HC Deb 15 July 1884 vol 290 cc1240-50

Clause 24 (Ratepayers entitled to six votes only).

Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section 3.—(Mr. Gibson.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section 3 stand part of the Clause."

MR. GRAY

suggested that the most convenient way of dealing with this matter was to leave it open until the Report stage, seeing that the Chief Secretary was not now present. Two questions still remaining open could be considered on the Report, and the Bill could then be amended. That would save time.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he hoped the Government would not accede to this suggestion. The Amendments of the Chief Secretary were of the most important description. These were points which had been described on the second reading as being of the greatest importance; and to allow these clauses to go through, and defer the consideration of these Amendments to Report, would be the greatest mistake that could be imagined. He did not suppose there was the least chance of this Bill passing this year; but some such Bill would have to be brought in next year, and he hoped the Solicitor General for Ireland would for once show that he had a little courage.

MR. SEXTON

said, the Committee could understand that the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County wished the Bill to be thrown out; but he hoped the Committee would not be deterred from assenting to this very reasonable suggestion. His hon. Friend was not opposed to the Bill; but the Government had had very little time to consider the nature of the Amendments proposed.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)

said, there were a great number of qualifications in different counties, and what he would propose was that the Committee should agree to the Amendments of the Chief Secretary, and that, before Report, the Government would consider whether they could in some other way meet the views of the hon. Gentlemen opposite.

MR. HEALY

said, he could quite understand that the Government were at a disadvantage through the absence of the Chief Secretary; but he understood the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman to apply simply to this particular sub-section, and not to any other Amendments. It was quite immaterial whether the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman or of his hon. Friend was adopted, if the final consideration of those Amendments was left open.

MR. GRAY

said, that whatever the Government proposed in this matter he must bow to it; but there were two points which were left open for consideration on the Report stage. It seemed to him that it would be a reasonable course not to amend the Bill until the Government had decided what Amendments they intended to propose. The Solicitor General proposed, that certain Amendments should be inserted, which the Government would afterwards consider. Would it not be more reasonable to say they let the Bill pass, reserving to themselves the opportunity of drafting Amendments which might seem necessary? He put it to the legal mind of the Solicitor General whether that would not be the most convenient and most sensible course to adopt? They did not seek in any way to use his acquiescence in passing the Bill on this occasion as at all committing him to the adoption of the Amendments afterwards.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)

said, the course he proposed was that which the Chief Secretary himself wished. It was all the same, so far as the Government were concerned. They could not exactly say what the Amendments were which they would accept, and it would be better to leave the matter open.

MR. GRAY

said, that, in that case, he would not now oppose the Amendments.

Question put, and negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendment made, in page 8, line 29, after "Board" by leaving out "shall forthwith," and inserting "may if they think fit and shall if applied to by the Board of Guardians among whom the vacancy exists;" and page 8, by leaving out Sub-Section 5.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 (Saving existing powers of Local Government Board).

Clause 26 (Commencement of Act).

On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendment made in page 9, line 5, after "of," by leaving out "January" and inserting "February."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. TREVELYAN

proposed in page, after Clause 3, insert the following Clause (as the first Clause of Part I. of the Bill):—

(Guardians to hold office for three years.)

Every Poor Law Guardian elected after the commencement of this Act, unless in the case where he is elected to fill a casual vacancy resulting from death, resignation, disqualification, or otherwise, shall hold office for a term of three years to be computed from the twenty-fifth day of March in the year of his election. When any person is elected to fill a casual vacancy in the office of guardian, he shall continue in office only so long as the person in whose place he is elected would have continued in office if such vacancy had not occurred.

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. HEALY

said, that when they had this proposal in a Bill the year before last the Tory Party objected, and on the representation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) two years were inserted instead of three, the Tory Party believing that three years would be too long. He was not going to say whether they were right or not; but the period of two years was accepted as a compromise in the matter. He (Mr. Healy) had come to the determination, as the House had in 1882, that it would be far better to maintain the compromise arrived at between the Tory Party and the National Party than the reverse; and he, therefore, thought that two years should be inserted in the clause. He would like to ask the Government how, in their view, would the elections for officers of the Union, the annual election, be construed if this clause were carried? At present, the Chairman and the Vice Chairman were elected for one year. Under the Bill would they be appointed for three years? He had not looked at the Rules of the Local Government Board; but it was a matter of much nicety.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, that if on this question of the acceptance of two or three years the Tory Party had agreed to fixing the period at two years, they were now fully prepared to stand in the white sheet and recant.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)

pointed out that the period suggested was analogous to that adopted in reference to all similar elections—elections for Town Councillors and other Local Bodies.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, there was no analogy between the elections dealt with by this Bill and triennial elections. Under the triennial system there were a certain number of men who retired every year; but in this case it would be altogether different.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)

promised to consider the matter before Report.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

trusted that the term of three years would be kept in the Bill, and thought the question should be agreed to at once.

