Sitting of 12 March 1879

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE—Commons, nominated.
First Report—Public Accounts [No. 96].
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading— Referred to Select Committee — East Indian Railway.
Withdrawn—Cambridge Tramways (No. 2) *.
PUBLIC BILL—Ordered—First Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature (District Courts) * [100].
Second Reading—Medical Act (1858) Amendment [2], debate adjourned; Clerical Disabilities [18], put off; Petty Customs (Scotland) Abolition Act Amendment * [91]; Mutiny Act (Temporary) Continuance* [99].
Third Reading — Habitual Drunkards * [47]; Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment* [85]; Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages (Army) * [95], and passed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 2.]
  (Dr. Lush, Sir Trevor Lawrence, Sir Joseph M'Kenna.)
  MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 2.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    DR. LUSH, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that since he had introduced it circumstances had very much changed, as the Government had brought in a Bill in "another place;" but, notwithstanding that, he did not feel justified in withdrawing this Bill for the reason that there were some points dealt with by it which made it a different measure from that of the Government, which he supposed they would see in that House at no distant date. The introduction of the measure of the Government had had the effect of postponing one of the most important provisions of the Bill which he proposed, and probably it would have the effect of postponing it altogether. He understood from the statement made the other day by the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, that the only point which the Government would agree to refer to a Select Committee was the constitution of the Medical Council, and the mode in which the Medical Profession were represented upon it. They would, he thought, have shown greater wisdom if they had made a larger concession, and consented to the whole question involved in the Bill being referred to a Select Committee, in order that this important question, which deeply affected the public, might be once for all settled on a satisfactory basis. He would just observe that he had seen in the papers that morning that a Member of the Government in high position had stated that unless the Government Bill were passed substantially as it was it would be dropped, and he regretted that such a statement should have been made public, because it might tend to prevent a settlement of the question this Session. During the past year there had been a growing feeling in favour of alteration in the law. Even the Government Bill of last year, when it was returned from the House of Lords, was not the same

    759
    Bill as was introduced by the Vice President. The Government had conceded the point that the minimum qualification of medical practitioners should be ascertained by a joint board; but the point in regard to the admission of women to the Profession was still sub judice. The hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had given Notice of a Motion for the rejection of the Bill, having a strong feeling upon the subject. There was one important point included in his (Dr. Lush's) Bill which was not embraced in any other measure—namely, the prevention of the signature of certificates of death by unqualified persons. At present it was a common practice on the part of duly qualified medical men to sign blank forms, which were afterwards filled up by unqualified persons. Some amendment of the law in that respect was absolutely necessary for the protection of the public. Again, by a recent Act, no person was allowed to open a shop for the sale of drugs unless he had a special licence or certificate from the Pharmaceutical Society. He could not see why there should not be a similar law in relation to the Medical Profession. Before a man practised medicine, he should be required to give proof to a competent body that his education in surgery and medicine was such as to justify the confidence of the public in his qualifications. Turning to the constitution and functions of the Medical Council, he maintained that the representation of the Profession in that body was now inadequate and unsatisfactory. It no doubt consisted of very able men; but, as a matter of fact, it had become a lesser Parliament, and practical work was sacrificed for ornate eloquence. The members of the Profession had paid the Council something like £200,000 in the shape of fines, and they had got very little in return for their money. He had no objection personally to the members of the Council; but he submitted that they did not perform their duties satisfactorily. If the whole question embraced in this Bill, together with the Bills of the hon. Member for Exeter and other hon. Members, was referred to a Select Committee, carefully chosen so as to be capable of examining the subject without partizanship or bias, a just and proper solution might be arrived at. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Dr. Lush.)
    MR. SURJEANT SIMON, in moving an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he did so purely upon public grounds, and if his hon. Friend had accepted certain Amendments which he had suggested he would not have opposed the Bill. Indeed, if it were the general wish of the House to refer the Bill, along with others, to a Select Committee, he should not be disposed to press his opposition. His hon. Friend (Dr. Lush) had said that the Bill was designed to meet a growing wish and a growing feeling on the part of the public; but he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) would be glad to know how his hon. Friend was justified in saying that, for he was at a loss to see that there was any growing wish or feeling in the country for the measure. If there had been a growing wish or desire for it, as had been alleged, the fact would have been indicated to the House by the presentation of Petitions; whereas the only Petition on the subject was the Petition just presented by the Attorney General for Ireland, and that was against the Bill. His hon. Friend complained that the Council had received £200,000 in the way of fines from the members of the Medical Profession, and he seemed to think that there ought to be some return for these fines in the way of protection to the Profession. He protested against the idea that there ought to be special protection for any Profession. It was too late in the day to attempt to re-enact such a principle. It had been long repudiated both in commerce and in other avocations of life. He did not deny the right of Parliament to prescribe a standard of qualification for the Medical, as well as for other Professions, but they ought not to protect any special interest—their duty being to protect the public, and the public only. This Bill was clearly not introduced in the interest of the public, but in the interest of a Profession, and at the instance of a narrow section. He did not see why only qualified persons should be allowed to give certificates of death. But by this Bill, if a man did not believe in the present principles of medical practice, he would be acting

