§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clauses 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 6 (Local Government Board to frame rules for the conduct of Poor Law elections).
§ VISCOUNT CRICHTONsaid, he wished to make a suggestion to Her Majesty's Government, and he thought this was the proper time for making it. This was a Bill one of the main provisions of which was the abolition of the proxy vote in the election of Poor Law Guardians in Ireland. In supporting it last year, the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) made two concessions, in order to mitigate any hardships which might ensue from the abolition of the existing law. In the first place, he proposed to substitute triennial for annual elections, and he further said that the Local Government Board would so ex- 1508 ercise the power they possessed in regard to fixing the dates of elections as to provide that elections in the different divisions of a Union should not take place on the same day. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government fully recognized the difficulty which would arise from holding different elections on the same day, but he added that the Local Government Board intended to exercise the power they possessed of naming the days on which Poor Law elections should be held, so that they would not be allowed to clash with each other. He (Viscount Crichton) thought it was best to have these things in black and white in the four corners of an Act of Parliament; and, therefore, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) that he should bring up some provision on the Report making it imperative on the part of the Local Government Board to carry out the spirit of the suggestions made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) last year, and not leave it optional for them to do so.
§ MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he recognized the great convenience which would result from these elections taking place on different days; but he did not see how that could be provided for in an Act of Parliament. He had no doubt that the Local Government Board would practically carry the suggestion into effect; but he was not prepared to say that any words could very well be inserted in the Bill which would tie down the Board.
§ MR. GIBSONremarked, that this was a matter of considerable importance, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman appeared to recognize either its importance or its fairness. The late Chief Secretary, the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan), took a very extraordinary course in reference to this Bill last year. The right hon. Gentleman stated that it was necessary to make some arrangement by which those who had votes should not be disfranchised, which would be the obvious effect if the owner was bound to vote in person at several elections on the same day, because, even in Ireland, no man could be in more than two or three places at the same time. It was to meet that difficulty that the late Chief Secretary said he would provide, as a matter 1509 of arrangement, that the Local Government Board should undertake to fix the elections, as far as they could, on different days. The words of the clause were very elastic, and they did not lay down any hard-and-fast line. He hoped the Local Government Board, as far as was practicable and reasonably convenient, would take care to fix the elections for such times and upon such dates as would enable owners connected with different Unions to go from one to the other, if they were so minded, in order to record their votes. He would himself suggest words to meet the difficulty when they came to Clause 9, which proposed to deal with proxies. When that clause came under consideration, he would submit an Amendment, not for the purpose of laying down a hard-and-fast line, but to empower the Local Government Board to provide that these cases should be dealt with in accordance with the obvious requirements of common justice.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he would strongly recommend the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to leave the carrying out of the elections, so far as the dates were concerned, to the Local Government Board themselves, because he thought, when the matter came to be considered and investigated, that it would be found to be a work of great difficulty to introduce into any Bill a provision which would absolutely carry out the suggestion of the noble Viscount. It appeared to him (Mr. Parnell) that the Irish Local Government Board might be fairly relied upon to fix the days for these elections for Poor Law Unions in such a way that the times and days would be most convenient for those who had the privilege of exercising the vote. Although he did not wish to deprecate the merits of any provision which the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) might propose, yet he thought it might be found exceedingly difficult by any general arrangement to carry the matter further than it had been carried by the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan).
§ MR. GRAYpointed out that the Bill had been framed in accordance with the suggestion of the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan), which was now confirmed by the present Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). He did not see why it should be amended. His own opinion was that it would be much 1510 better to leave the matter in the hands of the Local Government Board, and to allow the arrangements to be of such an elastic character that they could be easily made to work when a difficulty arose. He did not think it was necessary to lay down any hard-and-fast line which they could not possibly change, in order to meet exceptional circumstances.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
§ Clause 9 (Voters to vote in person).
