§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 (Guardians to hold office for three years).
§ MR. TOTTENHAMmoved, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "three," and insert "two." The Bill involved an entirely new principle of election in the case of Poor Law Guardians. Being more or less a tentative measure, and considering the new class of Guardians who, under the system of the ballot, would be elected, he thought it was expedient that Guardians should not be elected for more than two years. Such was the object of the Amendment he now proposed.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, leave out "three," and insert "two."—(Mr. Tottenham.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. WARTONasked, whether, in the event of the Amendment being negatived, they should propose that "one" should be inserted instead of "three?"
THE CHAIRMANThe Question is that the word "three" stand part of the clause. The Committee must first negative that before any other Amendment can be moved.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, the Bill proposed to make a complete revolution in the mode of electing Poor Law Guardians in Ireland; and it proposed to make a great change in the character and duration of their office. He assumed that the Irish Government had got a full and complete Report from the permanent administration of the Local Government Board in Ireland, indicating their opinion upon each clause and each Amendment placed on the Paper. The Amendments had been on the Paper for some days, and the Committee were entitled to 1512 hear a clear statement as to the opinion of the Department upon the Amendments as they were made. This was rather a late hour to proceed with the Bill, though he did not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of the progress of the Bill on that account. He might, however, take an objection which was at once temperate and reasonable. At present the tenure of office of Poor Law Guardians was one year; it was now proposed to extend it to three years. That was an immense change. His hon. Friend (Mr. Tottenham) suggested the advisability of only doubling the present tenure of office. He (Mr. Gibson) admitted that elections were a source of great expense to the Unions; but, under all the circumstances of the case, he thought it might be well to make the duration of office of a Poor Law Guardian not longer than two years.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he did not think there was any great question of principle involved, either in the proposal in the Bill, or in the Amendment now under consideration. The suggestion that the appointment of a Poor Law Guardian should endure for three years instead of one was made in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee which investigated the matter, and it was made simply and solely for the purpose of avoiding the expense of frequent elections. It was considered that if they provided for triennial elections they could get over the one substantial argument which was urged against the change—namely, that it might involve some additional expense. He was sure, however, that if the Government thought it would be well to accept the Amendment, no objection would be raised on the part of his hon. Friends.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that, on account of the multifarious matters he had had to attend to, he had had very little time to devote to the consideration of the Bill now before the Committee. He had been enabled, however, to obtain the general views of the Board, and they appeared to be consistent with common sense, though he was not quite sure it would be easy to carry them out in the Bill. With the general object of the Bill the Board were quite in harmony. The Board saw no objection to a Poor Law Guardian holding office for three years; but, at the same time, they considered that a general election every 1513 three years might, if it took place over the whole town, cause an amount of excitement in troubled times which it was not desirable to create. They were, therefore, of opinion that one-third of the Guardians should retire annually; and that it should be so arranged that the elections should take place in certain wards or divisions of the town one year, and in different wards or divisions another year. They would thus, instead of having one general election every three years, have elections annually, but in different districts of the town. He did not disguise from himself the fact that there might be some difficulty in making such a provision in the Bill. The Government saw no objection to Guardians holding office for three years, though if, in order to pass the Bill through the House, hon. Members below and above the Gangway opposite were to agree to two years, the Government would not object. There was one objection which the Board took to a particular clause of the Bill. The objection appeared to be well-founded, and had reference to the clause which entitled each voter to deposit as many ballot papers in the box as he had single votes.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. WARTONmoved, in page t, line 13, to leave out "at present," and insert "now." He considered "at present" was rather too colloquial for an Act of Parliament; "now" was far preferable.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, leave out "at present," and insert "now."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMmoved, in lines 14 and 18, to leave out "three," and insert "two." The Amendments were simply consequential upon the Amendment he had just proposed.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 14, leave out "three," and insert "two;" also, in line 18, leave out "three," and insert "two."—(Mr. Tottenham.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMmoved, in line 18, after "vacancy," to insert—
Provided such vacancy shall not have occurred within three months of the expiration of the term aforesaid.The object of the Amendment was to 1514 provide that, in the event of a vacancy occurring within the last three months of the term of office of a Guardian, the electors or the Union should not be put to the expense of a bye-election, because another election would have to take place in three months.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 18, after "vacancy," insert "Provided such vacancy shall not have occurred within three months of the expiration of the term aforesaid."—(Mr Tottenham.)
