Rashleigh, W. an hon. Member, like the hon. Member for | Perfect, R. SIR G. GREY had yesterday explained the grounds upon which he objected to the Bill previously introduced by the hon. Member for Birmingham with reference to this subject, and the hon. Gentleman acquiesced in the justice of his objections. He had stated, however, that he was prepared to agree to a Bill limited to one object, which, he believed, this Bill was intended to effect. He did not think that there would be any difficulty in accomplishing that object; the existing law was, as he had before stated, defective in some points; and he hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Montrose would not persevere in his opposition. MR. HUME was not present when the discussion on this subject took place yesterday; but he could be no party to the concern, and he felt it his duty to divide the House. The House divided:- Ayes 57; Noes 11: Majority 46. List of the AYES. Bowring, Dr. Tufnell, H. Ward, H. G. Wodehouse, E. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C. TELLERS. Spooner, R. List of the NOES. Leave given. Talbot, C. R. M. TELLERS. Hume, J. Berkeley, hon. C. REGISTRATION OF MEDICAL PRACTI- MR. WAKLEY rose to move "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Registration of legally qualified Practitioners in Medicine and Surgery; and into the Laws and Charters relating to the practice of Medicine and Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland; and to report the Evidence, with their opinion thereon, to the House." At that late hour he would not detain the House by entering into the subject beyond stating that the qualified members of the profession were desirous that a law should be passed which might enable them to be distinguished from quacks and imposters. There were at present so many laws in existence with reference to the profession, and so many powers were exercised by the various colleges, that it was most desirable that a law should be enacted for the purpose of registering duly qualified medical practitioners; but the subject was involved in so many difficulties, that it had not been found possible to lay down any rule or plan which should govern the House with reference to any enactment. It had, however, been suggested-and he believed the suggestion met the concurrence of Her Majesty's Ministers-that the governing Hobhouse rt. hon. Sir J. bodies connected with the profession should Hudson, G. be brought together before a Committee of that House; that they should have an opportunity of expressing their views, and of stating their objections to the plan of registration which had been proposed; and it was exceedingly desirable, both for the profession and for the public, that some measure, founded upon the information obtained by the Committee, should be adopted. He believed that the inquiry would occupy but a very short time; for the corporations and the medical practitioners Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Hawes, B. Heathcoat, J. Hill, Lord M. Hughes, W. B. Newry, Visct. Packe, C. W. generally had already formed their opin- | brought in the Bill the fullest credit for ions on the subject: they would merely humane and disinterested motives; but he have to state those opinions before the was convinced that if the Bill were kept Committee; and he hoped that, as the re- hanging over the trade, it would have a sult of the opinions thus expressed, some most prejudicial effect upon the interests well-devised measure might be adopted of the operatives. He hoped, therefore, which would be satisfactory alike to the that the hon. Gentleman would consent to profession and the public. The hon. Mem- abandon the measure. ber concluded by making his Motion. SIR G. GREY observed, that, although he did not think the objections which had been urged against many parts of the Bill of the hon. Member for Finsbury ought to prevail, he was convinced, if that measure had been pressed, satisfactory legislation on the subject during the present Session would have been hopeless. He considered that the hon. Gentleman was taking the more judicious course in asking for the appointment of a Committee, before whom the various conflicting opinions which existed on this question might be expressed; and he believed that such an inquiry would tend to lead to satisfactory results. He was willing to accede to the Motion, on the understanding that the hon. Member for Finsbury would not proceed with his Bill until after the Committee had made their report. Motion agreed to. HOSIERY MANUFACTURE BILL. On the Order of the Day being read for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, SIR H. HALFORD stated, that he would not press the Bill at that late hour of the evening (12 o'clock); but he thought the House would agree with him that a full consideration of the subject to which it referred could not be evaded. MR. W. ELLIS observed, that this Bill had occasioned great excitement in the counties of Leicester and Nottingham, where the price of food was very high, and trade was in a most depressed condition. If the House should determine to send the Bill before a