§ VISCOUNT CRICHTONsaid, he had put down an Amendment on the Paper to omit this clause; but he saw another Amendment in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce), and as his hon. Friend was not present, and as he approved of the Amendment, he would move it in the place of his hon. Friend. The clause required that every ratepayer must himself attend in person to vote at the place of polling, and he proposed to add to the clause, with a view to inserting hereafter the necessary provision, the words "except as hereinafter provided." This was the vital clause of the Bill, and it made provision for the mode in which the election of Poor Law Guardians was to be conducted. In Ireland, the landlord paid one-half of the poor rate, except in the case of tenants under £4 a-year, where he paid the whole. In addition, he paid the rates for the land he held in his own hand, and in this way it was computed that the landlords paid five-eighths of the entire rates of Ireland. That being so, it was only just that they should have some corresponding influence in the election of Poor Law Guardians. This Bill, however, took from the landlord altogether the power of voting by proxy, and he would be practically disfranchised in every electoral division in which he had property except in the one in which he was able to vote personally. The clause virtually disfranchised him for every other division, but, nevertheless, he was still required to contribute very largely towards the rates. The Session before last, the late Chief Secretary—the right hon. Gentleman who was now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan)—recognized this hardship, and, in order to meet it, he made a proposal the effect of which was to provide that an owner of property voting in one electoral division in 1511 person should have the power of voting by voting papers sent to the Returning Officer in a registered letter in all the other divisions in which he held property. Whether the right hon. Gentleman was frightened by a Notice of opposition in consequence of the proposal put down by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) or not, he (Viscount Crichton) was unable to say; but, undoubtedly, that opposition had the effect of killing the Bill for the Session. The right hon. Gentleman since then had turned right-about-face, and last Session strongly opposed the very provision which he had himself previously suggested. The object of this clause was to prevent representation and taxation from going together, although that was the established principle of the English Constitution; and he hoped the Committee, by acceding to the terms of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce), would admit, to some extent, the justice of the claim made by the Irish landlords, and mitigate the injustice which the Bill, as it stood, did to them.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, after the word "polling," to insert the words "except as hereinafter provided."—(Viscount Crichton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he was altogether opposed to the Amendment. Since the Poor Law Act was originally passed, its provisions had been rendered quite intolerable by the power of interference with the representative character of the Board of Guardians exercised by the landlords. It must be remembered that the Poor Law Guardians had important powers conferred upon them, which were not given to any other representative body or in connection with any other municipal institution. Nevertheless, the landlords enjoyed an undue share of voting power. As an illustration, he might mention that in certain districts there were Town Commissioners, Corporations, and Boards of Guardians; but whereas the election were conducted on the principle of personal voting, as a general rule, in the election of Boards of Guardians, the landlords enjoyed privileges which were not given to other voters. He asked if the Government were prepared to propose in the Franchise 1512 Bill, which dealt with matters relating to Parliamentary elections, that electors who had a vote in more than one county should vote in one case in person and in another by means of a registered letter? If the Government were prepared to do that, then he would have no further objection to the adoption of a similar principle in the present case; but, otherwise, he certainly could not see the necessity for introducing this objectionable principle into the election of Poor Law Guardians alone.
§ MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. The object the noble Viscount had in view in proposing it was perfectly intelligible, and to that extent he sympathized with it, because he had a great objection to anything which would have a disfranchising effect. But he thought they were bound to consider, before effecting a change in the law, whether that change would be antagonistic to the principles of the general law. He must say that, as far as he was concerned, he looked upon the proposal of the noble Viscount as one which would introduce a new species of proxy voting, and he could not see that it was at all desirable, in making any change in the mode of voting in the election of Poor Law Guardians, to introduce artificial arrangements for the purpose of exempting a particular class of persons from the requirements which attached to all other classes. There might be cases, but he did not think they would be very numerous, where Poor Law elections in different localities might come into collision with each other, and one individual, holding property in more than one district, might be disfranchised to a certain extent; but he thought the objections to the introduction of an elaborate and novel system of voting in a Bill of this sort were greater than any advantages which could be gained from it. It was proposed that if an elector voted personally in one division, he should have the right of recording his vote, by means of a registered letter, in any other division. Now, he did not see how the fact of an elector having voted in one division was to be known in the other divisions to which registered letters might be sent. All sorts of objections might be raised to arrangements of this kind, which were necessarily of an artificial kind. His opinion was that it 1513 was desirable to have the elections conducted in as simple a manner as possible; and although, in some instances, the present system might act as a disfranchisement, he could not see that it would be judicious on the part of Parliament to attempt, by any artificial arrangement, to remedy the evil.
§ MR. PLUNKETsaid, he was not disposed to overlay the debate with further points, when all of them had been urged over and over again; but he must enter his protest, once more, against the course which had been adopted by the Representative of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland on this occasion, as he had done formerly in regard to the same matter. It was nothing more nor less than the same surrender which was made last Session, and which was now being repeated again in order to save trouble, and to conciliate Irish Members below the Gangway. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had not been able to adduce one single particle of argument in support of his contention. The right hon. Gentleman had not shown that there was any difficulty, and indeed there was no difficulty, and there could be no difficulty, in carrying out the system of voting by registered letter, which was suggested by his own Predecessor in Office. He defied hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to suggest that there was any difficulty in the matter. As to the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), when he spoke of the importance of the special duties conferred on the Poor Law Guardians, he (Mr. Plunket) confessed that he did not know what the hon. Gentleman was referring to.