MR. HEALY

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman, having read his recantation on so many points, must be asked to draw the line somewhere.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

I draw it here.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. HEALY

said, he had a new clause to propose, to the effect that no pensioner of any Union should be eligible to act either as an ex officio or an elected Guardian.

New Clause (Any union shall be eligible to act either as an ex-officio or elected guardian,) — (Mr. Healy,) — brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)

said, the clause should be brought up on Report. It was mentioned now for the first time, and the Government had not an opportunity of considering it or bringing it before the Irish officials.

MR. HEALY

said, there could be no objection to it; no one would object to a pensioner of a Union being under a disability—no one would suggest that a pensioner of a Union should sit on the Board of Guardians of that Union and vote away its funds. He should like to know if any Tory Member in the House would oppose such a proposal as that?

COLONEL NOLAN

thought the clause ought to be accepted.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

thought the clause wanted some amendment—it wanted some words to carry out the idea of the hon. Gentleman, such as the words "in this Union."

MR. HARRINGTON

said, the hon. Member was merely giving effect to the practice of the Local Government Board. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Walker) thought it desirable that the question should be left over until the Report in order that they could confer with the Local Government Board of Ireland, suggesting thereby that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Local Government Board knew more about the Bill than he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) did.

MR. HEALY

said, that, in spite of the modest disclaimer of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, he could not accept his statement that the head of the Local Government Board knew more about this question than he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) did. In this matter the Government ought to give in, in the interests of purity of election. The Irish Members had given in quite enough, and would have to take the opinion of the House upon this unless the Government would concede the point.

MR. WARTON

said, he was astonished to see the Solicitor General for Ireland, looking to his standing in his Profession, not having sufficient nerve to act upon what he must see in his own mind was a perfectly just and fair proposition. He was astonished to see the hon. and learned Gentleman holding himself out as a kind of agent to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Another thing he must say was that, considering how the laws of procedure in this House were altered, it became more and more important that as few questions as possible should be deferred to the Report stage of a Bill. If the principle of largely amending Bills on Report was followed, they were always apt to have alterations and Amendments made in a Bill at the last moment—alterations which should not be made. Then, again, on Report Members could only speak once, and that was another reason why persons who were anxious to get through the Business in a hasty manner were anxious to put off questions like this to the Report stage. The proposal was obviously a proper one. It would lead to parity of election; and he (Mr. Warton) did not know how the hon. and learned Gentleman could refuse the clause for the absurd reason that the Chief Secretary was not present.

MR. COURTNEY

wished to point out that the question was not such a simple one as appeared to hon. Members opposite. As he (Mr. Courtney) understood it, the whole question was this—that in some Unions in Ireland it appeared to be the case that medical officers, who had served a Union for a certain number of years, on retiring from his post, received a pension. That was a matter for the Local Government Board to consider. The Local Government Board had a voice in considering the pension that was given for services done and rendered—it was voted by the Guardians, and then sanctioned by the Local Government Board. If this clause were adopted, the effect of it would be that a medical officer of this kind, who became a magistrate, and as such ex officio a member of a Board of Guardians, would not be allowed to sit and give his vote on the Board, because he had been in the service of the Board at the time he was not a member of it, and, in respect of past services, had obtained a pension. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) seemed to think that this was a very simple matter, and that the clause should be accepted without hesitation. The hon. and learned Gentleman knew very well there were persons sitting even in this House and taking part in voting away the money of the country who themselves were receiving pensions out of the Revenue of the country for past services.

MR. WARTON

For past services to the State, not to a Union.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the principle was the same, at any rate. He was not urging these views in opposition to the proposal of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), but merely in support of the contention of the Solicitor General for Ireland that there were grave reasons for asking the hon. Member to defer the Amendment to the Report stage in order to give the Local Government Board of Ireland time to consider the question. If the hon. Member for Monaghan would put down his Amendment as a clause to be inserted on Report, it could then be fully argued and discussed. He trusted that hon. Members would see the reasonableness of this proposal after what had been said.

COLONEL NOLAN

maintained there was no parallel whatever between the case of pensions granted by Boards of Guardians, and pensions granted to Members of this House; they stood on a totally different footing. In the case of a pensioner of a Poor Law Union, if he sat on the Board of Guardians, whenever cases were brought before the Board in which applications were made for increase of salary, or for pensions, it would be very difficult indeed for him to vote against the application. If medical officers drawing pensions from Poor Law Unions were allowed to become members of those Unions, those positions would be a sort of rallying point for every man who wanted to get a salary raised, or who wanted to get a pension for anyone. It might be an inducement for a man to give up his work early in life, and to have a new one appointed in his place, perhaps his own son, to get a new man to go in and do the medical work he himself had done before, and in a short time to draw a pension.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had forgotten that in Sub-Section 6 of Clause 24 the Committee had decided that no Justice of the Peace could be appointed a Poor Law Guardian unless he were a ratepayer; and it was obvious if, under these circumstances, one of these ex officio Guardians voted for these absurd increases of salary, he would be partly paying them out of his own pocket.

