Sitting of 26 July 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Evidence by Commission* (212); Pluralities* (213); Poor Law Unions' Officers (Ireland) * (214).
Second Reading—Women's Suffrage (27), negatived; Medical Relief Disqualification Removal (207); Bankruptcy (Office Accommodation) * (191).
Committee—River Thames (No. 2) (171–218); Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt Practices) * (199–219).
Committee—Report—Post Office Sites* (181).
Report—Earldom of Mar Restitution* (107–217); Public Health (Members and Officers) * (194).
Third Reading—Cholera Hospitals (Ireland) * (182); Shannon Navigation* (184); Polehampton Estates* (183); National Debt*; School Boards* (200); Exchequer and Treasury Bills*; Greenwich Hospital* (201), and passed.

NEW PEER.
Sir Robert James Loyd-Lindsay, K.C.B., V.C., having been created Baron Wantage of Lockinge in the county of Berks—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
ARMY—GLENCORSE MILITARY PRISON.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he rose to ask a Question of the noble Viscount the Under Secretary for War about the military prison of Glencorse, the condition of which he ventured two years ago to bring to the attention of their Lordships. This prison was built about 100 years ago for the reception of French prisoners taken during the war with France, and was constructed entirely of wood, except the stone staircase in the centre which connected the two wings, and the wood was tarred over. It was nothing more nor less than a fire trap. A prisoner within it once set fire to his clothing, and if the fire had spread not a single person in the prison would have escaped. His firm conviction was that if the building should take fire, as it might do at any moment, not a soul in it would escape. The prison was admirably conducted, and he was convinced that in the event of a fire the warders would do all in their power to get the prisoners out, and would fall victims to their sense of duty. He wanted to know what were the intentions of the Government with respect to the prison?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Viscount BURY), in reply, said, that this was a very important matter. The facts as stated by the noble Marquess were perfectly correct. The prison was built of wood at the beginning of the present century, or at the end of the last century, for the reception of French prisoners. It had

  213
  continued from year to year, and there I was no doubt that it was now absolutely unsafe. The Military Authorities did not consider that it would be desirable to retain the prisoners in the building any longer than could be helped, and they were as anxious as anybody else to get them out of this very dangerous position. The noble Marquess might therefore consider that the prison was condemned, and that as soon as room could be found elsewhere the prisoners would be removed from their present quarters. The necessary arrangements would be made as soon as possible, and the prison would be a thing of the past.

EGYPT (FINANCE)—THE INTERNATIONAL LOAN OF £9,000,000.

  QUESTION.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I wish to ask the noble Marquess, Whether he is able to confirm the report that the Egyptian Financial Loan has been practically settled? I shall hear that, not with surprise, because it would be quite impossible that the great statesmen who conduct the affairs of European countries should have raised any unnecessary objections to an arrangement, or the promulgation of an arrangement, that has taken so much time to complete; but, at the same time, if it is finished it will be a matter of the greatest possible pleasure and congratulation both in this country and in Egypt.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl is quite correct. The Egyptian Loan is being issued at this moment with the consent of all the Powers. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that as matters stand it was becoming a matter of the greatest importance to Egypt that the loan should issue. I am very glad it is issued, for I believe that it will facilitate the course of the Egyptian Government in the future. I will not go into explanations, as the matter is somewhat complicated; but I hope shortly to lay Papers on the Table which will show exactly what has been done.

GIANT'S CAUSEWAY, PORTRUSH, AND BUSH VALLEY RAILWAY AND TRAMWAYS DILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Adjourned debate on the motion for the Third Reading resumed (according to order).
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3ª accordingly, with the amendments.
  Then it was moved,
  "That so much of Standing Order No. 116. as requires the insertion in the Bill of provisions forfeiting in certain contingencies to the Crown money deposited under the Standing Orders, he dispensed with."—(The Lord Ventry.)
  Motion agreed to.
  A further amendment made to the Bill.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MEDICAL RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he wished to ask the noble Earl who was in charge of this Bill, Whether he would state to the House, in proposing the second reading, what day he intended to take the Committee, and what facility he meant to ask the House to grant him in order to hasten the decision of the House so that it would have effect at the forthcoming registration of voters? The noble Earl was probably aware that next Friday was the last day for making out the overseers' lists; but the President of the Local Government Board, in "another place," had promised, when in charge of the Bill, to introduce a clause providing that the overseers should make out supplemental lists of the claims of those who had received medical relief to be presented with the other lists to the Revising Barristers. If the Bill passed this week it would only give 24 days to the overseers to perform this duty, which he was informed was not more than sufficient. He should like to know whether the noble Earl had taken any means for the incorporation of this clause in the Bill?
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he had to state, in reply to the noble Earl, that it was his anxious desire that the Bill should pass through that House as soon as possible. It was with that view that he came down to that House yesterday to consult the authorities as to when it was necessary that the Bill should pass in order that it might be efficacious this year. He spoke to his noble and learned Friend the Lord of Appeal opposite, as to whether it would be possible to suspend the Standing Orders.