§ MR. PLUNKETsaid, he failed to see in that a reason why additional votes should not be given to the owners of property in the country, who had certainly quite as deep an interest in the proper administration of the Sanitary Acts as in any other portion of the working of the Poor Law. The case was altogether different from elections for Members of the House of Commons, and the duty of the Board of Guardians was, or ought to be, to see to the proper application of the rates provided by the ratepayers. There was no elaborate or novel system evoked by the present pro- 1514 posal, but it simply followed out the suggestion of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan). If the Bill were passed in its present shape, the poorest ratepayer in the Union would have precisely the same influence as the ratepayer who owned a very considerable amount of the property of the parish. He had no wish to detain the Committee, but he should certainly vote for the Amendment.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONwished to say, in reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, that his (Mr. Dickson's) experience in connection with the working of the Poor Law extended over a period of more than 16 years, both as an elected Guardian and as an ex officio Guardian, and, in his opinion, there could be no worse system of election than that now adopted. He thought the Local Government Board were tired of the present system of electing Guardians. There was hardly an election in regard to which there was not a contest or some dispute, and he certainly could see no valid reason why the Guardians should not be elected on the same principle as Members of Parliament. He protested against all this elaborate arrangement for fancy voting either by registered letter or by proxy. What they really required was some plain and simple plan of voting by ballot.
§ MR. DAWSONsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) said that the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) had advanced a curious argument in support of the Bill, and in opposition to voting by proxy, in pointing out that the Guardians had to deal with sanitary questions and with matters affecting the health and well-being of the people. What did these sanitary questions mean? They meant an intimate acquaintance with the condition of the district sufficient to enable the persons elected to know what the evils were that required to be remedied. Persons who voted by proxy were persons who did not reside in the locality, and were, therefore, unacquainted with its wants. The very pith and marrow of the argument of the hon. Member for Carlow was that these persons who desired to vote by proxy and by registered letter possessed no local knowledge and had no personal interest in improving the sanitary con- 1515 dition of the district. On the contrary, their interest went entirely the other way, and they would be desirous of preventing sanitary improvements even in matters vitally affecting the lives and health of the people, in order to save their own pockets. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had only added strength, to the argument of the hon. Member for Carlow, when he pointed out that these proxy votes were required to be given upon local questions concerning the lives and health of the people. Persons, however rich, they might be, ought not to be allowed to vote by proxy, and thus to override the opinion of the resident electors.
§ MR. BRODRICKexpressed regret that the Amendment of his noble Friend the Member for Fermanagh (Viscount Crichton) had not received the support of the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). The late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) always assumed a learned air in reference to Irish Poor Law matters, and the right hon. Gentleman his Successor seemed to have taken up his Predecessor's position. The right hon. Gentleman had not attempted to adduce a single argument beyond his own individual opinion on the part of the Government that the system of proxy voting was undesirable. In arriving at that conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman set his face against the arguments, opinions, and interests of the whole of the landlord class in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman turned away from them in a contemptuous tone, and merely referred to them as "a particular class of people"—an expression that would not soon be forgotten. That was the way in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of those who paid five-eighths of the rates in Ireland. ["No, no!"] He believed he was accurate in that assertion, and that five-eighths of the rates was about the exact amount of the rates paid by the Irish landlords. Yet it was proposed to prevent the large majority of these ratepayers from having a voice in the election of Poor Law Guardians. He honestly confessed that he looked upon the Amendment of his noble Friend as a very moderate proposal. Why should they force a man, who, for instance, might be attending to the discharge of his duties as a Member of Parliament, 1516 whenever a Poor Law election occurred in Ireland, to return there or to lose his vote? He believed that the right of voting by proxy or by papers was recognized in the English law, and yet the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said that he could not support proxy voting in Ireland, because it would create a divergence between the law in Ireland and in England. It was urged by hon. Members below the Gangway that it was not desirable to give the right of proxy voting on sanitary matters to persons who were not resident in the locality, because they might possess a very small amount of local knowledge. But the hon. Gentlemen who made use of that argument forgot that one of the main points urged on the previous occasion when the point was raised, was that the non-resident owners had their agents on the spot, who would act for them, and who did possess full local knowledge. With regard to the provision as it stood in the Bill, he contended that it was practically an attempt to disfranchise altogether a very large and important class of the ratepayers. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) would probably remember that about two years ago he suggested in one of his speeches in Ireland that it would be well to make the landlords pay the rates that were expended in supporting the families of suspects and of convicted felons. If the hon. Member would consult the books of some of the Poor Law Guardians, he believed he would find that in some instances £1 a-week was paid to such families, while the families of the more deserving poor were not receiving more than 5s. or 6s. a-week. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether it was not desirable that those who were engaged in supporting the action of the Executive Government in Ireland should be permitted to enjoy something like the legitimate influence they were entitled to in the elections for Poor Law Guardians, and an influence which the Bill, in its present shape, would deprive them of? Of course, he knew what the result would be if the Government persisted in opposing the Amendment; but, nevertheless, he hoped that his noble Friend would press it to a Division.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. Member who had just addressed the Committee had referred to an interesting remi- 1517 niscence. He (Mr. Sexton) certainly remembered in Ireland recommending that the landlords should be required to pay for the sustenance of the families of the suspects while the suspects themselves were confined in gaol, because he believed that the practical effect of such a course would be to render the landlord interest more cautious in procuring the arrest of honest men. With regard to the question more immediately before the Committee, he thought there could be no question that the adoption of the system of proxy voting was a great scandal, and a source of grievous injustice in Ireland. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) had pointed out that, in addition to the relief of the poor, the Poor Law Guardians performed other most important functions, among them being the administration of the Sanitary Acts with a view to the preservation of the public health. It would be intolerable if persons drawing large incomes from the land in Ireland, but leaving the country and residing abroad, should be able to throw sheafs of proxies into the hands of agents which would virtually control all the elections under the Poor Law, seeing that these persons no longer resided upon Irish soil, and had no interest whatever in the country or the well-being of the inhabitants, except so far as the income they drew out of it was concerned. He had known cases where persons—intelligent men—were candidates for the office of Guardian, and had the support of every resident ratepayer; but the landlords' agent was able to come down with a formidable sheaf of proxies in his hand, and throw them out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had done the Irish Members below the Gangway the honour of speaking of them as clever. He (Mr. Sexton) did not claim for them that they were any more clever than hon. Members in other parts of the House, and it was not only unreasonable, but absurd, to suppose that the Local Government Board in Dublin in making its preparations for the election of Poor Law Guardians would not take care to fix the elections in the different electoral divisions in such a manner that no landlord would find himself embarrassed in exercising his right of voting. No doubt, having regard to the fact that property might be 1518 held in more than one division by the same individual, the Local Government Board would so fix the elections in the different divisions that one did not clash with another; and there would be no difficulty at all, except the persons claiming the right to vote happened to be non-resident. In that case, of course, the vote would not be recorded; but, surely, if the vote was worth anything at all, it was worth giving in person. The proposal made by the noble Viscount the Member for Fermanagh (Viscount Crichton) was that in the event of an election taken place in two electoral divisions on the same day, in both of which a landlord happened to have property, he should be allowed to vote in one division personally and in the other by sending a registered letter to the Returning Officer, proving to such Returning Officer that he had voted in person in another division. But surely that was a physical impossibility, because the letter in the one case must be despatched while the voter was actually on his way to record his vote in the other. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell - Bannerman) deserved but scant gratitude from hon. Gentleman who sat on that side of the Gangway. The right hon. Gentleman had made a speech in which he said that he had a strong feeling of dislike to any proposal which had a disfranchising effect; and then he went on to attribute such an effect to the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman never paused for a moment to ask himself whether the present franchise was an equitable one, but said he was opposed to any rating franchise, however reasonable it otherwise might be, which was calculated in any degree to deprive the landlords of their influence in controlling the municipal government of the country. He might tell the right hon. Gentleman that the present Bill was the result of a compromise. The Irish Representatives had asked for much more than was contained in the Bill; but they had consented to accept the measure in a spirit of compromise, the effect of the compromise being still to leave the landlords a large plurality of votes as compared with those enjoyed by the occupiers. If by peculiar practices in that House, or by moving the power of their friends in the other House, Gentlemen of the Tory Party 1519 obstructed and embarrassed the measure now, and prevented it from being passed into law, as they did last Session, he warned them that they would have to face a much more disagreeable Bill next Session.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAbelieved that the Irish landlords would lose nothing whatever by accepting the Bill as it stood. At present, there were insinuations that they made use of their influence to control unfairly the Poor Law elections. What was it they would lose? They would simply lose the chance of influencing the election of one Guardian as against another; and he did not think that that was a privilege which ought any longer to be preserved to them. Their privileges were fully preserved for them now by the plurality of votes which they enjoyed. He had no interest, personally, in any election in Ireland for Poor Law Guardians except as a landlord. He held property, as a landlord, in three counties in Ireland; and so much had he always felt that it was only for the people on the spot to decide what persons should be elected to perform the duties of Poor Law Guardians, that he had never for 25 years given a vote either by proxy or otherwise. He ventured to say that it would be a most mistaken policy, indeed, if hon. Members above the Gangway were on this occasion to force the Committee into a Division. He trusted that better counsels would prevail, and that the Bill would be accepted, as it stood, seeing that it was the result of a fair compromise.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that, not-withstanding the threat which had been held out to the Irish landlords by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton)—
§ MR. SEXTONA warning; not a threat.
