HC Deb 14 July 1884 vol 290 cc1064-75

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MR. GIBSON

said, it was not his intention to divide the House at that stage; but he might point out that, as he thought, it was to be greatly regretted that last Session, when they had practically arrived at a point at which there was no difficulty as to passing the Bill into law, a course had been taken which might now seriously affect the chance of the Bill becoming law. Last year a compromise was agreed to with the consent of the Government. It enabled a person who had votes to have a vote first in any one Union; and then, under certain well-defined restrictions, to vote elsewhere. That proposal was not now on the Paper; but if it was put on the Paper again and adopted, it would be reasonable in itself, and would facilitate the passing of the Bill. He did not wish to detain the House at that hour; but he thought it well to throw out the suggestion for consideration.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he thought the House had a right, before going further with this matter, to ask the Chief Secretary what had caused the changes that had taken place since last year. On the 23rd of June, when the Bill was discussed, the Chief Secretary spoke strongly on the question of proxy voting, and brought forward many objections. He allowed that proxy voting was essential, and was a just right on the part of owners of land. He alluded to the small number of voters, and acknowledged the justice of the remarks he and other Members had made, to the effect that owners of property in different parts of the country must be absolutely unable to give their votes in different places at the same time. The right hon. Gentleman said proxies were a right which owners ought to possess; and yet he now placed on the Paper an Amendment, which left out every word about proxies, and left in Clause 8, which was an utterly objectionable part of the Bill, as it stood, without any amendment. No one had expected that the Bill would come on that day; and, therefore, Amendments were not on the Paper; but he thought they had a right to expect that the right hon. Gentleman would place on the Paper the same Amendment as he put down last year, and that, as he had not done so, he would explain the reason for the change.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he had explained on the second reading, at some length, the reasons which had induced him to think that the final and ultimate settlement of this question would not include proxy voting. He had come to that conclusion strongly as to Ireland; and he was inclined to think they would unduly hamper any alteration of the system of local government in England by giving sanction to the system of proxy voting in Ireland. The principal arguments in favour of proxy voting had been met by other provisions which, in accordance with his promise on the second reading, he had introduced into the Amendments. Hon. Members would find a provision making the election of Guardians triennial instead of annual, so that persons living at a distance from Ireland would only be obliged to go there once in three years, instead of every year; and, at the same time, power was given to the Local Government Board to arrange the dates of election, so that the whole of the owners might have reasonable time for voting. He did not propose now to repeat the arguments he had previously given at some length, and he hoped the House would go into Committee on this important Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Local Government Board to frame rules for the conduct of poor law elections).

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 10, after the word "the," to leave out the word "first," and insert the words "thirty-first."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Voters to vote in person).

MR. GIBSON

said, he had an Amendment to propose as to proxies; but his Amendment did not raise the question exactly in the way he wished.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he intended to move the rejection of the clause altogether.

MR. GIBSON

said, he was not going to interfere with the hon. and gallant Gentleman at all; he was only going to say that he thought it was desirable to make some amendments, and on the Report stage he would present his Amendment in a manner more satisfactory to himself.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

moved the rejection of the clause. The Bill, he said, had been brought forward when none expected it. The Front Benches were better informed than other Members, and it was an extraordinary thing to see at that late hour the Government Bench so compact as it was now. The only thing that seemed to produce a compact Government Bench at 2 in the morning was some measure for the spoliation and disfranchisement of loyal men.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 9 (Lists of voters to be prepared).

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 5, to leave out from beginning of line to "before," and insert "at the prescribed time."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 13 (Poor law election may be questioned by petition).

On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, the following Amendment made:—

In page 5, line 3, leave out from "by," to end of Clause, and insert— Undue influence, corrupt practice, or illegal practice, within the meaning of those expressions as used in 'The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.'

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

moved to amend the said Amendment by inserting the word "intimidation" before "undue influence."

Amendment proposed to said Amendment, before the words "undue influence," to insert the word "intimidation."—(Colonel King-Harman.)

