Commons Sitting of 16 May 1877

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE —Parliamentary and Municipal Elections (Hours of Polling), Mr. Murphy disch., Mr. Arthur Moore added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee — Ordered— First Reading — Companies Acts Amendment* [171].
Ordered—First Reading—Medical Act (1858) Amendment (No. 2)* [172]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Bridlington, &c.)* [170].
Second Reading—County Training Schools and Ships [73], put off; Mercantile Marine Hospital [79], put off; Poor Law Guardians Elections (Ireland) [46], put off; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* [166]; Consolidated Fund (£5,900,000)*.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  COUNTY TRAINING SCHOOLS AND SHIPS BILL— [BILL 73.]
  (Captain Rim, Mr. Coope.)
  COUNTY TRAINING SCHOOLS AND SHIPS BILL— [BILL 73.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—( Captain Pim.)
    MR. PHIPPS,on rising to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he would not have taken the course if he could have thought that the efficiency either of the Army or the Navy was likely to be improved by the proposed legislation. Not only was he unable to see this, but further, he held that if sacrifices were to be made to secure an end which was desirable in order to promote Imperial interest, the sacrifice should be made by taxpayers in general, and should not be imposed upon the ratepayers in particular localities. He appreciated the importance of providing a good supply of well-trained boys for the Army and Navy; but he thought that Acts already upon the Statute Book were amply powerful for the purpose, if they were only put in force. Boys could easily be provided by a development of the existing system of pauper district schools. The Bill would impose considerable burdens, mainly compulsory, on the local ratepayers at the option of the justices, who would have power to mortgage the rates for the support of the schools contemplated in the Bill, thus indefinitely increasing local indebtedness, which was already too great. The general tendency of the Bill would be to provide what was a purely Imperial matter by a newly-created charge on local rates. As far as the Mercantile Marine was concerned, it was simply a private trade, and he saw no more reason why boys should be specially trained at the public charge for that than for any other trade. He therefore begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Phipps.)
    MR. GOURLEYthought there were several good points in the Bill, but he was of opinion, on the whole, that the subject was too large a one to be dealt with in an off hand manner. The present system of training boys was quite sufficient for the Army, Navy, and Mercantile Marine. He would, therefore, suggest that the matter should be referred, for inquiry, either to a Royal Commission or a Select Committee of the House. As it stood, the Bill involved the principle of conscription in an indirect form, a principle which was most repugnant to the felings of the English people. He therefore hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press it to a division.
    MR. WHALLEYsupported the Bill, and pointed out that it had been before the House during two or three Sessions, and had been the subject of much consideration by those persons who were engaged in the useful work of training boys for the Navy. He might remind the House that the Board of Trade had committed itself to the principle of the measure by undertaking to give material assistance in cases where voluntary offers of money were made for the establishment of training ships. He hoped, therefore, that the President of the Board of Trade would welcome such offers whenever they were made, and would recognize the patriotic motives which animated the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had charge of the Bill. It was all very well to educate boys intended for the Military or Naval Services of the country in the three R's; but they ought also, if they were to become practically useful, to be trained in the three D's—duty, drill, discipline.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he did not think that there could be any sound objection to the second reading of this Bill, seeing that, if it became law, its operation would still remain, under the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th clauses of the measure, in the hands of the justices, and wholly permissively under their control; leaving it for them to decide whether or not there was in the districts over which they presided a sufficient necessity for them to carry its provisions into operation, and to require the erection of schools for the training of boys for the Army, Navy, and Mercantile Marine. For his own part he could not see how in many ports of the country it could be otherwise than a very desirable thing for
    1018
    such schools to be founded. The Legislature had already proceeded to some extent in the direction of the principle contained in the present Bill. They had chosen years ago to say, whether rightly or wrongly, wisely or unwisely, that there should be a general education applicable to the whole of the country; and that, in order to carry out the system of education established by that Act, there should be school beards elected by the ratepayers throughout the length and breadth of the Kingdom. This being so, the Legislature had already conceded the principle on which this Bill was founded, and the measure now before the House was consequently only an endeavour to carry out with regard to the children of our seamen that which the general Act for the elementary education of the country had been doing for the rest of the community. He would ask the House—Did the children of our seamen stand in a different position from that which was occupied by the children of the rest of the community; and, if so, why should that continue to be so? Something had been recently said, and something he was glad to find was about to be done, with regard to the children of these who were employed on the canal boats of this country; and all these things showed the intention of the Legislature to provide an effective education for the children of all classes. Having said this, he could not see why this Bill should not receive a second reading, so that the House might deal with it afterwards. If there were alterations that were desirable, they might be made in Committee. The House should not forget that if this Bill became law, as he sincerely hoped it might, it would still be for the justices of the different maritime districts and counties throughout the country to say whether they thought the requirements of the neighbourhood over which they presided rendered the establishment of such schools necessary, they being the assessing bodies to aid them in providing training schools for those localities. In his opinion, if the legislation the House was asked to initiate by passing this Bill were once carried into effect, they would find that the justices of every maritime county, or, at all events, in every maritime area of three or four counties throughout the country, would be ready and willing to support the action proposed by the mea-

