations for the settlement of the north-eastern boundary between the United States of North America and the British North American Provinces, and taking into consideration the great importance of removing all grounds of irritation between the inhabitants of the country, is of opinion that the Treaty of Washington, by which that boundary has been defined and settled, is both honourable and advantageous, and that Lord Ashburton, who conducted the negotiation

1879
which led to that Treaty, deserves for that service the Thanks of the House. The noble Lord has never been able to get over that. The House of Commons, not content merely with not expressing its disapprobation with the course pursued by the Government, expressed its approbation of it. Observe, a mere abstinence from censure upon Lord Ashburton might have been supposed to imply that there were some sympathies with the noble Lord; but after the noble Lord had come forward with an able speech, showing a perfect recollection of the facts, and describing most clearly the geographical distinctions and boundaries of the country, when the House agreed to such a Motion, in the result not only expressing approbation of the policy of the Government, but disapprobation of the noble Lord's policy, it was, no doubt, mortifying enough for a Secretary of Foreign Affairs. The noble Lord cannot deny that many of the warmest friends of the late Government very warmly disapproved of his policy. He has now made a speech in the absence of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, who took occasion to blame the present Government for the present amount of the Naval Force of the country. But he did, notwithstanding, administer a very appreciable rebuke to the noble Lord opposite, who, unfortunately, was not here, and I believe he was prepared to have expressed in more decided terms his dissent from the noble Lord. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London did distinctly state that he did not blame in the slightest degree the course which the present Government have pursued with respect to France. He said, "I see the position in which the Government of the two countries stand; I see that the Government of France, too, is with taunted submission to the Government of Great Britain; every provocation is administered to them not to make any concession, however reasonable, and I see the same course pursued by a party here." Speaking of the efforts of the press here, the noble Lord said, "I see the difficulties which the two Governments have to contend with; I can make allowances—I think the course which the present Administration is pursuing on the whole a wise one; and so far as their policy with respect to France is concerned, I do not blame it." I think I do not misrepresent the observations which fell from so high an authority
1880
as the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, on the occasion to which I refer. I am sorry that the noble Lord opposite was not content that we should part in good humour at the close of this Session; but I must again remind him that his own Parliament—the noble Lord's own House of Commons—did come to this resolution; that looking at the long protracted and unsuccessful negotiations for the settlement of the north-eastern boundary, and taking into consideration the great importance of removing grounds of irritation between the inhabitants of the frontier, this House was of opinion that Lord Ashburton, who conducted the negotiation, deserves the thanks of this House. I say that for a Parliament elected under the auspices of the noble Lord to come to such a resolution, as the consequence of his speech, was unfortunate. I am sorry he retains the recollection of it; but I am not surprised that he is still smarting under his sense of the indignity then offered. Well, then, as to Texas. How is the British Government responsible for any claim or proposal made with respect to Texas? It would be quite superfluous for me to enter into any consideration of that topic, but nothing can be more manifestly unjust than the attempt to make Her Majesty's Government responsible for any proceeding adopted by the Government of the United States towards Texas. With respect to Algiers, the noble Lord has thought proper to revive that subject. Why, I proved the other night that for ten years the late Government had acquiesced cheerfully and voluntarily in the occupation of Algiers by the French. The noble Lord signified to the French Government that France might continue in the occupation of Algiers, provided she did not attempt to extend her dominions on the side of either Tunis or Morocco. Why did the noble Lord acquiesce in that policy? I apprehend it was pretty much from a derire not to embarrass any Government in France the maintenance of which the noble Lord and his Colleagues thought of importance to the interests of Europe. The noble Lord did not say there had been obligations contracted, which were binding on the Government that succeeded, but the noble Lord did act on that principle, which he now condemns altogether in too unqualified a manner. He knew what would have been the consequence of insisting on the evacuation of Algiers by

1881
France, and considerations of policy, more than those of justice, induced the noble Lord and his Colleagues not to demand from Louis Philippe the evacuation of Algiers. With respect to the influence of Her Majesty's Government in Spain, I do not apprehend that Espartero entertains the same opinions as the noble Lord with respect to the counsels given him by us during his administration. The noble Lord is in error in supposing that the Regent was influenced in the course he pursued, in the affair of M. Salvandy, by the representations of the British Government. That was not the fact; but if he had had that hold in Spain which the noble Lord seemed to think he had, how does the noble Lord account for it, that in the case of a person of his high military distinction, who had shown great valour and sincere desire to promote the interests of the country in which he exercised power—how does the noble Lord account for it that no effort whatever was made in any part of Spain to rescue Espartero from the fate with which he was threatened, and which ultimately befell him? And would the noble Lord have counselled active interference on the part of this country, for the purpose of maintaining in authority any personage in whose behalf so little of public sympathy appeared to exist, as there had been in Spain with respect to Espartero? It is very easy for the noble Lord to say that his downfall was precipitated by the advice given by the British Government. But the assertion is totally and entirely gratuitous. Espartero fell in Spain from the want—a want to be regretted, I think—of a due appreciation of his merits; it was not in consequence of any advice given by the British Government. If there were anything that injured Espartero, I must say that it was the suspicion that he was the cordial friend of this country, and that he received support from it. With respect to the expression of the noble Lord that the authority of this country—the just and legitimate influence of this country—had been impaired under the Administration of Her Majesty's present advisers, I meet that assertion of the noble Lord's by a positive denial. I am prepared to prove that there never was a period when the just influence and authority of this country stood higher than it does at the present moment for all legitimate purposes. I perfectly admit that we have not pursued that course which
1882
the noble Lord was inclined to pursue, namely—that while he disclaimed all intervention or right of interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, he should so intervene more actively than any of his predecessors. Our intervention in the domestic affairs of foreign states may have been less than that of the noble Lord, but not less, I contend, than was required to effect any object rendered necessary by the interests of England or of the world. I contend, in opposition to the unsupported assertion of the noble Lord, that there never was a period when the name and authority of the British Government stood higher than at the present moment. With respect to the topic of more immediately pressing interest with which the noble Lord concluded his speech, I must again observe, that I think he will not expect on the present occasion any remarks whatever from me on that point. I expressed on a former occasion my opinion on the subject, and in the present state of affairs I shall beg to be excused from entering at all into any discussion upon it.
Mr. Forsterwould only trouble the House for a short time, nor would he have troubled it at all, but for the very unsatisfactory reply given by the right hon. Baronet to his noble Friend's question, relative to the proceedings of the French at Gaboon River. The right hon. Baronet appeared quite to misunderstand the nature of the complaint. He held in his hand a copy of the complaint and protest of the natives against these proceedings of the French, which he had every reason to believe was perfectly authentic and correct, and he did not find in that paper a single word about the territory being English, or any allegation that the English flag had ever been hoisted there, or that the produce of the place was entitled, of strict right, to enter here as British produce. There is no complaint of this kind; the complaint is this—that from time immemorial British subjects have had a right of free-trade at the Gaboon in common with other countries, but that in consequence of these proceedings it is likely to be lost in favour of France. That France is seeking by fraud and violence to gain possession of it, contrary to the wish of the native chiefs and people. If this were the only instance of such conduct on the part of France, there might be less ground for complaint either on our part or by the