MR. HEALY

said, these pensions were given for supposed decrepitude, and a system had grown up by which, for the sake of getting £100 a-year from the Guardians, a man would become ill and seemingly unfit for work; give up his practice, apply for a pension, and then, when he had got that safe and secure, become healthy and strong, and go round getting up a practice again on his own account. Having given up their dispensary practice, they then became magistrates, and became ex officio Guardians, where they could sit to vote increase of salaries or pensions for other medical men, or possibly for their own sons. As to the comparison drawn between the pensions under discussion and pensions enjoyed by some Members of this House, he was perfectly aware that they were given for very different reasons—not for infirmity, but for past services. In Ireland these pensions were given for infirmity, and on no other ground; and it was a monstrous thing to see people becoming sick and incapacitated from doing their work, and then, after they had obtained their pensions, suddenly becoming hale and strong. It was extraordinary to see how in Ireland doctors became unable to continue their professional duties at the age of 40, and how invigorating was the circumstance of obtaining a pension. It was remarkable how soon a pension enabled an incapacitated doctor to practise again. He thought his clause of such importance that he should put the Government in the position of being obliged to vote against it if they would not agree to read it a second time.

MR. GRAY

said, that the Boards of Guardians in Ireland had dealt much more strongly with the question of pensions than they had done 10 or 12 years ago. If they took the case of a man who was pensioned at a time when Guardians were free-handed with their money, they would find that in all probability he had received two-thirds of his salary. How then could such a man, when he became an ex officio Guardian, agree that another medical man who came up for a pension should only receive one-half or one-third of his salary? The man would say to him—" I only want what you got, two-thirds of my salary; what was fair for you is surely fair for me." In this manner these ex officio Guardians would not be able to take an independent view. They must necessarily be biassed by the circumstances of their position. Such persons should not be promoted to sit on Boards of Guardians, and it had amused him to see the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland take up the position he had assumed on this matter, and declaring his inability to form an opinion of his own. It could not be necessary for the hon. and learned Gentleman to refer this question to the Chief Secretary; because there were few, if any, men in the House who understood the Irish Poor Law better than the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should accept the clause, and allow it to be added to the Bill, and that if he discovered any extraordinary objection to it between this and the Report, that he should on that stage strike it out. If the question went to a Division, he (Mr. Gray) should certainly support the proposal of the hon. Member for Monaghan.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

said, that, as far as he understood the clause, it would preclude from occupying the position of ex officio Guardian any person who received a pension, a retired military or naval officer, or Government official.

MR. HEALY

No, no! Only persons receiving pensions from the Guardians.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

said, that showed the disadvantage of moving clauses like this without Notice. If it had been on the Paper hon. Members would have had an opportunity to consider it.

MR. GRAY

said, that the effect of the clause was that any pensioner receiving the rates of the Union should not sit on the Board of that particular Union. He understood that words to make it perfectly clear had been adopted by the hon. Member for Monaghan. As he understood it, the clause now said that no person receiving by way of pension any part of the rates of the Union should not sit on the Board which administered those particular rates.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, that if the hon. Member for Monaghan would so word the clause as to provide that no person who should henceforth be appointed to receive a pension in any Union should sit as an ex officio Guardian for that Union, the proposal would be acceptable. He was not aware that there were any ex officio Guardians who were receiving pensions; but if there were any existing at the present time it would be very hard to alter their position by a clause of this kind.

MR. HEALY

thought that if they were going to be good in the future, it was desirable that they should be good with regard to the past. The clause he proposed was to operate both ways, as to the future and as to the past. His desire was to prevent persons who had had official connection with a Union from being open to the solicitation of men holding the appointment they themselves had held, and who had come to them saying—"We are as sick as you were, and have as much right to a pension; you must do what you can to get it for us. You got your pension, and became strong again, and very probably when we get our pension we shall get strong again too. Why should not we have our pension as well as you?"

MR. HARRINGTON

said, that practically this was only a question affecting doctors, and was not likely to arise in the case of other officers of a Union. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury seemed to have forgotten that he had such delicate views with regard to giving voting power to those who obtained anything from the poor rates, for some time ago he had denied the franchise to everyone who availed himself of the assistance of those rates. This matter stood upon a different footing altogether from the pensions the hon. Gentleman had drawn attention to. If it was for no other reason but to put an end to corrupt practices, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland should agree to the proposal.

Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 25; Noes 33: Majority 8. — (Div. List, No. 163.)

On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendment made, in page 8, after Clause 21, by inserting the following Clause:—

(Rules, stamps, and costs.)

For the purposes of this part of this Act, there shall be incorporated with this Act the following sections of "The County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877," as the same are amended by any other Act, that is to say:—

And the following sections of "The Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877," so far as they relate to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, as the same are amended by any other Act, that is to say:—

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 286.]