    1019
    sure, by doing what would be necessary on their parts to carry it into operation; at any rate, it was worth while trying. He should therefore give his vote most cordially for the second reading of the Bill, which he trusted would receive the assent of Her Majesty's Government, and that of the House generally.
    SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that not only had the principle been conceded, but the practical application of it had been conceded also. The Bill was simply a repetition—in better phraseology, perhaps—of Acts already on the Statute Book. Why was it that maritime countries had not availed themselves of the facilities ready to their hand? They were all agreed as to the importance of keeping up a supply of well-trained boys for the Army and Navy, but the question was, whether the present Bill would achieve that end. The Industrial Schools Act enabled the authorities to contribute to the establishment of schools which came within the meaning of the Act, whether such schools were afloat or ashore. This Act had been used, no doubt, but not so extensively as it might have been. The Metropolitan Poor Act contained similar provisions. It was only recently that the Lord Mayor and a number of wealthy and benevolent individuals contributed the necessary funds for establishing a training ship upon the Thames, and it would be most mischievous to pass any measure that would interfere with voluntary efforts. By a recent statute power was given to the local authorities not only to contribute to, but actually to establish these ships. He therefore maintained that, as far as pauper children were concerned, the powers conferred by the existing Acts were amply sufficient. The Bill of the hon. and gallant Member, however, went much further than the existing statutes, and proposed to bring up children at the expense of the ratepayers to a particular trade, that of the Mercantile Marine, and he thought that such a proposition would not receive the assent of the House, for if it did, it would form a precedent for similar propositions on behalf of other trades. He fully recognized the value of the object the hon. and gallant Member had in view—that of providing trained boys for the Mercantile Navy, and he could assure him that that subject had occupied a considerable share of his own
    1020
    attention. He was anxious to promote that object on various grounds, not merely for the purpose of increasing the supply of mercantile seamen and of improving their quality, but in order to make that Service a more effectual feeder of the Royal Navy, to enter which should be a legitimate object of ambition to all these trained boys. He was also anxious that the number of industrial schools of all kinds should be increased, and also that the Legislature should deal with them as not being in any sense criminal establishments, but institutions provided for such children as were too poor to obtain any means of education, except at the public expense. He had made a proposal some years ago that the Mercantile Marine itself should contribute to the maintenance of these ships, and he trusted that with the aid of that very high-spirited Service, of which the country might be proud, that an increase in the number of training ships would shortly be made. The right hon. Gentlemen the Home Secretary and the First Lord of the Admiralty had expressed their willingness to afford every encouragement in their power towards the establishment of these marine schools, and the latter especially had, by the number of ships he had given for this purpose, and by the constitution of a new class of Naval Boys Reserve, given proof of his being desirous of giving material aid to this scheme. He, however, could not say on behalf of the Government that they were prepared to support this Bill. He objected to the multiplication of different kinds of schools of this class which would result from the operation of the Bill, the provisions of which he thought would be mischievous and calculated to confuse the Statute Book and deceive the public.
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he entirely concurred in the view taken of this subject by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and would vote against the Bill. He was glad, however, the measure had been brought forward, because he thought the discussion would have its advantages by opening people's eyes to the fact that there were already many Acts on the Statute Book on the subject which they might avail themselves of. He hoped the work done by the present training ships, the Chichester, the Arethusa, and others, would not be taken out of the