  215
  He had every wish that the Bill should become efficacious as speedily as possible. The Question addressed to him by the noble Earl seemed to be one which ought properly to be addressed to the Leader of the House. With reference to the regrettable incident that took place yesterday evening, he might observe that nothing was further from his mind than to say anything that could be construed as implying in the slightest degree discourtesy to the noble Earl opposite. Up to last night he, in common with every other Member of their Lordships' House, had invariably received the utmost courtesy and consideration from the noble Earl. But the noble Earl put the matter as a question of right, and upon that he was afraid the noble Earl was wrong.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would cordially reciprocate the words of the noble Earl. He did not complain that the noble Earl had put himself forward, but that he persisted in the course he had adopted when he (Earl Granville) had stated that he had been requested to take charge of the Bill by those who had conducted it through its final stages in the House of Commons. He had looked at the newspaper reports of what took place on the previous evening; and they appeared to him to entirely confirm what had been said on that side of the House. He was quite aware that the ultimate power in this matter rested with the noble Marquess; but what he wished to know was whether Mr. A. J. Balfour's advice would be taken, and for what day the Committee stage would be fixed?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUBYsaid, he was sure there was every desire on the part of their Lordships to facilitate the progress of the Bill; but the course suggested by the noble Earl was somewhat unusual. The point should be raised after the second reading.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not agree that it was an unusual course to ask the Mover of the second reading of a Bill when he proposed to take the Committee stage.
  THE EARL OF MLLLTOWNsaid, he had only one remark to make, and that was with regard to the noble Earl's observation as to the report in the papers. He was of opinion that the report entirely confirmed his view of the case.

WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL.—(No. 27.)
(The Lord Denman.)
WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL.—(No. 27.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that this was no Party question; and if it had in the first instance been included in the Franchise Bill, in "another place," it would probably have prevented that Bill passing unchanged through their Lordships' House. It had been stated that such a Bill ought not to originate in their Lordships' House. He ("Lord Denman) had endeavoured on June 23 to pass it, without discussion—that the Committee might be deferred—and any discussion, as in the Party Processions Act (Ireland), August 8, 1832—in the House of Commons—might be taken on that stage. He had never pressed forward the Bill; but when he found that it could not be proceeded with "elsewhere," he thought it right to renew it. He would never take a second reading with the understanding that it was to proceed no farther; for, in case of any conference between the two Houses on any other Bill, there might be time for its passing into law. He had presented many Petitions for it from England and Wales, from Scotland and from Ireland, and he believed not a single Petition had been presented against it; and a printed paper signed by several women of station and intelligence had been sent to every Member of their Lordships' House. He considered that the Franchise Bill was imperfect without it. There was an instance in which the grandmother—a mother of a late tenant of his—had successfully managed a farm of 400 acres as well as that tenant; and it was unjust that widows should be ejected from their farms—as Mr. Joseph Arch had stated to have been done—because they could not vote. Lady Sterling, in East Lothian, had managed her land successfully; and it was hard that her labourers should vote instead of their employer. His own wife had received a notice to give the names of all those employed on her farm, before a day which had passed. No doubt, it was late in the Session to revive a Bill of this character; but it would be better to pass it before a General Election, even if too late for registration, and he hoped that their Lordships would agree to its second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Denman.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he thought a noble Earl opposite, who favoured the principle of the Bill, had indicated the course he should adopt with regard to this measure.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that as he thought this was an improper way of bringing forward the question, he stated that he would leave the House rather than take part in a division upon it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUBYsaid, it would be unfortunate that such a course should be taken, and ho, therefore, moved the Previous Question.
  A Question being stated thereupon, the Question was put Whether the said Question shall be now put; Resolved in the negative.

MEDICAL RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 207.)
(The Earl of Milltown.)
MEDICAL RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 207.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, as the question had been threshed out in both Houses, he would not occupy the attention of their Lordships long. The question first appeared upon the scene when the Representation of the People Bill was in Committee in the other House. On June 19 Dr. Commins moved an Amendment that voters receiving medical relief should not be disqualified, whether they received it at hospitals or otherwise. He might say there that it was a question whether this Bill would meet the case of relief granted by hospitals and dispensaries. The Amendment of last year was violently opposed by the Members of the late Government. Sir Charles W. Dilke, speaking in their name, insisted on the Amendment being withdrawn or negatived, in order, as he said, to put an end to the question. On May 6 the Registration Bill was in Committee, and an Amendment was moved by Mr. Davey to the effect that medical relief, surgical assistance, or the giving of medicine should not be deemed to constitute parochial relief within the meaning of the Poor Relief Acts. That Amendment
  218
  was strongly opposed by Her Majesty's late Government, and it was negatived by 107 against 102. On May 12 the question cropped up again on the Report at the dinner hour; and, though the late Attorney General and other Members of the Government opposed the Amendment, it was carried by 87 against 50. When the Bill reached this House the late Government, who had hitherto opposed the principle of non-disqualification, did not exactly accept it, but refrained from opposing it; the support was not of a very active character. An Amendment was moved to strike out the clause, and the only Member of the late Government who supported it was the Lord Chancellor, whose principal argument was the hardship of disqualifying in rural districts for aid which in towns could be more easily obtained from dispensaries supported by voluntary contributions. The Law Journal said that some Revising Barristers struck off those who had accepted relief from hospitals; and, if that were so, he should propose to clear up the matter in Committee, if he could do so without risking the Bill. The Duke of Richmond said that the clause in the Bill was imperfect and unsatisfactory; he said he did not take objection to the principle; but he did object that if the least amount of medical comfort other than medicine were given to a labourer he would be disqualified. The same view was taken by his noble Friend the Prime Minister, who described the clause as a mere mockery, because it would not really enfranchise those for whose benefit it was intended, as it did not include everything which was necessary to the case of sickness under medical treatment, and was thus only a half-measure, which would lead to great disappointment. When the Bill went down to the House of Commons, the late Government, represented by Sir Charles W. Dilke, strongly supported their Lordships' Amendment, and in the division that Amendment was carried by 107 to 6G. No sooner, however, was that done than Mr. Chamberlain went down to his constituents, and in a singularly unfair and audacious speech, even for him, denounced their Lordships' House and the Tory Party for having imposed a restriction upon the voter which did not previously exist, and which would disqualify one-quarter of the new constituency.