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 2 (From 1st March 1883 elections to be conducted by ballot).
§ MR. FITZPATRICKmoved, in page 1, line 26, after "shall," to insert "except in the case of persons voting by proxy." He proposed the Amendment in the interest of the Bill, and in the interest of those persons who had a stake in the country, and who generally voted by proxy. It very often happened that a man had property in one or two electoral districts. If all the elections were taking place on the same day, such a man would have, like Sir Boyle Roche's bird, to fly backwards and forwards, and possibly be unable to be in the right place at the right minute. Their property and their interest would, in consequence, be unrepresented, unless they allowed voting by proxy. In other places the system of proxy voting had been found to work well, and he could not see any valid reason why it should not be introduced in Ireland. He, therefore, ventured to move the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, after "shall," insert "except in the case of persons voting by proxy."—(Mr. Fitzpatrick.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. GRAYsaid, the Amendment struck at the very essence of the Bill, and if it were passed the Bill might very well be abandoned entirely. The propriety of abolishing proxy voting was fully discussed on the second reading. The arguments in favour of proxy voting did not apply solely to the election of Poor Law Guardians, but to the election of Members of the House of Commons. 1515 If a man were qualified to vote in three or four constituencies, it was evident he could not be in the right place at the right time for all the elections; he must, therefore, decide at which election he would vote. If a man could vote by proxy for Poor Law Guardians, he ought certainly to be entitled to vote by proxy for Members of the House of Commons. It must be remembered that, originally, Boards of Guardians were constituted to dispense relief to the poor, and there might then have been some excuse for proxy voting. Latterly, however, very much more important duties had been imposed upon them; duties involving, in many respects, an interference which the liberty of the subject, and the administration of the sanitary laws. If there was any reason whatever why a man should be entitled to vote by proxy for the election of persons to carry out duties of this kind, there was quite as much reason why they should vote by proxy for the election of members of Town Councils and other bodies. The whole subject was adequately discussed on the second reading; the House sanctioned the abolition of proxy voting, and he hoped the Committee would not now destroy the Bill by the adoption of the present Amendment.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, that, as far as his recollection served him of the discussion which took place on the second reading, no exception was taken to the proxy vote. On the contrary, when he had raised the point, he was corrected by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who said that no objection was taken to the proxy vote. The principal thing which entitled the owner of property to have a proxy vote, or to have some little advantage over those who possessed the ordinary vote, was that he paid, in the first instance, one-half of the whole of the rates, and in the case of holdings under £4 he paid the whole. Surely a person occupying that position was entitled to vote by proxy quite as much as a man who only paid half of his own rates was entitled to vote in person. Take the case of ladies who were the owners of property; it was absurd to expect that they could run from one place to another—to perhaps half-a-dozen places consecutively on the same day in order to record their vote. In the same way, persons who were not ex-officio Guardians, but who happened to 1516 be non-resident, although fully entitled by their contributions to the rates to have some voice in the election of Guardians, were deprived of their votes. He did not think there could be any reasonable objection to the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend; and if his hon. Friend felt dispose to divide the Committee he would support him.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, that one objection to the proxy vote was that it led to very great complications. He had had many objections sent to him from the country about the voting, and particularly to the proxy vote. Most of the objections to the voting had relation, however, to the intimidation which was practised, and to other irregularities which were committed in reference to the vote; but if they required the votes to be deposited by ballot they would get rid of much of the objection now entertained. He did not think it was expedient to adopt the Amendment.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he was of opinion that if they got rid of the proxy vote they might do away with a certain amount of complaint; but, at the same time, they would get rid of a good deal of the power of those who had to pay the rates. He failed to see the slightest analogy in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray)—namely, that of Poor Law Guardians, and the election of Members of Parliament. To the Guardians were intrusted the actual duty of dispensing the money paid by the ratepayers. The landowner, as had been pointed out by his hon. Friend the Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham), had, in the West of Ireland, where the holdings were very small, and mostly under £4 in value, to pay every farthing of the poor rates; and it was most unreasonable, at this time of day, to deprive the landowner of his right to legitimate representation. He thought the owners of property were entitled to fair consideration, and he asked for nothing more. It was to be borne in mind that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had indicated that the Bill, when passed, would still leave the country agitated by the constant recurrence of these Poor Law elections; but they would take place in future on the same day, and the Guardians would be elected for three years. In the absence of some satisfactory check, he thought it was 1517 advisable to deal cautiously with any changes in the existing law. It might be wise or reasonable to abolish proxy voting, if the Legislature would so modify the system of election that owners of property