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)

explained that undue influence included intimidation.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

thought if that was so there was no reason why the word should not be inserted.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)

thought there was an objection to that, and pointed out that the hon. and gallant Member would find that intimidation was included.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he was quite satisfied that the Government wished to allow intimidation.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 23, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.

Clause 24 (Ratepayers entitled to only six votes. No minor entitled to vote. All ratepayers qualified to be guardians. Fresh election to be ordered forthwith on vacancy. Number of ex-officio guardians not to exceed one-third of elective guardians. Justice of peace not to be qualified as ex-officio guardian unless a ratepayer).

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 21, to leave out sub-section 1.—(Mr. Trevelyan.)

MR. GRAY

said, the principle involved in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to leave out the first section of the clause was so important that he certainly thought it required some amount of explanation. The words of the sub-section which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to omit were as follows:— No ratepayer shall be entitled at any poor law election to more than six votes for each of the number of candidates to be elected in any electoral division. Now, surely six votes were sufficient for any individual to have in the election of Poor Law Guardians. Under the present system a man might be able to poll in his own person 18 votes for each electoral division; a fact which gave him very large control over the election of Guardians. He (Mr. Gray) thought that the interest of property was sufficiently guarded by giving the wealthy man six votes as against the poor man's one. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that the functions of Poor Law Guardians had changed very much since the last Act was passed. When that Act was passed the functions of Poor Law Guardians were directed to the single purpose of giving relief to the poor; but since then other functions had been vested in them of a most important and it might be said of a most arbitrary character. For instance, they had power over the dwellings of men, power over their persons, power over their individual liberty of action, and power to tax them for a variety of purposes. The functions of Poor Law Guardians had changed so largely that it might be said that their present functions were more important than those which they were originally constituted to discharge. Under those circumstances, he and his hon. Friends were of opinion that not only should the wealthy man be represented but the poor man also. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not re-consider his determination to omit this sub-section from the clause, because the omission would emasculate the clause so completely as to render it of very little value indeed. The retention of these words, in his opinion, was exceedingly important; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman should show some cause why six votes for a wealthy man were not a sufficient protection for his interest as against the one vote of the poor man.

MR. PARNELL

said, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the second reading of the Bill he did not expect to see Amendments to leave out these sub-sections appearing in his name on the Notice Paper, because those Amendments, if sanctioned by the Committee, would deprive the Bill of almost all its value. Last year the Bill introduced by Irish Members was so whittled down by the right hon. Gentleman that they were obliged to place on the Paper a Notice of opposition to its going into Committee; that was to say, they were obliged to block their own Bill, in order to prevent its passing in an imperfect and altered state. Although the present Bill was somewhat different from that of last year it was, in reality, very little better. The provision with regard to the abolition of proxy voting was very little compensation indeed for what had been almost promised by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill; and he did not suppose that that speech would have been made if the right hon. Gentleman had believed that in a short time he would place on the Notice Paper a Notice of Amendment to omit these very important sub-sections. Considering the advance made with respect to the possession of the property vote since the Poor Law Acts in regard to Ireland were finally settled, he did not think it was asking too much that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in a Radical Government should stand by his original proposal, and that he should at least modify or mitigate this very excessive power which owners of property had in Ireland of voting by proxy. At present a landowner owning perhaps half a county in Ireland, who never went over there for a single year, might in every one of the triennial elections go from one election to another and spread his votes over the county, swamping the votes of those who lived in the county, and who were most interested in carrying out the multifarious enactments of the Poor Law. He thought, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should not press his Amendment, but should at least agree to the suggestion of a compromise which he would throw out, and which he thought ought to commend itself to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). It was most important that the Bill should pass that Session. The Local Government Board in Ireland had been reduced to a state of chaos by the large number of appeals, which he believed amounted to 200; and it would be almost impossible for that Body to maintain its efficiency unless this Bill was passed. In view of its great importance, then, he suggested that they might take 12, instead of six votes prescribed in the Bill, and that he proposed to move as an Amendment to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 22, to leave out the words "no ratepayer shall be entitled at any poor law election to more than six votes."—(Mr. Parnell.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. GIBSON