    761
    illegally in being attended by anyone not a member of the Profession, and if the patient should die the certificate of such a person would not be valid, and without a certificate the man could not be buried until an inquest had been held. A few years ago a dead set was made against the homœopathists; but notwithstanding the persecution to which it had been subjected, and the opposition and prejudice which it had to encounter, homoeopathy had made great way, and had effected a remarkable change in the practice of medicine. It had been proved that those strong doses of purgatives which used to be given under the old system were positively injurious, and the most eminent medical men were content to use drugs sparingly, and to leave nature mostly to effect the cure. If he objected to be dosed with mineral poisons and preferred to go to a herbalist, he wanted to know what right Parliament had to stand in the way? Suppose he broke a leg, or dislocated a limb, and he went to a bone-setter who had done wonderful things, what right had Parliament to interfere and say that he should not? This was what this Bill asked Parliament to do. He contended that if he preferred to call in a blacksmith to attend him, Parliament had no right whatever to interfere. Under this Bill it would be made penal for any man to assume a title that would imply that he was a legally qualified practitioner. If that were all, he should not object; but it was proposed that anyone not being a legally qualified medical practitioner should, if he practised any branch of medicine or surgery for gain, be subject to a fine of £20. By that section the public would be deeply injured. The herbalists had a standard of qualification among themselves in order to prevent incompetent persons from being employed by the public, and he urged that they had earned a title to be allowed to practise for profit, and to grant certificates in cases of death. A large number of the working classes and friendly societies did not believe in medical men; but they did believe in herbalists. [A laugh.] The way to meet an argument was not by a laugh. In these matters experience was the only test. Friends of his own had gone to a herbalist after having tried members of the Medical Profession in vain, and to a bone-setter after trying a surgeon.
    762
    With that knowledge, he did not feel that he ought to allow the Bill to pass without protest. There was another point. The prevention of anyone but a duly qualified practitioner giving a certificate of death amounted to saying that a man should not be attended by a herbalist in illness, as he might die, and no certificate would be given of his death. The measure was a mischievous one. It asked Parliament to take steps in a direction against which Parliament had for a long series of years protested; it was not asked for by the public, and it was not for the interests of the public that it should be passed. For these reasons, he felt compelled to oppose the Bill.
    MR. BURT, in seconding the Motion for the rejection of the Bill, said, he opposed it entirely on public grounds. No doubt, a great deal of mischief was done by incompetent persons; and if a Bill were to be passed to exclude those, and those only, such a Bill would do great public service by checking those birds of prey that flitted about from place to place living on the gullibility of the public. But this Bill would go a great deal further than that. He was acquainted with many herbalists who had done much to benefit the community. Within a few hundred yards of his own residence in Newcastle was one who had practised for 25 years, and to whom numbers of people came because they found themselves benefited. That man was typical of thousands of others. There was no pretence for saying that there was the slightest imposition on the part of such men, or that they practised under false pretences. These men did not profess to have received a thorough medical education—in fact, many of them had never seen either the inside or the outside of a College; but they had a special aptitude for treating diseases, and having devoted a great number of years to the study of the subject were successful in doing so. People who were ill wanted to be cured, and did not care whether it was by an educated or an illiterate person. If the class of men to whom he referred were prevented from giving certificates of death, they would be prevented from practising medical treatment. He could bear his testimony to the popularity of these men with friendly societies. For these reasons, he should give his utmost opposition to the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA, in supporting the second reading of the Bill, said, he could not join in the feeling of confidence in herbalists, as expressed by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, considering that they were not required to produce any test of competency or knowledge in medical science, or that they had been shown to have seen either the inside or the outside of a Medical College. He did not think that an ignorant man, almost in articulo mortis, should, on the ground that it was his own choice, be exposed to the danger of being attended by a person who had not received any medical education. The pleas put forward on behalf of the herbalist were equally applicable to the defence of those who practised charms and witchcraft, for those who were practised upon were consenting parties. This was what he would suggest. There were several Medical Bills before Parliament, and all his hon. Friend desired was that all of them should be referred to the same Select Committee, so that whatever was best in each might come again before the House on the Report of the Committee.
    MR. ERRINGTONsaid, he defended the Bill as the only one which included in a complete form the various reforms which were necessary. It was a peg to hang inquiry upon, and therefore the House ought to give it a second reading. There was the greatest possible demand for medical reform. Some years ago a Bill was introduced by Lord Ripon which proposed to deal only with the subject of medical education; but that was only a portion of the question which this Bill raised. Lord Ripon's Bill was defeated, and Her Majesty's Government introduced what was precisely the same measure, but it also failed. As soon as the question was raised of reforming that particular portion of the medical system which those Bills dealt with, it became evident that there were many other matters which also required reform. Last year, he and others brought forward a series of Bills, hoping to get the whole question referred to a Select Com-
    764
    mittee, which would take evidence in time to obtain the views of the medical institutions, and proceed to legislation in the present Session. But the Government seemed to have come to the conclusion—first, that there was virtually only one large question requiring to be dealt with—namely, the educational portion of the system, ignoring altogether the re-organisation of the Medical Council, which was at least so much desired; and second, that the particular plan which they had adopted was not only the most satisfactory plan that could be produced, but was, in fact, the only plan. But in reality it was only one among many plans that had been suggested. It dealt in a summary way with vested interests; and the Corporations and individuals affected, when they became conscious of the immediate approach of legislation, were anxious to be heard. It would, therefore, be a great advantage to refer to the Select Committee, not the limited question suggested by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), but the whole question, so as to have a complete and satisfactory settlement. It might be said that there would be great delay if such an inquiry as was asked for should be assented to. But, as there had already been so much delay, a further delay of a few months, or even a year or two, would be as nothing compared with the advantages which would result from effectually dealing with the whole matter. The question was divided into two branches, with one of which only the Government proposed to deal; and if the Government Bill were allowed to pass, while the other portion of the question were referred to a Select Committee, probably no more would be heard of it. There were many points in the Government Bill which were suited for consideration by a Select Committee, and if those points had to be considered in a Committee of the Whole House, the noble Lord opposite scarcely knew how great the delay might be. He earnestly appealed to the noble Lord to re-consider the decision which it was understood had been come to by the Government, and to allow the Reference of which he had given Notice to be enlarged so as to include the whole of the questions which had been raised. He had a Bill of his own, which represented a totally different principle from that of the Bill of

