§ (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
§ COMMITTEE. [Progress 23rd April.]
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 (Special provisions as to voters in 1885) agreed to.
668§ Clause 2 (Power of Lord Lieutenant in Council to prescribe forms).
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, in rising to move an Amendment, to leave out the first part of the clause down to the word "not," in line 22, for the purpose of inserting—
The forms contained in the First Schedule to this Act, or forms to the like effect, may be used for the purposes of the Parliamentary Registration Acts in substitution for the corresponding forms used for the same purposes before the passing of this Act.said, that the object of the Amendment was to alter the manner in which the forms for carrying into effect the Parliamentary Registration Acts were to be prescribed, in consequence of the decision which had been come to by the Committee upstairs in connection with the English Bill. There were two ways of settling the forms in regard to registration; one by Order in Council, and the other under the authority of the Act which would require the forms themselves to be embodied in the Act. The Committee upon the English Bill had resolved that it would be better to prescribe the forms in a Schedule attached to the Bill; and as this clause in the Irish Act gave power to the Lord Lieutenant in Council to prescribe the forms, the object of the Amendment was to omit that power, and to substitute a Schedule in which the forms required for the purposes of Parliamentary registration would be set out.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 17, leave out from beginning of Clause 10 the word "and" in line 22, and insert "The forms contained in the First Schedule to this Act, or forms to the like effect, may be used for the purposes of the Parliamentary Registration Acts in substitution for the corresponding forms used for the same purposes before the passing of this Act."—[Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the Amendment showed how unfairly the Irish Members had been treated in having been allowed no representation whatever upon the English Committee. If there was one subject which was highly technical and complicated, it was the question of registration in Ireland; and he would point out to the Government that, in the forms proposed to be 669 included in. the Schedule, there were a series of gross mistakes. The forms themselves were only laid on the Table yesterday, and hon. Members had not had very much time to look into them; but in the short time which had been allowed he had been able to detect very extraordinary errors. He did not propose to discuss the Schedule now; but he simply desired to point out that the best mode of promoting the despatch of Business would be to pass the Schedules, when they had gone through the clauses, with little or no debate; and then, when they had the Bill reprinted, for the Government to give a week or 10 days for consideration, and, if necessary, re-commit the Bill in respect of the Schedules. No questions of policy would arise upon them; but they involved matters of technical detail which could not be agreed to hurriedly. He certainly did not think it would be fair to Ireland to allow English forms, shaped by English lawyers, without a single Irish Member being on the Committee, and in which he could already discover several blunders, to be accepted, as they stood, for Ireland. For instance, the 1st Schedule related to the precept of the Clerk of the Peace, and of the Clerk of the Union, and towards the end of No. 2 appeared these words, as a ground of objection—
Firstly, if such person shall not have been rated in the then last rate made for the relief of the poor as the occupier of the same lands, tenements, or hereditaments, in such copy of register mentioned of a net annual value of twelve pounds or upwards.There were several mistakes in that passage. One had reference to the rating, because under certain circumstances, by the provisions of the Franchise Bill, a man need not be rated at all; and he (Mr. Healy) had an Amendment to provide for such a state of things. The Government might say that that was the law at present; but the object of his Amendment was to make the law fully declared, and he saw no reason for the insertion of this extraordinary clause about being rated in the last rate made for the relief of the poor. It was quite clear to his mind that the words about rating should not occur in this Bill; because, if they were going to have household franchise, there was no necessity whatever to be rated in order to have the vote, and he did not understand that that was the opinion held by the hon. 670 and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. Then, again, he might point out in No. 3, headed "the supplementary list of ten pounds rated occupiers," it appeared to him that after the work "register," and in all subsequent precepts of the same character, it would be necessary to insert the words "or objected to therein." The paragraph would then read in this way—You are also to make out, and, together with such copy of register for the said polling district or division of the said polling district, transmit to me a supplemental list [Form 11] of every male person of full age not appearing already on such copy of register who shall be rated in the last rate made for the relief of the poor or objected to therein.There clearly ought to be such a Proviso, and it should run all through these forms. In some of the later precepts he proposed to insert Amendments; and, therefore, he was not in a position to agree generally to these forms. He wished to know from the hon. and learned Solicitor General, or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether, if he agreed to the forms as they now stood, when the Bill was ready for Report, it would be recommitted in respect of the forms? In the first place, however, he would ask the Chairman whether, if the Committee accepted the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and thereby agreed to accept the forms in the Schedule of the Bill, they would be afterwards debarred from amending the Schedules? That was to say, that by agreeing to the Amendment they would accept the proposal to insert the forms in the Schedule, but only subject to amendment.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Member asks whether, if the Committee accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, they would be debarred from subsequently amending the Schedules? No; I think not.