MR. MACARTNEYOh, a warning! Well, notwithstanding the very menacing warning held out to the Irish landlords by the hon. Member that they would be worse treated if they did not now take what they could get, he must resist this attempt to deprive them of their rights, at the proper time, and not wait for some other opportunity. His objection to the present Bill was this. When it was introduced in the Session before last, when the right hon. Gentleman, now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was then Chief Secretary of Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan), a difficulty arose as to 1520 the abolition of proxy voting, and the desirability of preserving the proprietor's right to the vote. He (Mr. Macartney) suggested, and the suggestion was accepted and acted upon by the Chief Secretary, that every proprietor should be allowed to send in a paper containing his vote, as now proposed in the Amendment' of his noble Friend the Member for Fermanagh (Viscount Crichton). It was further suggested that the paper so signed by the landlord, and duly filled up by a magistrate, should be sent in a registered letter to the Clerk of the Union. It was all very well to say that the owners of property in different Unions, if they valued the vote, would attend to record the vote in person. One thing appeared to have been completely forgotten, and that was, that in many instances females were owners of property, and had the right to vote for the election of Poor Law Guardians. They would be completely disfranchised by this Bill.
§ MR. SEXTONNot at all.
MR. MACARTNEYasked what female, who happened to own property in five or six Unions, would take the trouble to go about in order that she might vote in person? The hon. Member had, perhaps, no respect for those who had property, and reserved it for those who had none. It had been stated, in the course of the discussion on this Amendment, that a part of the rates were paid by the landlord; but he would point out that, in addition to that, the landlord paid for all his occupiers under £4 valuation, who were very numerous, and, besides that, he paid the total amount of the rates on the land which he himself occupied. That being so, the landlord paid a much larger proportion of the rates than the tenant, and it was only right that he should be proportionately represented in the election of Guardians. The principle that representation should follow taxation was, in his opinion, eminently applicable to the case.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 88: Majority 62. — (Div. List, No. 11.)
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, the Amendment he had to propose was with reference to a subject which he had referred to at an earlier stage of the proceedings. It had been admitted that it would be unfair 1521 and unreasonable for the Local Government Board not to make a practicable arrangement by which the opportunity of voting might be secured to those whose property lay in different localities. The only objection to that principle had been stated by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who said that it would not be desirable or practical to lay down a hard-and-fast line for determining the action of the Local Government Board. That was precisely what he did not wish to be done, and he was, therefore, in agreement with the hon. Member on the point. But it was perfectly reasonable, and had been done over and over again in Acts of Parliament, to suggest in words to Public Departments that Parliament expected them to do what was reasonable and practicable in the discharge of their duties. He, therefore, put forward words which would direct the Local Government Board to fix such times for the election of Boards of Guardians as they might think fit, to assist, as far as might be convenient and practicable, owners having property in different districts in recording their votes. That, the Committee would see, was to draw no hard-and-fast line, but to put the matter upon a common-sense footing.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Clause, to add the words "The Local Government Board shall fix such days and times for Poor Law election as they think fit, and as may assist, so far as may be practicable and convenient, owners who have properties in different unions to record their votes."—(Mr. Gibson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he had expected that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would have made a statement with reference to the representation of Irish tenants on Boards of Guardians in Ireland. The recent experience of official life in Ireland on the part of the right hon. Gentleman had certainly led him (Mr. Sexton) to expect that the Committee would have been furnished with at least one example of the manner in which the landlords exercised their powers in this respect towards the tenants. The general belief was that it was exercised in an unsatisfactory manner. He thought the Local Government Board might in this matter be allowed to exercise the discre- 1522 tionary power which they already possessed, and he should, therefore, oppose the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, it would be inconvenient to the community generally for the Local Government Board to fix times for the elections in the manner proposed. There were about 163 Poor Law Unions in Ireland, and the words proposed would almost coerce the Local Government Board to fix those elections for so many different days, if, as might happen, there were proprietors who, in respect of them, had property in different Unions. The Local Government Board would be driven to fix 163 days for holding the elections, in order to avoid the attacks that would be made upon them.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would not press his Amendment. The Government had already stated their opinion that this was a matter which might be left to the discretion of the Local Government Board. He thought there was a good deal of force in what had been said by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray)—namely, that any injunction of this kind would lead to constant reclamations on the part of people who thought that other arrangements might have been made. It was, therefore, very much better to leave the point to the Local Government Board, who had both experience and discretionary power in the matter.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, they had been told last Session that the rights of landlords in respect of their votes at these elections should be preserved; but, from what had been said, it appeared that justice was not to be done to them.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANhoped the Amendment would not be agreed to. It would lead to great inconvenience.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: — Ayes 24; Noes 81: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 12.)
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 10 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
§ 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).