    765
    Her Majesty's Government and the Bill of his hon. Friend, and the advantage of referring all the Bills to a Select Committee would be that the various principles which they embodied would have an opportunity of being fully considered.
    MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, that the hon. Gentleman proposed by his Bill to amend the Medical Council. The Medical Council had very well and wisely fulfilled the task imposed upon them 20 years ago; they had succeeded in greatly improving both the teaching and the examination of the licensing bodies. He did not deny, however, that the constitution of the Medical Council might be improved by including representatives of all the licensing bodies. With reference to the pains and penalties inflicted on persons who might do injury to the public by their practice, he did not think the House would be prepared to prosecute herbalists, however much hon. Members objected to homoeopathy. He hoped they would not agree to pass any Bill that would impede the freedom every man had of trying to get cured in the way which best suited his own notions, and that the public would not be brought by compulsion under the despotic rule of even so important a body as the Medical Profession. What was right to be done was, as indeed the law now stood, that no person who might be designated a quack was entitled to adopt any name or title which did not belong to an unauthorized and unexamined person, so that the public should clearly distinguish between those having qualifications and those who had not. He was glad to hear that it was the intention of the noble Lord to appoint a Committee which might inquire into those points of principle on which there was a difference of opinion; but he did not think it necessary to examine points of detail. A Bill had been introduced by the Government in the other House, and when it came down it would furnish them with an ample opportunity of discussing details. The result of the Committee would be a guide to the House.
    DR. CAMERONstrongly supported the second reading of the Bill, and maintained that the objections which had been offered to it were utterly misleading. It had been urged that it was a protective measure, intended to hedge round the privileges of the Medical Pro-
    766
    fession and curtail the liberties of other persons in the practice of herbalism, bone-setting, &c. But that was a great misapprehension. A single clause of the Bill might possibly be open to such a construction; but that clause was susceptible of different meanings, and legal Members disagreed among themselves as to what it really did mean. Certainly it was not the intention of the promoters of the Bill to curtail the freedom of trade in the practice of bone-setting or herbalism, but only to do in the Medical Profession what was done in the case of manufacturers—to institute, as it were, a system of trade marks which could be registered, and which would give the owners of the trade marks a property in them. The promoters of the Bill were not even responsible for the wording of the clause, for they had taken it from the Bill of the Government, and under any circumstances it was only a matter of detail, which could easily be modified in Committee, if necessary. Objection had also been raised to the proposal that unqualified persons should be precluded from giving certificates in case of death; but he thought that a very valuable provision. A certificate of death was not indispensable, and in Glasgow, for example, at the present moment, a large percentage of the population died and were registered without certificates, being registered as "non-certified;" and he asked what use there was in keeping up a large and expensive machinery for throwing light on the conditions of mortality, if certificates of death were to be taken from persons who might know nothing whatever about the disease that had caused the death. And there was surely no hardship involved to the relations of the deceased, if the cause of death was registered as uncertain. The great advantage which he found in the present Bill was that it was an eclectic measure. It was the best of all the Medical Bills now before the House for the purpose of reference to a Committee, because it had selected whatever was good from every other of those Bills, and consisted of a collection of all that was valuable in the Bill of the Government, in the Bill of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Mills), or in the former Bills of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Dr. Lush) himself. There had been three leading proposals in regard to medical reform,

    767
    and they consisted—First, of a proposed reform of the Medical Council, that great body which had the control of medical matters, and which at present consisted of the representatives of various licensing and educational medical corporations, with a few representatives nominated by the Crown. The second proposal was that instead of degrees and licences to practise medicine and surgery being granted by 19 different licensing bodies, those bodies should be grouped together and Conjoint Boards formed for examination, so as to insure greater uniformity in the qualifications demanded for the securement of degrees and licences, and to do away with the prevailing competitive under-selling of medical degrees and titles. The third proposal was for the repression of the assumption by unqualified persons of medical titles. In his opinion, the first proposition—the proposal for the reform of the Medical Council—was by far the most important. Unless they began by attempting to reform the Medical Council, everything else would be in vain. The anomalies, to remedy which medical legislation was at present demanded, need not have existed if the Medical Council had done what it had power to do. The power of conferring civil right to practise medicine and surgery had been given by the State to 19 more or less responsible bodies. Some of them granted licences in medicine, and some in surgery. Now, the separation between medicine and surgery was entirely artificial. It originated in an Edict of the Council of Tours. Previously to the 12th century, medicine and surgery were practised almost exclusively by clerics; but at the Council of Tours it was declared that the Church abhorred the shedding of blood, and the consequence was that the practice of surgery was relegated to the barbers. He did not mean to say that a man might not practise medicine or surgery as a speciality, or the medicine and surgery of some paticular organ as a speciality; but what he said was absurd was that a licence to practise medicine and surgery, such as was conferred by any registrable diploma or licence under the present law, should be granted on an examination solely, or almost solely, in one of these branches. This Bill proposed to remedy that; and the Government Bill had also a remedy for it. There would have been no ne-
    768
    cessity at all for a legislative remedy if the Medical Council had done their duty, as they should have done, and had insisted that the examinations for every registrable diploma should include both medicine and surgery. Another great evil lay in the fact that there were 19 licensing bodies, which competed with one another. It was notorious that, when a man was doubtful about passing one examination, he at once found an easier one; and in that way competition among licensing bodies was calculated to do great harm, and to lower the status of medical knowledge. But not only did they undersell each other in the case with which they granted licences, but they also entered into competition with themselves. It might be that when an University, whose degrees held a high reputation, saw itself being undersold by another Corporation, if it had the power under its charter of inventing a new licence, it did so, and gave the new licence under easier terms. In that way, no fewer than 50 or 60 different documents were registrable. These licences and diplomas were granted after examinations conducted altogether differently, after different periods of residence, different degrees of study, and different requirements of preliminary education. Men in very high positions had again and again protested against this. If the Medical Council had done its duty under the existing law, all these discrepancies might have been done away with long ago. They had the power to call the attention of the Privy Council to the fact that this or that body was granting degrees on lower terms than was desirable, and that the Privy Council ought to interfere. To turn to the measure before the House, the Government, in their proposal, accepted the principle of a conjoint scheme. The logical basis upon which one would like to urge the proposal for a conjoint scheme would be that there should be but one Examining Board for the whole of the United Kingdom; but for convenience—and, no doubt, for the purpose of conciliating jealousies—that proposal had been departed from, and a separate Conjoint Board was proposed for each part of the United Kingdom. These Conjoint Boards were undoubtedly a step in the right direction. Why had they not had these conjoint schemes long ago? The reason was that the various licensing bodies had