1883
natives; but it is not so: France has been for some time pursuing a systematic course of encroachment and interference with British trade and British interests in that quarter, which, if allowed to go on unchecked, will not leave our trade a foot of ground except the ground on which our forts are built. In addition to their proceedings elsewhere on the coast, they lately took violent possession of the Casamanza River, in opposition to the wishes of the natives and in violation of the rights of Portugal, to whom it has always been considered to belong. On that occasion they seized two British trading vessels; that is three years ago, and to this hour the owners have not been paid a farthing for either ships or cargoes, although the seizure has never been defended, and cannot be defended. But still these things are allowed to go on. He assured the right hon. Baronet that the English traders on the coast of Africa loudly complained of these proceedings, and also that they were not duly protected by their Government and the Navy.
Sir R. Peelhad alluded to the statements contained in the letter of the British merchants who forwarded the memorial of the natives. They stated that the Gaboon territory was a British settlement, and that its produce was admitted on more favoured terms than that of any other part of the coast of Africa, because it was a British settlement, and that the British flag was flying at the ports on the Gaboon. That was the statement made by the British merchants at Bristol, who forwarded the memorial which had been alluded to. The fact was, that the Gaboon territory was not a British settlement; its produce was not admitted on more favourable terms than that of other parts of the coast, and if our flag was flying, it was without the sanction of the British Government. The occupation of the Gaboon by the French was in consequence of the treaty made two years ago between the two countries.
Viscount Ebringtonwanted to ascertain from the Government whether the British flag and British trade were not placed on a more disadvantageous footing in consequence of this treaty than they were before. He had said nothing at all about the Gaboon being a British territory. What he asked was, that Her Majesty's Government should take care that British commerce and honour did not suffer. To
1884
that he had received no answer. The remarks about the letter of Messrs. King, which he had not seen, were no reply to his question.
Captain Pechellhad hoped the righthon. Baronet would have adverted to a subject which he had omitted to mention—he meant the Fishery Convention. The right hon. Baronet had said the noble Lord was fond of making his own panegyric. All he could say was, that if the noble Lord had remained in power, that question would have been settled long since. The right hon. Baronet had stated in the commencement of this Session, as he had done at the close of the last, that the French Chambers were about to pass into a law the provisions contained in the treaty between the two countries. The right hon. Baronet had, last Session, passed an Act carrying into effect only a portion of those provisions; the House was obliged to receive or to reject them. He (Captain Pechell) was very anxious that some parts should pass; to others he objected. He was afraid that now formed an item in the difficulties of this country. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would have no objection to state to the House what was the present state of the legislation in France with respect to the Articles of the Convention agreed upon. Whatever might be the right hon. Baronet's opinion as to the exertions of the noble Lord, and as to what was thought of him at that side of the House, he could only say, that the noble Lord deserved the same encomium which the right hon. Baronet had passed on Mr. Webster—that of being a most honest statesman, and carrying into effect whatever tended to advance the interests of his country. Connected as he had been with the question of the Slave Trade, he did think that all concerned were deeply indebted to the noble Lord for the great exertions he had made, and which certainly had not received great encouragement from Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. Personally he felt that the noble Lord had made great sacrifices in concluding those treaties with France and Spain for the settlement of a matter which had remained unsettled for 150 years.
Subject at an end.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PENAL ACTS.
Order of the Day for bringing up the Report on the Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal Bill read.
On the question that it be brought up,
Colonel Vernersaid, he had to complain of the precipitancy which this measure had been hurried through the House. A measure of such importance ought not to have been brought forward only three or four days before the termination of the Session, and in the absence of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford.
Mr. Macaulaythought, no Gentleman would get up and say, that there was a single enactment repealed by this Bill which was not a disgrace to the Statute Book of a civilized and Christian country. He was quite satisfied from his personal knowledge of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, however much they might differ on many questions in that House, that he would not have opposed this Bill.
Mr. Spoonerwished to say a word, because in consequence of what had fallen from him upon the second reading of this Bill he had been misrepresented, and had been supposed to have treated the Petition he then presented with something like contempt. Referring to the grounds on which the Petitioners had expressed suspicion, he had stated that the petitioners objected to the time and manner in which the measure was introduced, it not being a Government measure, or brought in upon Government responsibility at the end of a Session, when there was no time for due consideration of its provisions. He had stated that that was quite sufficient to excite the suspicions of the petitioners, in connection with the manner in which former concessions had been received, and their total failure to heal those religious animosities which all deplored. Nothing fell from him to justify the supposition that he had treated the petition with levity.
Sir R. Peelcould bear testimony to the fact, that the hon. Member had not treated the petition with levity, though he had the manliness to say, after learning the object of the Bill, he felt bound not to oppose it. The object of the Bill was to remove what was an incumbrance to the Statute Book. It was no doubt to be regretted that at this period there was not an opportunity of introducing a more comprehensive measure; but about the Repeal of the Statutes to which this Bill applied, barbarous and obsolete as they were, there could be no hesitation; and at his request, his right hon. Friend, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had already given notice of a Motion to extend the Repeal
1886
to the Irish Statutes. They were sometimes more influenced by feeling than by calmer considerations; and this Bill coming down from the House of Lords, he could not advise the House to reject it. He repeated what he had stated before, that the apprehensions of those who had signed the petition presented by his hon. Friend were totally erroneous. The petitioners prayed for delay till inquiry was made into the real tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, and said that if Roman Catholics were true to their own faith, they could not be true to a Protestant Government. Supposing that to be true, would it be any satisfaction that they should have the power of confiscating the horse of any Roman Catholic which should be worth more than 5l., or of arresting any Roman Catholic Member of that House in his place, and telling him that he was within ten miles of the City of London? There could be no danger in passing the Bill, because the laws repealed were not, and could not be put in force.
Mr. Haweshoped, that the Government would, in the next Session, proceed still further in this course. He observed that the 1st Elizabeth, one of the Acts to which the statement of the right hon. Baronet applied, extended to the English Protestants, requiring their attendance at Church, and if they refused, making them liable to the penalties of recusants.
Mr. Monckton Milneshoped the word concession would no longer be abused by being applied to measures like the present, which were strictly demanded by justice. He was sure the right hon. Baronet would find full co-operation in that House in any measure of that kind which he might introduce. Every day there was growing up in the country, amongst men who thought on these matters, a strong feeling that the Church of England could not receive legitimate, fair, or just support from measures of a similar character to those which were now being abolished.
Mr. Hardytrusted his Protestant feelings were as strong as those of any hon. Member of that House, but he did most sincerely rejoice to see the introduction of this Bill. All that he objected to was, that there should be any imperium in imperio in this country, forbidding the use of the Scriptures by the people.
Mr. Wysedenied that the Roman Catholic clergy objected to the use of the Scriptures, and said that there could be no

