HC Deb 02 July 1884 vol 289 cc1820-34

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. GRAY

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that he did not think it would be necessary for him to occupy the House at any length in discussing it, as the principle which it embodied—the election of Poor Law Guardians by ballot — had been approved by the House on several previous occasions, Bills of a similar character having been several times introduced. When the Bill was introduced last Session, it was accepted by the Chief Secretary; and, although the right hon. Gentleman did not give an absolute pledge, it was understood from what he did say that the Government would introduce a Bill themselves dealing with the subject. Not having any indication, however, that the Government intend to redeem that undertaking, and all parties having shown themselves of one mind as to the method of dealing with the abuses of the existing system, there was nothing left for the promoters of this useful reform but to press forward the measure again. He might say that since last year the measure had been recast in several points, and some useful improvements had been introduced into the Bill. In the first place, the Bill proposed to make better provision for the trial of Election Petitions. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was well aware of the amount of dissatisfaction that was caused in connection with the annual Poor Law elections. Ever since the elections of last March the right hon. Gentleman had had to answer a series of Questions dealing with disputes arising out of these elections; and, no doubt, the cases that came before the House only represented a tithe of those which the Local Government Board had to consider. The invariable answer given by the right hon. Gentleman was that the Local Government Board had no power in the matter. There were two changes of a most important character made in the Bill since last year, to which he thought it his duty to call attention, lest it might be said that they were endeavouring to obtain a snatch vote from the House, without informing it fully on the matters with which the measure dealt. In the Bill of last year it was not proposed to alter the number of ex officio members on the Poor Law Boards; but under this Bill power to do so was sought. The proportion in England of ex officio Guardians to elected Guardians was one-third; whereas in Ireland the ex officio members constituted one-half of the entire Board. Now, he saw no reason why the same system should not apply in England and Ireland in this respect. In the original Act the proportion was the same in both countries—that was to say, at one-third—and the change to one-half was made by one of those amending Acts which so frequently pass through the House without any strict scrutiny. The ex officio Guardians in Ireland were, as a rule, men drawn from a single class—the landlords, their nominees, or the landlords' agents, who were somewhat more objectionable than the landlords themselves—although that was going a considerable distance, as he observed the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) seemed to think. As a matter of principle, he did not see why ex officio should exist on Boards of Guardians any more than on Municipal Boards, or in that House; but if they did exist, it surely rested with the opponents of this Bill to show why a different system should be applied in Ireland to that which existed in England. In addition to this, the landlord might be possessed of 18 votes as against the single vote of the non-landed ratepayer; he might have six votes each in his capacity as landlord, lessor, and occupier. In this way one class could always secure the majority of Guardians, and so always have a working majority on the Board. Under this Bill it was proposed to limit the number of votes to be exercised by one single individual at any one Poor Law election to six, leaving it to him to elect in what capacity he would exercise his votes. At the present moment there was no limit with regard to the age of a person voting at Poor Law elections, and they now proposed to fix that limit at 21 years. The property qualification had been done away with in Parliamentary elections; and, as he did not see why it should be retained in. Poor Law elections, this Bill would enable any ratepayer to become a candidate for the office of Guardian. It also proposed to enact that no Justice of the Peace should be qualified to be an ex officio Guardian unless he was a ratepayer; and, in like manner, to do away with the power of proxy voting. Proxy voting was not allowed in Parliamentary or Municipal elections, and there was no reason why it should he allowed for Poor Law Guardians. There being no objection to the principle of the Bill, he hoped that the Chief Secretary would give facilities for its subsequent stages. Could not the right hon. Gentleman give to this Bill a little of the time he was devoting to the Sunday Closing Bill? He would venture to say that in the amount of time wasted on the Sunday Closing Bill a dozen useful measures for Ireland might have been passed into law. This matter had been now a long time before Parliament; all parties in Ireland were practically unanimous with regard to it; and he trusted, therefore, that they would have some assurance from the Chief Secretary that, the second reading being passed, facilities would be given which would insure that the Bill would become law this Session. The hon. Member then moved that the Bill be now read a second time.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

seconded the Motion. After the ample and clear statement of the hon. Member for Carlow, he did not think it necessary to trouble the House with any observations.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gray.)