  219
  Mr. Chamberlain was a Member of the I Government which brought in the Bill occasioning this disability, yet he had no word of protest against that Government; and it was not until their Lordships had rejected this imperfect clause that he found out that one-quarter of the voters would be disqualified. A more unfair statement of a case was perhaps never made by a man in the position of a Cabinet Minister. In the division in their Lordships' House there was no Party character, and to say that it was a Party division was to make an unfounded statement. Among those who opposed Mr. Davey's clause were Whig Peers, like the Duke of Devonshire and the noble Lord (Lord Monk Bretton), who, not very long ago, was President of the Local Government Board. After Mr. Chamberlain's inflammatory speech, Mr. Jesse Collings brought in a Bill which, with the exception of the last clause, was practically the same Bill as that of which he was moving the second reading. In the meantime, however, a change of Government took place, and the present Government on their accession to Office, having considered all the circumstances of the case, and knowing the immense number of agricultural labourers who would be disfranchised if it were not carried, did what the late Government ought to have done if they had been in earnest on the question—they brought forward on their own responsibility a Bill to remove the disqualification more ample than Mr. Collings's Bill; because the latter was only to last for one year, while there was no limit of time in the present Bill. But as soon as this Bill was introduced by a Conservative Government Mr. Collings discovered that it did not go far enough, and proposed that all medical relief ordered by the doctor and supplied by the parish authorities should be included. For some reason or other the Government in the House of Commons did not see their way to accept Mr. Collings's Amendment, which was first moved by Sir Sydney Waterlow and defeated by a majority of three, and then brought on again on the Report and carried by a majority of 50, and declined to be any longer responsible for the measure. Notwithstanding this, however, the third reading was moved by Mr. Collings and not opposed. At length the Bill had floated to their Lordships'
  220
  House; and it appeared to him, in these circumstances, that an independent Peer like himself had at least as good a right to move the second reading as the noble Earl opposite, who had taken precisely the same course as himself on the former occasion, when he had voted against his noble Friend. The principle of the Bill was more or less accepted by both sides of the House. For his own part, he had always thought it hard to disfranchise the new voter for one of those unavoidable accidents to himself, or some member of his family, to which humanity was subject. The restriction was reasonable under the limited franchise of the Reform Act of 1832, but became serious and onerous under a system which was almost manhood suffrage. He, therefore, thought that the restriction ought to be freely and unreservedly removed. But he was surprised that Mr. Gladstone's Government, which was fully aware of all the facts of the case, never did anything of the kind. In these circumstances, he moved the second reading of the Bill, which, with the exception of the last clause, was absolutely the Bill of the Conservative Government. That last clause was a matter of detail, but of necessary detail. This being the Bill of a Conservative Government, it was more right, meet, and just that a Member of the Conservative Party in that House, however humble, should take it in charge than the noble Lord, who was a distinguished Member of the Cabinet which over and over again persistently and consistently opposed the principle upon which it was founded.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that he would not divide the House against the second reading; but as he had moved the recision of Mr. Davey's clause, it was right for him to say that he still thought the disqualification ought to be retained, and that he had heard no argument in favour of the Bill which would induce him to change his opinion. He admitted, at the same time, that, to a considerable extent, the situation had been changed. The matter had been again before the other House of Parliament on more than one occasion, and the decision arrived at by a snap division on the former occasion had been affirmed