1887
greater mistake. He hoped never to hear such an assertion again made in that House. On this point Roman Catholics only differed from other denominations of Christians by entertaining, if possible, a still more profound veneration for the Sacred Volume. At the same time, they deemed it unmeet that it should be placed in the hands of the uninformed without due commentary for the instruction of the flock.
Report agreed to. Bill to be read a third time.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS.
On the Motion for the third reading of the Insolvent Debtors' Bill,
Mr. Monckton Milnesproposed to insert the following Clause:—
"And whereas, since the 11th day of November, 1842, the duties of Taxing Master in the Court of Bankruptcy have been performed by one of the Deputy Registrars of the said Court, and the duties of such Deputy Registrar have been performed by Thomas Acton Warburton, Esq., barrister-at-law; be it enacted, that such person shall be paid by the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, out of the fund placed to the credit of the Accountant in Bankruptcy, intituled, 'The Secretary of Bankrupts' Account,' such remuneration for his services, not exceeding, as the Lord Chancellor shall think reasonable, and by his order in writing shall direct."
The facts of the case were these:—Mr. Richardson, who had been registrar in Mr. Commissioner Evan's Court, had since 1842 acted as Taxing Master in Bankruptcy, and Mr. Warburton had performed the duties of Deputy Registrar in Mr. Commissioner Evan's Court without remuneration. The Lord Chancellor was of opinion, that under the provisions of the Act of 1842 he had no power to award Mr. Warburton compensation, but the present Motion was made with the concurrence and approval of the Lord Chancellor.
Clause brought up and read a first time.
On the question that it be read a second time,
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that the Lord Chancellor had had nothing to do with the original appointment of Mr. Warburton, who had been selected by Mr. Commissioner Evans as Deputy Registrar. It appeared to him it was a speculation on the part of Mr. Warburton, which had turned out a bad one, and he had now abandoned it, not having performed the duties for two months. It had appeared to
1888
him that the best thing would be to confirm Mr. Richardson as Taxing Master, and to appoint Mr. Warburton Registrar; but things had assumed, since he last addressed the House, a different aspect. The Lord Chancellor had promised the office to a gentleman whose case had been brought before the House by the hon. Member for Liskeard—a gentleman who had been deprived of his office by the Act regulating the Court of Exchequer, without compensation. He had at the time admitted that the case was a hard one, and had pledged himself to consider it favourably. That Gentleman was Mr. Lee, and to him the Lord Chancellor had promised this office. Under these circumstances, although he did not like the principle of Barristers performing the duties of public offices on speculation, yet he must admit that Mr. Warburton had performed his duties most efficiently, and he would leave the proposition in the hands of the House.
Mr. C. Bullerexpressed his approval of the kind and considerate way in which both the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Chancellor had acted in the case of Mr. Lee. With regard to the case of Mr. Warburton, it could hardly be called a speculation. It was clear that the duties must be performed, and Mr. Warburton had undertaken them under the express sanction of the Lord Chancellor. Parliament had sanctioned the experiment, and having so sanctioned it, was it fair to take Mr. Warburton's services for a year and a half without remuneration? If they could arrange so as to give Mr. Warburton the promise of an office it would be the best arrangement, but they had no right to put such conditions on the Lord Chancellor, and therefore he should support the Motion.
Sir R. Peelconsidered, that Mr. Warburton had a fair claim to remuneration Under ordinary circumstances he would have most probably been appointed to an office under the Act; but the House had heard how that office had been disposed of. He thought the claim of Mrs. Warburton to remuneration was clear, and he should give the Motion his cordial support.
Mr. Hawessaid, the arrangement was one which had conduced to the public benefit, and he, therefore considered Mr. Warburton was fully entitled to compensation.
Mr. R. Yorkeconsidered Mr. Warburton had taken up this office as a speculation, without proper authority, and he should certainly take the sense of the House against the Clause.
Mr. Wakleywould support the hon. Gentleman if he divided against the Clause. The principle was so obnoxious and it opened such a door to corruption, that he certainly thought they ought not to sanction it. This gentleman had undertaken it as a speculation, for there were no funds out of which he could be paid. [Mr. M. Milnes thought there were,] Then he had made a mistake. As a lawyer, Mr. Warburton ought to have known better, and he ought to suffer for his ignorance. The principle sought to be established was a most dangerous one.
The Solicitor Generaladmitted that his first impression had been adverse to the claim of Mr. Warburton, but when he considered the case, he thought it probable that Mr. Warburton might have been induced to believe that the Lord Chancellor had power to award him compensation, and he really thought that Mr. Warburton was fairly entitled to compensation.
Mr. Henleythought the Lord Chancellor had just as much power to give Mr. Warburton a berth now as he ever had. It struck him as a speculation, and if he had any claim it ought to have been brought forward by the Government on their own responsibility.
The House divided:—Ayes 44 Noes 5: Majority 39.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hope, G. W.

Acland, T. D.

Jermyn, Earl

Baring, hon. W. B.

Knight, H. G.

Baring, T.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Newdegate, C. N.

Blackburne, J. I.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Bodkin, W. H.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Borthwick, P.

Peel, J.

Brotherton, J.

Polhill, F.

Buller, C.

Pringle, A.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Smith, rt. hon. T. B. C.

Clerk, Sir G.

Somerset, Lord G.

Duncombe, T.

Spooner, R.

Eliot, Lord

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Entwistle, W.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Escott, B.

Trench, Sir W. F.

Forman, T. S.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Verner, Col.

Gore, M'

Wyse, T.

Goulburne, rt. Hn. H.

Young, J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Greene, T.

TELLERS.

Hardy, J.

Milnes, J.

Hawes, B.

Lennox, Lord A.

1890

List of the NOES.

Henley, J. W.

Warburton, H.

Kemble, H.

TELLERS

Morris, D.

Yorke, H. R.

Trotter, J.

Wakley, T.

Clause read a second time, committed, the blank was filled up with the words "eight hundred pounds."
Clause added to the Bill.
Mr. Spoonermoved as an Amendment, that the operation of the 54th and 55th Clauses should be postponed until the month of March. He was aware that he was occupying a very ungracious position, in appearing there to advocate the continued imprisonment of various poor debtors now waiting for their liberation. He, however, objected to the Clause, for two reasons, first, because it would inflict a great injury on industrious artisans in large towns, by depriving them of the only means of obtaining credit; personal security is the only security they have to give; and by these Clauses personal security will be made of no avail:—and secondly, because by these Clauses coming into immediate operation, great injustice would be done to numerous small tradesmen who have given credit under the existing law, and who ought to have time to get in their money before the law is altered. He admitted that the state of discipline in small debt prisons was bad; but they ought not to pass a measure of this nature merely on account of local mal-administration in prison discipline. He cautioned the House against attempting to remedy one evil by calling a greater one into existence. If this Bill came into operation at once, it would be impossible for the labouring man to get credit, and credit was necessary to his subsistence; it would certainly greatly palliate the evil to which the labouring classes would be exposed by this Bill, to defer its coming into operation until the month of March, in order to give them time to prepare themselves for the change which was about to come upon them. To show the beneficial operation of the power of ordering imprisonment being conferred on Courts of Request, and the small amount of imprisonment actually inflicted, ha held in his hand a paper by which it appeared that for several years the annual average of causes tried in the Court of Requests at Manchester was 4,000—of these 1,200 proceeded to execution—and of these executions, not 150 were carried on to imprisonment. He had presented a petition from the Chamber of Commerce of Bristol,