MR. M'COAN

said, the hon. Member for Carlow talked about the waste of the time of the House; but he forgot to remind the House how it was that this Bill, which he (Mr. M'Coan) had introduced last year and carried through the second reading, had failed to pass. The Bill was then accepted by the Chief Secretary; the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Har- man) had waived his opposition; the hon. Member for Bridport, too, who had blocked the Bill, had removed the block; and it would have gone duly into Committee, and to a third reading, but for a fresh block entered by one of the hon. Gentleman's own Party the Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), and it would now have been the law of the land. The only conceivable motive for that action was the poor one of depriving himself (Mr. M'Coan) of whatever seeming credit might have attached to his passing the Bill through the House. Hon. Members opposite were always talking about "wringing measures from the Government," and he supposed the object of this proceeding was that hon. Members might go about the country denouncing the unwillingness of the English Government and Parliament to promote useful legislation for Ireland, and boasting how they had "wrung" this measure and that from both. He did not like to use strong language in the House; but outside of it, he would not scruple to characterize such tactics as they deserved. As regards this particular measure, however, he would not imitate the petty spite of the hon. Member for Roscommon, but would give the Bill his hearty support.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he was quite ready to support the application of the principle of the ballot to Poor Law elections; but he had the strongest possible objection to the abolition of the proxy vote. The whole intention of the Bill appeared to be to put the largest ratepayers and owners of property on a level with the occupants of the smallest tenements. He admitted, however, that minors ought not to be allowed to vote, and he was not aware that they were so allowed. But it was unjust not to allow proxy voting, as that would disfranchise those who had property in several Unions; nor was it right to forbid Justices to be ex officio members of Boards in Unions where they were not ratepayers. The hon. Member was thus in an unfair way abolishing the property qualification in one case while he retained it in another. The tendency of this Bill, as of all the legislation brought forward by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, was that there should be one law for the rich and another for the poor. The qualification for an elective Poor Law Guardian was already extremely low, and this proposal to lower it would admit a class of ignorant and unsophisticated men, who would be very unlikely to vote according to their own consciences, but would vote according to the dictation of some local newspaper, or the paper of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray). From various circumstances, practically not one-half of the ex officio Guardians were able to attend or do work, and in fully throe-fourths of the Unions in Ireland the elective Guardians had the practical control of matters. If this Bill were to get into Committee, while not opposing the proposal of the ballot, he would strongly object to any interference with the right of voting by proxy.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he was opposed to the Bill in its present form. He objected to the reduction in the voting qualification of the ratepayers. When they considered that rents in Ireland had been reduced in many cases below the valuation, they would see that while the tenants would be entitled to make a deduction, the landlord would have to pay his full half on the amount he represented in property. Then this Bill pretended to leave the multiple voter in the same position as before. This was not really the case. The elections were held at about the same time all over the country, and unless he could fly about like a carrier-pigeon, a man would have no chance of being able to vote at more than one or two. He himself held property in six different Unions, and if he were deprived of the right of voting by proxy, he must be unrepresented in four or five of them. Hon. Members below the Gangway talked of the grievance of non-resident owners, while at the same time they did all in their power to prevent residence by endeavouring to take away the rights of the owners. He could not himself be ranked as a non-resident owner, for he resided all the year in Ireland, except when he was called away by his Parliamentary duties; yet this Bill would deprive him of his rights as a resident. As regarded the qualification, although he had a high opinion of the intelligence of the Irish people, and believed that if they were only left alone they would be quiet and law-abiding, still he could not agree that a man who only paid 6d. a-year in poor rates should be qualified to act as a Guardian. Supposing that the poor rate was 1s. in the pound, 6d. only represented an occupation of £1 a-year. Irish Members below the Gangway, whenever the law of England suited them, wanted to have the law of Ireland assimilated to it; but when it did not suit them, they did everything they could to prevent the law of England from being applied to Ireland. Would they be willing that the law of England should be applied to Ireland generally? If it were, the landlords would have a much happier time of it. Now, it had hitherto been a principle recognized in England that representation should follow taxation; and it should be remembered that as half the poor rate in Ireland was imposed on the landlords, the landlords were entitled on that principle to their fair share of representation; but who, under this Bill, was really the ratepayer—the man who indirectly paid his rates through his landlord, or the landlord from whom the rates were deducted? With regard to voting by proxy, he should be glad to see it done away with, and a system of voting papers substituted like that which was adopted at University elections. This would meet the convenience of the ratepayers, many of whom were infirm, aged, or sick, and some were females, who could not be expected to go great distances to vote.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

