§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the Amendment he begged to move was to insert a new clause after Clause 8 (or Clause 9 in the Bill as reprinted); and on the list of Amendments he had drawn up, it would be observed that, at the end of Clause 9, he had a Motion to insert the words, after the word "polling," "except as hereinafter provided," which would bring in the new clause he now proposed. The clause was a very simple one, and was entirely founded on remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in a previous discussion. The right hon. Gentleman, in addressing himself to the question of the proxy vote, acknowledged that the 1561 proxy vote was right and proper to be used. The right hon. Gentleman objected to giving the right to absentees; but he expressed himself as agreeing to the argument that a man who held property in several Unions, or separate divisions of one Union, could not possibly vote personally at a great many different places; and it would be in the recollection of the House that, while the right hon. Gentleman objected to confer the right on absentees, he agreed that a man resident in the county who did, or tried to do, the duties incident to his position, should not be deprived of the right of representation when he paid his taxes, and that while he attended in person at one polling district he should be allowed to vote by registered letter in other districts where he had the right to vote. This was perfectly fair and right. He (Colonel King-Harman) did not assent to the abolition of the proxy vote; but upon the unasked for statement of the right hon. Gentleman he placed this clause before the House, and asked them, not wishing to occupy time at that late hour, to judge it by the words of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ New Clause—
§ (Recording vote by registered letter.)
§
Any person owning rateable property entitling him to vote in more than one Union, or in more than one division of any electoral Union, and who shall in person attend and vote at one place of polling, shall be entitled to record his vote for each and every other electoral division for which he is a registered elector, by means of a registered letter addressed to the Returning Officer;
Any woman entitled to a vote at a Poor Law election shall be allowed to vote in like manner by registered letter,"—(Colonel King-Harman,)
—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he trusted the Government would not accept this proposal. If the Tory Party wished, to insert such a clause let them do it in the House of Lords; their Lordships, he understood, intended to mutilate the Bill there as much as they could. It would be monstrous to go behind all former electoral law to introduce a state of things in Ireland unknown to ordinary law. The tendency of the modern system of election was to abolish these proxy votes of 1562 landlords. If men would not take the trouble to attend personally to register their votes, surely they were not persons who should have votes. He hoped the Government would not accept the clause; but, if they did, let there be a clear understanding how many votes a landlord was to be entitled to give. Could he give his 18 votes by registered letter? Practically, as the Amendment stood, it provided a man should record his vote. Was it intended to be read in the singular number, one vote? [Colonel KING-HARMAN: No.] Then it meant 18 votes by registered letter. Did the Government mean to state that a man who would not attend in person could give 18 votes by letter?
§ MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he was surprised at the hesitation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; surely he had no serious intention of accepting the clause? Apart altogether from the fact that it was an effort to restore the proxy vote already abolished, the clause, if engrafted on the Bill, would be quite unworkable. How was the clerk of a Union, who presided at an election, to know whether a person who sent a registered communication was actually occupied in voting in another Union? This was the principle upon which the clause was based—that a man occupied in voting in one division could not attend in another—that was the only reason upon which the proposer of the clause defended it. How could the presiding officer know whether a person who sent a letter was occupied in voting in another Union in the same, or in a distant county, perhaps 100 miles away? And then with regard to electoral divisions of the same Union, how would it inconvenience a man registering his vote in the board room, to record his vote for eight or 10 electoral divisions on the same day? If he attended at the Poor Law Board Room, and if he had property in ten electoral divisions, he could record his vote for all. In fact, the clause was a sham, an attempt to re-enact the proxy vote. And, again, the clause proposed to give women the right to vote by letter. That was altogether contrary to the principle of the ballot. The letter would go to the clerk of the Union; he would have to see if the proper number of votes were given, and the clerk would know how every woman voted. That 1563 was altogether contrary to the spirit of the ballot.