1523§ MR. BRODRICKsaid, before the right hon. Gentleman proposed his Amendment to Sub-section 5, he wished to call attention to a point in Sub-section 3. He did so merely as a protest against the provision that—
No Justice of the Peace shall be qualified to be an ex officio Guardian of any Poor Law Union, unless he is a ratepayer of such Union.It happened that in Ireland there were a certain number of Justices of the Peace, who were either agents representing landlords, or the eldest sons of landlords who were old and decrepid. These persons might be very able and efficient men as Guardians; and he raised the point indicated, because he could not think that any abuse could creep in as a consequence of allowing such Justices of the Peace to be ex officio Poor Law Guardians. He hoped the matter would receive the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman; but as the animus of the Committee at the moment was quite clear on the point, he would not press it at greater length. He simply put it to the right hon. Gentleman, in the hope that he might be prepared to omit the words in question.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, that so far as concerned agents who were Justices of the Peace, they had generally farms in the country. He did not see why agents should be on the Boards of Guardians simply because they represented proprietors. One object of the clause was to get the proprietor to live in Ireland, although, of course, if he was unable to do that it was a proper thing that he should go away and give his son the opportunity of representing him. He could not see that any practical inconvenience would arise from this; but he was at a loss to understand why a Justice of the Peace, who was not a ratepayer in the Union, and who lived in a country town, should be ex officio a Poor Law Guardian. He did not think that the proposal of the hon. Member would tend to the proper working of the Act.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he understood it was the general feeling with regard to this Bill that the number of ex officio Guardians should be limited to one-third of the number of the members of the Board. That, however, was not exactly carried out by the wording of the clause in its present form, and he was therefore anxious, in order to prevent any doubt as to the 1524 meaning of the Bill, to amend the clause in such a way as would express the general intention. He would propose to add words to the effect that the number of ex officio Guardians in any Poor Law Union should in no case exceed one-third of the number of members of the Board. But the objection to that was that the total number of which the ex officio Guardians were to be a third would be a movable quantity by the fact of their being ex officio Guardians, and the words, therefore, that would best express what was intended would be words which implied that the ex officio Guardians should be not more in number than half the elected Guardians. In that way they would be one-third of the whole. He had heard other ways of expressing it, but that appeared to him to be most correct. The section would then read—
The number of ex officio Guardians of any Poor Law Union shall not exceed half the number of the elected Guardians in the Union;and then there would be added, to meet a very obvious case—Where the number of such elected Guardians is an uneven number, it shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be diminished by one.They could not have half a Guardian. He believed that if these words were inserted they would carry out what was the universal intention when the clause was before them last Session. At present, anyone who read the section would see that it did not convey that impression at all.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 8, line 32, leave out the beginning of the sub-section to the word "and," in line 34, and insert "the number of ex officio Guardians in any Poor Law Union shall not exceed half the number of elected Guardians in the Union. Where the number of such elected Guardians is an uneven number, it shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be diminished by one."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, they had abolished the proxy vote, they had made it impossible for landlords to vote in any place except that in which they resided, and now it was proposed that the number of landlords sitting on Boards of Guardians should be reduced from an equal number to only half the number 1525 of elected Guardians; and, on the suggestion of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), where the elected Guardians were 21 in number the ex officio Guardians should be only 10—that was less than half. That the ex officio Guardians should be only half was unfair. They seemed in Ireland to be proceeding upon the principle adopted at the time of the Revolution—namely, property and robbery. Nowadays, to be possessed of property in Ireland was sufficient to disqualify a man from enjoying any of the privileges which anyone else enjoyed, and to subject him to the suspicion that he had bad intentions towards his country and the community amongst whom he lived. He (Mr. Macartney) was bound to say that the compact, whatever it was, that had been entered into between the Government and the Gentlemen (the Home Rulers) sitting below the Gangway was a most iniquitous one, sacrificing, as it did, those who were attached to the connection between the Three Kingdoms; sacrificing those who represented law and order in Ireland; sacrificing those who represented, he would not say the smartness, but certainly the education of the country, and also insuring for the future that in every district in Ireland where there was a Poor Law Union there should be a small Parliament in which the voice of reason should be smothered by numbers.
§ MR. GIBSONonly wanted to state how he understood the matter to stand. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), in his observations, had not applied himself as yet to the consideration of the substance of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman only proposed to put the matter into the shape in which it was understood to be left by those who put forward the suggestion in the last Session. The Chief Secretary, however, was a little incorrect in saying all parties.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he thought it was universally understood that that was the meaning.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, his only desire was to have the matter put quite right; and, therefore, he saw no objection, as a matter of form, to what the Chief Secretary said should be done. He thought that when that was done it would be 1526 put into the shape that was intended by the Mover of the sub-section last Session. When the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had been made, the noble Viscount the Member for Fermanagh (Viscount Crichton) would move the omission of the whole of Sub-section 5, because the contention of the noble Viscount and of others was that the existing law was more just and more reasonable than the change proposed to be effected by the amended sub-section.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONBefore we pass from this section—
§ MR. GIBSONLet us amend the section first.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was technically correct. The words of the clause, as they stood, carried out the intention of the framers of the clause, because they provided that the number of the ex officio Guardians should be one-third of the whole Board. [The SOLICITOR GENEEAL for IRELAND dissented.] He saw the Solicitor General for Ireland shaking his learned head, As a matter of fact, under the clause, as it now stood, all Guardians were elected, both ex officio and those elected by ratepayers. He understood it was contemplated to propose an Amendment to remedy that defect. The clause, however, as it stood, fully carried out the intention of its framers, because it did secure—although, he granted, not in a very clear manner—that the number of ex officio Guardians should be one-third of the whole Guardians.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he did not think the hon. Member (Mr. Gray) was quite correct. As the clause stood in the Bill, it said—
That 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.That was not what was intended. It was intended that they should not be any more than one-third of the Guardians, whether elected by the ratepayers or appointed in some other way.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid he thought it would be well if the Committee allowed the words "by the ratepayers" to remain in the clause.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the words he had proposed had been carefully drawn.