gave his most cordial support to the Bill. Parliament had adopted the principle that a property qualification was not requisite for Members of that House, and it could hardly be contended that a large amount of property or of occupancy was requisite to qualify a man to be eligible for the office of Poor Law Guardian. The important matter in connection with Poor Law elections was that the Poor Law Unions should be satisfied of the fairness of the principle, and of the popular nature of the principle, upon which the Guardians were selected.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, that the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) had made some observations as to which he should not follow him, except to remark that he was personally fully aware of the very great service which that hon. Member had rendered on this question, and that the Government were perfectly ready to accept reasonable suggestions on matters of public interest, from whatever quarter of the House they might come. Since the Bill had been placed in his hands he had been considering it by telegraph and by letter with the Local Government Board in Ireland; he had also had a thorough talk about it with the President of the Local Government Board in England; and, speaking generally, he thought he might say that the longer they looked at it the better they liked it. The President of the Local Government Board and himself were strongly of opinion that if any change was requisite in the management of local affairs in Ireland, the changes that should be introduced should be of such a nature as not to interfere with any large, general, and comprehensive scheme of local government which might be hereafter adopted in England or Scotland; and the principles and, as he imagined, the details of which might be extended to Ireland. One great section of the measure—Part II.—was, as far as he knew, perfectly new; but it had received the warmest welcome from the practical officers who at this moment were charged with the management of the Local Government Board in Ireland. With regard to the provisions of the Bill itself, he thought that the question of the ballot in Ireland, generally, was one already settled. It was impossible for either Party to quote the Report of the Poor Law Committee of 1878 either for or against their own view on this question, because on the cardinal provision of that Committee the division of the Committee on the point was about equal. He put much more stress upon the debates in the House itself—debates which, had been very much influenced by recent Poor Law action in Ireland. He thought it might be fairly said that both sides of the House were glad to be rid of those scandals, be they great or be they little, which had accompanied those Poor Law elections; and the House of Commons would be glad, indeed, to be rid of the necessity of listening to detailed Questions and Answers with regard to those subjects. The Government, therefore, were more heartily than ever in favour of the Poor Law elections in Ireland being conducted by the ballot. The officers of the Local Government Board and the advisers in the Irish Office in London had gone through this part of the Bill, and they were satisfied that, with one or two small alterations, it could be made a proper Code for conducting those elections. One alteration he thought extremely essential—namely, with regard to the preparation of the Register of Voters. The Government regarded the existence of such a Register as one of the most important provisions of the Bill. Probably the largest part of the disputed cases brought before the Local Government Board had been caused by there being no permanent list of voters. The Government thought the principle of the registration list should certainly be adopted; and in practice they would wish it to conform much more nearly to the Parliamentary system than he thought the Bill provided. Then, with respect to proxy voting—he was glad to have the opinion of the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County and the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney). The hon. Member for Tyrone objected to doing away with proxy voting; and the reason he gave why it was very desirable to maintain this was because a voter, who had property in several different Unions, had, and ought to have, the opportunity of recording his vote in the several Unions, or, more probably, in several divisions of the Union. The Government fully recognized the difficulty, and the Local Government Board intended to exercise the power which they had at present possessed of naming days for the Poor Law elections; and they would name those days with the desire of removing that objection which the hon. Member felt. The hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) gave another objection which weighed with him very much as to the abolition of proxy voting. It was pointed out that a Poor Law election took place every year, whereas elections for a Member of Parliament took place every four, five, or six years. This objection led him (Mr. Trevelyan) to point out what the Government considered a very important omission in the Bill. The Government were of opinion that the yearly election of Poor Law Guardians was too frequent. On that point their opinion was strongly backed by the finding of the Committee of Poor Law Guardians. The Government could not possibly consent to any measure which would leave the Poor Law elections annual. Another objection put forward against the abolition of proxy votes was that property was not sufficiently represented. He thought that with the large infusion of ex officio Guardians in Boards of Guardians property would be sufficiently represented. Those gentlemen were all holders of considerable property compared with the great mass of the ratepayers, and what ever modifications might be made in the position of those who were placed on the bench they would always represent the sentiment of property. With regard to the second part of the Bill, the Local Government Board considered that it would be a relief from an extremely difficult, intricate, and, to them, oppressive function—the seating and unseating of Guardians in cases of dispute. In 1884 objections had been raised to 73 Guardians, and the Board made orders for unseating the Guardians in 13 instances only. In the present year 127 seats had been disputed; about 80 had been adjudicated upon; and in 10 the Board had set the returns aside; while, in 47, the correspondence was still progressing. This function would, by this measure, be committed to hands more suited to exercise it; though, at the same time, his own experience of the manner in which the Local Government Board had fulfilled an extraneous duty was that the very greatest impartiality and care had been shown in all the numerous cases that had come before it. The belief of the Government was that if the first part of the Bill were carried with Amendments—if a permanent and authoritative registration list was prepared—three-fourths or four-fifths of the cases now brought before the Local Government Board as to disputed elections would fall of themselves, and the addition of work to the proposed tribunal would be comparatively small. The Government had an objection to the system by which it was proposed to arrange the scale of costs—they would prefer that the costs should be fixed by the Lord Chancellor and the Council of County Court Judges. Of course, it might be argued that there was a Bill already before the House which it was proposed to apply to Poor Law elections in Ireland. That Bill had only passed the stage of second reading, and he did not think there could be any practical objection to giving a second reading to this Bill, and allowing the disputed points to be settled during the later stages of the two Bills. As to the third part of the Bill, he did not propose to enter into details; but the general policy of the Government would be to assimilate the law in Ireland, as far as possible, to the law in England. He did not think that Irish holders of property could complain if the number of votes allotted to them was placed upon the same footing as in England, if only the change proposed by the hon. Member for Tyrone were carried out and the rate distributed in the same manner. The 2nd subsection about minors not voting he thought should be accepted at once; but with regard to the 3rd sub-section he should prefer to suspend his opinion. The 4th sub-section the Government willingly accepted; and with regard to the 6th sub-section he should certainly, if this Bill passed into law this year, be inclined to leave the question of ex officio Guardians alone, to be dealt with by whatever English analogy might be set up by the Local Government measure which might be laid before Parliament. With regard to the qualification of the ratepayer, the Government held a strong opinion that the law should be continually assimilated in principle to that of England. The analogy of a Member of Parliament did not hold in the case of this Bill. In the outlines of its machinery the Government would be very willing to see the Bill adopted as an ad interim measure until the Local Government Bill was settled for England, and outstanding questions settled for Ireland. He could only hope that the House would give it a second reading then. Although he could give no promise, he would certainly say that there were very few Bills which he would rather see passed into law this Session.

