SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] (Hansard, 10 November 1884)

§ MR. GIBSON
said, he could not allow this Bill to pass the second reading without making two or three observations on the view he took of its provisions. 1437 The Bill proposed to make very large changes in the mode of election of Poor Law Guardians in Ireland, and in the powers they would possess, and in the different classes that would use them. In reference to some of the broader changes, as to the mode of allowing Guardians to hold office for three years, electing by ballot, and giving the Local Government Board enlarged powers, and also the regulation of questions arising on the validity of elections, he did not propose to say anything. But to the provisions of the Bill for the abolition of the right of proxy voting, he should, unless amended, give his strenuous opposition. That clause, as drawn up at present, did not assimilate the law in Ireland with the law in England; for the law in England did not contain any such drastic provisions in dealing with Poor Law elections in this country. The history of this clause was very curious. It was proposed two or three years ago, and was met by a very considerable amount of opposition. In that opposition he believed most people recognized a great deal of substance and fairness. The right to proxy voting was a right which was to a great extent necessary for the representation of the fair claims of property. It was not a mere right of convenience to enable a man to vote by proxy because he would not take the trouble to vote in person, nor was it a luxury or privilege. It was the necessary machinery whereby property could alone in many cases obtain adequate representation. In the case where an owner had land in several Unions, it was necessary that he should be able to vote by proxy. No matter what arrangements were made by the Local Government Board, it was practically impossible for a man to vote in more than one Union on one day, and this was in itself a great and a gross injustice. It should be remembered that in Ireland property had to bear a great proportion of the rates, and that where it was under £4 rating it had to bear the whole, and it was right that it should have full representation. He objected also to Sub-section 5 of Clause 25, limiting the number of ex officio Guardians. It seemed as if it had been thought that the landlords were too powerful already and must be checked. Both the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) and the 1438 right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had, in former speeches on the subject, seemed to be proud of the way the noble Lord (Lord Fitzgerald) had presented this question in the House of Lords last Session; but the noble Lord had expressed his regret that the Bill was deformed by these two clauses. He should not oppose the Bill as a whole on the present occasion, but should reserve his opposition on the points he had indicated, as well as his detailed criticism, until the stage of Committee on the Bill.

§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
, having congratulated Irish Members on the Bill coming on so early in the evening (8 o'clock), said, the Government were very much of the same opinion towards it as they were last Session. They considered its provisions were reasonable, politic, and wise. With regard to the clause dealing with ex officio Guardians, he believed that the wording did not really convey the idea of the provision. The general idea was that ex officio Guardians should not be more than one-third of the whole body; whereas this clause provided for not more than one-third of the elected members. But he did not wish now to go into detail; and he hoped it would suffice for him to say that the Government maintained their adhesion to the Bill, and would do all in their power to secure its passing into law. He thought, however, that it was hardly possible that this Bill could come into action in February, as it was now late in the year.

§ MR. SEXTON
, after commenting on the change in the spirit of the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), with regard to this Bill, said, he hoped this change would be maintained until the Bill had passed through the House of Lords.