1891
pressing the necessity of delay; petitions to the same effect had been presented from Manchester, from the shopkeepers of Southwark, and other places, they all prayed for delay, and urged that if this Bill were carried in its present shape, it would inflict a great injury on the large body of tradesmen, who had given credit to the labouring classes, on the faith of the law continuing in its present state. He had received various letters from different tradesmen, who complained that if the power of imprisonment was taken away, they would be deprived of the security on which they had given persons credit. Mr. Spooncr read part of a letter he had received from a tradesman in Birmingham, stating that he had ttusted various young clerks, who had no property, but who had good situations, who for want of proper clothes could not, without such credit, have obtained those situations; fear of imprisonment and consequent loss of situation ensured payment; but already had he felt in several instances the effect of the proposed measure: as they diminished the fear of imprisonment, they took away the stimulus to pay. The House had had no opportunity of examining the evidence upon which the House of Lords had decided in favour of this Bill. He should have liked to have had a Committee of Inquiry, before the House decided in favour of this Bill; for although those who had introduced it were perfectly competent to decide upon general principles, yet they did not possess that practical knowledge of the subject, which would enable them properly to legislate upon it. It would be a dangerous experiment to change the system of credit so suddenly as was proposed to change it by this Bill; and he besought the House to pause, before they acceded to the Bill. Mr. Spooner objected also to the practical operation of the Bill. If it was right in principle to abolish Imprisonment for Debt, why limit it to 20 l.—the 20 l. to the small tradesman was as important as larger sums to larger traders, and ought to have the same measure of protection. He called upon those Members who advocated the total abolition of Imprisonment for Debt to consider if the soundness of the principle might not be called into question by the bad working of a partial, and therefore unjust and imperfect measure. He concluded by moving that in the 54th Clause the words "from and after the passing of this Act," be omitted, and the words "from and after the 25th of March next" be substituted for them.
Mr. Kembleseconded the Motion. This was an ex post facto law against the creditor, by depriving him of the security of imprisonment, on which security he had given his debtor credit. He had returns from a court of requests for the year 1839. In that year 5,682 causes had come on for hearing; 2,543 executions had been issued against the person, and only 25 against the goods; 1,741 of those executions had not been carried into effect; 990 of the persons taken had been discharged before the terms of their imprisonment had expired, and 478 only had suffered the full period of the imprisonment. It was well to consider the case of debtors, but creditors ought to be considered also.
Mr. H. Berkeleyhad presented a petition against the Bill which had been agreed to at a most respectable meeting of tradesmen in Bristol; but after the statement of the Solictor General and the right hon. Baronet, he was convinced that legislation was necessary, and that he could not hope for delay. He had stated as much at the time, although he had stated his objections to certain Clauses. He thought it would be advisable that some little delay should be interposed before the Bill came into operation; but if the Government were determined that the Bill should come into immediate operation he would advise the hon. Member for Birmingham to withdraw his Motion. If he perservered in the Motion, he (Mr. H. Berkeley), although he wished for delay, would be compelled to vote against him for he believed it would be a greater evil to lose the Bill than to have it come into immediate operation.
Sir J. Grahamhad never heard a fairer speech than that of the hon. Member for Bristol. He believed that if the measure ought to come into operation at all, it ought to come into operation immediately. With regard to the working classes, it was said that the Bill would entirely deprive them of credit. If that were the case, it could make no difference to them when the Bill came into operation. But he could not think that legitimate credit would be at all narrowed. Many were annually imprisoned, without, he believed, much benefit to the creditor and to the system of credit. With respect to the shopkeepers, nothing could be more unwise than the measure proposed by the hon. Gentleman. Every creditor during the next six months would

1893
pursue his unhappy debtor to the utmost, the gaols would be crowded, and the amount of misery which would be inflicted would be appalling. The Bill gave the creditor a remedy against the property, and if the debtor gave up all his property, what more could the creditor require? No doubt it was a shorter and more summary process to seize the person and not the goods of the debtor; but it was most unjust, in cases where a debtor had no property, to apply the torture of imprisonment, in order to extort from his relations and friends the means of paying debts which they were not morally or legally called upon to liquidate. The Bill was supported by the Members for the Tower Hamlets, Finsbury, and Lambeth, and the constituencies of those places were shopkeepers and generally creditors, not debtors. The measure had been well considered, and had received the highest legal support. It was approved of by the Lord Chancellor and three ex-Chancellors, by Mr. Justice Wightman, by the Chief Baron, by the Law Officers of the Crown. All the authorities were in favour of it. The case of Scotland, too, was a case in point. There the power of imprisonment for small debts had been abolished, and although that measure had been opposed by the same arguments as this measure was now opposed, yet it was now admitted that the change had worked well in Scotland, so that they had authority and experience in favour of this measure. He was persuaded that in exercising greater caution in respect of giving credit, the retail shopkeepers would conduct their business on a safer and better system, and the poorer classes would be benefitted by being freed from the system of extortion practised on themselves, their relatives and friends by the system of imprisonment. He therefore pressed upon the House the necessity of rejecting the Motion.
Mr. Newdegatethought it would not operate favourably on the morals of the poorer classes that they should be permitted to evade the guarantee of their liberty which they had given to enable them to procure the means of subsistence. He should vote with the hon. Member for Birmingham.
Mr. Brothertoncould not bring his mind to the conclusion that it would be wise to adopt the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham. The arguments of the hon. Member were against the principle of the measure, and not in favour of delay, and the House was almost
1894
unanimous in its approval of the principle.
Mr. Hawessaid, the hon. Member for Surrey had given some, accounts respecting the Courts of Requests in Surrey, and the number of cases brought under the consideration of that court. The hon. Member, however, said nothing about the costs which were incurred in court, and which were, he understood, enormous. He contended that the present system of imprisonment was not beneficial to the creditor, on the contrary, it was greatly to his disadvantage. That system was only calculated to feed revenge in relentless creditors, without producing any beneficial result. Under these circumstances he could not support the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham.
Mr. Hardycould not see why imprisonment for debts under 20 l. should be abolished, any more than for debts amounting to 40 l. or 50 l. He should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, believing that delay was necessary, in order that small shopkeepers might make themselves acquainted with the provisions of this measure. When a poor man asked for credit, he said, "I have no goods, but, if I do not pay, you can imprison me." It was, therefore, unjust to abolish the present system.
Mr. Wakleywould put it to the hon. Gentleman whether such a system of credit, was founded on a good basis. No, it was not—it was most injurious and demoralizing. The only sound basis for credit for the poor man was good conduct and good character. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Humphery) had just told him that a great number of persons were confined for debt in the Compter prison, and the highest debt was 9s. Was not that a disgrace to a country like this? The present system was only calculated to feed revengeful feelings; and if they were to continue it, that House, instead of being called the House of Commons, ought to be called the House of Shylocks. For the sake of the working classes he was quite content to receive this Bill. He believed it would be beneficial to the shopkeepers themselves. The hon. Member would serve his constituents much better by allowing his Motion to be negatived without a division, instead of being left in a small minority. As the House had determined by a large majority that the principle of the Bill should be adopted, he

1895
hoped the Bill would come into operation the moment it had received the Royal Assent.
Motion negatived.
Bill passed.