MR. GIBSON

said, that the Bill was by no means a novel one, as far as its chief features were concerned, for it had been before the House in previous Sessions. Last Session the measure would have passed, with certain necessary Amendments in Committee, but for the action of Members below the Gangway. This Session, although there would not be a Division on the second reading, the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland had practically killed the Bill. He would not, however, say that it was the deliberate intention of the Chief Secretary to kill it, because it was difficult to discover, from his speech, that he had any deliberate intention whatever. The first part of the Bill, dealing with vote by ballot, might possibly in Committee have assumed a shape that would have removed many present objections. He should be quite ready to assist in any legislation that would have the effect of simplifying and rendering pure the proceedings at Poor Law elections; and if those objects could be attained by the introduction into the Bill of any subsidiary clauses he should raise no objection. But they ought not to forget that the Government already had before the House a Bill framed expressly for the improvement of Poor Law and Municipal Elections, and that was the right Bill by which to deal with the topic to which he was referring. The Government would not be permitted to introduce clauses into and drop clauses out of their Bills in consequence of opinions which they might form as to what would be pleasing to this or that particular portion of the House. They would be expected to act like statesmen, and, after having put certain proposals before the House, they would not be allowed to press them one day and to drop them the next without rhyme or reason. On the more doubtful points in the Bill the Chief Secretary suspended his opinion. When the Chief Secretary came to deal with proxy voting, he filtered out his meaning with —he must not say "art," he was not allowed to say "manoeuvre," and he did not like to say anything which did not express his views—but the right hon. Gentleman adopted all the refinements of language to conceal from the House and the country that he was entirely changing the position he adopted last year, when he supported proxy voting in a well-reasoned speech, and placed an Amendment on the Paper for its preservation and amendment. The reason for the proxy vote was because the landlord had to pay, at all events, half the poor rates, and where he occupied he had to pay the whole; and, therefore, he was entitled to a reasonable voice in the expenditure of rates to which he made so large a contribution. The Chief Secretary pointed out last year that the landlord had a right not only to a proxy vote, but to a plural vote, and even indicated that, inasmuch as the plural vote might be in the hands of those who could not exercise it in person, some machinery ought to be supplied which might enable them, to exercise it. Why had the Chief Secretary changed his mind? Inscrutable were the workings of the human mind, and it was difficult to search out why the Chief Secretary had changed his mind. Last year the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) had blocked the Bill, because he objected to the clause regarding proxy voting. The hon. Member was now in a country which offered great attractions for invalids; but he still seemed to maintain his influence even in his absence, for, in deference to his objection, the Chief Secretary now seemed doubtful about supporting the proxy vote. When it was argued last year that property was sufficiently represented by the ex officio element, the Chief Secretary said that that was an argument he should be sorry to put forward, because it amounted to this—that magistrates should always be taken from one class, the landlords. Now, when the Government were taking the magistrates less and less from the landowners, was the time for the right hon. Gentleman to read his recantation. The only reason the Chief Secretary had given for recanting his opinions of last year was that his right hon. Colleague the head of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) felt that there would be a difficulty in making a declaration in favour of proxy voting in view of the Local Government measure which they were promised. But if the Chief Secretary would not put down Amendments for the purpose of retaining proxy votes, he would find Gentlemen on the other side of the House ready to do so. The Session was not in its infancy; it was rather in its decrepitude, and any Bill which on the 2nd of July emerged from Committee with only a certain amount of tepid approval from some parts of the House was not likely to have a successful career. Therefore, if any difficulties arose in a subsequent stage of the measure, the Chief Secretary himself would have largely assisted in the creation of those difficulties. If the right hon. Gentleman had met this Bill as he did the Bill of last year its course would have been smoother; but now he might expect that the clauses of the Bill and the Amendments which might be proposed would require much consideration.