  221
  more than once. Therefore, he thought that, as this was a matter which affected the privileges of, or at any rate the mode of electing, Members to the other House of Parliament, that was a fact which ought to have some weight with their Lordships in dealing with this subject. On the other hand, he must say that he deeply regretted the decision which had been come to. He would not say a word on the history of the question, as the whole speech of the noble Earl who spoke last was a history of the Bill, and latterly a justification of the course he had himself pursued. He had nothing to do now with either of those questions; but he noticed that the noble Earl did not say a single word in favour of the principle of the Bill. It was easy to cite cases wherein the existing law might work hardship; but, even taking those individual cases at their worst, they would only disqualify a man for a single year, and he would afterwards regain his independence. Therefore, he did not think those cases supplied any justification for passing the Bill. By this Bill they would be teaching the working classes a lesson of improvidence. They would be teaching them that thrift was not to be valued for its own sake, and that they need not make provision for those accidents of life which were so common. It was unfortunate that a lesson should be taught to them in this way by Parliament. If they were to have medical and surgical relief out of the rates, that would have the effect of enabling them to work for lower wages. It appeared to him that the words in the 4th clause were too wide, and that no check was given on the discretion of the medical officer. He did not think that was a safe thing, and he regretted the extension which was given to the clause. At the same time, he did not think any distinct line could be drawn between brandy supplied as an article of diet to a sick man and bread supplied to him at a later stage in the progress of his recovery. This, however, afforded not an argument in favour of the clause, but rather an argument that the law ought to be left as it stood. On the last occasion he directed their Lordships' attention to the fact that this Bill would have scarcely any effect in Scotland; but he would not dwell upon that point now. In England he believed the effect of it would
  222
  be to place greater difficulties than at present existed in the way of in the way of benefit and provident societies. There was one matter where he thought the present state of the Jaw would have operated to produce a serious hardship. A man might have received relief for the past 12 months without realizing that that disfranchised him under the combined action of the Act passed last year and the clause of the Reform Act of 1832. Consequently there might be a reason for suspending the operation of that disqualification, and he should like to see a clause introduced in Committee limiting the operation of the Bill to a certain period of years. He deemed it desirable not to go further in this evil direction than was absolutely necessary. He would now call the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to one point in regard to the 4th clause. The last words of that clause only exempted people from the present disqualification when they had received medical or surgical assistance at the expense of any poor rate. He believed he was right in saying that this disqualification was first made part of the Statute Law by the 36th section of the Reform Act of 1832, which provided that no one should be entitled to vote who had received parochial relief or other alms. He believed the legal decisions were to the effect that "other alms" would operate to disqualify a man who had received assistance from hospitals and such like charities. If this was so, this Bill would allow a man to vote if he had received medical assistance out of the rates, but not if he had received the same assistance from private charity. This was a point which ought to be considered in Committee. In conclusion, the noble Lord said he would in Committee move an Amendment limiting the operation of the Bill to a certain time, and that he would then state the arguments in favour of his proposal.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown), who had taken charge of this Bill under a deep sense of responsibility, had, as the noble Lord who followed him justly said, not advanced, in the course of a speech of half-an-hour's duration, a single argument in favour of the principle of the Bill, the second reading of which he had moved. He did hear the noble Earl for a long time rather ostentatiously

  223
  bring forward all the authorities who I had ever given an opinion against the principle of the Bill; and, further, he must do him the justice to say that he thought he pointed out a flaw in the Bill which he was supporting. Their Lordships were aware that the two Houses of Parliament unanimously agreed to confer the franchise on a vast number of agricultural labourers, men who for the most part maintained themselves, and with the greatest difficulty found money in case of any epidemic disease, or of any accident happening to them or their families. This difficulty was not experienced in the boroughs, as there people had free hospitals and dispensaries, and a man receiving relief there was not, therefore, disqualified for the vote. It was perfectly different with those whom Parliament had enfranchised. As to the politico-economy objections to this measure, he had the greatest doubt whether political economy had very much to do with this particular matter. This Bill did not in the slightest degree change the duty of the Guardians of the Poor as to the giving of relief according to the merits of the case. He believed that if that argument was pushed too far, it would go against all voluntary and charitable hospitals, and do more harm than good. It had been said that by removing the disqualification they removed also the incentive of the poor man to provide himself with medical assistance. He did not believe it. He believed that a poor man, who was unable to provide medical assistance for himself, would not be much influenced in applying for it gratuitously by any question of forfeiting his franchise. It was really unnecessary for him to argue in favour of the principle of the Bill, for it had been adopted not only by the bulk of the Liberal Party, but by the Government, who had introduced the Bill. The noble Earl who opened the discussion gave a long description of what had passed. Whether it was accurate or not he was not prepared to say; but he was inclined to doubt its perfect accuracy, since the noble Earl had credited him with a vote which he intended giving, but which he never gave, as it happened. He wished, however, to avoid all matters of crimination or recrimination, although, no doubt, very strong opinions had been expressed on the subject. It was difficult to see the
  224
  merits of the position taken up by the Government. A patient was to be allowed a dose of castor oil, but he was to be prevented receiving adjuncts which might be considered necessary for his recovery. If a man had an inflammatory disease, he might be purged and depleted; but if he happened to have a low fever, and required some brandy or port wine, then he was not to have it. Was it intended to maintain that distinction? Again, he objected to giving a medical man the power of disqualifying a voter, although he did not believe such a power would be improperly used. He hoped their Lordships would not reject the Bill; indeed, he appealed with very great confidence to them to read it a second time, and to state what facilities would be afforded to secure its passing in the quickest possible time.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that, as one who had been engaged for 40 years in the administration of the Poor Law, he was opposed to the principle of the Bill. He believed it would discourage the wage-earning class from forming provident sick clubs, and that in other ways it would be productive of mischief. His belief was that but for the near approach of a General Election the Leader of the Opposition would not have competed so pertinaciously with another noble Earl for the honour of moving the second reading of such a Bill as this.
  THE MAROTESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) made a considerable point when he showed that neither the speech of the Mover of the second reading nor of the noble Lord who opposed it contained any lengthened argument in favour of the principle of the Bill or against it. I believe the reason of that is not deficiency of zeal or of ingenuity on the part of my noble Friends, but because the matter, though it had been blown up for Party purposes to an extraordinary size, is not of any great magnitude after all, and does not require much to be said either for or against it. But I think the noble Lord was successful in the main argument of his speech—namely, that the line between medical aid and medical comforts, which are part of the cure, is not easy to draw, and not very easy to maintain, and that it is possible logically very nearly to destroy or make untenable a distinction of that kind. When the