    769
    been unable, through jealousy, to enter into them. They had gone on competing with each other for candidates for their degrees and diplomas, and yet the Government now proposed to intrust to the representatives of these very bodies the carrying out of what constituted really the whole substance of the Government Bill. The reform should have been carried out long ago, and it was useless to pass a Bill now which would merely enable the Medical Council to do what they or their constituents should have done already. How were they to improve the Medical Council? He believed the whole voice of the Medical Profession demanded that the general body of practitioners should be represented. He believed that if they were to allow the Profession at large to send representatives to the Council, the result would be that they would introduce into it an element the object and sole interest of which would be but to raise the status of the Profession, and to carry out any needed reform without being hampered at every turn with the consideration of how it would affect the private interest of this or that Corporation. In fact, he believed that as an almost indispensable preliminary to any real reform they must commence by re-constituting and re-modelling the Medical Council. The Council was composed very often of men of very high eminence, and that was especially the case with the representatives of those bodies who were conveniently near the place where the Council sat; but as regarded bodies situated in remote parts of the country, men in active work as practitioners or professors could not find the time to come up to take part in the debates. Hence several members of the Council were gentlemen who had practically retired from active professional life, and found it almost as much as they could do to undertake the journey. Much energy could not be expected from a body so constituted. If they had, on the other hand, a Medical Council with representatives sent by the Profession at large, they would have it considered a great honour to be elected by the Profession of England, or Scotland, or Ireland, and they would have the very best men, and they would have men who were constantly in contact with the constituencies, and who knew exactly what the constituencies desired and required; and they would find that with
    770
    such a body it would be possible to do a vast amount under the existing legislation—much more than, he feared, would be effected with the existing Medical Council under any legislation. He had said the proposal of Conjoint Boards was a step in the right direction; but they must be careful it did not effect some mischief. It would reduce to one level minimum the standard of medical education. On that ground, the University of Edinburgh had petitioned against the Bill, and the University of Glasgow had also expressed its hostility to it. The Conjoint Board which was to examine for the whole of the country could hardly take the highest standard; therefore, there was a considerable danger that the high standard at present exacted by some licensing authorities would be reduced. Another important detail was the system on which it was proposed to divide the fees, which under the conjoint scheme were to be paid into a common purse. There seemed to him a danger of all interest being taken away on the part of the licensing authorities, who would find it much simpler to give their degrees and take their share of the proceeds; and unless they proceeded very carefully and knew what they were about a tendency to lower the standard must be apprehended. Again, a large number of men became licentiates of the London College of Surgeons, for example, and then went to Scotland, and took a medical degree at one of the Scotch Universities. The benefit of studying medicine in more than one place was very great, for the reason that instead of a man being sent forth to practise when indoctrinated with the crotchets of one set of teachers, he saw what was common to various sets of teachers, and what was exceptional to each, and, therefore, was better fitted for this work than if his education was limited to the teachings and crotchets of only one school; but no doubt the present Bill would discourage such migrations, and a man would be almost compelled to take his qualifications from the medical authorities of his own particular portion of the country, whether England, Ireland, or Scotland. Then there was the question of the Branch Councils of the three Kingdoms being allowed to make special rules; for what was to prevent these conglomerations of corporations from competing

    771
    with each other in a degrading sense as to facility of examination? Still, he thought the Bill now before the House was the best of all those before Parliament, so far as its principle was concerned, inasmuch as it embraced everything that was important in all the other Bills; and under these circumstances, he should give his hearty support to the second reading, on the understanding that it was to be referred to a Select Committee. Of this he was convinced, that to intrust the task of medical reform to the Medical Council, as at present constituted—a body which had for 20 years neglected to exercise those powers which it possessed—would be as unsatisfactory as the experiment of putting new wine in old bottles. The first thing to be done, therefore, was to impart some vitality into the Medical Council, as was proposed by this Bill.
    DR. O'LEARYsaid, the debate was almost as lively as one he remembered hearing in that House on the subject of hypothec. He did not agree with the details of the Bill, but he fully concurred in the principle of it. In England there Were certain bodies giving licences to practise surgery; and in Ireland and Scotland it was the same; but while in Dublin and London the fees were nearly equal, they were very much lower in many Colleges in Scotland, and, besides that, there was a difference in the number of years of study, so that, on the whole, there was a great discrepancy between arriving at the Medical Profession in Scotland and in England and Ireland. The scheme before the House was intended to put all the bodies on an equal footing, so that all medical men should possess the same qualification; but the Bill did not carry that intention out, and failed miserably and lamentably in the attempt. A meeting of the College of Surgeons in Ireland had been held a few days ago; but they had not had time to urge their very strong objections to the scheme, and had authorized him specially to speak in their name on the subject. The Irish College of Surgeons and College of Physicians differed essentially from the same bodies in England. In the latter country they had large endowments, direct and indirect, sufficient to enable them to maintain their museums, but in Ireland they had no such endowments; no private money had been left to them, and the
    772
    consequence was that one of the most magnificent museums in the world—the surgical museum which existed in Dublin—had to be maintained by the savings out of fees for the examination of the students. By the present scheme that fund was abolished, so that there would not be sufficient to pay the rent and taxes of the College, or the curator, and the library would have to be closed. It was very difficult for Members to appreciate the technical details of a conjoint scheme of examination, and he thought the Bill should be read a second time, in order to refer it to a Select Committee, which was the only possible way in which the subject could be dealt with. Reference had been made to the herbalists, but the Bill said nothing about them, unless they happened to be dealt with in the class of unqualified persons who assumed the title of doctor, physician, apothecary, or surgeon. A great majority of the cures effected by those men was the result of the confidence of the patients, and he would not duly tolerate, but would protect that class. He sympathized with them, and with the poor people who believed in them; and he repudiated, for his own part, any narrow feelings against such men, who did a great deal of good. Of course, a higher state of medical science now prevailed than there did 40 years ago, and greater advances had been made in that time than in the previous 1,500 years. In 1834, when a conflict arose in the House between the real practitioners and herbalists, and others, a Select Committee was appointed, in the face of the difficulty, and there was far greater reason now for a similar course being adopted. He appealed now to those in power not to object to the second reading of the Bill, with the distinct understanding that it be referred to a Select Committee. He would not vote for the Bill as it stood, for it was imperfect; but on the pure ground of referring it to a Select Committee he would support its second reading, and he considered the Government ought to do the same, or make some alternative proposal of their own on the subject.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had made out a clear case why pressure should be brought to bear upon the Medical Council to induce them to improve the education of medical stu-