would be able with facility to get from one election to another; but to have all the elections taking place at the same time would render it impossible for the owners of property to exercise all their franchises, although vitally interested in them. It was not like the voting for Members of Parliament in different counties. In voting for one Member, they might vote for one that might represent all their interests in the Imperial Parliament, and the same individual might enjoy the luxury of voting for four or five. But the voting for a Poor Law Guardian was quite a different thing. Then they were voting for men who were to expend the rates they so largely contributed to. He was not sure that this was the best place in the Bill for raising the question of voting by proxy; but he did not agree with the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) when he said that voting by proxy was the principle of the Bill. The Preamble of the Bill recited that it was desirable that in all contested elections for Poor Law Guardians the poll should be taken by ballot. He thought the question now raised would come in much better in Clause 4 than in the present clause; but that was a matter for the consideration of his hon. Friend.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, the question now raised involved one of two great principles contained in the Bill, the first being the establishment of voting by ballot, and the second doing away with voting by proxy. In regard to the latter object, he certainly desired to destroy that principle as far as he was able. The hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) said the landlord paid one-half of the rates; but even if he were deprived of the right to vote by proxy, it must be remembered that he would still have half the representation of the Board, without any trouble at all, as the magistrates, who were all landowners, composed the ex-officio Guardians, who were not required to stand any election at all. Surely that ought to be sufficient for them. Persons who had property had it generally in the same Union, and no Union was so large that he was unable to vote personally at more 1518 than one election, even where they took place on the same day. He might go into seven or eight divisions on the same day without great inconvenience. If the Committee accepted this Amendment in any shape or form they would destroy one of the principles of the Bill. He thought it was quite sufficient for the landlords to have one-half of the representation on the Board in the ex-officio Guardians, without wanting also to have the greatest part of the elected Guardians. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) complained that the election of Guardians would cause great agitation all over the country during a particular week. But the same thing had taken place all over the country ever since the Unions were established, and this Bill would really lessen the inconvenience, because the elections in future would only take place once in every three years. He believed the abolition of voting by proxy was quite as important as election by ballot; and he should, therefore, oppose the Amendment.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not quite agree with the argument of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), although he certainly did agree with the hon. Member's conclusion. He failed to see the same perfect analogy between this case and that of the Parliamentary representation. In his opinion, the vote in the latter case did not represent property, but the personalty of the man, who was entitled to exercise the vote; whereas, in the case of the Poor Law Guardian, the vote did really represent property. But he did not think that that difference between the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) and himself made them differ in their conclusion. As far as he could gather, there was no statutory day actually fixed for these elections; but there was a certain margin, although not a very wide one, within which they could be held. It was large enough, however, to make it that persons possessing property in different Unions should not be debarred from voting, during the same election, in all of them. Under these circumstances, he thought it was necessary that very great inconvenience should be shown to exist before the Committee should be induced to give their support to the proposition, especially when it 1519 was considered that if it were adopted there would cease to be any secret ballot at all. He did not think the position required much argument. If there was any value in the secrecy of the ballot, he was satisfied the Committee would not accept the Amendment. It was said that coercion would be used to influence the vote. He was not yet sufficiently acquainted with Ireland to know what pressure might be resorted to in these elections; but he concluded that there was good ground for the complaint which was made. If the Committee were prepared to support the Bill at all, he was of opinion that upon this ground they ought to be unwilling to accept the Amendment which the hon. Member had submitted to them.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he had great difficulty in supporting the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and other hon. Members who had spoken on the same side. What was the present difficulty? It was that persons who possessed property had it situated probably in several Unions, and they were unable to vote personally in all of them; whereas, in the case of Parliamentary elections, the same difficulty was not experienced in voting in four or five counties. The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was that the secrecy of the ballot would be interfered with unless every person was compelled to vote by ballot. He (Mr. Warton) did not see why it should not be possible to devise some means by which a person having a single vote might be required to vote by ballot, and yet that another person entitled to several votes should have the power of voting by means of voting papers. There were complaints in regard to the single vote which did not apply to voting papers, and the reason was that a person having only one vote was open to influence, while those having more than one were not likely to be subjected to undue influence. He thought something should be done to allow those having plural votes to vote by means of voting papers.