Committee, its adoption or rejection would probably not be decided upon until the meeting of a new Parliament, and the manufacturers would, in the meantime, be kept in a state of suspense. He considered that this was a most unfortunate time for the proposal of such a measure, when there was great probability that the hosiery trade in this country might be still further depressed by the introduction of foreign manufactures. He gave the hon. Gentleman who had SIR J. C. HOBHOUSE concurred in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. W. Ellis). He had received a petition signed by all the master hosiers of Nottingham against this Bill; and the more he had looked into the subject, the more he was convinced that the mode of legislation proposed by the hon. Member for Leicester would involve him in difficulties of which he had little idea, and would be injurious to the very parties whom he intended to benefit. He would mention one fact of importance. There were 40,000 frames employed in this trade in the three counties, 10,000 of which were independent frames; and the immediate effect of the operation of the Bill would be to confiscate the whole of the latter, as well as the property embarked in them. There was one parish about three miles from the town of Nottingham, in which there were 1,700 of these frames; and there was not a single person connected with those frames who would not be utterly destitute to-morrow if the Bill passed. He had spoken to several parties, who were inclined to allow the hon. Gentleman to go into Committee with his Bill, though they were not disposed to support a single clause of it in Committee; all they wished being inquiry. thought that there was a sort of case made out as to the distress of these operatives, and they wished to see any way in which that distress could possibly be alleviated. But the Bill of the hon. Gentleman was really a Bill to raise wages by Act of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman himself would confess that. They SIR H. HALFORD: No; its object is to prevent them from being unfairly lowered. SIR J. HOBHOUSE: Did not that amount to the same thing? The Bill was, in reality, a Bill to raise wages, and that was a principle which was not supported in these days. MR. PACKE was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have entered into any argument on this Bill, when it was postponed to a future day. He did not think that the Bill would be injurious to the operatives, which was framed in ac cordance with the report of the Commissioner appointed in 1844. MR. T. DUNCOMBE said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Hobhouse) might have presented petitions against the Bill from the manufacturers of Nottingham, and perhaps from Leicester also. He had likewise presented petitions signed by several thousands of operatives, who had great reason to complain of those very hosiery manufacturers, in whose behalf the right hon. Gentleman had presented petitions. This was a question, the discussion of which could not be avoided, though it might be very convenient to endeavour to get rid of it by throwing the Bill over till another Parliament. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would go on with his Bill, and that it would be submitted to a Committee up stairs. He did approve of all the provisions of the Bill; but the details were subjects for consideration in Committee, and he would be ready to prove, when the discussion came on, that the labour and wages of the working classes were confiscated, and that they were subject to gross There not being forty Members present, the House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, May 14, 1847. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS-1a Service of Heirs (Scotland); Poor Relief Supervision (Ireland); County Buildings; Poor Removal (England and Scotland). PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Liverpool, complaining of the Vast Influx of Irish Paupers into that Town.-From Leeds and several other places, in favour of the Factories Bill. From the Parish of Burt, in Ireland, against any Clause being inserted in the Irish Poor Relief Bill which would throw the Responsibility of Supporting the Poor on the Occupying Tenant.-From Tiverton, for Amendment of the Law of Settlement.-From the Ipswich Auxiliary Anti-Slavery Society, against the present Method of hiring Labourers for the Colonies, as tending to perpetuate a Modified System of Slavery.-From Wrangford, for the Repeal of the Poor Removal Act.- From Congregation of the Episcopal Chapel, Charlotte Street, Pimlico, for the Repeal of the Roman Catholic Relief Act. From Guardians of the North Dublin Union, praying that the Assessments for the Relief of the Poor may be charged on the Unions at large.