    773
    dents and raise the standard of examination. He had also stated with ability and clearness the faults of the present system, which promoted competition between the different licensing bodies and lowered the standard of examination. During last year the Lord President of the Council and himself were in consultation with the Medical Council and the various licensing bodies, and also received communications from persons outside these bodies on this subject. The general result was in the direction of the proposals contained in the Bill which the Lord President introduced into the House of Lords some time back. There was also the Bill of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Mills') down for second reading this day, and they had also the fresh Bill—one by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Dr. Lush). These three Bills were almost identical in respect to the proposals for insuring greater uniformity in the examinations, and a more correct registration of the persons who passed them. But there was one subject which the measure of the Government did not take up that the Bills of his hon. Friends proposed to deal with, and that was the reform of the Medical Council. On this matter the Government had always used the same language. That body was composed of most eminent men. In fact, it would be difficult to select gentlemen more widely known, both for their ability and their great practice, than those who held seats on that Board; but there were, no doubt, many who thought that the Medical Council had sometimes been somewhat in error. There were, no doubt, those who thought that some of its members had not always been as active as they might have been; but, if that were so, he believed their inactivity would be found to be due to the difficult circumstances with which they had to contend. The Government had looked over the names of those who composed the Medical Council; and they did not feel justified in proposing in their Bill any alteration in the existing constitution of that body. Still, as there was a strong wish, both in the Profession and outside it, that that question should be considered this year, the Lord President had no objection to the appointment of a Committee to investigate the subject, and to decide as to whether any measures were necessary for the reform of the Council. He had abstained from putting a Notice
    774
    on the Paper for the appointment of a Committee until Monday last, in order not to prejudice the discussion of that day. There was a strong reason for referring only a part of the subject to the Committee. There was a consensus of opinion about educational reform; but if that were referred to the Committee, it would probably be unable to report in time for legislation this Session, unless it merely went through the clauses of the Bill and suggested changes which would not obviate subsequent discussion in the House. It was a question on which the Government ought to legislate, if possible; and though, under ordinary circumstances, a few months might be a matter of small importance, account must be taken of the length of the existence of the present Parliament; for if they did not succeed in passing a Bill this Session, there was little prospect of one being passed during the life of the present Parliament. If a Select Committee made a full inquiry and Report, the next Parliament would, perhaps, not be satisfied with it, and everything would have to be done over again. He should be very reluctant to oppose the second reading of the Bill now before the House. At the same time, he must point out that it embodied the principle that the Medical Council must be reformed, that members of the Profession outside must be directly represented upon it, and that that object must be achieved by diminishing and curtailing the amount of representation at present enjoyed by the Medical Corporations. Anyone who had been long in the House knew how strong —he did not say, too strong—all vested interests were, and he believed that if the Government were to consent to the second reading of the Bill which was at present under discussion they would arouse such a spirit of opposition as would, in all probability, prevent their legislating this Session. Under these circumstances, the course he would suggest to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Dr. Lush) was that he should, with the leave of the House, consent to the adjournment of the debate. If his suggestion were adopted, he would undertake to-morrow to move the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the constitution of the Medical Council. That Committee would, no doubt, report within a short time, and its recommendations might be embodied in the Govern-

    775
    ment Bill which was to come down from the other House. He would undertake that the Government Bill should not be received in that House until the Committee had reported. By the adoption of this proposal he believed legislation on the subject would be materially facilitated, and that it would also be rendered more complete and thorough than it would otherwise be. If the hon. Member would not adopt this course, he (Lord George Hamilton) feared that he must vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), which he did not wish to do, as he had no sympathy with the hon. and learned Member's argument. The hon. and learned Member had misapprehended the intentions of the Bill. There was nothing in it to prevent him, if he broke his leg, calling in a blacksmith to set it. It only provided that the blacksmith should not add such a designation to his name as would make people believe him qualified to practise surgery. To refer all three Bills on the Paper to a Select Committee would simply, in his opinion, be a waste of time. On the part of the Government, he had to say that they had endeavoured to give due weight to the interests of the public on the one hand, and to the wishes of the Medical Council on the other, and that their measure would be found to contain, at all events, the groundwork of a reform, the necessity for which had been felt for some time past.
    Mr. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the discussion had ranged into the whole question of medical reform; but the House was not in the position to enter into any such discussion with advantage, and he, therefore, did not intend to weary the House by going over the same ground. Let hon. Members consider the position they were in. They had on the Orders of the Day three Bills on this subject, and they knew there was a Government Bill travelling down to them from "another place," which must give rise to a discussion upon the whole question. To-morrow the question of the constitution of the Medical Council might come before the House on the proposal of the noble Lord. He reserved what he had to say of the general subject of medical reform till the serious battle that would come on when the Government Bill was presented to them. The Rules of the House, indeed,
    776
    prevented them alluding to any Bill except that of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Dr. Lush). This Bill certainly covered the whole ground—for, first, it profoundly changed the constitution of the Medical Council; then, it provided for Conjoint Boards of Examination; and, finally, for the registration of qualified practitioners. To the construction of the Medical Council his hon. Friend attached the greatest importance. He (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had tried to discover a principle in his plan, but in vain. Did he represent institutions and corporations in proportion to the great medical schools, or to the number of licences or graduates? Certainly neither of these principles was involved. The great medical school of the University of Edinburgh—probably the most important professional school in the world— had 1,200 students, and produced as graduates in medicine a large number of most qualified practitioners. But by the Bill it was only to have one-fourth of a member in the Medical Council, whilst the University of London, producing only 20 or 30 graduates, and teaching no students, was to have one member to itself. Indeed, such medical corporations of secondary rank as the Apothecaries' Company and the College of Surgeons of Glasgow were each to have a member of the Medical Council, while the Universities of Scotland, which last year produced 210 graduates, were only to have one member for the whole four. He did not agree with his hon. Friend about the uselessness of the Medical Council. He (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had been a medical examiner for many years, and he knew that the Medical Council had done admirable work in improving medical education, and raising the standard of examination. At the same time, he admitted that there was a strong desire on the part of the Medical Profession to have direct representation on the Council, and with this view he had considerable sympathy. But his hon. Friend forced every University Member in the House to vote against the second reading of a Bill in which the principle of direct representation was involved. He could not be surprised at this, when he considered what was the main danger of examination by a Conjoint Board. Such examination must always represent a minimum amount of knowledge. Suppose it re-