§ MR. FITZPATRICKsaid, he thought that, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, it would be wiser for him to withdraw this particular Amendment; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be able to satisfy himself, after he had had a little more acquaintance with Ireland, that this 1520 class of voting was actually necessary. He would bring on the question again upon Clause 3 on an Amendment, of which he had given Notice, in line 11. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would consult with the Local Government Board on the matter, and ascertain if it was not possible to frame rules which would allow of the transmission of voting papers.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, the next Amendment was one which he did not think there would be much difference of opinion upon. The clause provided that, from the 1st of March, 1883, the elections should be conducted by ballot, and the poll at every such election should, so far as circumstances admit, be taken in the manner now prescribed by law for taking the poll at contested municipal elections in Ireland. He proposed to add to the end of the clause the words "any dispute at such elections as to the validity thereof to be determined by the Local Government Board." If some such Amendment were not adopted all the expense and paraphernalia necessary for putting an election in motion might be thrown away.
§
Amendment proposed,
In line 28, to add the words, "any dispute at such elections as to the validity thereof to be determined by the Local Government Board."—(Mr. Gibson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. HEALYasked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had any objection to add to the Amendment the words "after due legal inquiry?"
§ MR. GRAYsaid, the Amendment suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was unnecessary, as the Local Government Board already possessed the power to inquire.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 3 (Local Government Board to frame regulations by sealed order).
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, leave out "person," and insert "clerks of unions."—(Mr. Fitzpatrick.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
1521§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he thought the Amendment was quite unnecessary. There were officers already in existence who were empowered by the Local Government Board to carry out these elections.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, that there was only one clerk of a Union, although there might be many electoral divisions. All the elections took place at the same time, and the clerk of the Union could not be in a number of places at the same time. The system would work precisely as it did at present if the clause were left as it now stood.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, the object of his next Amendment was to declare that those contemporaneous elections in different parts of the Union should take place at the workhouses of the Unions, in order to prevent their unnecessary multiplication and increased expenses and staff.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, after "places," insert "being the workhouses of such unions."—(Mr. Tottenham.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. WARTONpointed out that this wording would not agree with the word "places" standing in the clause.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, that the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leitrim would be to reverse the whole policy of the Parliamentary Ballot Act, inasmuch as it would make it necessary for the small tenants to come to one place from a distance of many miles around in order to vote at the Poor Law elections. He should certainly oppose the Amendment.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. FITZPATRICKsaid, the Local Government Board having power, under the Bill, to make certain regulations with regard to Poor Law elections, he proposed they should also make arrangements for the transmission of proxies. He had no doubt, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that he would agree to this Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 11, after "poll," insert "and for trans- 1522 mission of proxy votes to returning officer."—(Mr. Fitzpatrick.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. HEALYrose to Order. He wished to ask whether this Amendment could be put, inasmuch as there was no reference to proxy votes in the Bill?
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he objected to the Amendment. They were quite capable of doing their own business in that House without leaving it to the Local Board; and, if he recollected rightly, on the second reading of the Bill this system of voting by proxy was condemned, and all the voters placed in an equal position.
§ MR. GIBSONsuggested that the Amendment should be negatived, unless hon. Members below the Gangway wished to proceed with it.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
§ Clause 6 (School-houses, constabulary barracks, &c., may be used for taking the poll at poor law elections).
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, the clause provided that the Returning Officer at an election for a Poor Law Guardian in Ireland might use, free of charge, for the purpose of taking a poll at such election, any room in any national school-house, constabulary barracks, or Court or Sessions House in Ireland, which might be convenient for the purpose. He did not object to the Court or Sessions Houses in Ireland being used for polling; but he greatly objected to the school-houses being used for that purpose. He would not go into any argument on this subject, but would merely express his opinion that it would be quite sufficient to use the Petty Sessions quarters for taking polls. The use of school-houses for the purpose was objectionable, as was still more so the use of constabulary barracks.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 29 and 30, leave out "room in any national school-house, constabulary barracks, or."—(Mr. Gibson.)