    1021
    hands of the charitable institutions which at present performed it, and in which work Mr. Williams figured so prominently, because he was sure that if it were, the county taxation would be increased, and the charitable feelings of those persons who supported these schools would be dried up. He believed also that justices of the peace would hesitate very much before they put in operation its expensive provisions.
    CAPTAIN PIMsaid, in reply, it was most extraordinary and unprecedented to find the Government offer opposition to such a Bill as that now under consideration. It was a measure which had been long called for, and which, in relation to the mercantile objects of the great shipping interests of this country, would, if passed into an Act, prove of the greatest value. He warned the House that in the event of this country being engaged in war, unless some preliminary steps were taken to keep up the supply of British sailors for the Navy and the Mercantile Marine Service, the country would be in a most deplorable state. It was admitted that the shipping interest was deficient of a very large number of sailors, but by the provisions of his Bill the want could be supplied. The Board of Trade had said, in opposing his Bill, that they had a means of providing the expenses of obtaining the necessary amount of hands. What was the scheme of that Department? It was to apply the balance in hand of the Merchant Seamen's Marine Fund to the object. But to what extent was it proposed to provide hands for the Service? It was said that there was a deficiency of 20,000 men who were required for the Service, and it was proposed to provide means to obtain 16,000 boys. Well, to do that the balance of the Mercantile Marine Fund would be a mere drop in the ocean. He felt strongly and earnestly on this question. He had worked day and night to promote the success of a scheme which he was convinced, if adopted by the Government and the House, would prove of the greatest advantage to the merchant shipping interests of the country and of the Royal Navy. He would remind the House that 400 vessels were engaged in the grain trade, and that, owing to our defective system, most of them were manned by foreigners—Russian Fins—who, in case of war, would
    1022
    scuttle their ship and run them ashore. Upon the Mercantile Marine the country depended for many necessaries of life, and it was of the greatest importance that we should, in the face of existing events in the East, have true British seamen on beard our ships. He must protest against the Mercantile Marine being regarded in the same light as a mere trade. The waste of men in our Mercantile Marine was calculated at 16,000 per annum, and the country had only 16 training ships, which supplied but 1,036 men for our Navy in the last year. He considered the system of county training schools for boys for our Navy, which worked so admirably in Middlesex, most important to supply the deficiency, and that it ought to be extended. If something were not done to keep up the supply for the protection of our dependencies at home and abroad, the consequences might prove most disastrous. The operation which the Bill would also have of preventing poor children from returning from school to the criminal atmosphere surrounding their homes would be most beneficial to the community at large. In conclusion, he must say he could not understand how any hon. Member could propose the rejection of this Bill, which he trusted the House would read a second time, and alter as much as they thought necessary in Committee.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTwas sorry the Bill was opposed by the Government; but he, for one, was ready to support the second reading. He thought that the thanks of the community were due to the hon. and gallant Member for having introduced this measure. It had been said that legislation on the subject should be Imperial, and that a measure should be introduced by the Government; but a Bill was brought forward in a former Session to carry out the object which his hon. and gallant Friend had in view, and the Government, on that occasion, said they would bring in a Bill to deal with the matter, but from that time to this they had not taken any step in the matter. The Bill was an extension of a principle already recognized throughout the country. There were, no doubt, some objections to the Bill; but he thought they might be met. One was that ratepayers would be called upon to support what might be considered an Imperial measure; but

    1023
    had not that principle been sanctioned by the Education Act? Defects of detail might be remedied in Committee. Knowing the sincerity of his hon. and gallant Friend on the subject, he felt great pleasure in supporting the second reading of the Bill.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcontended that the course taken by the President of the Board of Trade was in accordance with the observations of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in 1875, who then said that if such a Bill were necessary, they ought to amend the Industrial and Reformatory Schools Act. That was what he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) now felt should be done, and if it could be shown that those Acts required amendment, his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would be glad to press it forward. He, however, thought that the House would not be prepared to lay down as a rule that every local authority should be obliged to establish a training ship in each county. Under the present system they had power to do so if they chose, and he thought that was sufficient. By adopting this Bill the House would be intertering with voluntary effort, upon which reliance had been so justifiably placed, and which had produced such satisfactory results. Schools could be maintained at a far more reasonable rate by voluntary management than by that of local authorities, and that was eminently the case with regard to the existing industrial schools. For instance, the net cost of each boy in the voluntary schools in his county was £17, while that of each boy in the Middlesex school was £27. He contended that before passing this Bill the whole subject of industrial reformatory schools and training ships should be considered together. He thought that the House would run a great risk if they adopted this measure of destroying voluntary efforts; and, under these circumstances, he trusted that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not press his Bill.
    MR. GORSTcould not but say that his hon. and gallant Friend had a right to complain of the opposition offered to his Bill. His hon. and gallant Friend was sensible that it was necessary to have training schools for boys intended for the Mercantile Marine Service, and, having studied the question well, his measure was met with opposition. The
    1024
    principle of the Bill was admitted. Then why should the second reading of the Bill be opposed by the Government? He would suggest that his hon. and gallant Friend should withdraw the Bill, otherwise the country or those interested in the subject would be misled, as the division would be taken on a false issue. This was a question of great and, indeed, national importance, and he contended that provision should be made by law for the better training of boys for the Mercantile Marine and for the Royal Navy. The Government might have a Bill in their "pigeonhole," but why was it not brought forward?
    Question put, "That the word now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 83: Majority 66.—(Div. List, No. 129.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for six months.