ART UNIONS.
Mr. Wysemoved the further consideration of the Lords' reasons for rejecting the Amendments of the Commons in the Art Unions Bill.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, the object of his right hon. Friend was to insist on these Amendments being retained. The Lords were not satisfied that the parties originating these fine arts distributions had acted like the Art Unions, in ignorance of the law. But they had followed in the footsteps of the Art Unions, and when among the shareholders and patrons were such men as the Duke of Cambridge and Lord Denman, how could they imagine that they were breaking the law? The House, he understood, was to meet to-morrow, and, if necessary, he should have no objection to a postponement of the question.
Mr. Wakleysaid, till the Art Unions were stopped by the Government, no one was aware that they were illegal; and it was on the faith of their being legal that the parties alluded to by his hon. Colleague had commenced their proceedings. He was perfectly willing to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, confident that full protection would be given to all parties.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, as this was a question of indemnity for the past, he thought both parties ought to have an equal benefit from it, as they had both acted in ignorance of the law, at the same time it would be for the Government to consider whether the use of lotteries, either by companies or individuals, should be tolerated in future. As far as he could promise it, the Members of the Government in the other House would support the view of the hon. Member for Waterford.
The Commons accordingly disagreed to the Amendments proposed by the Lords, and insisted on the Amendments to which the Lords have disagreed.
Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be offered to the Lords at a conference for disagreeing to the Amendments proposed by their Lordships to the Amendments proposed by this House, and for insisting on the Amendments to which the Lords have disagreed.

THE MEDICAL PROFESSION.
Sir J. Grahamrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the better regulation of the Medical Practice throughout the United Kingdom. In ordinary circumstances he should have been unwilling to introduce a Bill of this importance without the power of proceeding with it immediately; but he knew the anxiety of the profession to ascertain the details of the proposed measure: in many quarters groundless apprehensions were entertained:—
"Mussat tacito medicina timore."
He was anxious at once to remove their alarms, and to submit his measure to fair discussion and consideration during the recess; certain that it would be regarded without referenee to party feelings, and as a matter affecting science and the life and health of the community. There was no art or science which had done so much for suffering human nature as the noble science of medicine, and in no country in Europe had its beneficent influence been extended so widely. Being an inductive science, its boundaries were enlarged by enlightened knowledge and increased experience, and although at the present time there might be some legal imperfections in the system, he was glad to pay a tribute of respect to the great body of medical practitioners throughout the kingdom, and it was not lightly or unadvisedly he should presume to interfere with them. All interference by law had, it was true, been stigmatised, and there was a letter extant from Adam Smith to Cullen on this subject, in which, with more playfulness than is generally characteristic of that author, Dr. Smith deprecated all legislation in the strongest terms. On the other hand, the practice in this country had not been to leave this matter unguarded by all legislative interference. From an early period there had been legislation in regard to medical practice. Physicians in England now practised under licenses from the College of Physicians in London, or by virtue of degrees granted by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. For seven miles round London the degrees granted by Oxford and Cambridge were ineffectual, and conferred no privileges. In later times the Legislature had conferred upon the Universities of London and Durham the power of granting degrees, but they were worthless as to privileges. For a long time prior to 1800, the College of Surgeons gave the title of surgeon. In 1800 the Charter was renewed, and they still gave the title, but

1897
conferred no privileges. In regard to the Apothecaries Company, he should be sorry to say anything disparaging of the individuals composing that society, still it must be recollected, that after all, they were a trading body, and entrance might be obtained into it by apprenticeship, birth, purchase, by almost any mode except by examination as to qualification. Yet, no man could practice as a Dispenser of Medicine, without being examined by this trading body. The Apothecaries Act was passed in 1815, and in that Act there was a Clause which, considered in regard to the skill, knowledge, and attainments which should be possessed by the great body of medical practitioners in England, appeared utterly indefensible. He alluded to the Clause by which no person, who had not been apprenticed five years to an apothecary, should be qualified for examination. Those five years occurred exactly at the period of life the most valuable and important for obtaining surgical and medical knowledge. The youth was bound, at about fourteen years old, to an apothecary; and his opportunities during his apprenticeship for acquiring general knowledge were very limited, until at eighteen or nineteen he entered upon a more enlarged sphere of action. He was then naturally desirous of turning his profession to account, and often, at twenty-one, sought to enter into practice, having passed five of the best years of his life in an apothecary's house and shop, cut off, generally speaking, from attending lectures, and from all opportunities of general study and improvement. In the United Kingdom there were sixteen or seventeen Colleges for granting degrees in medicine and licenses to practice including the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, Dublin, Edinburgh, and Glasgow, St. Andrews, and the two Universities at Aberdeen; the Colleges of Physicians in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, the College of Surgeons in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, and the Apothecaries' Company in London. Now, it was obvious that without some controlling power these various bodies must be rivals, and, as rivals, their tendency uuchecked, was to underbid one another. If that underbidding only related to the amount of fees, it might be very well, but the general tendency was, to pass the greatest possible number of students for the purpose of granting licenses or degrees, and as the fees became low, and the standard of knowledge relatively reduced the attraction became
1898
great in favour of the cheap and easy Universities. In the northern part of the United Kingdom particularly, those degrees had been sold without requiring any examination, and even in regard to this country, the standard of the College of Surgeons in Dublin was higher than in London, where it had been studiously kept low. As might be expected from the increased facilities of the north, the licenses granted there were as five out of six from all other Universities. One evil attendant on the practice of medicine was the incompetency of those who professed to practise it, and the remedy required was to secure to the public a sufficient degree of knowledge and skill on the part of the practitioner. But all men were tenacious of life, and when life was endangered and the healing art administered no cure, there was a natural tendency to fly for succour to those who held out promises of relief. Hence quackery attained an influence over the human mind, and the delusive hope of relief aided the cheating practice of the quack who promised it. It was vain in such circumstances to propose that quackery should be put down by statute. The object of the present Bill, however, was to amend many of the provisions of the present imperfect law: to put down quackery by legislation would be seeking to attain an impossibility, to discourage it by securing exclusive advantages to the regular practitioner, was within the reach of the law, and this was the object of the Bill now under consideration. Without attempting to suppress quackery, he still thought it was within the scope of a wise Legislature to offer direct encouragement to the able, qualified, and accomplished practitioner. The principle of his measure, therefore, he might state in general terms to be this: he proposed no restriction on private practice whatever; it would be open to every man to prescribe and administer medicine without any previous examination or proof of qualification. But he thought a wise Legislature should offer to the public some certain and accredited guarantee of the fitness, competency, skill, and knowledge of those practitioners who voluntarily submitted themselves to examination, and who, by examination had given proofs of their competency and skill. His principle, therefore, was that none should be eligible to fill a medical or surgical office in any public institution, unless his qualification had been tested by competent authority. That was to say none should be prohibited by law from