  225
  question was before this House on a former occasion, I felt, as I stated, that it would be very difficult in the popular mind to maintain that distinction, and I do not think that it can be maintained; but what presses on my mind is that we stand on a slope, and that we shall be carried much farther than we expect. I do not see, if we use the kind of logic which the noble Earl used, how we can draw the distinction between outdoor relief and medical relief, between the bread which is necessary for the cure of the sick man, and the bread which prevents him from becoming sick. You will never get a man to understand that there is any essential difference in receiving bread in order that disease, the result of starvation, may not supervene, and receiving bread in order that the disease, which starvation causes, may be cured. There is no logical line that will be ultimately tenable; and, therefore, it seems to me that the course of legislation on which we enter is exposed to the criticism that it is leading us very far, and is disturbing principles which have been accepted for a considerable time. I do not mean to express an opinion as to these principles. I do not at all admit that the maintenance of the disqualification in question is special to the Party to which I belong. That disqualification was imposed by the Act of 1882, which certainly was not a Tory Bill. But there is no doubt that the removal of a disqualification which has existed for 53 years, and has been very wide in its operation, is a very large affair, and I doubt whether it is a fit subject for a moribund Parliament to determine. I do not myself agree with either of two views which have been taken on the subject. On the one hand, we have been told that the fear of losing the vote is a great incentive to thrift, and that a man will avoid seeking relief in order not to lose it. I do not believe that men attach that importance to the vote. That is one of the Parliamentary myths in which we indulge. Nine men out of 10, or 99 men in 100, would not ask themselves before asking for relief—"Shall I by this act deprive myself of the vote?" Still more is that the case with the class of men we are now dealing with, whose necessities are very great. Neither, on the other band, can I admit the relevancy of the argument used in favour of the Bill, that
  226
  it is a great cruelty, because a man who met with an accident would feel that he would deprive himself of his vote if he accepted medical relief. My own opinion is that this feeling would be the smallest of the calamities which would afflict a man under such circumstances, and that as he lay upon his bed of sickness his sufferings would not be in the slightest degree intensified by the idea that he was invalidating his Parliamentary vote. The real question seems to me to be of a totally different order. I look upon this kind of legislation as belonging to the Corrupt Practices family. The motive of the legislators of 1832 was not to punish those who receive relief, or to inculcate the virtue of thrift, but to remove from the register a class of persons necessarily dependent, and whose existence on the register was a stimulus to those who would exercise their privilege to grant relief. Supposing that my anticipations are correct and that the line taken up is untenable, and that if you go down the greased slope a little further and out-door relief altogether ceases to be a disqualification for the vote, what will be the result? Its effect will be that you will have upon the register men who will depend, to a great extent, upon the Boards of Guardians for their subsistence and their comfort, and who will have as strong motives as can be applied to any men, not to displease the Boards of Guardians in the exorcise of their political privilege. I do not stop to notice the argument about the ballot which might be addressed to me. In country parishes concealment of the way a man votes is not very easy. If any one thinks it is, I would refer him to the pages of Sydney Smith. Well, you make a largo number of your voters dependent on the Boards of Guardians; you cannot possibly criticize the motives upon which these men give, or refuse to give, and you make the voter dependent upon them in the exercise of the voting privilege. What follows? The Board of Guardians becomes a political body, and this power which they possess will be a recommendation or an objection to the various candidates who present themselves for election. I cannot say I think that change will be an improvement in the structure and character of our Boards of Guardians. I do not myself wish to express any opinion upon this matter,