  MERCANTILE MARINE HOSPITAL BILL— [BILL 79.]
  (Captain Pim, Mr. Wheelhouse.)
  MERCANTILE MARINE HOSPITAL BILL— [BILL 79.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Captain Pim.)
    MR. WHITWELL,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, the hon. and gallant Member who had charge of the measure had on a recent occasion expressed sympathy with the overburdened shipowners, and yet by this Bill he would impose an additional tax upon them; and he not only proposed to do that, but he proposed to levy a tax on the poor sailors, amounting to 5 per cent of their wages. In carrying out his scheme the hon. and gallant Member inserted provisions requiring the assistance of the Board of Trade. He was of opinion that the hon. and gallant Member had not received the assent of that Department to such provisions. It seemed to him, taking the wages of seamen engaged in the Merchant Shipping Service at £5,000,000 a-year, a tax of 5 per cent upon that

    1025
    would amount to £250,000 a-year, and it was proposed by that means to raise a fund sufficient for the establishment and maintenance of Mercantile Marine hospitals for sailors. The Bill, which was full of objections, provided that a Medical Board should be established, and that medical inspectors should be appointed at different seaports, to whom the sailor should submit himself for inspection every time he got engaged for a voyage, long or short. No matter how healthy and vigorous the man or boy might be, he should submit himself to such inspection; and even a stewardess on beard a passenger ship would be required to submit to this examination. The Bill provided that 10 medical inspectors should be appointed at London, Gravesend, Hull, Shields, Southampton, Liverpool, and other ports—one at each port —and the sailor, within seven days of having signed articles of service, would probably have to go to a far distant port to undergo a medical examination. Thus from Swansea to Liverpool there was no provision for the establishment of a hospital. The Bill also professed to provide for the inspection of ships' medicine-chests; and, in short, for the general medical superintendence of the whole of our seamen. There were, however, only 10 towns included in the Schedule, and the whole machinery of the measure was utterly inadequate for the objects it contemplated. In conclusion, he must say he never recollected so arbitrary and unjustifiable an interference with individual rights as was suggested by most of the clauses of the Bill. He therefore trusted the House would reject such a Bill, which even contained a provision for the inspection of women who might get situations in the hospitals.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Whitwell.)
    MR. WHALLEYthought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gravesend was highly qualified to deal with this important question. It was a subject of the greatest interest, and he regretted that the hon. Member for Kendal had expressed himself in what he (Mr. Whalley) considered an unfair criticism of the provisions of the Bill. The objections taken to its details by the hon. Member were matters for
    1026
    consideration in Committee, and did not at all affect its principle, which the House would do well to sanction. The fact of the condition of the health of seamen was of great importance, as was well known to everyone who engaged them for voyages. He might state an instance wherein he himself had engaged a crew for his yacht. The vessel got into a position of imminent danger, and owing to the condition of three or four of the sailors, who were diseased, they were utterly helpless and unable to work; and the yacht and the lives of those on beard narrowly escaped being lost. Considering the special temptations to which our seamen were often exposed, he thought the medical examination to which the Bill proposed to subject them involved no greater interference with their personal rights than was justifiable for their own good under the circumstances. With regard to the Board of Trade, their incompetency and indisposition to take the necessary steps for providing a remedy to obtain an efficient supply of sailors was to be regretted; and he therefore hoped the House would not longer postpone the matter, and would support the second reading of the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend.
    MR. GOURLEYcomplained of such a measure being presented to the House without any reason assigned for it. The object of the Bill was really to apply to seamen the principle of the Contagious Diseases Acts—a principle which was quite opposed to the feelings of the masses of the people. Moreover, the measure was totally unnecessary. The amount of inefficiency arising from sickness among seamen was in point of fact very small, and the evil it proposed to remedy was already treated by the ordinary institutions of the Service. The great evil with which we had to contend in connection with that class was intemperance, and it would be well if the existing temptations to drink were diminished. At a public meeting of seamen held last year in Sunderland, every one held up his hand in opposition to the principle of this Bill.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEtook exception to the arguments which had been urged against the Bill. These had all been directed to matters of detail. For instance, if it were found desirable, it would be easy to introduce a few words