1899
practising medicine, but none should be qualified to fill surgical or medical situations, of a public character, unless qualified according to the conditions of this Bill. The question then was, what was meant by "public situations?" His answer to this question was, that he held an office to be public where the choice of the medical attendant did not rest with the patient or any member of his family. Having said thus much, he would now state the provisions of the Bill he wished to introduce. He proposed to repeal all the Acts of Parliament and Charters that at present were in force relating to the practice of medicine and surgery; but at the same time he should re-enact such portions of the existing law as it might be deemed desirable to retain—beginning the work of legislation on the subject of medicine as it were, de novo. The effect of this would be that all peculiar privileges or all local privileges in England—as contradistinguished from what was the state of the law in Scotland or Ireland, would be swept away. In Scotland, licences for practising medicine were granted, but the parties so licensed could not practise in England. By the Bill he proposed to introduce, all these exclusive privileges for practising medicine would be abolished. The most important feature, however, of this measure, would be the establishment of a Council of Health in this metropolis, in direct connection with the Executive Government, and for the proceedings of which Council the Executive Government would be more or less responsible. Thus the present great anomaly of a number of rival bodies possessing powers capable of being exercised without any responsibility would be abolished. This Council would be given the power of controlling the examinations of persons seeking legal qualifications to practise, and also of regulating and equalizing the fees to be paid by them. It was proposed that the Council of Health, and of Medical Education should remain at all times within this metropolis, holding periodical sittings. The Council was to consist of ex-officio members and of members to be appointed by the Crown. The ex-officio members would be the regius professor of physic of the University of Oxford, the regius professor of physic of the University of Cambridge, the regius professor of physic of the University of Dublin, the regius professor of physic of the University of Edinburgh, and the regius professor of physic of the University
1900
of Glasgow. These would have seats in the Council in right of their professorship. It was then proposed that there should be one physician and one surgeon chosen from the College of Physicians and the College of Surgeons respectively in England, Ireland, and in Scotland. He had thus enumerated eleven persons who would form part of the Council; it was then proposed that six others should be appointed by Her Majesty by the advice of Her Privy Council. Of these six, if he might presume to give any advice upon the subject, one at least should be a physician practising in the rural districts, as contradistinguished from practising in the metropolis, and also one a surgeon, likewise practising in the rural districts. These six members with the eleven ex-officio members would, together with the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the time being, constitute a board of eighteen. Of the six members to be nominated by the Crown he should propose that one physician and one surgeon should retire annually, but to be re-eligible. It was also proposed that any member might resign, and that a member might be dismissed by the Crown for notorious misbehaviour or unfitness. The Council were to appoint one principal Secretary, who was to be resident in the metropolis, and in constant attendance on the Council. The Council would also have the power to appoint two local Secretaries—one for Scotland and one for Ireland—subject to the control of the Secretary of State. To the ex-officio members no salary would be given, but to the other members it was proposed that their travelling expenses from time to time should be paid, and that a moderate salary should be given to them with the consent and under the control of the Treasury. It was proposed that minutes of all their proceedings should be kept by the Council; and he now came to that which was the real and essential means of control of the exercised by the Committee over all the seventeen licensing bodies throughout the United Kingdom. He proposed that a register should be kept of all physicians and surgeons licensed to practice medicine and surgery. This list was to be kept in alphabetical order and published annually. The Council of Health would, on letters testimonial being granted by any of the seventeen licensing bodies in the country (who would retain the power of examination, permit the party to be registered. [Mr. Wakley: without examination?] Yes: without exami-

1901
nation. There would be three degrees of practitioners licensed. One the vendors of medicine, another surgeons, and the third physicians. He proposed to enact that, with regard to licensing the vendors of medicine who would be the general country practitioners the licensing bodies should have the power to grant that degree to no person under twnty-one years of age. The testimonial would be founded upon an examination both in medicine and in surgery, by one or other of the seventeen licensing bodies. With respect to surgeons, he proposed that the license to practice in surgery should be issued to no person under the age of twenty-five years; and with respect to physicians, the age at which a license could be obtained would be twenty-six years. At these several ages the respective parties might obtain licences to qualify them to be registered, having previously undergone the necessary examination by the licensing bodies. But a person wishing to be registered as a physician, who had not qualified in the manner required by having graduated in some university, would not be eligible for registration until he had attained the age of forty years, and had been examined by the Royal College of Physicians in England; or in case the application should be made to some of the seventeen licensing bodies, then the Royal College of Physicians should previously grant a special certificate that they had made inquiry as to the circumstances under which the degree had been conferred. Thus facility would be given for the licentiate to register as a surgeon at twenty-five years of age, and as a physician at twenty-six. Therefore, any person so licensed might combine in his own person the two branches of the profession, and might at twenty-six be registered both as a surgeon and a physician. He attached great importance to this point, relating as it did to what was termed general practice, and which combined the usually separate departments of medicine and surgery—the skill and ability of the party, however, being tested in all cases by actual examination. But all these provisions would be quite nugatory, unless some precautionary measures were taken by the controlling body, to insure that the standard of knowledge requisite to obtain a testimonial to be given to the licentiate should be equally, uniformly, and carefully maintained. He, therefore, proposed to give to the Council of Health the power to inspect the proceedings of those licensing bodies—more espe-
1902
cially with respect to their course of examination and the scale of fees received by them. These would be submitted from time to time to the Council, and would be regulated by them. The qualifications, therefore, of persons seeking to be registered would, as far as possible, be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. No University would have the power to grant a licence to those who had not attended the lectures on medicine in that University, and who had not been examined, and shown that they possessed a competent knowledge of Latin and Greek. The Council would beyond this possess the power of refusing to register persons notwithstanding such persons had obtained testimonials from the examinig body, if the Council had previously satisfied themselves that the testimonials were granted without due regard to the general rules to be established by the Council of Health. He had already stated, that he did not propose to proceed by penalties, but by inducements. The principle of the measure was, that persons not duly qualified should not be competent to fill certain specified offices. He would now state what were the offices which he should term public offices. He proposed that no person, after the passing of this Act, who was not registered by the Council of Health, should be appointed to any medical or surgical office in any public hospital, prison, infirmary, dispensary, workhouse, or other public institution in the United Kingdom, or any medical or surgical office in the Army, Navy, or East India Company, but he had made a special reservation in favour of medical men who were natives of India; but no other person appointed by the East India Company would be entitled to take the appointment without a certificate of registration. He also proposed that certain privileges and exemptions, now given by law to the members of the profession generally, should henceforth be confined to medical men who were registered that they should be exempted from being summoned to serve on juries, or to serve on corporate, parochial, or township offices; but none who were not registered, were to be so exempted, nor would they be competent to give evidence in any court of law where the certificate of any medical man was required. He thought these exclusive privileges and advantages would be found a very effectual inducement to persons to be registered. With respect to persons at present practising, it was not his wish to make it a harsh mea-