  227
  My concern rather is to show that this Bill is much larger than it looks, and the matters with which it deals are much more important than appears on the surface. In view of the prospects of the future, we held that this was not an affair on which we could engage our Ministerial responsibility, because of the magnitude of the questions which might ultimately arise. I do not propose, my Lords, to ask you to stop this Bill, or to object to the Amendment which has been made in it. I have no objection to the immediate operation of the Bill. The idea that these voters will be particularly hostile to the Party to which I belong I do not believe. My impression is they will be rather in our favour. My objection is simply on account of the questions which the Bill may raise. But your Lordships have, I think, generally pursued the policy of not interfering in those questions, which, in a broad sense, I call questions of corrupt practice, with the decisions to which the House of Commons may have come. Of course, your Lordships have a right to interfere, and would if you had good cause to do so; but this is a matter which so affects the House of Commons that, as in the case of the Corrupt Practices Bill three years ago, although objected to that measure, I dissuaded your Lordships from intervention. In the present case, where a great political feeling wholly out of proportion to the importance of the question has been created, it would be unnecessary, and would produce unnecessary friction between the two Houses, if your Lordships rejected the Bill. I have no intention of advising you to do so, and I have expressed my belief that the immediate effects of the Bill will not be injurious; but as to its ultimate effect I must confess I have some little anxiety, and your Lordships must prepare yourselves for the questions which you will undoubtedy have to face in the future.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, the noble Earl who moved the second reading of the Bill (the Earl of Milltown) seemed to address a considerable part of his speech to a justification of his theory that the Bill ought not to be in the hands of a Member of the late Government, because they had declined at the outset to deal with the question on the Registration Bill. The simple history of the matter was this. The Re-
  228
  gistration Bill was a matter of immense importance, and a measure which it was necessary to pass through the House quickly. There was, therefore, not unnaturally an indisposition to have it encumbered with any Amendment which might cause delay, and some who on a different occasion would have thought the Amendment with respect to medical relief well worthy of consideration objected to it in this instance upon the ground which he had stated. That must have been the reason why, in the House of Commons, there was no anxiety in the first instance to introduce this measure. When the Bill came up to their Lordships' House, with the clause about which so much had been said in it, the position of the matter changed; and the Government had not, as a reason for opposing it, that they feared to encumber the Bill with such a proposal. He did his best to prevail upon their Lordships to accept the clause; but he did not succeed in retaining it in the Bill, and the Government did not subsequently desire to imperil the Bill by insisting upon its re-insertion, or to delay it while a contest between the two Houses was proceeding. The late Government allowed the matter to rest; but these facts could not be brought as charges against their consistency. The noble Marquess was alarmed at the possible consequences of the principle now introduced, and he evidently thought it was a somewhat dangerous experiment. He was not at all disposed to impute motives; but it appeared to him that if anybody had that day made a speech against the Bill, it was the noble Marquess himself. This, no doubt, was because he never could state objections without doing so in a more forcible manner than anybody else. The noble Marquess, however, had exercised a very sound judgment in determining not to advise their Lordships to oppose the Bill; but what was very remarkable about the whole controversy, and what he could not understand, was the action of the Government. The noble Marquess had urged against Mr. Davey's clause in the Registration Bill that it was impossible to draw a satisfactory distinction between medicine and medical comforts; and yet when his Colleagues introduced the principle of exempting medicine, and were asked to carry it, to what the noble Marquess had confessed was the

  229
  logical conclusion, the Government declined all further responsibility for the Bill. The true explanation of the matter was to be found in the fact that throughout double motives had been operating. He did not use those words in a bad sense; but while there were doubts about the economy of the matter, there were greater doubts about the political necessity or wisdom of disfranchising the people concerned. The result of the speech of the noble Marquess was—"I do not like the measure, but I think I ought to support it."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was a little astonished to hear the speech of his noble and learned Friend (the Earl of Selborne), since the ambiguity which he had charged against the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) was quite as pronounced on those as on the opposite Benches. In all his public life, he (the Duke of Argyll) had never known a case in which the public speeches and the private conversation of men on both sides so widely differed. He was afraid, however, that this was a characteristic instance of the present condition of politics. It was impossible to separate this measure from its history. His noble Friend on the Front-Opposition Bench said that the disqualification of voters for accepting parochial relief was quite rational when the franchise was high; but that now it was lower, it was unreasonable to exclude from the franchise men of the labouring classes whose income was not sufficient to provide them with medical relief. That was the best argument he had heard in favour of the Bill; but, being the best, what did it come to?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I did not use any such argument.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he had heard the noble Earl distinctly say—"Now when you have lowered the franchise."
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNadmitted that he had used the argument referred to.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that if he were in a Court of Justice he could swear that Earl Granville had used it.
  EARL GEANVILLEsaid, his argument was, that as the receipt of medical relief did not act as a disqualification in burghs and towns, it ought not to disqualify in the ease of agricultural labourers.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, admitting the correction, said, that was a good argument so far as it went; but the tendency, he was afraid, would be to push it further, and the next thing would be that those who received outdoor relief would be entitled to vote. Now, he contended that in such legislation as this there was a serious danger of breaking down the principle of the now Poor Law, which was one of the greatest triumphs that had ever been secured by the Liberal Party, or rather the Whig Party. They were dealing with a delicate question, and there was not only great danger of upsetting that principle, but also of destroying the manliness and self-reliance of the poor, as well as the safety of the country itself. He quite agreed that this was a question upon which the House of Lords ought to give way to the deliberate opinion of the House of Commons; but he was of opinion that their Lordships had not before them the deliberate opinion of the House of Commons—at least, a House in a condition to form and give a deliberate and independent judgment. A little band of men in the House of Commons, numbering 25, voted against the Bill; and looking at their arguments, he saw clearly that, as political arguments, the balance was in their favour. They were gallant and independent men, who, in the face of a political majority composed of both Parties, would not consent to abandon the political convictions of their lives because of the fear of a General Election. It had been stated that the late Government, in opposing Mr. Davey's clause, merely wished to pass the Registration Bill through the House as soon as possible. The noble and learned Lord must know that at that time the opinion of the Government was against the principle of the proposed Amendment. He looked with extreme suspicion upon the fact that the principle of the Poor Law, which was most important to the independence of the poor, was given up by the Leaders of the two Parties merely from political motives, and in the face of a General Election. He could not help thinking that both Parties were mistaken. He was not at all sure that this amendment of the law was as popular as it was supposed to be. The great majority in the constituencies were ratepayers; they had to look to their