    1027
    in the clause exempting the stewardess from the provisions of the Bill. Really, if, on the second reading, the Bill could only be met with objection on matter of details—if nothing else could be shown than that, it would indicate that such a Bill or such a principle as that involved was a necessity to the Mercantile Marine. He did not think there could be any doubt in the mind of any human being that something should be done in reference to this particular evil. When he heard the hon. Member for Sunderland just now speak of New York, he was reminded that there was something like the principle of this Bill actually in operation there, and owing to that, among other causes, shipowners in New York found it more easy to man their vessels effectively than we did at this moment in this country. With regard to certain classes of disease among sailors, it was desirable, not to say necessary, to take some steps. Surely, without going into the details of the Bill, or squabbling as to whether women should be included in these examinations, the House should assent to the principle of the measure, and so mould it, even at the instance of a private Member, failing the Government taking it in hand, as to be a permanently useful measure. He confessed he would much rather see a matter of this kind introduced with Government influence though on the lines indicated. It should be an efficient measure, dealing with a great evil. No one who had any knowledge of our Mercantile Marine would say that relatively it was a worse class than any other in the country, and certainly he had no wish to depreciate it; but it was a profession beset with temptations on all hands, and without saying the Bill was everything that could be desired, he was extremely anxious that something should be done to provide for the health of those going to sea. He cared very little if that were done by this Bill, or effected by any Governmental action; but he would be content if by ventilating this question now or hereafter, either the Government, or a private Member, should take into consideration the fulfilment of a duty which he regarded as a public one. But whether it were so or not, it was one essentially necessary for the well being of the seamen and of our Mercantile Marine.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKthought the measure one of the most impracti-
    1028
    cable which had ever been introduced in that House, and stated that both by seamen and by shipowners its principles and details had been universally condemned.
    MR. GORSTalso opposed the Bill, which contained two principles—the one was the compulsory examination of seamen, and the other was a tax of 5 per cent upon them for such examination. It appeared to him that both principles were highly objectionable, and opposed to the principle of civil liberty. He argued that there was no public necessity for the proposed examination; and even if such a necessity existed it was not the seamen, but the country, that should be taxed for the purpose.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, there was nothing extraordinary in requiring men to undergo a medical examination for their own good. It was done in the case of candidates for the Indian Civil Service. In the present matter the country which was most jealous of civil liberty—namely, the United States—set us an example, and made the very same deduction from the wages of the seamen which was proposed in the Bill before the House. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade would take the question into serious consideration.
    SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYobserved that the object in view was undoubtedly similar to that of the Contagious Diseases Acts, it being for the interest of the public to guard the health of the men engaged in the service of the Mercantile Marine. The present Bill proposed a compulsory inspection of the men at the time of engagement, and this he opposed on the simple ground that it was impossible. Was it likely that the owners or the masters of ships would endure a system which forbad the crew to sign the articles till they had submitted to a medical examination? Was the shipping service of the country to be stopped for such a reason as that? It was true that the evil which it was sought to remedy was a serious one. He believed a very large proportion of the accidents at sea were due to seamen being unfit for service when they went on beard. Frequently it was necessary for ships to put into port simply for the purpose of getting rid of such men and putting others in their place. It would be well if this state of things could be remedied, but unfortunately the plan

    1029
    proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend was not practicable, and on this ground he disapproved the Bill. If the seaman refused the examination, the hon. and gallant Member had not provided by his Bill any police force to proceed to bind and strip him for the purpose of undergoing such examination. If the House passed such a Bill it would remain inoperative. The existing law, he might mention, provided for the inspection of seamen voluntarily. In connection with every shipping office in the country there was a medical officer whose services the master of a ship might procure for a very small fee—a shilling an inspection, he thought. He did not see what else could be done unless it might be to offer an absolute inducement to the seamen to undergo examination. With regard to the proposal which was also contained in the Bill that hospitals should be established at certain ports in the Kingdom at the expense of all seamen—in other words, that in particular places a special and local provision should be made by a tax levied upon sailors in general—he thought it was a proposal so manifestly unfair that the Mercantile Marine could hardly be expected to concede or even to entertain it for a moment.
    MR. BIGGARhoped that the measure would be read a second time.
    SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEprotested most strongly against this Bill becoming law.
    CAPTAIN PIMdenied that seamen were hostile to the Bill, for Petitions in support of it had been adopted at large meetings of sailors, and urged that there was a great necessity for such a measure being passed. He held that at the present time the Mercantile Marine of this country was in the most disgraceful condition of which it was possible for any man to conceive; and he had no hesitation in saying that if the principle of the Bill had been in force in this country many and many a ship which was now lying at the bottom of the sea would have been saved. It had frequently been found that owing to the sickness of certain men the rest of a crew were unequal to the work of managing a vessel in a gale of wind. His Bill was founded upon the American plan of dealing with this subject, and that plan had been found to work most satisfactorily. If the House endorsed the principle of the measure by assenting to the second
    1030
    reading, he should be willing to agree to the introduction of Amendments in Committee.
    MR. T. E. SMITHthought the Bill would be quite unworkable. It would, in his opinion, be utterly impossible to carry such a measure into execution. He denied that there had been any deterioration of the men in the Merchant Service during the last 25 years. Indeed, anyone who made such an assertion only showed his ignorance of the whole subject.
    MR. JAMESentered a protest against the attempt of the hon. and learned Member for Gravesend to Americanize our Merchant Navy.
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 212: Majority 201.— (Div. List, No. 130.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for six months.