1903
sure. He therefore proposed to give to these who were now in practice in the United Kingdom a period of twelve months within which they might apply to be registered, or application might be made, within the period of two years, by persons practising in Colonies, on the production to the Council, of his diploma, licence, or certificate, or such other evidence as should show that, at the time of the passing of this Act, he was legally entitled to act as a physician, surgeon, or apothecary, in some part of the United Kingdom. He proposed to inflict a penalty of 20 l. upon any man who practised in a public office without registration. Any person unlawfully practising in any part of the United Kingdom if registered within twelve months, was to be considered qualified for public appointments. He now proposed to notice a Clause respecting which he frankly admitted he felt some hesitation: it amounted more nearly to a penalty, than any other provision in the Bill: it provided that none but registered persons, or those who could have been registered before the passing of the Act, were entitled to recover at law for medicines, attendance or advice. He meant it as a warning Clause, and he hoped that it would be so understood. Those who falsely pretended to be registered, were to be liable to the punishment awarded to those who were guilty of misdemeanor. Having thus gone through the great outlines of his proposed Bill, he had only to thank the House for the attention it had paid to what he had stated, and to add, that he left it open to the public in their individual capacity to make their own choice of a medical attendant, even if they preferred an unregistered to a registered practitioner. The measure, which he proposed, gave the utmost encouragement to skill, science, and learning, tested by examination; while it discouraged quackery, and placed it under signal disadvautage; in public institutions none but registered practitioners would be tolerated; but each individual would retain the unrestricted right of choosing his own medical attendants. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in his Bill.
Mr. Macaulayrose to second the Motion with pleasure. For many reasons it would be improper now to advert to the details of the intended measure, and the right hon. Baronet did not, perhaps mean, to pledge himself as to all the provisions he had stated. He brought it forward that it might be considered and discussed
1904
out of doors during the recess. As he however had the honour to represent the seat of a great medical school, he had bestowed some attention on the subject, and regarded it with a lively interest, he might say, generally, that he had great satisfaction in expressing his cordial approbation of the main principles just developed. A law like that about to be introduced ought to abolish all existing authorities — ought, above all, to destroy the absurd system of apprenticeship, and to extinguish all local privileges connected with medical practice. There ought to be no such distinction as that a man authorised to practice at Kelso was excluded from Newcastle, or at Dublin was excluded from Holyhead. If the sixteen medical bodies alluded to were left, it was absolutely necessary to adopt some system to prevent them from underbidding each other, and to compel them to adopt some particular standard. All this he found provided for in the promised Bill, and he thought that the right hon. Baronet had judged wisely in determining not to inflict any penalty or unauthorised practice merely as such. He had also judged wisely in putting, as it were, a mark on the practitioner recognised by the State, by reserving to such persons all public employments. It was a matter of detail, but he might mention that he had some doubt on the point of the civil remedy; but when the subject was again brought forward—he hoped early next Session—he should be prepared to approve of the general principle, and to state his objections to the details in a friendly spirit. He believed he could answer for those whom he represented, that the Bill would receive their cordial acquiescence, and he apprehended that the same feeling would prevail in other bodies of great consideration. He alluded not merely to the medical school of Edinburgh, but to the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons. To them the measure would give great satisfaction, and from them it would receive general support.
Mr. G. Knighttook the liberty of asking his right hon. Friend whether he intended that the Apothecary's Company should continue to possess the privilege of granting licences?
Sir. J. Grahamthanked his hon. Friend for putting the question, and was glad of the opportunity of making it more clearly understood that such was not his intention.
Mr. G. Knightsaid, he was glad to hear it, as he always had considered that the possession of such a privilege by a trading Company was a degrading anomaly. He would ask another question—which was whether any penalty was to be introduced into the Bill to deter the vendor of drugs from prescribing? [Sir J. Graham did not contemplate the introduction of any such penalty.] He regretted it, because it was notorious that evil consequences were constantly arising from the rashness of ignorant druggists, or of their still more ignorant apprentices; and those evil consequences most frequently fell upon the poor, who were in the habit of asking the druggists to prescribe, in order to avoid the expense of a doctor. If there was to be no penalty, he only hoped that, in future, the druggists would feel it to be their duty to inform themselves in proportion to what they ventured to undertake. With regard to the scheme for Medical Reform which had been brought forward by the right hon. Baronet, he admitted that something of the kind had long been called for; though, in this matter, another proof had been afforded that many things which cannot be defended in theory, succeed tolerably well in practice—for it could not be denied that, even as it was, the reputation of the medical body of this country stood as high as that of any medical body in the world—that they possessed the confidence of the public, and that, even as it was, nearly as much assistance was afforded by them to their suffering brethren as was within the reach of human aid. Still, however, improvements might be made, and he considered that the plan proposed by the right hon. Baronet would, in most respects, prove beneficial. The great feature of that plan was the Supreme Council of Health—and through such a Council would be obtained that uniformity of qualification, that improved method of examination, that extended education, the attainment of which was admitted by all to be desirable. He did not object to the continuance of the sixteen privileged Corporations, because it was obvious that the Registration, and the sanction of the Council of Health, would confer the efficient license, the real diploma, to which the attention of the public would be directed; the continuance therefore of the sixteen Corporations, if it should appear to be superfluous, would at least be harm-
1906
less; but the part of the plan, as to the merit and success of which he doubted, was the constitution of the Supreme Council. A Supreme, Controlling Council was expected and desired—but it was well known that, in the mode of constituting that Council, some infusion of a popular nature was looked for by the whole medical body of the three kingdoms. He did not mean to recommend any thing of so extensive a character as had once been recommended, and was now disclaimed, by his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal, but he did think that, in the constitution of the Supreme Council, the elective and representative principle might have been introduced in a modified form—and he thought he had learned from experience that legislation seldom succeeds when it proceeds in exact opposition to the wishes and feelings of the parties concerned. He was also of opinion that it would be more convenient if branch Councils were established at Dublin and Edinburgh. In making these few observations, he begged his right hon. Friend to believe that, he was actuated not by any wish to obstruct his measure, but from an earnest desire that it should be crowned with success.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that petitions had been presented from all parts of the kingdom on the subject of medical legislation, and what were the prayers of those petitions? Those prayers were invariably that the petitioners might be invested with a controlling power with reference to those Medical Institutions to which they belonged. In other words, they desired to have an opportunity afforded them of electing the controlling body of those colleges of which they were members. How were these petitions answered? Were the petitioners to acquire additional power by the proposition of the right hon. Baronet? Were they to elect the Council? No; but they were to be subject to a Council appointed by the Government, and by Colleges of the conduct of which they had been incessantly complaining. Did the right hon. Baronet consider such a proposal would be satisfactory to the medical profession? He was aware that in the present case the profession should be but a secondary object, and that the public must be looked to first. He gave the right hon. Baronet credit for having attended to the subject, and though what he now said might give offence out of doors,