  231
  selfish interests; and it was at least possible that they might view with alarm what they might regard as a plan for the increase of outdoor relief through the infringement of the principle of the Poor Law. In Scotland, he believed, it was not legal to give medical relief to those who were not already on the poor rate; and, therefore, in Scotland the Bill would have no operation at all, and the clauses referring to Scotland might as well be left out. He resented it as an injustice that the Leaders of the two Parties should bandy words in trying to prove that one Party or the other was inconsistent, when they knew that the objections to the Bill were general on both sides. He believed that if the House of Commons could have voted by ballot, this Bill would have been thrown out. Both Parties had submitted to what they regarded as a political necessity; but he did not believe that such a necessity existed.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, he heard the arguments of the noble and learned Lord opposite in introducing the Registration Bill, and he was convinced by those arguments to an extent even further than they went. An opinion seemed to prevail that as soon as anyone received relief he ceased to be a voter. There never was a greater delusion; the man remained a voter until he was struck off the list. A man might have been receiving relief for 11 months and still be on the register. If he were, he voted; hence many were brought out of the workhouses to vote, the only question asked of them being whether they were the persons on the register. Therefore, under the present state of the law, they had this anomalous state of things, that a man might have had parochial relief for 11 months out of the 12 preceding the election, and yet keep his vote; while, on the other hand, if a man received a day's relief just before the revision, even although he might have maintained himself for a year, his name was struck off. That was a state of things which was not reasonable, and unless they were prepared to go the length of making it penal for a person who had received relief within the year to vote, he did not see how they could consistently maintain the present state of things. For these reasons, he had never taken the view of the
  232
  question that others had done, and he believed it was a mistake to suppose that the effect of the Bill would be to put many on the register in proportion to the total number of voters. When all those who had been relieved after the registration could vote, why should they disfranchise those who had received relief before the registration? A man who had been convicted as a criminal, if he had served his sentence, could be restored to his position as a voter; and why should the recipient of relief be in a worse position? If a man were out on bail, waiting for judgment it might be for a serious offence, he could vote if his name were on the register. When criminals might vote, it was childish to attempt to stop this Bill because of some apprehension as to what was to follow. If anything followed it would follow justly in view of the facts he had stated; and therefore he hoped the Bill would be passed as an initiative.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he had not voted against the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Balfour) to disqualify on account of medical relief, from respect to the opinion of a noble Duke now absent (the Duke of Richmond), expressed in 1879; but he had spoken against the recent disqualification, as the Franchise Bill enlarged the number of voters and Boards of Guardians, and the Auditor of the Local Government Board could control the action of the medical officers, who only could order such stimulants as were absolutely necessary—with medicine—to cure disease. They could not order bread—the receipt of which pauperized a man—and it was only ordered by the Guardians. He found that there was great disinclination on the part of the poor to apply for medical relief, because it was known that the parish officer was paid by a salary, and a preference was given to medical men, who, he was bound to state, were very moderate in their charges to the sick.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he had voted against this proposal when it was last before their Lordships, and he should certainly do so again if any opportunity were offered by way of an Amendment postponing the second reading of the Bill. He still held to the opinion that the measure was contrary to the interests of those principally affected by it—the poor themselves.

  233
  It was important that every effort should be made to teach them thrift and economy. They ought to be impressed with the belief that there was something not creditable in the receipt of parochial relief in any shape. There was no distinction between the man who received medical relief and the man who received sustenance; neither had made provision for the calamity of sickness, accident, or loss of employment. The cases of the two were identical. If he could disqualify the recipients of alms he would be glad to do it. The labourer could join a club, and the same argument which applied to medicine applied equally to food. The decent working man who wanted medicine or who fell out of work would be trusted by the shopkeeper and receive help in other ways. In this matter there was no real distinction between the rural and the urban labourer. He agreed that this was not strictly a matter of political economy, but that science had to deal with the question of the reasonableness of State relief to poverty and with the safeguards which ought to be provided against the abuse of that relief. He would refer their Lordships to some remarks of the late Professor Jevons, whom none could charge with want of kindness and sympathy for the poorer classes. In his Methods of Social Reform, Mr. Jevons strongly commented on the danger of allowing our working people, who were already too prone to improvidence, to entertain the idea that they might make merry in good times and fall back on the Poor Law in adversity; and he laid down the proposition that no labourer was solvent who did not lay by enough to meet the expenses of the ordinary illnesses which befell himself or any member of his family. The late Mr. Fawcett, too, in his Manual of Political Economy, p. 298, expressed the opinion that the Government in entering so far upon the path of Socialism as ultimately to guarantee subsistence to every citizen was incurring a great responsibility unless adequate safeguards against abuse were provided. He would also commend to their Lordships' earnest attention the letter of Dr. Alfred Carpenter, of Croydon, which appeared in The Times of that day. He believed the matter was really of small importance, and would only affect some two or three votes in the 1,000;
  234
  but he would, nevertheless, vote against the Bill if he had the opportunity. He believed the noble Viscount opposite was perfectly accurate in his law and facts with respect to persons in the workhouses and felons. Of course, the right method was to get such persons off the register. In so far as the Bill operated at all, it would operate to the discouragement of thrift, and on that ground he was opposed to it.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he would venture to suggest to the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown) that, as time was pressing, he should give Notice to move the suspension of the Standing Order which prohibited two stages of a Bill being taken on the same day. There were only two unimportant Amendments, and the Committee stage might be negatived, so that the Bill might be reported without Amendment. These Amendments could then be moved on the third reading. In his opinion, these stages should be taken on Thursday.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that the noble Lord behind him (Lord Balfour) had a new clause to propose, and he himself had to move an Amendment. In these circumstances, he should take the Committee on Thursday; but thought it would be convenient and more in accordance with the usual procedure to move the suspension of the Standing Order on Friday, so that the Report and the third reading might be taken on that day and the Amendments printed, with a view to their Lordships having time to consider them.
  EARL GRANVILLEasked whether the House could not sit on Wednesday? He thought it desirable, with the view of giving the overseers time to make up the lists, that there should be no delay.
  THE MAEQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not believe the overseers would have any difficulty in performing their duty. He was rather inclined to protest against the practice of hustling measures through the House, as there was a very objectionable tendency to hurry Bills through Parliament. In the present case there was no necessity for departing from the usual course, and he thought the proposal of his noble Friend was a reasonable one.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