  POOR LAW GUARDIANS ELECTIONS (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 46.]
  (Sir Colman O'Loghlen, Mr. Callan, Mr. M. Brooks, Mr. M'Carthy Downing.)
  POOR LAW GUARDIANS ELECTIONS (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 46.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said its object was, as stated in the Preamble, to provide that the election of Poor Law Guardians in Ireland, who were now elected by voting papers, should for the future be elected by Ballot. He confessed that he could not understand why this principle should not be adopted. Members of Parliament, members of municipal corporations, and members of school beards were elected by Ballot, and he could not see any reason why Poor Law Guardians should not be elected in the same way. He might be told that if the Guardians were elected by Ballot, persons having property who were not present could not vote, as they now could by voting papers; but the House must remember that property was represented on Boards of Guardians by a certain number of ex-officio Guardians on the Board, and the Bill did not propose to interfere in any way with them. He had received

    1031
    letters from all parts of Ireland, approving of the principle of his measure, and saying that under the present system intimidation to a vast extent was still carried on in many districts; that a large quantity of voting papers were signed under compulsion, and that if the Boards of Guardians were to represent the ratepayers the same privileges must be given to persons voting for their election that were given to those who voted at other elections—namely, the privilege of the Ballot. Since the Bill had been printed he had also received a number of letters from various towns in England approving of the principle of his measure, and saying that the principle ought to be adopted in England. It was then too late to propose and introduce a Bill for England; but he need not say that if the principle was adopted in Ireland, it must also be adopted in England, and he would give all the support in his power to anyone who would bring in a similar Bill for England. The Bill provided that the Local Government Board of Ireland should issue a sealed Order, regulating the manner in which the election of the Guardians should be carried out by Ballot. The object of this was to prevent a large quantity of details being put in the Bill, which would have been necessary if he had proposed a plan of electing Poor Law Guardians in Ireland. He gave the power to the Local Government Board, and in doing so he had only followed the plan adopted in England when school-beard members were to be elected, which gave the same power to the Privy Council in England. The Bill also provided that school-rooms, police barracks, and court-houses should be used for the purposes of elections free of charge. The object of this provision was to save as much expense as possible, in order to meet the argument which had been raised—that if the plan proposed in the Bill was adopted the elections of Poor Law Guardians in Ireland would become more expensive than they were at present. The other two clauses of the .Bill simply related to matters of detail, which he need not now go into. He only asked the House to affirm by the second reading the principle of the Bill. He hoped the Bill would not be talked out, because the people of Ireland were anxious that a division should be taken upon it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Colman O' Loghlen.)
    MR. S. MOORE,in moving, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he could not quite believe that intimidation existed to anything near the extent stated by the right hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen). His great objection to the Bill was on the grounds of the expenses it would entail, because it was clear that if the measure was passed, a very expensive machinery would be necessary for the election of Poor Law Guardians in Ireland. If in every place where Guardians were elected, schoolhouses or police barracks were required it would be most expensive. In fact, the same machinery would be required for the election of Poor Law Guardians, who were only elected for one year, as was required for the election of a Member of Parliament. Agents and clerks would be required at every place, and if there were several candidates closely contesting, the expense would be simply enormous. He did not think that the country would care to bear all the expense which would be imposed by the Bill, and he did not believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like to put it on the Guardians themselves. There was, further, in his opinion no necessity for changing the present system, and for the various reasons he had stated, he would move the rejection of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Stephen Moore.)
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he believed the change proposed by the Bill to have Poor Law Guardians elected by Ballot to be absolutely necessary. He had had some experience in the matter, and he was exceedingly surprised to hear the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. S. Moore) say that he was not aware that intimidation had been practised at the election of Poor Law Guardians in Ireland. He (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) knew of his own knowledge of voting papers being sent to certain tenants on certain properties, and no sooner were they delivered by