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Harrington) had remarked upon what he termed hesitation on his (Mr. Trevelyan's) part; but he rose at the same time as the hon. Member, and the only reason why he did not rise immediately after the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) was, that he had expressed himself very decidedly in the second reading debate, and again in Committee. He had placed Amendments on the Paper, which he must not now particularly refer to, especially as he proposed to move one which he hoped would meet with general approbation. It was a question not so much of principle as of practice, and he would express the opinion of the Government, and the decision arrived at after two or three years' consideration. His argument against the proxy vote was given on the second reading. He met the possible argument in favour of it; first, by the clause about triennial elections; and, next, by stating that the Local Government Board would use their power in naming the days of election, so that elections should take place on different days in different electoral divisions; which would enable the Returning Officer to do his duty more thoroughly and efficiently. The Government were satisfied that if the ballot were adopted in Poor Law elections throughout the United Kingdom, it would be altogether inconsistent with that to accept the clause, or sanction the proxy vote.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Trevelyan) gave this as the result of consideration by the Government for two or three years. Why, it was only nine or ten months since the right hon. Gentleman himself suggested a similar Amendment from the Treasury Bench. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel King-Harman) had merely transcribed, in the form of a clause, the very words the right hon. Gentleman had used, and it was rather cool on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to endeavour to convey that the Government were against it all through; and when they came down to a subsequent Amendment, it would be found that, instead of two or three years' consideration, the Government had actually changed their minds since the last time the Bill was 1564 before the House on what might be said was more mature deliberation. The clause did not propose any privilege or special advantage to the landlords—nothing of the kind; it was merely a clause that endeavoured to save them from disfranchisement; that a landlord who had to pay half the poor rates, who had property in more than one Union, should be enabled to register his vote in Unions whore he would be unable to attend, in consequence of being engaged in registering his vote in person in one particular Union. If his hon. and gallant Friend wont to a Division he should support the Amendment.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the decision at which the Government had arrived was the only reasonable course open to them. The Constitution recognized three methods of voting—by word of mouth, by ballot, and by proxy; but this novelty, born in the brain of the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman), voting by registered letter, was one that assuredly could not command acceptance for a moment. His hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) had pointed out, with conclusive force, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when drafting that part of his clause relating to electoral divisions, could not have known what he was writing about; for, no matter in how many electoral divisions a man's property might be situated, he could concentrate all his votes for the division by recording them at the workhouse; he could vote centrally for all the electoral divisions.
§ COLONEL KING - HARMANasked, where did the hon. Member find that in the Bill?
§ MR. SEXTON, in reply, asked where could the opposite be found? As to landlords who owned property in different Unions, the number was few; and it was monstrous to propose a general principle for their convenience; it was nothing less than an attack on an essential principle of the Bill. In the 4th and 9th clauses, the Bill recited that from and after the passing of the Act elections should be held by ballot. From and after the passing of the Act, votes in every contested Poor Law election would be given by ballot, the 9th clause providing that every voter should attend in person at the place appointed for voting; but the clause would create a 1565 class of persons who should vote by registered letter, and he could only say that no device could be more fruitful of fraud and deceit than this privilege to vote by registered letter. He was not aware that in Parliamentary elections facilities were reserved for the physical convenience of persons entitled to give votes in different constituencies; he was not aware that sheriffs had to fix elections at such different days that the fortunate pluralist voter could exercise his Constitutional power to the utmost; and if that was not so in Parliamentary, why should it be so in Poor Law elections? As to the proposal that women should vote by registered letter, he thought that any reason that existed against the clause in the case of men was much more marked in the case of women—it would be equivalent to denying them the ballot; it would apply to them all the risks of an open vote; it would leave the sex most open to influence, most requiring protection, open to all the influences of intimidation.