    777
    presented a maximum, like the examination of the University of London. The result would be that only 20 or 30 medical practitioners could be licensed in a year to supply the waste by death and wear and tear of the Medical Profession. Unquestionably, a uniform pass must be on a minimum standard of knowledge and skill. The Universities were expected to counteract this tendency, and to keep up the qualifications of medical men by elevating their standards for degrees, so as to induce men of talent to add them to the lower pass examination. But while the Universities of the United Kingdom were expected to serve this important purpose, his hon. Friend proposed to degrade them in public estimation by giving to them only a small fractional representation on the Medical Council. The debate to-day was on a false issue. He was prepared, when the Government Bill came down, to discuss it fully on its own merits, and for this purpose the three Bills now before the House would be very useful to enable them to examine the whole issues involved. He trusted, therefore, that his hon. Friend would consent to the adjournment of the debate. The whole question of medical reform was vastly important to the community at large, and should receive long and full discussion before the House. The proposed Committee on the constitution of the Council was only one part of the subject, and they should not be called upon to consider the Government Bill until the Report of the Committee was in their hands. He understood that the noble Lord promised the House that he would postpone the Bill until the whole question could be discussed on its merits. This would give ample time to the various bodies interested in the changes contemplated to represent their views on the main question, for they did not feel called upon to do so on the side issue of this Bill.
    MR. MOWBRAYjoined in the remonstrance of the right hon. Gentleman against the way in which it was proposed to deal with the Medical Council by the Bill, and said he trusted the hon. Member would not attempt to force a Division to-day. He altogether objected to the joining together of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham for the purpose of electing a member on the Council. Oxford and Cambridge were
    778
    only a short distance from London, and, as a matter of fact, the delegates from these were among the most regular and attentive members. Moreover, he thought there was a great advantage in having on the Council men who were not taken from the actual ranks of a busy Profession, but who came from the Universities. If the hon. Member proceeded with the Bill, he should feel obliged to give his most strenuous opposition to those parts of it which dealt with the constitution of the Medical Council.
    MR. PLUNKETexpressed a hope that the hon. Member for Salisbury would accept the advice which had been given, and consent to the adjournment of the debate, otherwise he should certainly feel bound to oppose the Bill, which he considered was crudely and hastily drawn. He complained that the University of Dublin and the Queen's College, which had been soldered together in the Bill, were not properly treated. It was stated in one of the clauses that they should be represented by one person collectively; but no provision was made for the case of these bodies disagreeing in their choice. The College of Physicians and the Apothecaries' Hall were also joined together to elect a collective representative respectively, and that was scarcely an intelligible way of dealing with such an important question.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he thought the proposal of the noble Lord was most practical. The two subjects dealt with in the Bill—the examination of candidates and the constitution of the Medical Council—weretotally and entirely distinct, and he advised the hon. Member for Salisbury to accept the suggestion of a Select Committee. The great improvement which had recently taken place in all departments of the Medical Profession had not been owing to the Council, which had done little besides forming a register of practitioners. It seemed to him that when medical reform was taken seriously in hand it would not be at all necessary to continue this great, unwieldy, and expensive Council. It was too much to expect the Medical Profession to continue to pay these large fees for the expenses of the Council. When the Government Bill came down, and if a well-selected Committee were appointed, he

    779
    imagined that some facts would be produced which would modify the opinion of the House of Commons as to the question of continuing that body in its present condition. There was no doubt that the variety of entrance examinations had been a great advantage to the Profession; but if Corporations which had hitherto opposed each other, and refused under any circumstances to adopt this conjoint scheme, continued their unwillingness, because it would interfere with their emoluments, he did not see why, with any efficient examination, the Council should be kept up. He did not think fees should be altogether diverted into a common fund; for if they were, many valuable collections and museums would be lost, but he had a very strong sympathy with those who objected to the enormous tax put on the Profession by keeping up the Council. When once there was a scheme of examination, properly supervised, there would be no necessity for anything but a small Council, the Members of which should be frequently changed, for it was not at all necessary that the Universities and Corporations should all be represented at the same time on the Council. If the proposal for a Select Committee was not accepted, there would be no legislation on medical reforms this year; and if the House continued next year there was little hope of the subject being taken up by a moribund Parliament.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPE, as Representative of the University of Cambridge, did not like to appear indifferent on this subject. He thought the hon. Member had failed in his Bill to grasp the raison d'être of the separate representation of the Medical Council of the various Universities. There was an impression in unenlightened places that one University was very much like another; but the hon. Member for Salisbury could not have fallen into that error. Each University had a distinctive teaching of its own, which was a valuable contribuent to what ought to be a union of deliberative strength. Without disrespect, also, to the University of Durham, he could say that it was not so old, large, or influential as those of Oxford and Cambridge, and that afforded another reason why it was a decidedly unsatisfactory arrangement that all three of them should be equally joined together for the
    780
    purpose of representation on the Medical Council. Such a proposal was about as reasonable as would be a proposal, in a Bill for the re-distribution of seats, to give one Member to the two cities of Salisbury and Durham.
    DR. LUSHacknowledged the courtesy with which his proposals had been received. He must, however, deny that he had any wish to establish trade unionism in the Medical Profession. He might also be permitted to state that the ridicule of the Bill by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket) was founded upon a misprint. As advised, he was quite willing to accept the assurance that the Government Bill would not be proceeded with until the House had before it the recommendations of the Select Committee which the noble Lord proposed to have appointed. He, however, trusted that the noble Lord would consent to enlarge the scope of the Committee so as to include the question involved in his Bill.
    DR. BRADYmoved the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Dr. Brady.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Wednesday 26th March.

  CLERICAL DISABILITIES BILL.
  (Mr. Goldney, Mr. Hibbert, Sir Windham Anstruther.)
  CLERICAL DISABILITIES BILL.

    [BILL 18.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. GOLDNEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, lie would not at that late hour (a quarter to 5 o'clock), for an obvious reason, occupy the attention of the House for more than a very few minutes. The object of the Bill was to amend, by ex-tending the principle of the Act of 1870, which had been as a Bill introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert). He would remind the House that, previous to the passing of the Act of 1801, which was popularly known as Home Tooke's Act, the Clergy were not debarred of the privilege of sitting as Members of the House of Commons. They had in the reign of Charles H. surrendered their right of