    1033
    the police than they were taken up by the landlord, who took them to his own house, and then the tenants had to vote as he wished. That was a case which came under his knowledge, and he undertook to prove it. In another case the same thing occurred; while in other cases voting papers were altered. He remembered when the Ballot Bill was passing through that House he took upon himself to put down some Amendments to that Bill. One of his Amendments was that the Bill should apply to the election of Town Commissioners, so that the voting for members of those Bodies should be by Ballot. He also put down an Amendment upon the Paper to the effect that the voting for the election of Poor Law Guardians should be by Ballot. The result, however, was that he was told if he pressed both his Amendments, both might be lost, and upon a recommendation being made to him he did not press the latter Amendment. He wanted to know how the Attorney General for Ireland could possibly object to the present Bill. Why should not the same protection be given in Ireland to the persons who voted for the election of Boards of Guardians as was given to persons who voted for the election of Town Commissioners? The House knew pretty well the coercion which now existed, that it was very great, and in many respects equal to what was used in elections for certain boroughs or counties. There was the landlord on the one hand, and the priest on the other. The landlord came to the tenant and said—" Vote for so-and-so; "and the clergyman, on the other hand, came and said—"Do not be intimidated; vote for the best man; vote as you please." He knew of nothing which had caused so much disunion in Ireland as the present system of electing Poor Law Guardians. Under the present system the landlord had six votes as occupier of the land, and six votes as owner in fee, making in all 12 votes. Independent of this, the landlords tried to coerce their tenants; and he had no hesitation in saying that, in his opinion, it was most unjust that the same protection was not given to those who voted for the election of Poor Law Guardians which was given to those who voted for the election of Members
    1034
    of Parliament. As to the expense, it would be much less under the Bill than it was at present, and so insignificant as not to be considered.
    MR. BRUENsaid, he could not support the measure before the House. His experience—which he believed to be that of most Irishmen—of the election in Ireland of Poor Law Guardians did not run in the same line as that of the hon. Member who had just spoken, and who had over-stated the matter. He believed that in the greater part of the country there was an absence of intimidation in connection with such contests. He thought his hon. Friend ought to have given the name of the gentleman to whom he referred as having been intimidated. The election of Poor Law Guardians was not at all the same as that for Members of Parliament, and he submitted that logically there was no necessity for the Ballot, the system of voting papers being, as he thought, not open to much abuse. The Bill would render a very expensive machinery necessary, and it would not be easy to get a sufficient number of returning officers and polling places. In short, the present system was much more convenient.
    CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, that in the speeches made by the hon. Members who opposed the measure, he fancied he heard the speeches which were made on the Ballot Bill in 1872. Many Conservative Members then took the same objection to the Ballot Bill, and said the machinery was expensive and cumbersome, and was not required. He was not surprised that the same arguments should be trotted out again, because this was practically the same question—namely, whether the landlord should be allowed to use his influence, or the voter should be allowed to vote as he liked. He was quite certain there would be no expense attendant upon the adoption of the Ballot at elections in Poor Law Unions. In the majority of cases with which he was acquainted, the Ballot would take place at ordinary polling stations. The expense of additional stations would be very small, as the existing Ballot Act required that there should be a Ballot station within four miles of every voter, except in mountains or thinly-populated districts. In every Poor Law Union there were at least 30 or 40 officials who could manage the election without charge