§ MR. PLUNKETsaid, he had never heard such a change of opinion executed by the Government with so little excuse or palliation. The clause now proposed to be added to the Bill was exactly the putting on the Paper a suggestion made last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had not stated since then one word in defence of the alteration of his opinion; and the very argument put forward, that provision would be made by the Local Government Board, the right hon. Gentleman dealt with last year, and treated as wholly illusory. He had said nothing whatever to explain why he had changed his view. It was a surrender for the convenience of the Government—a surrender in which they gave up a valuable principle of justice to landlords, who might pay half the rates; and it exhibited, to an extraordinary extent, the undisguised, the undefended inconsistencies manifested on their part.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he could scarcely believe the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel King-Harman) was serious in his Amendment. The framework of the clause itself was contradictory; it proposed to give landlords the power to register one vote by registered letter; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman said he did not mean that— 1566 he meant the multiple vote. The fact was, the clause did not read with the Bill; it was incongruous. The one single argument put forward in its favour was that last year the Chief Secretary for Ireland said something which was construed into acceptance of the clause. But that was not a good argument for the House, whatever it might be against the consistency of the right hon. Gentleman, who might have changed his mind. No attempt had been made to justify the clause to the House; and, as a matter of fact, there was no justification.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 71: Majority 38. — (Div. List, No. 166.)
§ Clause 3 (Definitions).
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had an Amendment to propose to the clause, to make it clear that the prescribed Order was to be issued by the Local Government Board. The Amendment was a verbal one, and would, no doubt, be agreed to by the House.
§ Amendment proposed, in page, line 1 24, after the word "issued," insert the words "by the Local Government Board."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
§ Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he proposed to meet the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) in another form—namely, by leaving out the words "to the fifth section of this Act."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 25, leave out "to the fifth section of this Act."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
§ Amendment agreed to; words left out accordingly.
§ Clause 4 (Guardians to hold office for three years).
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out "three" years, and insert "two" on page 2, line 6. The principle involved, however, was not of very great importance, and he should not think it necessary to move it; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether 1567 they were still of the same opinion as that which they held before with regard to the duration of this Act? He would be glad to know why the right hon. Gentleman now proposed three years instead of two.
§ [No reply.]
§ Clause 11 (A day to be fixed to hear claims of persons omitted from lists).
§ MR. HEALYsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Small), he rose to move the Amendment standing in the name of that hon. Gentleman, which had for its object to facilitate the attaining of copies of the Register for electoral divisions.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, at end of Clause, insert, "and every returning officer shall, on demand, furnish to any person requiring the same a copy of the Register for any electoral division, at a charge not exceeding one shilling for each hundred names, or fraction of a hundred names, contained therein."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
§ Other Amendments made.
§ Clause 25 (No minor entitled to vote. Fresh election to be ordered forthwith on vacancy. Justice of peace not to be qualified as ex-officio guardian unless a ratepayer).
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he proposed to reinstate the words "shall forthwith" in place of those which had been added by the Government—namely, that the Board
May, if they think fit, and shall, if applied to by the Board of Guardians, among whom the vacancy exists,order a vacancy to be filled up. He desired to look at the possible effect of the Bill as it had been amended. Supposing that the Nationalists had a majority on the Board of Guardians, and the Tory Party had a vacancy, it was clear that the Nationalists might prevent the election of the Tory candidate by failing to do anything in the matter. The effect of the clause as it stood would be undoubtedly to give the decision, as to whether a vacancy should be filled up or not, to the majority of the Board. He trusted the House would agree to the Amendment he was about to propose, which simply restored the Bill to its original form; whereas the Amendment of the Government was framed in 1568 such a way as, in his opinion, to leave great room for partizan action.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 8, line 23, after "Board," to leave out the words "may, if they think fit, and shall, if applied to by the Board of Guardians among whom the vacancy exists," and insert the words "shall forthwith,"—(Mr. Healy,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, this was rather a matter of confidence in the Local Government Board. If a case of distinct injustice on the part of the majority of a Board of Guardians were brought to the notice of the Local Government Board as at present constituted, he felt satisfied that they would order a new election. It was rather a question in this case of postponing an election for two or three weeks; and he thought it was a matter which might safely be trusted to the combined good sense of the Local Government Board and that of the Board of Guardians. He did not think that the clause as amended was practically open to the comment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) in reference to the case which he had supposed.