    781
    taxing themselves in Convocation, and thereby becoming, as they did, subject to the liabilities of all other members of the community as regarded the public burdens, they were accorded the right of choosing Members of Parliament to represent them, and, with that right, of becoming Members of Parliament themselves. The latter privilege was questioned in the year 1785, when Mr. Push-worth, a clerk in Holy Orders, was returned for Newport, Isle of Wight. The objection to the return was that Mr. Push worth was a clergyman; but a Committee of the House of Commons reported that he was duly elected. So the law remained till the year 1801, when Mr. Home Tooke was elected for Old Sarum, and the validity of his return was questioned on the alleged ground that he was a clerk in Holy Orders, and that clergymen might resume the right to tax themselves in Convocation. It was well known, however, that the real objection to Mr. Home Tooke was that he was a strong adherent to the Opposition and a strong opponent of the Government of the day, and the result was the passing of an Act excluding clerks in Holy Orders from the privilege of becoming Members of Parliament. That it was a personal Act was shown from the fact, among others, that it was universally known as Home Tooke's Act. Between 1801 and 1870 nothing was done to remove the disability; but in the latter year the hon. Member for Oldham passed a measure, which to a certain degree placed the Clergy in the same position as other members of the community, provided they voluntarily relinquished their office as ministers of the Church. He did not see why the same privilege should not be extended to Clergymen, who, while they renounced all preferment in the Church, retained the right to occasionally discharge their sacred functions, and who discharged all the duties of citizenship. The Bill would, in fact, be applicable only to those who from conscientious scruples did not wish to hold their benefices, but yet were not prepared altogether to divest themselves of their sacred functions. Under the Irish Church Act, clergymen of the Disestablished Church were eligible to become Members of that House, and he trusted that the House would agree to the extension of the principle of the Act of 1870, which the
    782
    Bill would sanction, and to which his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) had expressed himself favourable during the debates which were held in reference to that Act.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Goldney.)
    MR. BERESFORD HOPE, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, pointed out that the present state of things was very different from that which prevailed when the Act of 1870, to which his hon. Friend had referred, was passed, and when he himself had made the speech in question. The absolute inability of clergymen to sit as Members of Parliament was then the law; but under the Bill of the hon. Member for Oldham, which thus passed into law, a clerk in Holy Orders who, so to say, unfrocked himself, became entitled, like any layman, to seek a seat in Parliament. As it left the House of Commons, it embodied a machinery for clergymen who had availed themselves of its provisions to abandon their new civil privileges and to resume their sacred character, which was, to his great regret, struck out in the House of Lords. The very last Division of the Session was an unavailing effort of his own to re-instate it. He did not pretend to like the measure in any shape, but this recognition of the enduring character of Orders was a mitigation of its other provisions; and he was bound to thank his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham for the friendly spirit with which he accepted its being put in the Bill. In all which he himself said at the time, he concluded that this provision would in some shape or other be retained. Such, however, did not prove to be the case; and now this anomalous capricious Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) contained no such provision. The state of things had been entirely altered now that the Act of 1870 in its latter shape had become law; and the passing of the present Bill would, he believed, not only not mitigate a grievance which he found in their present circumstances, but would considerably aggravate it. As the law stood, the clergyman who desired to come into Parliament had to renounce the outward exer-

    783
    cise of his clerical office; but the present Bill would extend to him that privilege, provided only he engaged to hold no preferment. But under the present Bill the occasional performance of the services of the Church would not be a disqualification to sit in Parliament. Indeed, if it passed, they could hear with great benefit the Chaplain of Mr. Speaker read prayers before the Business of the evening commenced, and hear the same reverend gentleman, he had no doubt with great pleasure and advantage, dilating upon a political subject. It would allow a clergyman on Sunday to defend his speeches by his sermon, and during the week to defend his sermon by his speeches. The reverend Member of Parliament would be absolved from the painful sobering work by the beds of the sick and wretched, which made up the round of pastoral duty to the vicar and his curate; but the enjoyments of the sacred profession would still be his. He would still be eligible to take part in musical Church service, to display his reading of the ornate Rubric, and have the pleasure of listening to his own voice in the pulpit, even in these days of depression, when no constituency would lend its ears to his charming. Let the House have a care lest it should, by passing the Bill, create a so to say, dilettante class of clergymen, always in unrest, always dreaming that their eloquence was wasted in the pulpit, but would be productive of great public advantage if heard in the House of Commons in reference to some Bill on a Wednesday or to some Motion on Friday. He believed that if the measure were passed, it would introduce a fresh source of strife into the Church; for, instead of adding to the elasticity on which so much of the good working of the Church depended, the effect would be to substitute a rigid system of repression and suspicion. As things were, nothing could be more precise than the law which compelled the clergyman who acted as a curate to do so with the Bishop's formal licence; while, on the other hand, nothing could be more liberal or sensible than the manner in which this provision was in practice relaxed. But if this Bill passed, such relaxation would become impossible, for the Bishop could not tell whether the virtual curate might not expand into an
    784
    epicure statesman. It would lead to a disturbance and dislocation of things all round. He was surprised to hear the assertion that a clergyman of the Disestablished Church of Ireland was eligible for a seat in that House, any more than the Clergy of the Church of Rome, or the ministers of the Scotch Episcopalian Church, and of the Scotch Established Church, were. No such right had been claimed, and he believed no such right existed. If the disabilities were removed from one class of clergyman, as this Bill contemplated, they ought to be removed from the other. The irregular curate had no right to shoulder out the regular curate, nor either of them to slip in before their rector; while it would be against all equity to create a privilege for the Clergy of the Church of England which was refused to those of the Church of Rome. If at last they saw a Bishop's Bench in this House, it would be the legitimate result of the hon. Member for Chippenham's action. By the passing of the Bill the Clergy would be divided into political and non-political representatives of their order. That would be a very undesirable state of things, and he hoped the House would support the Amendment he now moved—namely, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. HIBBERTthought the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) was very hard to please. The hon. Gentleman had objected to the measure of 1870, because it would not enable a clergyman to enter the House without divesting himself of his clerical robes; and now, when a Bill was introduced which did propose to do that, he still objected. It was very little this Bill proposed to do; it was but very few persons it would ever admit to the House. If the proposal, however, was a just one, there was no reason why it should not become law. He did not look upon the measure as being at all antagonistic to the spirit of the Act of 1870, which he had the honour of in-