    1035
    to the Poor Law Board. He thought that if Irish voters grudged to walk one or two miles to record their votes, they did not deserve to have votes. Such an objection was hardly one that an opponent of the Bill should take, unless he wanted to fall back upon an attack on the machinery of the Bill instead of its principles. He thought the case was rather stronger for the Bill than it was I for the existing Ballot Act, as the system proposed was much simpler than the existing one, under which the voting papers sometimes miscarried, or were tampered with. Territorial influence must be stronger in proportion as the area in which it was exercised was circumscribed. A candidate putting up for election for the Board of Guardians would be well known to landlord and agent, whilst a candidate to represent the county in Parliament would probably not be so well known; and, moreover, a Parliamentary Election only occurred every four or five years. Consequently, the Ballot was absolutely more necessary in elections for Boards of Guardians than in Parliamentary Elections. A case which had recently come before the Clifden Union, in the county Galway, showed the necessity for the Ballot. This was a case in which the Union had to decide whether a child should be educated in the Catholic or the Protestant religion. When the Poor Law Board had to decide upon such a case as that, it was very important that the elections should be perfectly free from all suspicion or doubt.
    MR. W. BEACHthought the present mode of electing Guardians was very satisfactory, and that there was no necessity for making any change.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he did not feel competent to speak as to the mode in which elections were carried on in Ireland; but he knew that there was in England a strong feeling in favour of improving the present system of electing Poor Law Guardians, and that must be his excuse for saying a few words on an Irish Bill. Nay, he would go further, and say that gross abuses prevailed in England in connection with these elections. If that were so in England, he had no doubt the same might be accepted as being the case in Ireland. He did not think the system expensive, as there were few contests; but in any
    1036
    case he thought there ought to be, and hoped the Government would grant, an inquiry by a Committee of the House into Poor Law Elections in England, Ireland, and probably in Scotland.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, that if he could have supposed that there was any probability of this question being brought under the notice of the House on that occasion, he would have armed himself with statistics on the subject, which would sufficiently establish not only the statement of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) as to the comparative unfrequency of contests, but which he thought would satisfactorily have shown how very rarely in these contests such scenes occurred as those which had been described. They were not unfrequently asked by hon. Members for Ireland to assimilate the law to that of England. He wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that in this matter they were asked to go in another direction, and to make a change in regard to the law of electing Poor Law Guardians in Ireland which had not been seriously proposed by anyone for England. It must not be forgotten that the law regulating the election of Guardians was practically identical in both countries, and no change should be made unless the House was satisfied that the whole Poor Law system should be changed, or that there were circumstances in Ireland calling for a change which did not exist in England. He should be disposed to dispute both propositions. He did not see that there was any necessity for a change in the Poor Law in both countries, and he was by no means satisfied that there was anything in the circumstances of Ireland which would justify the adoption of a different system in that country to that prevailing in England. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) told the House that they had under their consideration precisely the same question as Parliament had already dealt with in Parliamentary and municipal elections. But the Ballot had been introduced into Parliamentary and municipal elections mainly because it was alleged, not merely by Members of the House, but before a Select Committee that bribery, intimidation, and other corrupt practices largely prevailed in

    1037
    those elections. They had no such proof whatever in regard to Poor Law elections in Ireland or England. It should also be remembered that there were special advantages in the present system of election of Poor Law Guardians in the two countries, which certainly ought not to be overlooked by those who paid attention to the question. To begin with, the system was undoubtedly a cheap one. Whatever arrangements might be made, such as those suggested in the Bill, for utilizing school-houses, any adoption of the Ballot would materially increase the cost of elections. The present system elicited the whole of the votes, which no system of balloting was likely to do. In comparatively few cases was there any political or religious issue at stake as in Parliamentary or municipal elections. In Poor Law elections the real question generally was the proper and impartial administration of the Poor Law. There was no doubt that the present system of the voting papers being left at the houses of voters, and being called for by the proper officers, did afford to the voter a means of recording his vote with less trouble than any other. It was said that the system was abused, or at any rate that it was liable to abuse. He admitted that cases had been known in England and Ireland, where the system had been abused. In Ireland there were nearly 3,500 separate electoral divisions, and considering that there was a fresh election every year, it was wonderful how few contests took place in which the returns were disputed and eventually set aside by the Poor Law Board. The Mover of the Bill had not touched upon the plural voting for Poor Law Guardians, which rendered that machinery necessarily different from that of Parliamentary or municipal elections. He left all questions of this kind in the hands of the Local Government Board, who would have no little trouble in dealing with that matter, and would be certain to receive censure from a great many quarters in whatever way they attempted to settle it. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) said he approved of the principle of the Bill sufficiently to enable him to support the second reading. In saying that, the hon. Member had guarded himself to a certain extent by admitting that an inquiry into the subject ought first be in-
    1038
    stituted. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) spoke for himself alone, and without committing his Colleagues, but his own individual feeling was that he should be extremely glad to see such an inquiry. If malpractices existed, he should like facts to be laid before the House and the country to show that they prevailed to such an extent as had been described. He was not convinced that there was any necessity for a change, and he thought there would be great difficulty in finding adequate machinery for the purpose. Under these circumstances, he was unable to support the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. PLUNRETsaid, that no case on which to found a change in the present system of election had been made either by a Commission, a Select Committee, or by any other official inquiry. It was shown that wherever there was a contest for the election of a Poor Law Guardian the election under the proposed system would be attended with a considerable increase of expense.
    Question put, "That the word now stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 174: Majority 65.—(Div. List, No. 131.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put offs for six months.

  MEDICAL ACT (18 5 8) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ERRINGTON, Bill to amend "The Medical Act, 1S5S," ordered to be brought in by Mr. ERRINGTON, Mr. DILLWYN, and Mr. JOHN MAITLAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill172.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BRIDLINGTON, &c.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SALT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Local Government districts of Bridlington, Dinas, and Grange, the borough of Hastings, and the Local Government districts of Pudsey, Tunbridge Wells, and Whittington, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SALT and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 170.]

  COMPANIES ACTS 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 Companies Acts of 1862 and 1867.
  Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE and Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 171.]
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.