pointed out that hon. Members below the Gangway took up an entirely different position at Clause 24 from that which they assumed on a former clause of the Bill. The landlord had the luxury and the privilege of paying half the poor rate in the majority of cases, and in a great many cases he paid the whole rate, and it was only right that he should have a corresponding influence in the election of Poor Law Guardians. The Bill took away from the landlord the power of voting by proxy, so that a landlord who might have property in several unions might be obliged to vote only in one, although he would have to pay the poor rate in all of them. He would be practically disenfranchised, except for the place at which he was to vote personally. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was one which had for its object the abolition of plurality of votes, which was recognized all through the Poor Law system. To take away that right in Ireland would, he said, only intensify the injustice that had been done. The object of the Amendment was to prevent representation and taxation going together. If the landlord continued liable to pay the poor rate, as at present, to deprive him, to a great extent, from having a substantial and real voice in the election of those who spent the money constituted a very great injustice.

MR. HEALY

said that, in reality, the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork would not be of that great advantage to them which the right hon. and learned Gentleman supposed. Although, however, the Amendment would be of very slight service, they considered it rather better than the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. They knew very well that the landlords in Ireland had long ago had the rates included in the rents. That was obvious, because the rents had increased 50 per cent since the Poor Law Act had passed. The previous clauses of the Bill were of much less value than the 24th clause, which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to amend by omitting sub-sections 1 and 2. It was too bad, after all the time that had been occupied on the Bill, that the Government should propose to deal with Irish Members in this way.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, that his argument on the second reading of the Bill was that in England 12 votes was the maximum allowed, and he had said that that was in a country where the entire rate was paid by the occupier. But the case was very different in Ireland. He was not prepared to say that if the whole system of the three countries was to be re-arranged some of these points of difference would not be open to argument; but if this Bill was to have any chance of passing, as he earnestly hoped it would, he thought that the great changes introduced into the first and second portions had better not be weighted with changes, which he called minor changes, in the third part, although he was willing to allow that two changes were proposed which were not minor changes, but changes of a very important kind. On the whole, he thought that very little would be gained, and considerable disturbance caused, by passing the first sub-section of the clause as it stood in the Bill.

MR. GRAY

said, he had been in the hope that the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would have been acceptable both to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). It did not often occur that an individual had more than 12 votes in any one district; and he should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would have been willing to agree to the insertion of that number in the clause. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that he understood 12 votes to be the maximum in England for the election of Poor Law Guardians; but he (Mr. Gray) knew that evidence had been given before a Select Committee that, under certain circumstances, one individual might have 18 votes. Therefore, he said, that to bring down the maximum of votes in Ireland to the same number as in England—namely, 12—was not an unreasonable thing, and one which might be agreed to by right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he was quite willing to assimilate the number of votes which an individual might give at an election of Poor Law Guardians in Ireland to the number which was said to be the maximum in England, provided that the arrangements for the payment of the poor rates were the same in both countries.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 38: Majority 8.—(Div. List, No. 160.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, to leave out sub-section 3. — (Mr. Trevelyan.)

Question proposed, "That the subsection stand part of the Bill."

MR. HEALY

said, the Committee were entitled to some explanation on this point also. In his opinion, there could be no greater mistake than to suppose that the best Guardians were to be found amongst the higher strata of society. It did not follow that the most intelligent men were to be found amongst that class. His experience was contrary to that, and he believed that a better class of men could be got from a lower stratum of society, although he was quite aware that the Government thought from that source could be obtained only persons who would be a scandal to the system of public representation. He trusted that the Government would, at least, lower the present very high restrictions upon candidates for the office of Guardians; and he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman was not making some proposal to equalize the franchise. If he was not going to accept the proposal in this Bill, would he not bring the franchise down to £10 to equalize it all over the country? The subject was so mixed up now that absolutely a man who was living in one Union, and then moved into another, could not tell whether he was qualified or not.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he thought the hon. Member had not informed the Committee correctly. His opinion was that the property qualification was £30; but as to its being reduced to £18, he had known it reduced as low as £12; and where it had been so reduced the representation had been bad. One of the grievances was that the representation was too low as it stood now.