§ Amendment agreed to.
1527§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it was now necessary he should move to leave out from "exceed," in line 36, to the end of the section, in order to insert "one-half the number of elected Guardians."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 36, to leave out from the word "exceed" to the end of the section, and insert the words "one-half the number of elected Guardians."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONproposed to omit all the words after "by the," in page 9, line 2, down to the words "fifty-six," in line 4, and insert—
16th section of the Act of the Session of the 10th year of the reign of Her present Majesty, chap. 31.His object in moving this Amendment was to point out that, if the words in the sub-section were retained, the Justices might elect Justices who paid little, if any, rates, and who had no interest whatever in the taxes. Now, the section he proposed to insert provided that the Justices who were the highest rated should be elected, his desire being to prevent the abuse of Justices being elected who had no interest in the Union.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 9, line 2, after the words "by the," to omit all the words to "fifty-six," inline 4, and insert "16th section of the Act of the Session of the 10th year of the reign of Her present Majesty, chap. 31."—(Mr. T. A. Dickson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. MACARTNEYpointed out that Sub-section 3 already provided that no Justice of the Peace should be qualified to be an ex officio Guardian who was not a ratepayer of the Union.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, it was the fact that Sub-section 3 did provide for the qualification mentioned by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macartney). He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) thought it might be but reasonable that if there were a number of ex officio Justices to be elected, the Justices should have the power to select which of their number should be ex officio members of the Board.
§ MR. CALLANexpected the Solicitor General for Ireland would have informed the Committee how the law at present stood. If, at the present time, there were more magistrates in a Union than elected Guardians, and if they had property and were otherwise qualified to act, how were the ex officio Guardians elected? It was not by voting amongst the magistrates, but the highest rated magistrates became ex officio members of the Board of Guardians. In the very ward in Dublin to which the Solicitor General for Ireland belonged a question was raised last year as to the constitution of the North Dublin Union. By some peculiar manipulation, some of the Liberal magistrates had their rating so reduced that they were deprived of the right to sit as ex officio Guardians, and Conservatives were put in their place. This state of things arose by manipulation that was well known in ex officio circles in Ireland. Why should the Committee change the law? If the subsection were dropped altogether and no words substituted, the existing law would come into operation. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) confined himself simply to omitting the last four lines of the section, and no directions were given as to the manner in which the ex officio Guardians should be elected, the highest rated Justices would, under the existing law, be elected. It was upon that point he (Mr. Callan) thought the Solicitor General for Ireland would have enlightened the Committee. The law at present in existence provided that the highest rated magistrates were ex officio Guardians of the poor, and he did not see that any reason had been advanced why there should be a reversion to the practice of 50 years ago.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he did not catch the exact words of the Solicitor General for Ireland; but he understood they were not unfavourable to the Amendment. The Amendment was a very important one, because the effect of the clause, if it remained as it now was, would be disastrous. The existing law provided that where there were in a Union a number of Justices, the highest rated should be elected ex officio Guardians. What was proposed to be done by the Amendment was simply to leave the law in that respect unchanged. Two systems had been tried in Ireland, and 1529 after experimenting in the fashion now contemplated by the Bill, the law, being found unsatisfactory, was amended. There was no reason why they should go back to a system which had been tested and failed, and which Parliament had found itself obliged to amend. The Amendment was a very reasonable one, inasmuch as it would simply leave the law as it stood at present.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that when the law was amended, and the ex officio Guardians were allowed to be equal in number to the elected Guardians, if there was an excess of Justices, the highest rated were elected. It really appeared to him a matter of very little moment whether the Justices were to select those who should represent them on the Board of Guardians, or the ex officio Guardians should be the highest rated magistrates.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he hoped the Committee would not restore the law to the condition in which it stood 20 years ago, but that they would continue to enforce the principle of selecting as ex officio Guardians those who were the highest rated Justices in the Union. He would even recommend that only the highest rated resident ratepayers should be elected.