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, notwithstanding the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, cases would undoubtedly arise in which there would be no community of feeling between the Local Government Board and the Boards of Guardians. The right hon. Gentleman had declared at the Table that the question was one of postponing an election for a short time—that was to say, for a week, or a month, or any reasonable period—which Irish Members were perfectly willing to agree to; but the clause gave power to the Guardians to postpone the election of a candidate until the next triennial election.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, the majority might be on one side or the other; and there might also be an equilibrium, in which case there would be a dead-lock. Therefore, he thought that the word "forthwith" would hardly meet the object in view. He suggested that words should be inserted to make it clear that the election should take place, say, within a month or two.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Local Government Board would act of its own free will in the case of a vacancy. If the Guardians did not apply, the Local Government Board, upon the representation of the case, might themselves see fit to order an election.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would admit some provision into the clause which would restrict the action of the Local Government Board. As the clause stood, the Local Government Board, if the majority of the Guardians took no action in respect of a fresh election, might actually permit the vacancy to exist for three years, short of one day. That was a very extraordinary position of affairs, and could not occur in the election of a Town Councillor or a Member of Parliament, or, indeed, in any other election. If it were merely for the purposes of convenience, in the case of a bye-election, within a fortnight or a month of a triennial election, Irish Members would all grant that the clause was a reasonable one; but there was no such restriction of the clause, and he did not see why the Local Government Board should have the power of permitting a vacancy to exist for three years. If the right hon. Gentleman would agree to amend the clause by putting in a period of three months, as the limit during which a vacancy might remain unfilled, he believed that would be agreed to by his hon. Friends.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) would be improved if the words "shall within a reasonable time, which shall not exceed three months," were substituted for the words "shall forthwith."
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he proposed to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson).
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 8, line 23, after the word "Board," to leave out the words "may, if they think fit, and shall, if applied to by the Board of Guardians among whom the vacancy exists," in order to insert the words "shall within a reasonable
1570
time which shall in no case exceed three months under any circumstances."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Words inserted accordingly.
§ Another Amendment made.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 8, line 29, at the end, to insert as a new sub-section—"The value of the qualification for elected guardians shall be uniform in all electoral divisions, and shall, by virtue of this Act, be fixed at the net annual value of not less than twelve pounds."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, this was a most extraordinary proposal. It was well known that the general valuation throughout Ireland was £12, and no one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the class of men who would be elected under this sub-section. Yet he proposed to lower the qualification, and get, consequently, a lower class of men on the Boards. The right hon. Gentleman was, of course, master of the situation, and could do what he liked in this matter; but he (Colonel King-Harman) believed he was proposing an Amendment which went against his own knowledge and experience, or, at any rate, the experience which he ought to have. It was impossible for him to trouble the House to divide at that hour of the night. All he could do under the circumstances was to protest against this utterly unstatesmanlike proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) having entered his protest against the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, he (Mr. Gray) would ask the right hon. Gentleman to let the House know what was the meaning of the words "not less than" so far as the Amendment was concerned? He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would consider the propriety of adopting a uniform maximum qualification; but this wording did not satisfy his idea of a maximum qualification; it was a minimum qualification; and, under it, the Local Government Board might find the 1571 discretion of fixing the qualification at £50 in one case, and at £12 in another. The exact meaning to be attached to the words appeared to be very doubtful. He thought that what the right hon. Gentleman intended to do was to provide a uniform qualification of £12; and, if that were so, the proper words to use would be "not more than twelve pounds;" because, as the sub-section stood, the Local Government Board might fix £112 as the qualification. [Mr. COURTNEY dissented.] The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury shook his head at that statement; but, surely, the words "not less than" implied, possibly. "more than?"