1523§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that it was the universal custom in England to use board school-rooms for the purposes of these elections; and he was, therefore, unable to see what objection there could be to their being so made use of in Ireland.
§ MR. GIVANsaid, the object of this provision was to save expense to the ratepayers. Very often there was no Petty Sessions house in the Union, and if the national school-house could be used it would prevent expense. He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman should withdraw the Amendment.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he should be quite content to leave the matter to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he thought constabulary barracks were very objectionable places in which to hold these elections. On the other hand, he regarded the school-houses as very proper places to be used for the purpose. He was in favour of the words "constabulary barracks" being left out of the clause.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, his recollection was that all public buildings were properly used for the purpose of elections.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, leave out "constabulary barracks."—(Mr. Gibson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, it was expressly provided in the Ballot Act that no stoppage should be made from the payments to the schools on account of the time occupied with the polling.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Question now before the Committee was that of the constabulary barracks only.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he had no objection to the present Amendment. He could see, however, no reason why it should have been proposed to leave out the words "school-house."
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he could see no real objection to the use of constabu- 1524 lary barracks for the purpose of elections. It was not in their own abodes that the constabulary were objectionable; it was when they broke into the houses of other people.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, the practical objection to the use of constabulary barracks was that they generally had no room available for the purpose of taking a poll. As a rule, they contained only a kitchen and day-room, with dormitories and offices.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he thought that, whatever might be the feeling with regard to the action of the constabulary in certain districts, there was no objection whatever to entering the constabulary barracks for the purpose of saving expense to the ratepayers.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, it was obvious that at the end of this clause some words should be added which would prevent interference with public business at the places named. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment in his name.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 31, at end, add "and which may not interfere with the discharge or performance of the usual public business thereof."—(Mr. Gibson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he thought some words were specially necessary to protect the managers of schools from pecuniary loss in consequence of the school-houses being used for polling. He proposed to add words to the effect that no deduction should be made on account of the suspension of teaching from the grants to school managers. It was impossible that teaching and polling could go on at the schools at the same time; and, as he had already pointed out, it was inserted in the Ballot Act that no stop should be made for the suspension of teaching under similar circumstances. He was most anxious that no deduction should be made in the present case, and suggested that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should withdraw the Amendment before the Committee and accept that which he had indicated.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member; but he thought it was desirable to make provision for the 1525 polling to go on elsewhere when the building was required for public business. That was, however, a matter for the Government. With regard to the Court or Sessions Houses, it was undoubtedly necessary that these should not be interfered with, so far as the discharge of their business was concerned.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, his experience was that the clerk of the Union would consult the convenience of the Court and magistrates in fixing the day of election. The magistrates would certainly not inconvenience themselves by allowing the election to take place at a time when they had public business to get through.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, that all the powers of the Local Government Board were preserved to them under this Bill, and they could certainly be relied upon to make proper provisions with regard to polling. It would be necessary that the work of the school should be suspended for the day in case of election; but that was a very small matter, and would not interfere with the business of the country to any appreciable extent.
§ Amendment negatived.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, at the end, to add "no deduction shall he made from the allowances made to or for any school, on account of the suspension of teaching caused by the using of the school-house for the purpose of this Act."—(Colonel Nolan.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONsuggested that the word "national" should be inserted in the Amendment before the word "school."
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 7 (Saving certain powers of Local Government Board).
§ On the Motion of Mr. GIBSON, Amendments made, in page 2, line 32, after "alter," by inserting "effect;" in page 2, line 34, by leaving out "under," and inserting "with."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 8 agreed to.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMmoved, on behalf of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. 1526 Macartney), to insert, after Clause 6, the following new Clause:—
§ (Qualification for office.)
§ "No person shall be nominated as a candidate for the office of poor law guardian unless he shall be an occupier or owner of land situated within the electoral division for which he shall be nominated."
§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proposed new Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he thought it was obvious that this clause ought to be inserted, because the person most fitted to represent ratepayers was the person who himself was a ratepayer within the electoral division.
