HC Deb 26 May 1837 vol 38 cc1095-8

House went into Committee,

Upon the 24th Clause, enacting the appointment of ex officio guardians, being proposed,

Mr. Lynch

objected to the clause. He was opposed to magistrates being made ex officio guardians. Clergymen were exempted, and he saw no reason why magistrates should be included. He knew that the introduction of such a clause would tend materially to injure the operation of the Bill. He proposed, as we understood, to strike out the clause.

Viscount Morpeth

considered, that it would be a very ungenerous act to exclude the whole of the magistrates. He did not think that it would tend to harmony or to the efficient working of the Bill to exclude the whole body of the magistrates.

Mr. O'Connell

thought, that it would be wrong to exclude the magistrates; but it was a different thing to make them members. If they were elected they should not be excluded from acting. The noble Lord seemed to think that the magistrates would only elect the best members of their body to be guardians. What he was afraid of was, that the election would go in the contrary direction. He did not wish to make any accusation against the magistrates. They had been already spoken of by others in that House, and the opinions of Lord Redesdale and Lord Manners were recorded against them. He begged to assure the noble Lord that with such a clause as the present the Bill never would be accepted as a boon in Ireland.

Sir Robert Peel

said, he had no feeling upon this subject, except that of making it an efficient measure. He thought that it would be very desirable to have the magistrates ex-officio guardians.

Lord John Russell

observed, that it was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny that in case magistrates were approved of by the people they would be elected. He did not think that this would follow as a necessary consequence, for there might be prejudices against them as magistrates. The constant meeting of magistrates would, he hoped, do away with all such feelings, if they existed. He could not give up as hopeless the chance of producing a good feeling between those elected by the rate-payers and the magistrates.

The Committee divided on the clause Ayes; 61 Noes: 28—Majority 33.

Mr. O'Connell moved that the number of ex-officio guardians should be one-sixth instead of one-third of the whole number.

Lord Morpeth

saw no good reason for the alteration proposed; but he had no objection to make the number one-fourth instead of one-third.

The Committee again divided, on the amendment, Ayes 23, Noes 58:—Majority 35.

Mr. Hindley moved an amendment on the same clause, to the effect that the ratepayers should elect the number of magis- trates which by the act, were to be members of the board of guardians.

Lord J. Russell

was very sorry that he could not agree to the alteration proposed. He thought that the magistracy ought to be allowed to select out of their own body such of themselves as they thought best fitted to perform the duties of Members of the Board of guardians.

Mr. Hume

submitted to the noble Lord whether he would not reconsider what he had stated. He was sure that the noble Lord must be anxious to make this Bill popular, and he (Mr. Hume) was quite sure that that object would not be answered by the rejection of this amendment.

Viscount Morpeth

hoped that the Bill would prove popular and work well, but he did not think that popularity should be the only consideration. They had not this consideration only in view when they introduced the English Poor-law Amendment Act. There was in that act a corresponding provision to the present, the only difference being, that whereas in England all justices of the peace might be Members of the board of guardians, they proposed that for Ireland a certain number of the magistrates only should be elected. He thought that the magistrates were themselves the best judges of the persons who were best qualified to represent them, and he must therefore oppose the amendment.

Mr. Jephson

would oppose the amendment, as he thought that the effect of it would be to do away with ex officio guardians altogether.

The Committee divided on the amendment:—Ayes 32; Noes 50; Majority 18.

The clause agreed to.

On clause 26,

Mr. Sharman Crawford

objected to the arbitrary power proposed to be given to the Commissioners of appointing Guardians under certain circumstances. He moved the omission of this passage from the 12th to the 32d line of the clause.

Sir R. Ferguson

objected also to the power given in the two previous lines, of removing the guardians if they did not act with due diligence in obedience to the orders of the Commissioners.

Mr. O'Connell

thought the jealousy of the Commissioners was a very unfounded one. This clause would give the means of correcting many of the evils of the former clause. The question was, whether the Commissioners were to have an efficacious and controlling power over the guardians, if so, the words were essentially necessary.

Lord Morpeth

said, that unless some power of this kind were given to the Commissioners, they might run the risk of having the whole system stopped for want of efficient means of carrying it on.

The Committee divided on the amendment:—Ayes 23; Noes 68: Majorty 45.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses to the 35th agreed to.

House resumed. Committee to sit again.