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that a person would not be qualified with a net annual value of less than £12.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walker) had misunderstood him. As he apprehended the position, it was this—that the Local Government Board had a certain discretionary power to fix the qualification; and, as a matter of fact, it was so. The words would leave the Local Government Board a discretion still, if they had any meaning at all. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain what meaning was to be attached to the words? Their plain meaning was, more than, or not less than; and, unless it was restricted by a clear definition to the contrary, the Local Government Board might fix any qualification they thought fit, as long as it was not less than £12, in the case of any Union.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, if the hon. Member for Carlow County (Mr. Gray) would read the clause carefully, he would perceive that the qualification was to be fixed, "by virtue of this Act," at a sum not less than £12.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, if the Government intended what their Amendment was supposed to mean, they should make it clear that any ratepayer in a Poor Law Union, rated at £12, should be qualified to be elected as Guardian for such Union, and that the value of the qualification should be uniform.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, they were willing to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy); 1572 and he would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment before the House in order that the words of the hon. Member might be substituted.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 29, at end, insert as a new sub-section—
Any ratepayer in a Poor Law Union, rated at, or exceeding, twelve pounds, shall be qualified to be elected as guardian for any electoral division in such Union, and the value of the qualification shall be uniform in all electoral divisions."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he was not at all sure that the words proposed to be added to the clause were not open to considerable objection. They seemed to say that the value of all the qualifications in the Union should be £12. [Mr. HEALY: They are Government words.] He was aware of that; but still he was not satisfied that they were not open to objection. Assuming the object of the Government to be what was stated, he admitted at once that the words now proposed were better than those originally moved; but whether the words added to the tail of the clause were not open to the charge of confusion and uncertainty, was altogether another matter. He thought they were. So much for the drafting, which his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland would consider. He made these few observations in order to show that the Government were not only generally inconsistent, but that they were unstable in their purpose from day to day, and hour to hour. Why, this Bill had been before the House on two or three occasions last week, and on each of those occasions the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had come down to say that he would consider, with his responsible advisers, whatever turned up in the way of Amendments, and then that the result of his consideration was so and so. The next day he would come down and change a certain wording, and on the following day he would alter the wording so changed. On the last occasion that the Bill was before the House, the right hon. Gentleman gave very powerful reasons to show that uniformity of qualification was a thing 1573 which, under existing circumstances, in Ireland was not to be sought for and not to be desired until those circumstances altered; and now he said, by proposing this Amendment, that uniformity of qualification was to be sought for. If the right hon. Gentleman had consulted his legal Colleagues, who necessarily knew more of the position of affairs in the various Unions in Ireland than he could be supposed to know, they—indeed, anyone acquainted with the subject—must have told him that in every county of Ireland the elements of difficulty were to be found, and that it was almost a matter of necessity that the administration should have different scales of valuation applied to each county. While, therefore, like his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman), he should not divide the House against the Amendment, he must not be taken as assenting to the principle which had been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman that night.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, it appeared to him that the words of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) would be far better without having the Government words tacked on. The latter were superfluous, if not absolutely absurd. Certainly, he hoped that the Amendment would be put into a reasonable form, and the objectionable words left out.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Government were quite willing to take the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan as it stood. He remembered, on the last occasion, arguing against the proposal of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite that it would be no qualification at all; but, certainly, he did not remember arguing against a uniform qualification.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Words inserted accordingly.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he now proposed to move a sub-section, worded as follows:—