§ MR. GIVANrose to Order. This Amendment was conversant with the qualification, and not with the election of Guardians, and, therefore, could not be proposed.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, this was a Bill for election of Guardians, and not for their qualifications; and it would be just as consonant to move that women might be elected Guardians as to move this clause.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, that the clause was quite in Order, and that it was within the right of any hon. Member to move that women should be elected.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he strongly objected to the clause. It might happen that in an electoral division a person would be qualified with a £30 liability; and in the electoral division in which he lived, he believed there were only two persons who were properly qualified. One was a Guardian, but could not speak 1527 English, and the other person would not serve, so that he was practically no Guardian at all. There were several similar cases. If the property qualification was removed, he should not object so much to the clause; but at the present moment he did object.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, the qualification being only £20, he thought the objection of the hon. and gallant Member could not arise anywhere but in Connemara.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was a Chairman of Guardians, and he thought he might know something about the matter.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he objected altogether to anything which would limit the choice of the electors. If reliance was placed on electors, they must be allowed to select the men they thought most fitted.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. O'DONNELLbegged to more a new clause providing that ministers of all religious denominations might be elected as Guardians. He pointed out that it was a great part of the functions of Guardians to take care of the poor, and no person was better acquainted with the necessities of poor families than ministers of religion. On many occasions, where purely cheese-paring considerations had prevailed, ministers of religion had produced a good effect on Boards of Guardians; and he thought their services would be very useful during the famine season in Ireland. It was found that the way in which many Boards of Guardians had saddled their Unions with expenses for adequate relief was found to be a very serious difficulty; and in many other ways the system was injurious. There was no reason why membership of a religious denomination as a minister, or priest, or otherwise, should form a disqualification. If it pleased the electors to elect a priest, or a curate, or a vicar, he did not see why they should be prevented from choosing the men they thought best fitted to represent them on the Board. He thought the electors themselves were the best judges as to whom they were to send to represent them on the Boards of Guardians; and he held distinctly that there were special grounds why ministers of religion were well qualified for election. In 1880, upon some Bill which was be- 1528 fore the House he brought this question up, and the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) very sympathetically expressed his approval of the suggestions he made.
§ New Clause (That ministers of religion of all denominations may be elected as guardians,)—(Mr. O'Donnell,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proposed new Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. HEALYsaid, there was one objection to this clause which the hon. Gentleman had not foreseen—namely, that there was scarcely a Poor Law Union in which ministers were not salaried officials; and they would, therefore, be excluded from sitting as Guardians. Therefore, although this clause might enfranchise a few ministers of religion, he did not think it was worth while to impede the Bill for that purpose.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his clause. He thought the Committee had gone through the Paper with reasonable rapidity; but to start a new clause now would be likely to provoke discussion, and he would suggest that it was better not to do that now, because it would obviously require three-quarters of an hour's debate.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that in the most free-thinking countries in Europe there was no objection to ministers of religion, where the electors chose to elect them. In Germany and in France ministers of all denominations were eligible. He would not, however, press his Motion.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONproposed to move a new clause, providing that any unmarried female, being of full age, and rated for relief of the poor to the prescribed amount, should be eligible to be elected as a Poor Law Guardian. He said this clause simply equalized the law in Ireland with that in England and Scotland. One Board of Guardians last week had approved unanimously of this clause being added to the Bill; and he had received from several Boards of Guardians expressions of their approval of the clause. He, therefore, hoped the 1529 Committee would accept it. Speaking as a Guardian, he had often felt, in going the round of the wards, how beneficial women Guardians would be as to matters into which a man could not properly enter. Female Guardians were very useful in England, and he did not see why the same principle should not be adopted in Ireland.
§ New Clause (That any unmarried female, being of full age, and fully rated for relief of the poor, shall be eligible to be elected as a guardian,)—(Mr. T. A. Dickson,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proposed new Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would move to omit the word "unmarried."
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, this was a most interesting matter, which was worthy of a full-dress debate. The hon. Member for Dungarvan had laid his hand on a weak spot of the Amendment, for it was obvious that unmarried ladies would have substantial difficulties in carrying on their work. It was clear this clause had been hurriedly drawn, and he would suggest that the hon. Member should turn it over in his mind and consult public opinion upon it, and see if the clause was regarded with favour. If it was, he supposed nobody would strongly object to it. He himself had no violent views either one way or the other, and was prepared to consider the question from an impartial and independent point of view.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Preamble agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.