RIVER THAMES (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 171.)
(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
RIVER THAMES (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 171.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
  VISCOUNT BURYexplained certain alterations which he desired to see introduced into the Bill.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE, explained that the Conservancy would have authority to remove boats that now remained for months opposite to private houses to the annoyance of the residents.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Right of navigation to include anchoring and mooring).
  Amendments made.
  Moved, "To leave out the Clause as amended."—(The Lord Clinton.)
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 7; Not-Contents 6: Majority 1.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Provision for preventing annoyance to riparian owner).
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 37, in lieu of ("seven days") omitted, to insert ("forty-eight hours.")—(The Earl of Abingdon.)
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 4; Not-Contents 17: Majority 13.
  Resolved in the negative.
  Clauses, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 218.)

LAW AND POLICE—THE INTERNATIONAL CLUB.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, seeing that certain members of the Metropolitan Police Force have been committed by the stipendiary magistrate of the Marlborough Street Police Court for trial at the approaching sessions of the Central Criminal Court for unlawfully assaulting certain members of the International Club, and seeing that, owing to want of funds on the part of the prosecutors, the prosecution is likely to fall through, Her Majesty's Government will take such steps as may be necessary to prevent a possible miscarriage of justice? said, the facts of the case were already well known to the public. He had been asked by some working men's clubs to take the matter up, and he did so. The International Club, though it might be a Socialistic body, was, as long as its members obeyed the law, as much entitled to the protection of the law as Brooks's, the Carlton, the Reform, or any other club frequented by the rich. He applied to the Home Secretary to have the police who had been committed for trial by Mr. Newton prosecuted at the public expense, and the Home Secretary informed him that the matter was no longer in his hands, and that there was a Public Prosecutor, whose right it was to determine whether there should be a prosecution, and if so, whether the State should pay the expense of it. He then applied to the Public Prosecutor, and the answer he received from that gentleman seemed somewhat inconsistent with the statement of the Home Secretary. [The noble Earl read the answer, which was to the effect that the Public Prosecutor had received instructions from the Home Office that he was to undertake the prosecution of the summonses taken out by the police, and, should the necessity arise, to defend them.] Now, he made this appeal to the Government on two grounds. One was the confidence which the public had in the police. It was well known how admirably they did their duty, and how seldom one heard of any charge being brought against them. But the public ought to know that there was no divinity which hedged round the policeman if he mis-

  237
  conducted himself. His other ground was the justice of the case. This club stood on the same footing as the Carlton or the Reform, and there should be equal justice for the poor man and the rich.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (Earl BEAUCHAMP)said, his answer would be very simple. The matter was considered by the Home Office very carefully in May last, and the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) then instructed the Public Prosecutor to take up the case on behalf of the police and to defend them. He did not see any discrepancy between the statement of the Secretary of State and the answer given by the Public Prosecutor, who very naturally was reluctant to do something which would have the effect of reversing the action he was instructed to take in May last. The noble Earl put his appeal on the ground of equal justice. Put their Lordships would be very much surprised if the police made a foray upon the Carlton or the Reform, that the Secretary of State should be called upon to prosecute them at the public expense, on the ground of equal justice to rich and poor. They were told that the members of the International Club were poor men. As individuals, no doubt, they might be poor; but when they were considered in the aggregate there could not be any serious difficulty in their procuring funds for conducting the prosecution. Therefore, he did not think that the allegation of injustice was borne out by the facts of the case. The matter had been considered by the late Secretary of State, and it had also been carefully considered by the present authorities at the Home Office, and they had not been able to satisfy themselves that there was any reason why they should adopt the unusual course of undertaking the defence of the police on the one hand, or, on the other hand, of paying the expenses of this prosecution. The circumstances must be most exceptional and unusual to justify a course like that, and the Secretary of State did not feel himself called upon to adopt the very unusual course suggested by the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that the case was now different from what it was in May, as the police had been committed for trial.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past four o'clock.