(5.) The number of ex-officio guardians of any Poor Law Union shall in no case exceed one-third of the number of guardians to be elected by the ratepayers of such Union, and, in every case in which the number of justices qualified to be such ex-officio guardians shall exceed one-third of the whole number of guardians to be elected by the ratepayers, the justices to serve as ex-officio guardians shall be 1574 selected from among the qualified justices at the prescribed time after the passing of this Act, and in every third year subsequently, in the manner provided by the twenty-fourth section of the said Act of the Session of the first and second years of the Reign of Her present Majesty, chapter fifty-six.Casual vacancies occurring among the ex-officio guardians shall be filled up in like manner at a meeting convened for the purpose at the prescribed time.In proposing those words, his desire was to make the Irish system as far as possible the same as the English system, except in certain particulars, in which Her Majesty's Government considered that very great improvements had been made—that was to say, in respect of the vote by ballot and the more rapid means of voting. The number of ex officio Guardians had never, or scarcely ever, been one-third of the number of Guardians, and it was very often below that proportion. It was true that it could be so in England; because, in those Poor Law Unions in the Metropolis, where there was nothing like an adequate number of Justices of the Peace as ex officio Guardians, it was the custom of the Local Government Board to appoint ex officio Guardians who were not Justices of the Peace, and they had been limited to the proportion of one-third. The object of having ex officio Guardians was to get men who would attend, and that object was not at present fulfilled in Ireland. They wanted men who would attend the meetings constantly, and do the work that was to be done; but there were, under the present system, a considerable number of absentees and persons who had little or no interest in the work of the Poor Law Board. He had been very anxious to find some means by which the most efficient magistrates might be chosen for the purpose of the Poor Law Board, and he was glad to find that such machinery was ready to his hand in an Act passed at the beginning of Her Majesty's Reign. He proposed, therefore, to add to the Amendment on the Paper the words which he had read to the House at the commencement of his present statement. The manner of the election would be that the Justices assembled with the senior Justice as Chairman would elect those of their number whom they thought would make the best ex officio Guardians, and whom they thought would serve most continuously. In this way only those would be chosen who 1575 would do the work really; whereas the grievance was that a great number of persons who were only Guardians in name were appointed, and they only attended when there was patronage being distributed, or when the Chairman was to be elected. Those who would be chosen would be made to feel that they had to work.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words,—"(5.) The number of ex-officio guardians of any Poor Law Union shall in no case exceed one-third of the number of guardians to be elected by the ratepayers of such Union, and, in every case in which the number of justices qualified to be such ex-officio guardians shall exceed one-third of the whole number of guardians to be elected by the ratepayers, the justices to serve as ex-officio guardians shall be selected from among the qualified justices at the prescribed time after the passing of this Act, and in every third year subsequently, in the manner provided by the twenty-fourth section of the said Act of the Session of the first and second years of the Reign of Her present Majesty, chapter fifty-six; casual vacancies occurring among the ex-officio guardians shall be filled up in like manner at a meeting convened for the purpose at the prescribed time."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. GRAYsaid, that if this Amendment were agreed to, it would have a very different effect from the one previously proposed. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the best men in each case would be selected, and that, consequently, there would be a great improvement in the Boards of Guardians; but he (Mr. Gray) was decidedly of opinion that the reverse would be the case. The selection would not be made on the ground of their attendance, or through special capacity, but purely and exclusively on Party grounds, and the enormous majority of those qualified to be ex officio Guardians were of one Party in politics and religion. In many of the Unions, at present, some of the Magistrates and Guardians were of different politics from the majority of the magistrates resident in the Union. In Dublin, for instance, certain magistrates, ex officio members of Poor Law Boards, were Liberals and Catholics; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, who must know something about the Justices of Dublin, what chance any one of these magistrates would have, no matter how competent he was, or how 1576 regular in his attendance, of being selected as a representative of the magistrates of Dublin? Not a glimmer of a chance. And the result would be that in every Poor Law Board there would be a compact body of one-third elected by an exclusive and rather bigoted constituency, and those men would be all of one political Party and of one religion, and occupying a purely political and Party position on the Board. That would introduce an element of Party strife in the Boards in Ireland, and, he believed, would make the state of things worse than they now were. He could scarcely believe the right hon. Gentleman had considered what would be the effect of his Amendment in the present state of affairs in Ireland. The Amendment was certainly most unwise and unfortunate; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider it further before he pressed it, because the effect would be to completely expel from the Unions any man of Liberal opinions or Catholic religion.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he would not argue as the hon. Member (Mr. Gray) had done as to what would be the case; but he would deal with what they had been told was the case before the Act was altered. It had been stated that the Catholic and the Protestant magistrates had no bitter feeling between them; but the Protestant magistrates used to help the Protestant Guardians as they required it. At present, there was no bitter feeling; but the Chief Secretary for Ireland was taking the best course to bring that about. He (Colonel Nolan) himself was Chairman of a Board of Guardians; but, if he wanted to be elected, he must please the majority of the magistrates; otherwise he should not be elected. Then he would also have to please the majority of the ratepayers; but he did not think he could please both parties, and if there was any feeling of bitterness, he should not get elected. No man who was a popular man with the people could be elected a member of a Poor Law Board.