MR. GRAY

argued that it was for those who paid the rates to judge whether a man was competent to represent them, and that the mere fact that he was upon his own property was no guarantee of his fitness to represent them. It was marvellous that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to retain this property test for elected Representatives. In the Reform Bill which had passed through that House a property test was proposed for Members; and yet, when revising the Poor Law system, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to retain a provision which, though a general provision at one time, had long since been discarded as utterly useless where it was not mischievous. In many cases this provision might include very excellent persons—intelligent artizans and farmers; many men who had considerable pecuniary resources, but who might not be rated at £30, and this would create much soreness in their minds. A property qualification to ensure having the best men was utterly useless, and it would be better to abolish it altogether. But if that could not be done, then it should be equalized.

MR. GIBSON

said, he did not pretend to be very familiar with the subject; but he saw enormous difficulty in making this uniform with regard to Ireland, because the districts might vary considerably. That difficulty had been found to prevail to a large extent in preparing Jury Acts; and anyone who looked at the Jury Acts in Ireland would find that immense care was required to see how many people could be got at a particular rate in some of the counties.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Hibbert) was a great authority on this subject; and while his hon. Friend agreed with him that it was essential to keep this qualification for Guardians, for reasons he had explained on the second reading, and which weighed with him extremely, he still thought that a minimum might be fixed in some Unions. There were a few Unions in Ireland where Guardians were taken under £20, and a certain number where they were taken under £25. He should be prepared to fix it at £20, and not go below that. As to fixing a uniform qualification, he thought that could not be entertained for a moment if the figure was kept at £20; because there was, at any rate, one Union in which the amount was £6. On Report he should be prepared to propose to bring up words altering the maximum qualification from £30 to £20; but further than that he was afraid he could not go.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he could not regard the answer of the Chief Secretary as generally satisfactory. There was one point to which he wished to draw attention. A man might be rated at £20 or £15 in one division, and yet have a farm of £150 in another district. An enterprizing man who had got on in the world, and taken a farm in another district, might be placed in that position, and this proposal would do him great injury. This was no imaginary case, for in the electoral district in which he lived there was no one to serve, and they had to take people from outside the division, and that they felt as a considerable grievance. He hoped the Chief Secretary would attend to that point.

MR. GRAY

asked why, in Dublin City, he could exercise all the powers vested in a member of the Town Council without any kind of qualification; but if he was a member of the Poor Law Guardians in the same city, he must have a qualification of £18? The duties were very similar—namely, carrying out the Sanitary Acts. In the revised Bill the right hon. Gentleman had put his imprimatur on the principle of proxy voting for elected members. But now that principle was exploded, and applied to no bodies, except as to Poor Law Guardians. When the right hon. Gentleman named £20 as being the maximum concession he could make, he seemed to forget that at the present time, in many of the Poor Law Unions, the qualification was not £20. He was under the impression that it did not go below £18; but he understood from the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) that it went as low as £12. When the President of the Local Government Board recognised £12 as proper, how could he justify £20 as a maximum? The Local Government Board, recognizing the necessities of the case, had itself reduced the qualification to £12; and why, then, should the House stamp every man who had not that qualification of £20 as unfit to be a Guardian in the opinion of the House? He did not see how the right hon. Gentleman could justify his position; and he would suggest that he should leave the clause as it was now, and re-consider the whole subject before the Report stage, and then amend it. That would be much better than endeavouring to settle it now.

MR. PARNELL

said, he thought it would really be well for the Government to consider the question raised by the present Amendment, and also the further question which would come up on the subsequent proposition to omit the 5th clause. He was inclined to think that with these three sections out of the Bill the Bill would be scarcely worth having, and it would be well to allow it to stand over until the new Parliament. In order to give time for the Government to consider the matter he would move that Progress be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.