    785
    troducing to the House. It was in his view, however, a step in advance, and he should therefore support it. It would allow a clergyman to sit in the House without having unfrocked himself and become a layman. Lay Members of the House could preach occasionally if they pleased, and he saw no reason why clergymen should not sit in the House if, during the time of their occupying the position of a Member of the House, they gave up their preferments. The presence of clergymen in the House would add much to the intelligence of the debates on county and local matters, and he saw no reason why the constituencies should be debarred from selecting their representatives from the most intelligent class of the community. To fight against the proposal of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Groldney) would be to fight against a shadow, and he hoped the Bill would be allowed to pass.
    ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM EDMONSTONEseconded the Amendment. He said, he should not have done so if it were not for the fact that the proposition was so objectionable to his mind, that he did not feel justified in giving a silent vote. He had been asked by a friend—"What have the parsons done to you, that you wish to keep them out of the House?" It was quite the other way. He had so strong a regard for the sacred character of a clergyman, that he should be extremely sorry to see him brought from the Church to take part in the proceedings of the House of Commons. The possibility of a clergyman administering the holy rites of religion to him one day, and then making his appearance on the floor of the House of Commons the next, was utterly repugnant to his feelings. It was quite enough that he should hear his clergyman in the pulpit without hearing him there. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) had referred to the possibility of a Dissenting minister sitting in the House and preaching out-of-doors as well. That might be so; but it was no justification for the present proposition, nor was he (Sir William Edmonstone) influenced by the consideration also mentioned by the hon. Member, that Clergymen in Lancashire took an active and important part in the management of the county business. He felt that they had no right to sit in that
    786
    House. He hoped they would never be allowed to do so, and he should certainly do his utmost to keep them out.
    MR. NEWDEGATEbelieved there was only one person actively stirring in this matter, and was sorry to say this was a Friend of his. He regretted, on this account, that he felt obliged to oppose the Bill; but no consideration of friendship would induce him to fail in opposing a Bill which involved so large a principle. The Bill itself was in very few words, but its principle was a very comprehensive one. Under the Act, passed through the House of Commons by the hon. Member for Oldham, but altered by the House of Lords in 1870, it was perfectly competent for a gentleman in Holy Orders to become a Member of the House of Commons, by absolving himself from the obligation of those Orders; but the proposal of this Bill was to retain that obligation—so that, under this Bill, Members might be returned to this House fettered by Orders and their inherent obligation of obedience to the higher officers of the Church; future Members of the House might, and probably would, if this Bill were to pass, occupy seats in that House on terms different from those upon which other Members, who were free from any such obligations, sat in that House. This would be importing Clerical Orders, and the obedience they entailed, into the House of Commons. Let the House look at this question from another point of view. Reference had been made to the fact of Bishops sitting in the House of Lords. The Bishops sat in the House of Lords by virtue of their baronies, which were, in principle, equivalent to the benefices held by the priests of the Church of England. The House was, by this Bill, asked to treat the holding of benefices as a disqualification, which, as a qualification, were equivalent—though neither in rank they would confer, nor in value, yet, still, in principle, equivalent—to the qualification by which Bishops sat in the House of Lords. But the two cases were entirely different. By the constitution of the House of Lords, the fact of being in Orders was not a disqualification; whereas the House of Commons had, by repeated decisions, held that it was inconsistent with the constitution of that House, in which they had no Bishops, inconsistent with the equal freedom of those admitted to it, that any man claiming to

    787
    remain under the obligation of Orders should be admitted to a seat in that House. The principle upon which Parliament with respect to that House had invariably acted was, he believed, a sound principle. Parliament had, by the Act of 1870, afforded to any clergyman, who chose to avail himself of it, the opportunity of taking his seat in the House of Commons by repudiating the obligation of his Orders; and if a man said, "I will not repudiate the obligation of his Orders," by refusing to avail himself of this provision of the Act of 1870, the person interested raised up against himself a barrier, which had always been held sufficient to exclude from a seat in the House of Commons, even before the case of Mr. Home Tooke, who was enabled to take his seat through an uncertainty in the terms of the Statute used to express the law. An Act was passed in consequence, which still declared the law. There was another point. No person, being a Noncomfor-mist minister, was thereby disqualified from sitting as a Member of the House of Commons—and very justly; because not one of the Protestant denominations held the indelibility of Orders. It was otherwise with the Church of England, and otherwise with the Church of Rome. In both cases, the vast majority of the Clergy held that their Orders were indelible—that the obligation to obedience under the Orders of their Church was life-long. If clergymen of the Church of England were to be allowed, on the terms proposed in the Bill, to sit in the House of Commons, there could be no reason why priests of the Church of Rome should not also have the same right to be elected and to sit. He thought the Clergy of the Church of England were right in holding, as the majority of them did, that they were bound to obedience during life; and if they acted consistently with the doctrines and constitution of their Church, the priests of the Church of Rome were still more stringently bound for life also. That being so, he regretted that any attempt should have been made to enforce the admission of clergymen to the House, in spite of this life-long obligation under their Orders. Prizing, as he did, the character of this House, and the freedom of its Members under the law, subject only to the obligation of loyalty to the Sovereign, but free in other re
    788
    spects to exercise their judgment, and speak their minds without other restraints than those imposed by the House itself, he should heartily vote against the Bill, as being thoroughly inconsistent with the principles of the constitution of the House.
    MR. GOLDNEYhaving briefly replied,
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he deeply regretted that he could not support the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham. He could not help thinking that if clergymen wished to come into Parliament, they ought to do so by means of the Act which had already been passed. There was, so far as he could see, no sufficient reason for passing the Bill; and, on the other hand, he thought it was fraught with much of difficulty and danger. ["Divide, divide!"]
    SIR JOSEPH M KENNAsaid, after what had fallen from the Home Secretary, hon. Gentlemen might rest assured he would not talk out the Bill; he would only say a few words. The Act which had enabled clergymen of the Church of England to divest themselves of Holy Orders went very far; but this Bill proposed to do what was far worse, by permitting clergymen to retain their sacred character and to engage in utterly incompatible pursuits. He looked upon the measure as one fraught with great danger to society, and one which ought not to have been sprung upon them at the end of a Morning Sitting.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 135: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 42.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Beading put off for six months.

MOTIONS.
  COMMONS.
  Select Committee on Commons nominated:— Mr. SPENCER. WALPOLE, Mr. LEVESON GOWER, Sir WALTER BARTTELOT, Mr. FAWCETT, Mr. PELL, Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE, and Five by the Committee of Selection:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (DISTRICT COURTS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Joseph Cowen, Bill to amend and extend the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts 1873 and 1875, and to make provision for the better local administration of justice, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Joseph Cowen, Mr. Ripley, Mr. Eustace Smith, and Mr. Rowley Hill.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 100.]
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.