-From Sheffield, for the Enactment of Sanitory Regulations. POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL. Order of the Day for receiving the Re robbery. He believed that it was impos-port of the Amendments read. sible that their condition could be worse The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE said, than it was at present, and he was informed that 500 of the framework-knitters were now in the workhouse at Hinckley. There was not a more ill-used class than the framework-knitters in the three counties. he had to state to their Lordships, that when they had in Committee on this Bill, after considerable deliberation, determined upon the general expediency of fixing a limit to the duration of the Bill, to effect which alterations were to be adopted in Adjourned debate farther adjourned till various parts of the Bill, as should be sugthe 9th of June. gested by the mover, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had declared, in order that he might not take the House by surprise, that he reserved to himself the power of taking any course he might think proper on a subsequent stage of the Bill. Their Lordships having now come to the proper stage, it was his duty to state to them, that, retaining the opinion he had expressed in the Committee, he must now propose to strike out of the Bill all expressions which were intended to fix a limit to the Bill and to give it a temporary character. In making this proposal, it was not necessary for him to enter into any detail of the arguments which had been deduced in favour of the one course or the other. The arguments, indeed, on either side, would be found to It was allie in a very narrow compass. leged by noble Lords who were desirous of fixing a limit to the Bill, that it was a new measure, and that it was in a great degree experimental. He concurred in all those opinions; but he had stated in the Committee, and he repeated now, that, while disagree to the Amendment made by the Committee inserting the words "during a time to be hereinafter limited." LORD BROUGHAM said, that he retained the opinion he had formerly expressed in favour of making this measure not permanent, but temporary; and he must say, with the greatest possible respect for the noble Marquess, if he had not heard him say that he was about to move the omission of the words in the clause, he protested he should have thought his noble Friend had been arguing in favour of the course the Committee had taken. The Amendment was to limit the time when they would exercise their discretion; but it did not follow that they would at the end of the period fixed so exercise it, because in the meantime it might be found expedient to protract the period for some years longer. The noble Marquess ad experiment, which was full of hazard, and one encompassed about with peril. Now, when it was admitted to be an experiment hazardous and perilous in its nature, could there be any objection to their Lordships he admitted the experimental character of anything so new and so difficult, still he objected to any fixing of a limit which Iwould bind the discretion of Government and of the Parliament as to the precise period when the question should be reconsidered. For these very reasons, because he did consider the importance of the Bill -because they were not able to appreciate exactly the difficulties which they might have to encounter - because of the length of time which might be required to consider those difficulties; he had to state to their Lordships, if they meant to give a fair trial to this measure-if they did not wish to overturn it, or to invite opposition and difficulties they would reserve to themselves the power of reconsidering the Bill at any time, and at any period, with the view of effecting any improvement in its composition which might suggest itself. He thought that, consistently with reserv-mitted that they were going to make an ing to themselves that full power, it was impossible not to see the inconvenience of compelling, at a particular and fixed period, the reconsideration. When he saw among noble Lords who were anxious to fix the period, that they were very long be-binding themselves, in the face of the fore they could agree among themselves as to the exact period to be determined on when he saw that some wished for a year, some a year and a half, some three years, and that some preferred five years, he saw in these various opinions full proof that it could not be confidently anticipated when the reconsideration ought to take place, and that the time fixed might be the very period when it was most desirable not to enter upon the subject. If the Bill were to be brought into action in Ireland with any prospect of success, it must be in the confident expectation that, in principle at least, it was to be a permanent measure; otherwise they would see a disposition openly to resist it, or, if not to resist, at any rate to thwart it, and to render it ineffective. If the Bill were to operate as their Lordships intended, and as the House of Commons meant when they passed it, it must be as a permanent measure, subject to revision, as all such measures were; but they ought to give it a fair chance - it ought to have a fair trial; and the Legislature ought to choose the time for its reconsideration. Upon these grounds, without going further into the arguments, he would move that their Lordships disagree to the Amendments giving a temporary character to the measure. The noble Marquess then moved, in the 