mous upon this measure as they were upon the last question before the House. He did not see why, if race-meetings should be suppressed near London, they should not be suppressed everywhere. He was opposed to the Bill, which had been got up by a few Sabbatarians and bucolic magistrates. Question put. The House divided :-Ayes 102; Noes 53: Majority 49.-(Div. List, No. 5.) Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next. SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT (1875) (Mr. Anderson, Mr. P. A. Taylor, Mr. SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Anderson.) MR. SCLATER-BOOTH said, there was a clause in the Bill which he could not agree to at present. MR. ANDERSON hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and then referred to a Select Committee. Motion agreed to. trary to the usual rule. He trusted some little time would be given to hon. Members to consider what Amendments they should propose. It would also be necessary to have time to put the Amendments on the Paper. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." -(Earl Percy.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER appealed to the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone not to proIceed with the Bill at that late hour. SIR JOHN LUBBOCK agreed that it would be unreasonable to ask the House to discuss anything on which there was a difference of opinion at that hour. If the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee he would not take anything which was disputed. LORD FRANCIS HERVEY reminded the hon. Baronet of the good fortune which he had met with in the progress of the Bill during the present Session; and he hoped that, under the circumstances, he would be satisfied with the success that had already attended him. MR. DILLWYN thought the hon. on at the present time, having regard Member was right in pressing the Bill to the difficulties which private Members experienced in the conduct of their Bills. MR. BERESFORD HOPE must remind the House that this was no new Bill read a second time, and committed Bill, but one with which it was well to a Select Committee. ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL.-[BILL 52.] (Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Osborne Morgan, Sir Richard Wallace.) COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."-(Sir John Lubbock.) EARL PERCY said, that it could not surely be the intention of the hon. Baronet who introduced this Bill to ask the House to go into Committee upon it at that late hour. The second reading of the Bill was taken on the 17th December-the very last day that the House sat and it had been put on the Paper on the present occasion con acquainted. His hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone asked that the Bill should be allowed to go into Committee, and not that the Amendments might be considered that night. As there was nothing in the general scope of the Bill which was not well known to those opposing it, he thought the request reasonable e; and he was sure his hon. Friend did not propose to go further, after getting into Committee. MR. RAIKES observed, that the Amendments by the Secretary to the Treasury opened a very large question. He must also point out to the House that the Amendments which had been brought forward then might very well have been put down in December, when there would not have been the reason now urged for the postponement of the Bill. The hon. Baronet could not com EARL PERCY hoped the hon. Baronet would not press the matter on at that time, considering that the second reading had been passed by a mistake, and that there had been no discussion. He thought that he should be content with the progress already made. plain of that reason for postponement being offered. It was rather unreasonable, it appeared to him, that the Bill, which had undergone important changes, should be pushed forward in this way. He thought that those who had already shown the hon. Baronet a good deal of consideration might fairly ask him to give them some consideration in return, and consent to the postponement of the Committee. MR. MONK, on behalf of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone, stated that he merely wished now to be allowed to take the Bill formally into Committee, and that he would at once postpone the further consideration of it. Under these circumstances, he thought that the House would only be acting fairly towards his hon. Friend, whose Bill had been read a second time on four previous occasions, by allowing it to go into Committee. MR. MACARTNEY said, that the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) had reminded them that the Bill was one which was well known to the House; but it should not be forgotten that they had also been informed that the hon. Member for Maidstone had made very great alterations in it, which practically made it a new Bill. What the nature of the Amendments was the House did not know; they were only aware that certain alterations had been effected, and that certain arrangements had taken place between the hon. Baronet and the Government. Was it fair, under these circumstances, to ask the House to go into Committee at that time? MR. HEYGATE, in seconding the Motion, said, that he only did so because of the lateness of the hour; but he hoped the measure would be passed into law in good time. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.". (Mr. Onslow.) SIR JOHN LUBBOCK said, that if go into the House would consent to Committee, then he would be perfectly willing to carry out his undertaking. by the noble Lord he regretted it, and If there had been any misapprehension if the noble Lord wished to put down any Amendments, he should be glad to give him every opportunity of doing so. MR. ONSLOW said, he would withdraw his Motion after what had fallen His object from the hon. Baronet. was only to obtain that explanation. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Original Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee. Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday next. DISQUALIFICATION BY MEDICAL RELIEF BILL-[BILL 22.] W. Dilke, Mr. Ritchie.) THIRD READING. SIR JOHN LUBBOCK stated that (Mr. Rathbone, Sir John Kennaway, Sir Charles he had not introduced Amendments, but that they had been suggested, and that he had consented to adopt them, and they appeared in the Bill as it was printed. He did not desire to enter into debate at that hour; but, as his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committees knew, he would have little chance of going on unless he pressed the Bill then. Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 33; Noes 81 Majority 48.-(Div. List, No. 6.) Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." Order for Third Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."-(Mr. Rathbone.) MR. PELL objected to the provisions of the Bill. It might be asked why he did not oppose the Bill in an earlier stage? His reason for not doing so was his unwillingness to appear in the light of obstructing the Bill during It ought to have the whole Session. been opposed by the Government, for he would ask, what was the use of a MR. ONSLOW moved the adjourn-Government if it permitted so misment of the House. chievous a Bill as this to arrive at the 1 Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now read the third time,' in order to add the word "re-committed," (Mr. Pell,)-instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words now read the third time' stand part of the Question." stage which this had reached? This as an Amendment, that the Bill be reBill was mischievous, inasmuch as it committed. removed from one class of persons a disqualification which everyone underwent who permitted himself to become a pauper. The general idea was that the unhappy persons who were suffering from infectious diseases were thrust into asylums. As a member of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, his experience was that, so far from that being the case, they were embarrassed by the eagerness of persons who were only too ready, instead of isolating their children and keeping them at their own cost, to avail themselves of the accommodation provided for paupers. He would relate his own experience in other ways. A few years ago inquiry was formally made among the small-pox patients in the Metropolitan Asylums District Hospital at Hampstead. Certain questions were put. Amongst them were these "What is your profession or calling?" Have you ever, in your life, applied for relief?" Only 11 per cent of the persons seeking admission had ever applied for relief-that was, 11 per cent only of the inmates belonged to the class for whom the asylums were built. And there was something more than that. A number of the patients did not consist of artizans or ordinary labourers, and such as would naturally be expected to be found in the class of paupers; but included, he thought, a commercial traveller, clerks, and a number of domestic servants. Now, this hospital was for the use of paupers only. Why should persons be exonerated from the duty of having their servants properly isolated and treated at their own or the servants' cost? This was one of the not infrequent attempts during the last year or two to nibble away the fringe of the Poor Law of 1834. They should be very jealous of any attempt at reform or amendment of that code of laws. The Bill spoke of persons who were receiving medical relief as in-patients in dispensaries. He had never heard of dispensaries giving medical relief to in-patients. Before sitting down, he must again express his regret that his right hon. Friend who had charge of these matters had not thought it right to oppose this Bill. He did seriously ask him, in the performance of his duty, not to allow such a Bill as this to pass. He begged to move, SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire had given his experience in connection with a Metropolitan Board. On Tuesday last, at a meeting of one of the Boards in London, of which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was a member, the medical officer reported 17 cases of small-pox which had occurred in a single parish, and that not a large one, in the Metropolis. The outbreak was traced conclusively in 14 cases, and was suspected to have arisen in the remainder from one single case. It was noticeable, also, that all the cases occurred within a period of five days. The medical officer concluded his Report by strongly advocating the principle of this Bill; and he believed that the whole of the medical officers in the Metropolis were likewise in favour of the measure, which had, in fact, been introduced at their instigation and by their wish. The hon. Member had treated this matter entirely as one relating to the Poor Law, and had left out of sight the scientific aspect of the question. Viewed as a matter of public health an entirely different light was thrown on the question; and he, for one, would not have allowed his name to be placed on the back of the Bill unless he was satisfied that the medical officers thought its provisions would be a great gain to the public health of the Metropolis. The hon. Member was also incorrect in stating that the Bill contained an allusion to in-patients in dispensaries; there was nothing of that kind in the Bill. MR. PELL referred to the passage in which the words were found. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE admitted they might have occurred in the connection pointed out; but certainly the hon. Member had not conveyed to his mind the idea that he was going to introduce any Amendment touching the principle of this Bill. If he only wished to re-commit the Bill with a view to alter ing its phraseology, there could have been no possible objection to that course. As to the principle of the Bill, he would maintain that it did not in the least infringe the spirit of the Poor Law. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was the first to raise any question on the point; but he thought that it had been shown that the Bill was no infringement of the Poor Law. MR. SCLATER-BOOTH could not support the Bill as it stood. It was laid down by the Bill that the receipt of medical relief out of the rates was no longer to be an electoral disqualification. That was an objectionable proposal. In Ireland the Poor Law contained a provision to the effect that if a person who had received medical relief afterwards repaid the cost of it he should cease to be disqualified, and that seemed a proper principle. Some confusion existed in the minds of the promoters of the Bill between medical relief under the Poor Law and medical attendance under the Public Health Act. The Bill provided that a person was not to be disfranchised by receiving medical relief at the hands of a sanitary authority; but, in truth, there was no such condition of disfranchisement, and the Bill in that respect pretended to deal with what did not exist. It was well known that hospitals set up by the sanitary authority under the Public Health Act pauperized no one. This and other objections constituted, he thought, sufficient grounds for his refusal to accept the Bill in its present shape. MR. RATHBONE said, that when the Bill was before the House on a previous occasion it had been discussed fairly and fully. The House was so much in favour of it that the Government, very wisely, did not push their opposition. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had told them that a man was not allowed to vote who had received relief out of the rates in the hospital built by the guardians; but that there was no objection to his doing so if the hospital was paid for out of the sanitary rate. The meaning of that was that the great expense which had been incurred in building hospitals for smallpox and fever under the guardians of the poor would have to be doubled to provide another set of hospitals for a sanitary authority. In his opinion, the ratepayers would thereby be placed under very great additional burdens. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had said that people were crowding into the hospitals. As a guardian he (Mr. Rathbone) had taken an active part in these matters, in what he believed was one of the largest parishes in England. They had many cases of small-pox and fever, but were so far from finding people ready and willing to crowd into the hospitals, that it was with the greatest difficulty they could be got into them when it was absolutely essential for the benefit of the crowded districts in which they lived that they should be isolated. He had never known an instance of a person seeking to go into these hospitals without being pressed. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire had also informed them that there were a great mass of domestic servants entering the hospitals. To that he would answer that the Bill did not touch them as they had no votes. Under the present system people were made to pay for these hospitals, and were afterwards compelled to go into them; and it was not right that they should be made paupers because they had been compelled to enter the hospitals. DR. BRADY remarked that the object of the Poor Law regulations with regard to infectious diseases was to prevent the spread of contagion. A man might be taken into one of the leading hospitals suffering from disease, and he might come out of that institution perfectly well; but if he did not pay for the assistance he had received he was disfranchised, and precluded from giving a vote at any Election. He did not think that that was right or just. The clause of the Act had only this one effect-to deprive a man of a privilege he ought to enjoy, because by accident he had happened to get into the power of a Poor Law medical officer. He hoped this Bill would pass, and that they would have no more restrictions put upon people in such circumstances. Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 65; Noes 40: Majority 25.-(Div. List, No. 7.) Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read the third time, and passed, with an amended Title, Committee of Selection nominated :- Mr. FLOYER, Mr. THOMSON HANKEY, Sir GRAHAM EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO MONTGOMERY. The O'CONOR DON, Mr. WHITBREAD, and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders. INCLOSURES. Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed, Six Members to be nominated by the House and Five by the Committee of Selection, to consider every Report made by the Inclosure Commissioners certifying the expediency of any Provisional Order for the inclosure or regulation of a Common, and presented to the House during the present Session, before a Bill be brought in for the confirmation of such Order :-That it be an Instruction to the Committee, That they have power with respect to each such Provisional Order to inquire and report to the House whether the same should be confirmed by Parliament, and, if so, whether with or without modification; and in the event of their being of opinion that the same should not be confirmed, except subject to modifications, to report such modifications accordingly with a view to such Provisional Order being remitted to the Inclosure Commissioners.-(Sir Matthew Ridley.) ELECTION PETITIONS (COSTS) BILL. On Motion of Major NOLAN, Bill to limit the amount of the Costs recoverable in Election Petitions, ordered to be brought in by Major NOLAN, Mr. GRAY, Mr. MACDONALD, and Mr. PATRICK MARTIN. SERVANTS BILL. On Motion of Mr. BRASSEY, Bill to extend and regulate the Liability of Employers to make compensation for personal Injuries suffered by persons in their service, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BRASSEY, Mr. MORLEY, Mr. M. BASS, and Mr. SULLIVAN. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 75.] SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL. On Motion of Mr. Secretary CROSS, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Summary Jurisdiction of Magistrates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CROSS, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, and Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 69.] PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES BILL. On Motion of Mr. Secretary CROSS, Bill for more effectually providing for the Prosecution of Offences in England; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CROSS, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, and Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 68.] CORONERS BILL. On Motion of Mr. Secretary CROSS, Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 72.] Coroners, ordered to be brought in by Mr. VALUATION OF PROPERTY BILL. On Motion of Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to the Valuation of Property for the purposes of Rates and Taxes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the ExCHEQUER, and Mr. SALT. Secretary CROSS, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL. On Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the ExCHEQUER, Bill to amend the Acts relating to the Public Works Loan Commissioners and the Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 71.] Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, BANKING LAWS AMENDMENT BILL. Considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relating to Banking. VOL. CCXLIII. [THIRD SERIES.] ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Sir HENRY SELWINIBBETSON. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 70.] 2 T House adjourned at Three o'clock till Monday next. |