The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-23 00:00:00

TRAMWAYS BILL.

o'clock.

On the motion of Mr. C. FORSTER power was given i J
Ole Committee on the Glasgow Street Tramways Bill,
and the Glasgow Tramways Bill, if they thought fit, to
nisolidate the said bills into one.
THE ,:DUCATION BILL.
Mr. HORSMAN gave notice that in the event cl tie.
0,1 chard's amendment on the Education Bill being put as

a substantive resolution, he should move to add that in
'cool buildings, consisting of two rooms, one should be
used for secular, and the other for religious instruction
to be given by a teacher or minister of the denomination
t which the parents belong, one day in each week.
KENSINGTON-ROAD IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Viscount MILTON asked the First Commissioner of
\Vorks if he intended to bring forward his motion for a
Select Committee on the Kensington-road Improvement
Bill during the present session, and, if so, when he would

bring his motion before the House.
Mr. AYRTON lamented the course which had• been
adopted in reference to the Bill. The Government had
wish to force the measure through as a Parliamentary
.11, and therefore it was intended to bring it forward at
a future time, when he felt convinced hon. members would
be better informed on the question.
MEDICAL OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION
BILL.

Dr. BRADY, in a remarkably thin House, moved the
second reading of this bill, the object of which was to pro-
cide a superannuation allowance for the class of medical
officers to which it referred. The present system, said the
hon. gentleman, of medical poor-relief was introduced into
the country in 1834, and it was generally admitted that it
was a great improvement ; but it had failed, because the
guardians had studied economy instead of efficiency. He
claimed the support of the House on the ground of justice
and economy.
Dr. DALRYMPLE seconded the motion. He said he did
not appeal to the House to take a charitable view of the
case, but he contended that as a matter of justice greater
consideration should be shewn to the Poor-law medical
officers, and that they should be placed on a more equal
footing with other officers. The profession to which he
belonged had not been celebrated for " hanging together,"
and had consequently received more kicks than ha'pence.
If they had had that esprit de corps which characterised
other professions, he was satisfied that not only would
their own position have been greatly improved, but the
condition of the public at large would have experienced an
improvement.
Mr. JOSHUA FIELDER moved that the Bill be read that
day six months. He thought that it was neither wise
national nor wise parochial policy, to teach persons to
rely upon the government or the local rates for that provi-
sion in old age which they themselves ought to make. He
feared that in a money point of view, the medical officers
would not be bettered because the guardians, in considera-
tion of the superannuation allowance, would ask them to
accept reduced salaries. They would also be injured by
becoming more the tools of the guardians and of the Poor-
law Board than they were at present.
Mr. MELLOR seconded the amendment.
- -

Mr. GOSCHEN said the matter was simply a question of
contract—whether the medical officers would accept an
appointment with a superannuation and a lower salary, or
a higher salary without a superannuation allowance. He
did not think that, as a matter of justico, it could be
demanded; but, looking at the subject from the point of
view of expediency, and of the interest of the ratepayers,
and the poor, he came to a different conclusion. On the
part of the Government, he should support the bill, be-
cause it was permissive in its application. It was only
when the boards of guardians desired to grant the allow-
ance, with the consent of the Poor Law Board, that it
would take effect.
Mr. HENLEY opposed the measure because it intro-
duced the principle of superannuating persons who were
only partly employed.
Dr. LYON PLAYFAIR supported the bill, and
denied that it was the first time they had recognized
the principle of granting superannuation allowances
for part services—in the case of the Poor Law medical
officer their salaries were so miserably low that it was
impossible they could save anything. Replying to the
argument that the office was an introduction to practise,
the hon. member asserted that Poor-law practice pre-
vented a medical officer obtaining family practice. He
believed that the bill would strike at the root of what
produced preventible diseases, whilst it would diminish
the burdens of the ratepayers.
Mr. WHEELHOUSE and Mr. BRODRICK supported the
Bill.
Mr. RYLANDS said they were asked to interfere with the
law of supply and demand. He believed that the
cause of the small remuneration the medical officers
received was that there were too many in the profession.
He pointed out that they were not bound to legislate
simply under the organs of benevolence or with the view
of mel.'ng things pleasant. He did not see where they
could ,lraw the line.
Mr. GORDON strongly supported the bill in the interests
of the poor and the ratepayers, and remarked that unless
the guardians secured the best medical skill they could
the ratepayers would suffer. The hon. member for War-
rington wanted to apply the doctrine of political economy
to the question, but in his opinion such doctrines during
the present session had been considerably shaken. The
Irish Land Bill was in direct violation of the principlrs
of political economy. He thought the medical officers
were entitled to the greatest consideration, having in view
the great risks they underwent.
Mr. MuNTz thought the salaries of tho medical officers
would be reduced £lO per annum, consequent upon the
superannuation.
Colonel Corbett, Mr. Beach, Mr. Maguire, and Mr. A.
Peel spoke in favour of the bill.
The House went to a division on the proposition that
" the question be now put."
The voting was,
Ayes I3D
Noes 2B

Majority
The bill was then read a second time.
CAPITAL SENTENCES (COURT OF APPEAL)

BILL.

Sir G. JENKINSON moved the second reading of this bill,
and at some length explained its provisions. The subject
had previously been before the House ; and a bill was
introduced ten years ago. The measure on that occasion,
however, was for the general appeal upon all crimina
cases, whilst his bill was limited to appeal in capital cases
and under certain conditions.

The motion having been seconded,
Mr. J. D. LEWIS moved that the bill be read that day
three months. In tho course of his remarks he said it
was a one-sided bill. There was no appeal on behalf of
the Crown, which really meant the public. He contended
that a measure of that character ought to be dealt with by
the Government, anp not by a private member.
Mr. BRISCOE opposed the measure, because it proposed
a tribunal from which he utteriy dissented.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that there had been many
attempts to solve the difficulty without success, and it
appeared to him that the present bill seemed to have
far less chance of success than any which had prim ded it
The object of the bill was to prevent the chance of some
persons being improperly executed, but he must say that
during the whole of this century there had not been one
C,7,se of a man being executed unjustly.
Sir GEORGE JENKINSON dissented from this explanatien
nf. the Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL inquired what its object was
then. There might be some improper cases of acquittal,
and there might be some cases where the prerogative of
mercy had been exercised inexpediently, but the bill did
'sot deal with any of these cases.
Mr. BRUCE objected to the measure, remarking that if
a bill of that description were introduced; it should be
one which would remove all the objections to the existing
system.

Sir GEORGE JEITKINSON complained that a false issue

BROKERS' (CITY OF LONDON) BILL.

I,n 1 been raised. All he contended was that the appeal
V a prisoner ought to be in the first instance to a tribunal
end not to the Home Secretary, and wherever the appeal,
and whatever the decision, the public had a right to
know in the interest of justice why the decision was
tome to.

The motion for the rejection of the bill was agreed to
ny an overwhelming majority.

Mr. W. FOWLER moved the second reading of the above
bill, which proposed to relieve the brokers from the super-
Viiiioll of the Lord Mayor and aldermen. The brokers in
diAiktuditia litgailatrY PZIP iakt 4 Yin