§ MR. VILLIERS-STUARThoped Her Majesty's Government would accept the Amendment.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he remembered perfectly well how the words appeared in the clause. They were Government words. They were put in by the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan), after consultation with the draughtsman, and, he (Mr. Gibson) presumed, with the sanction of the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker). He (Mr. Gibson) was surprised to hear it proposed to omit the words without any consideration. If the Government wished to reconsider the propriety of their own words, the wisest and most satisfactory course for them to pursue would be to let the matter stand over for Report, by which time they could confer with the draughtsman. The words were put in last Session after consideration by the Government, and it was now proposed to omit them without any consideratien or argument. He could see several objections to the election of those who might chance to be highest in the rating, 1530 without knowing whether they desired to attend or whether their health enabled them to attend.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, provision was made by law against the appointment of persons unable to serve.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT CRICHTONsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper providing for the omission of Sub-section 5 of this clause. He had no intention of travelling again over the ground which had been already gone over, but would merely say that as the landlords in the Unions paid five-eighths of the rates they ought to have a reasonable share in the representation. It was quite idle to say that the elected Guardians were likely to be overborne by the ex officio Guardians. He thought the contrary was the case, because the elected Guardians were always on the spot and able to attend to their duties, while the ex officio Guardians were very often away. He believed that originally the number of ex officio Guardians was fixed at one-third; but it was found there was so much extravagance and waste in the administration of the funds of the Unions that a Bill was brought in in 1847 by Lord John Russell establishing the proportion as it now stood. He looked upon the present proposal as a distinctly retrograde one, and one by which it was intended to revert to a system which had been already condemned. On these grounds, he moved the omission of the sub-section.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the sub-section was only part of the clause, and that part of the clause having been amended the noble Viscount could only propose to omit the whole of the clause. Amendments having been made in the section, it was impossible for the noble Viscount to omit the section. If it had occurred to him, he would have called the noble Viscount's attention to the matter at the time the Amendments were made. It would, however, be competent for the noble Viscount to take a Division against the whole clause.
§ VISCOUNT CRICHTONsaid, he would, therefore, take a Division against the clause.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
1531§ MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, that before the Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) made any reply to the noble Viscount (Viscount Crichton), it would be well some reason should be assigned for the suggested reduction. Up to the present not one syllable of reason, good, bad, or indifferent, had been given as to the justice of reducing the number of ex officio Guardians from one-half of the whole Board to one-third the number of the elected Guardians. Moreover, no reason had been shown why the people who paid five-eighths of the rates should now be reduced to one-third of the representation. It was due to the Committee, the country, and ex officio Guardians that the Chief Secretary should give the Government's reason for sanctioning the present proposal.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, the reason why the proposal was made was not far to seek. Any man who had experience of Poor Law work knew full well that more than two-thirds of the ex officio Guardians did not attend regularly to the work of the Board; they only attended when an officer was to be appointed, or when there was a job to be done.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, his experience of Poor Law administration, which he had no doubt was equal to the hon. Member's (Mr. O'Sullivan's), was precisely the reverse of that of the hon. Gentleman's. He (Mr. Tottenham) had been in the habit for years of attending regularly Poor Law meetings, and he could confidently say that what the hon. Member had stated was absolutely without foundation.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he was surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) had asked for a reason why the Government had assented to this proposal. The reason was obvious. It was to be found down there. [The hon. Gentleman pointed to the Home Rule Benches.]
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 23: Majority 61. — (Div. List, No. 13.)
§ Clause 26 agreed to.
§ Clause 27 (Commencement of Act).
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman the 1532 Chief Secretary had indicated that this was one of the points which required consideration and examination — namely, the date at which the Act should come into operation. This clause fixed the date at the 1st of February, 1885. That time was near at hand now, and the Chief Secretary had expressed the opinion that it was too soon—that though it might have been a suitable date to fix last Session, it was not a suitable one to fix now. The question was one affecting the machinery of the Executive Government, and, as he (Mr. Gibson) had already pointed out, it was more the business of the Government than of an independent Member to deal with it. He now merely drew the attention of the Chief Secretary to it, so that he might adopt whatever date he thought desirable.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, it was well to remind the Chief Secretary that all the notices of election in Ireland were issued on or about February 1, and that if, therefore, that date were passed, the measure could not come into operation for 12 months.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to lot the clause stand as it was.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he did not think it would be well to alter the date at all. The question had been inquired into since last Session, and since the commencement of this Session, owing to the extraordinary alacrity with which hon. Members had got through the Business, the prospects of the Bill becoming law were much improved. Though there would not be too much time to make all the arrangements for conducting the elections before February, and although a great deal of work would be thrown on the Department, he did not think it would be right to postpone the elections under the new system for 12 months through pressure of business. When the Bill was introduced this Session, Public Business had not made such progress, and the probability of the measure becoming law was not so great. Then there might have been a strong case for altering the date; but now that they were within measureable distance of the Bill becoming law, if it became law at all, it should be passed as it was. To put off its operation a whole year would be a great sacri- 1533 fice, in order to avoid a little inconvenience.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.