1st Clause, to country, to reconsider it, at all events, within a certain period? And for what? To ascertain whether the trial fortified the conclusions of some in favour of the measure, or impeached the strength of the reasons of others against the measure. Could any man's imagination picture anything more proper? By making the Bill temporary, it would be imperative on their Lordships to reconsider it. But then he was told that it was not giving the measure fair play. He was unable to understand that favourite phrase as applied to a measure of this description. If it were enacted for two years, it would be law for that time; and if it were found capable of being executed for twenty years, no doubt it would continue law for twenty years; but he did not believe it could be executed for twenty months; others thought, not at all. Could there be any objection to its being limited in duration, that it might be known whether it was capable of being executed or no? The Poor Law of 1834 was temporary as to the appointment of the Commissioners; and did any one then charge the promoters of that clause with a want of fair play? The noble Marquess had said, that giving this measure a limited duration would make the people of Ireland indifferent to its being properly carried into effect; his (Lord Brougham's) opinion, on the contrary, was, that the Irish were much more likely to acquiesce in and put up with the difficulties of the law, when they knew there was to be a limit to its duration. permanent, while by other clauses out-door LORD CAMPBELL observed, that if this had been the Amendment which the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Wicklow) had given notice of moving-that the whole Bill should be in force for three or five years and no longer, whether right or wrong, it would have been a perfectly regular and Parliamentary course; but what was the Amendment of his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle)? He, in the same Bill, enacted that one clause should be perpetual, and another temporary. Their Lordships would be astonished when he pointed out a few of the incongruities and absurdities which would result from such an Amendment. The material enactment of this Bill was for extending the provisions of the original Poor Law in Ireland. Clause 1 enabled the guardians to grant relief to the lame and impotent out of the workhouse; Clause 2 gave power to the guardians (under the authority of the Com- LORD MONTEAGLE hoped their Lordmissioners) to grant relief, for a term not ships would, in fairness, allow him to exexceeding two months, out of the work- plain the nature of the Amendment which house, even to the able-bodied; then an- he had proposed, and the intention with other Clause allowed the relieving officer which he proposed it. In the first place, to give provisional relief before the guar- however, he would set his noble Friend dians had been consulted; and there was a right with respect to a matter of fact. His fourth Clause, allowing medical relief and noble Friend made a mistake when he medicine to be given out of the workhouse. stated that medical out-door relief was, by These were the four extensions of the ori- the Amendment, made temporary. The ginal Irish Relief Bill, and these four fact was not so. That relief was made modes of relief were by separate clauses permanent by the Bill, and he (Lord Montmade temporary; but how did the rest of eagle) left it so; and his reason was this the Bill, the permanent clauses, corre--he had always drawn a broad line of spond with these temporary enactments? distinction between that relief which could Clauses 1 and 2 were both made temporary; be given, not only consistently with charibut Clause 3 was a permanent clause, which enacted that the Poor Law Commissioners should from time to time, as they thought fit, determine the manner in which applications should be made for all relief to be given under the Act, and also the manner in which inquiry should be made into the circumstances of the applicants, and the kind of relief which should be afforded out of the workhouse. LORD STANLEY: Under this Act. LORD CAMPBELL: Out of the workhouse! This clause was universal, and the words were, "out of the workhouse." What miserable, piebald legislation was this! The Commissioners' power to prescribe the manner in which out-door relief was to be given, was by this clause made table feeling, but with sound principle and wisdom; a relief which did not tend to increase the evil, but to diminish it. He had always distinguished that description of relief from that relief to the able-bodied, which, in his opinion, aggravated rather than alleviated the condition of the people. The Act provided, that during the period of three years out-door relief should be given, under the instructions of the Commissioners; and the clause providing for this was supposed to be inconsistent with the clause to which the noble and learned Lord referred. But that clause only provided, that during the time out-door relief was to be given, the Poor Law Commissicners should have the power of controlling and carrying it into effect. This was |