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he thought it was easy to see why the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) objected to the proposal of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had told them of one or two matters which were grievances, especially with regard to the Guardians; but the greates 1577 evil in the matter was being under the management of one who knew less now about the subject than when he first went to Ireland, and who changed his mind three times in three days. On Tuesday morning, the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) brought in an Amendment to this Bill couched in the very words of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. On Wednesday morning, it was debated at length and passed, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland speaking for the right hon. Gentleman; but, on Thursday morning, they found the clause which was left out, at the instance of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, put in by the same right hon. Gentleman now in the same words. Was there ever a more extraordinary instance of absolute ignorance or unblushing tergiversation? Last year the right hon. Gentleman announced a principle which he had now abandoned; and the opinions he formed on Tuesday, he changed on Wednesday, and abandoned on Thursday. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had given very cogent reasons for bringing in Clause 5. He said that in England the ex officio Guardians were only one-third; but he (Colonel King-Harman) thought he might say he knew they were not limited in any way, and that every magistrate was an ex officio Guardian. He thought that the action of the right hon. Gentleman was a sufficient indication of the course he intended to pursue.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he thought that one-third would be only one-fourth, because the one-third would have to be elected.
§ MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he would remind the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) that this expression was used in all the previous Acts, and it would be read in the same way. Elected Guardians meant all the Guardians, whether ex officio or not.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 30: Majority 30. — (Div. List, No. 167.)
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that with regard to the number of votes each ratepayer should be entitled to, he would move that it should be "twelve" in order to make it the same as the English law.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was afraid he could not accept the Amendment for 1578 the reasons he had stated the other day.
§ MR. HEALYWill not the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, declare the law? Will he not say that no ratepayer shall be entitled to more than a certain number of votes—say 18? Will he not say that 18 votes shall be the most a man shall exercise? I will move the following Proviso at end of Clause 25:—
(4.) No ratepayer shall be entitled, at any Poor Law Guardian election, to more than eighteen votes for each of the number of candidates to be elected in any electoral division.
§
Amendment proposed, in page 8, at end, add—
(4.) No ratepayer shall be entitled, at any Poor Law Guardian election, to more than eighteen votes for each of the number of candidates to be elected in any electoral division."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he should be content to accept that Amendment. No doubt, it would be well to accept such a provision to prevent the officers who had to deal with the matter from making mistakes.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Words added accordingly.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he would move to insert—
(7.) The words 'salary or emolument,' as employed in twenty-five and twenty-six Victoria, chapter eighty-three, section twenty-two, shall be held to include superannuation allowances.
§
Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert—
(7.) The words 'salary or emolument,' as employed in twenty-five and twenty-six Victoria, chapter eighty-three, section twenty-two, shall be held to include superannuation allowances."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was afraid this Amendment was more than declaratory. The law allowed a pensioner to hold office as an elected Guardian, just as a Treasury pensioner could hold such office. It seemed to him that the principle of the proposed Amendment was one which they should not hastily adopt.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that if he might, with the indulgence of the House, make an observation, he would point out that he had accepted the suggestion of the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. 1579 This Amendment was not retrospective, but prospective. Therefore, no one could be damnified by it. It would affect no one at the present moment.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that, even under these circumstances, he should have an objection to it; because he thought that, as far as it would have an operation in the future, that operation would be unfortunate. The effect of the Amendment would be to deprive the Guardians of the services of gentlemen who might be peculiarity fitted to serve on the Board.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. TREVELYANI would now, with the indulgence of the House, ask that this Bill be read a third time.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Question is, "That this Bill be now read a third time." Any who are of that opinion will say "Aye;" contrary, "No."
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANI say "No," in order that the third reading may not be described as having passed neminê contradicente.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe "Ayes" have it.
§ Bill read the third time, and passed.