MR. HEALY

said, he did not believe that in this House, at least, the Chief Secretary's speech had given a deathblow to the Bill—he regarded that speech as, to some extent, satisfactory; and he was glad the Government had seen their way to accept the second reading. With regard to the reduction of the proportion of ex officio Guardians from one-half to one-third, he thought it was only right that they should now revert to the scheme of having only one-third of the Guardians ex officio. The proportion of one-half had been introduced in the House of Lords—a fact which was no recommendation to a proposal of that nature. Hon. Members above the Gangway who objected to that reduction of the number of Justices of the Peace on Boards of Guardians should remember that if a Radical Government came into power they might do away with the ex officio Guardians altogether; they might strike off magistrates as Lord Rossmore had been struck off, and they might put others on the Commission who held popular opinions. The thing might be done very much as purchase in the Army was abolished by Royal Warrant. Turning to the prospect of passing that Bill, he wished to point out that it was not enough for the Government to give a platonic assent to the measure; they must do something more than that. Certain Gentlemen were able to secure from the Government large facilities as to time for discussing their proposals; but Irish Members near him were not so fortunate. Chances of success were, indeed, often dangled before their eyes; but they were hardly ever allowed to see their Bills become law. They were told by English Members to produce their grievances, and when they produced them it was admitted that they should be remedied; but they never were remedied. It was acknowledged that they had brought in a very moderate Bill; and they wanted to get out of the region of mere promises. He hoped, therefore, that they would hear from the Government some distinct statement that that Bill, being one to which they attached some importance, the Government would devote to it as much time as they gave to Bills which the Irish Members did not want. Let them, for example, give to it as many Afternoon Sittings as they had fruitlessly devoted to pressing forward the Sunday Closing Bill against the protests of Irish Members.

MR. J. H. M'CARTHY

said, this Bill was an exceedingly good example of the unmeaning—he might even say the grotesque—nature of the relationship existing between England and Ireland. It was a Bill which entirely concerned the Irish people, and with which English and Scotch Members had no moral right to interfere. They had, unfortunately, the legal right to do so; but when, in a few Sessions, Ireland possessed a system of local self-government, these subjects would be dealt with in a far more satisfactory manner than they were at the present time. To quote Sydney Smith, he knew nothing of the internal condition of Timbuctoo that would justify him in supposing there was anything there so absurd as the Poor Law system of Ireland. The method of administering the Irish Poor Law might fairly be called the worst in the solar system. The perverseness and incapacity of the House to deal with Irish Bills was illustrated in the fact that the present Bill had been before Parliament for the last decade, and it had not yet passed. But it also afforded an instance of the perseverance and the proud patience of the Irish Members, who, like the hero of the Oriental story, had made their demands a little higher each time. They were not the Irish Members whom the Government cherished. The Irish Members dear to the heart of the Government were those Members who sat on the Government side of the House and offered a sleepy and servile adherence to all that the Government demanded of them. He was not surprised to find that the Representatives of the anti-Irish landlord Party opposing the measure, because it was essential to their existence that they should oppose every Bill promoted by the followers of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The landlord Party were now beaten to their last entrenchment, and in a little while a Representative of that Party would be as rare in Parliament as the Mastodon or the Dodo. But, somehow or other, they did not seem so ready for the fray as formerly. They had not adorned their speeches on this occasion as on former occasions with, insults to the priests of the faith of the Irish people. They made no allusions to the Land League, a body which had been incessantly assailed in their speeches in former debates on this subject. It was not unnatural that the landlord Party should dislike the Land League. If it had not been for the Land League nothing whatever would have been done for Ireland. As it was, that organization had given Irish Members strength to demand that the Government should treat with proper respect the measures which they brought forward concerning their own local interests. It was satisfactory to know that the Government were recognizing the demands which they had made. The Government had done wisely in consenting to the second reading; and it was hoped that their promise and support was not merely nominal, but that it would this year become law. If by some means of enchantment—some subtle influence of political bacsheesh—the Government could fancy it a Coercion Bill its passage would be very speedy.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.