1907
he would yet declare that he believed the right hon. Baronet really wished to place the medical profession on a better footing than that on which it now stood. But the right hon. Baronet had been ear-wigged, deceived, misinformed, and had had the subject misrepresented to him by somebody who had gained access to him, while the medical body had not been able to obtain a hearing. The right hon. Baronet, he feared, had been wilfully deceived, and he was satisfied that no measure would create more dissatisfaction out of doors than the measure now before the House. The right hon. Baronet could never pass the Bill. It was incredible to suppose that the 30,000 medical men located in the towns and kingdoms of this Empire would consent to the Bill becoming law. The Bill was irreconcilable to what was due to medical competency, and due to the medical body. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh said the Bill would give satisfaction in Edinburgh. No doubt it would, because the Bill conferred a favour on Edinburgh. But what did the Bill do in respect to the practitioners of England—between 15,000 and 20,000 in number? What was done with regard to the medical body of England? Why, everybody in England, no matter who he is, no matter whether of sufficient capapacity or if no capacity at all, if he choose he may practise medicine. In order to give increased facility to persons who may choose to undertake the duty of practising medicine in England, the right hon. Baronet began by repealing the 58th Geo. III., the Apothecaries Act, which inflicted a penalty of 20 l. for practising without a licence. He approved of the alteration in respect of apprenticeships; but he was of opinion, in order to protect human life, in order to prevent unnecessary human suffering, it was indispensable to protect them from dupes, and to prevent them from becoming the victims of a profligate, mercenary, and extortionate set of men, by maintaining a proper restriction as to medical practitioners. What did the House do in regard to lawyers? Let the House see how differently they were disposed to deal between life and property. Could any one practise as an attorney? No; but any one might practise as a surgeon or an apothecary. If a person practised as an attorney without being duly admitted, he was subject to a heavy penalty; but the lives of families and neighbourhoods
1908
might be seriously affected by an ignorant pretender to medical knowledge, if the Bill became law. It was not the time to discuss the subject, but he thought it was right to give the hon. Baronet notice, that when he embodied his principles and views in this Bill he (Mr. Wakley) was determined to use every form which the House permitted for the purpose of preventing the measure from becoming law. He was satisfied that a measure more injurious to the medical body and the public could not become law. Reform was commenced inauspiciously. The first prayer of the medical body was answered by a charter to the Royal College of Surgeons. There was little doubt that some influential persons, who could make their approach by the back-stairs, had induced the right hon. Gentleman to grant the College of Surgeons a new Charter, which had since proved the source of great injustice, and of many heart burnings in the profession. Amongst other rules it gave to the Council of the College the right of conferring the franchise upon individuals connected with the College. Now it happened that this part of the system was brought into operation last July for the first time in consequence of an election for officers, when it appeared that out of 10,000 persons in the profession, there were but thirty who were allowed by the Council to be qualified to exercise the franchise. Yet this system was to be left entire and intact by the right hon. Gentleman. And no redress in these respects had been given by the Executive to the much mortified petitioners. Now, he did not imagine the right hon. Baronet was one who would feel indifferent to the interests of the profession, which he (Sir James Graham) would admit, he thought, consisted of men of considerable acquirements anxiously labouring in the investigation of scientific matters and the search after truth; and he could hardly conceive how the right hon. Gentleman could come to any other conclusion than that such men were the best qualified to judge who were the persons most competent to govern and provide for the interests of the general body. It was painful to look at the barbarous system upon which the Council was now acting under the right hon. Baronet's Charter. [Sir J. Graham: You should, in fairness, describe the system before that Charter was granted.] He would grant that that was a system which had reflected disgrace

1909
upon them in the eyes of Europe; and the system of the trading part of the profession in Blackfriars was infinitely more creditable than that of the Royal Incorporation of Lincoln's-Inn-Fields. To prove that in so characterising that body he did it no injustice, he would allude to two cases, the case of Mr. Brooks, the most eminent, indeed almost the only lecturer of his day, and the most perfect minute anatomist known. What did the College for him? Did they admit him to the Council or distinguish him by any reward? Quite the reverse; they left him to pine in want, and of want he died. Another instance was that of Mr. Carpue: a more highly gifted, or more generally and warmly beloved man did not exist; he had educated hundreds, and, perhaps, thousands, but he was not elected on the Council of the College of Surgeons, and why? Because he had instructed students at a cheaper rate than the rest of the body, and because he did not belong to hospitals of which they were members. Yet upon this so constituted Council did the right hon. Gentleman confer by his late Charter the control and government of the body, with new and extraordinary powers. The expression of Mr. Lawrence had been referred to with acquiescence, and he too deferred to it, that no person would be admitted to practise in the profession who did not know the whole of it; but this was a truth as old as Celsus, and had since been inculcated by Abernethy whose pupil Mr. Lawrence had been. In the face of this admitted truth the Council had established a regulation that in order to be ballotted for as a member of the Council, the Surgeon must be recommended by three persons members of the Council, and also have a certificate that for five whole years previously he had not practised as a surgeon accoucheur, or that he resided within five miles of the Post Office. What, in heaven, did that restriction about the Post Office mean? It was curious that this Bill should come on at this particular time, and after the scene which the right hon. Baronet had only yesterday witnessed. For the very man who had saved the life of the Queen, and the life of a Prince, would be marked for degradation and exclusion by this body; he would not be admitted to the Council unless he could prove that he had not been contaminated by the odious practice of midwifery during the last five
1910
years. Did the right hon. Baronet think it right to exclude that branch of the profession of which W. Hunter and the father of the present Chief Justice of England were such distinguished members? The right hon. Baronet had been deceived by some one who called himself a "pure" Surgeon, which in the profession was understood to mean a person purely ignorant of everything in medicine, except that which related to his own particular department. He held that it was the paramount duty of that House to prevent any person from practising who was not duly qualified. Why was all this mess and difficulty with respect to medicine? Was there anything in the law giving this free power? A gentleman went to one of the Inns of Court, he ate in his knowledge, and after that every one must either plead his own cause or employ one of these qualified persons. He did not mean to say that if a person competent to judge should prefer going to a quack, he would say don't let him go, but they were legislating for the poor, and for those who could not judge, and he saw the fatal results of ignorance every week of his life. Now, no one could dispense medicine unless he had obtained a certificate from the Apothecaries' Company. The regulations were imperfect, but they had had the effect of preventing, in a great measure, the evils of incompetent practitioners; and it was the duty of the House, instead of repealing those restrictions, to see that the public were provided with a competent class of medical practitioners. The Bill proposed to fling the medical practice entirely open, so that any man who chose might practise as a physician, a surgeon, or an apothecary, without any restriction or penalty; and if they passed such a law they would not only inflict injury upon the medical practitioners, but they would lead to the misery and deaths of hundreds and thousands of the poor of this country. He, therefore, intreated the right hon. Baronet to reconsider this question; he begged of him to attend to other evidence than that which he obtained at the Home Office, and to listen to the petitions of the medical practitioners themselves, and he was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman applied his powerful mind to the subject he would see it in a very different light, and would introduce a very different measure.
Mr. Hawesthought, that the hon. Mem-

1911
ber for Finsbury had in some degree wandered from the subject before them, which was whether they should place on an improved footing the practice of medicine, and then whether the Government proposed a measure which would accomplish this object. He would only then take the scheme as a whole, he would not go into its details, or into the question as to the charter given to the College of Surgeons, but taking the general outlines of the scheme, he said that it did deserve the general attention of the House, and he would be ready at its future stages to render his humble aid, and to act cordially and sincerely with the right hon. Baronet in effecting some great change. He thought that the Council was too exclusive, and that there was ground of complaint that the great body of the medical practitioners would not be represented. The registration of the medical body, particularly of the medical students, would be a great improvement. With respect to putting an end to quackery, he was disposed to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that it was better to hold out inducements, than to adopt any measures of restraint; still he thought that justice was hardly done to the Apothecaries' Company, who had introduced a very useful improvement in the great body over whom they presided, and he was of opinion that some steps might be taken to continue their Act. That this Bill would be opposed he had no doubt; but he regretted that the hon. Member for Finsbury should before the measure was fully known, have expressed so strongly his opinion against it, and looking to the opposition offered by the hon. Member to the two former Bills which had been introduced upon this subject, and his opposition to this, he could not see to what scheme of reform the hon. Member would give his aid.
Leave given.
House adjourned, quarter before eight o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.—2a. South Sea Company.
Reported. — Fisheries (Ireland); Arms (Ireland); Consolidated Fund Appropriation.
3a. and passed:—Merchant Seamen; Clerks to Attornies.
Private. — 3a. and passed:—Middle Level Drainage and Navigation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Glasgow, and several other places, against the Dissenters Chapels Bill.—From Edinburgh, and numerous other places, for Legalizing Marriages solemnized by Presbyterian and Dissenting Ministers in Ireland.