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, that he had read the Schedules himself with great attention, both yesterday and this morning, and he had sent them to Ireland, in order that they might be considered by those who were better acquainted with the Registration Law than he was himself. As had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), the questions involved in these Schedules were of a very technical character. He would assume that they must have been prepared by the Law 671 Officers of Ireland, with the assistance of others who were acquainted with the matter; and he would be glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would say whether they had been prepared merely with a view of applying the new Reform. Bill to the existing Registration Law, and to permit the registration to take place this year, as soon as possible after the passing of the Bill? Was that the object with which these Schedules had been prepared? Assuming that he received an affirmative answer to that question, he would suggest that, if this stage of the Bill was passed with these Schedules in it, after very little discussion, there should be a distinct understanding that they would not be debarred from using any information which might come, either from Ireland, or from their own examination of the Schedules, and that on the Report stage their right of criticism, revision, and, amendment would be preserved.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he could assure his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Gibson) that the Schedules had been prepared with the single object of bringing upon the Register the different persons who were entitled to vote as £10-rated occupiers, and for the household and service suffrages. There was no other object whatever in preparing these Schedules, and he had himself intended to suggest that it would be desirable, after the Schedules had been adopted, that time should be given, in order that they might be thoroughly examined, because, originally, the Bill was framed in another way; and, therefore, it was only reasonable that such time should be allowed, and that either on the Report, or in some other way, the Schedules should be fully considered. It was not necessary that he should answer the objections to some of the forms which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy); because there would be an opportunity afforded for discussing them. He would be glad if, when his right hon. and learned Friend received information, he would point out to him (the Solicitor General for Ireland) any point which would assist in carrying out the object of the Bill—namely, to bring upon the Register any person who was entitled to be upon it.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, that nothing would be more inconvenient than to alter the Schedules on the stage of the Report, when it would not be possible to answer all the questions which might be raised on minute matters of detail. What occurred to his mind was this—that the body of the Bill should be settled, and then that the question of the Schedules should be adjourned for a few days, until they could make up their minds with regard to them. That would be the most sensible course to adopt, in order that the Schedules should be made as intelligible as possible. He thought it would be impossible to alter them satisfactorily with the Speaker in the Chair, and that they would never be able to get to the end of them. He would, therefore, suggest that they should go through the Bill now, and set the Schedules apart for another day. It could not be a matter on which there would be any great difference of opinion; and, with regard to the English Bill, it had been considered that day in the most friendly spirit.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it was only reasonable that considerable time should be given for an examination of these complicated Schedules; and he quite agreed that it would be desirable to stop the Bill when they got to the Schedules.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought there ought to be some communication with gentlemen who were interested in the question of Irish registration. Therefore, it was advisable to go through the Schedules, in some sort of conference, in order to see how far they agreed, or what points of difference arose. From his own experience, in dealing with the English Registration Bill, he knew the difficulties that might arise, and he thought it was necessary that there should be some communication of that kind.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he would be very glad to adopt that suggestion.
MR. GORSTsaid, he would say a word to confirm what had fallen from the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). He was quite sure they would never get these forms satisfactorily settled, except by having a conference of that kind either by the appointment of a Select Committee, or in some other way, 673 by means of which Members, who bad actual experience of Irish registration, might meet together and settle the forms. The English forms had been settled in a very short time, and without the slightest difference of opinion.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) had intimated that he thought some reasonable time ought to be given to the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) for the purpose of obtaining advice from Ireland in regard to these Schedules. and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland subsequently stated that he thought considerable time should be given. Now, he (Mr. Parnell) was of opinion, with regard to this matter, that it was most desirable the Bill should proceed with all reasonable speed, and that it should not be behind the English or the Scotch Bill. The conduct of the Government had been, he thought, in this matter, very negligent. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Healy) that, in the first instance, the Bill should have been printed long before it was printed; but the Irish officials did not seem to be able to make up their minds for a long time as to what the provisions of the Bill were to be. Secondly, the Bill was not printed until long after the English Bill was printed, and no Committee was moved for the purpose of considering it, as in the case of the English Bill. Ireland was not even given a Member on the English Committee; in fact, it was represented to the Irish Members that it was not necessary for them to have a Member on the English Committee, as the Bill entirely concerned the English registration. They now found that a vast mass of matters had been imported into the Irish Bill by the English Committee. The consequence of all this was that an excuse for delay was afforded to the Front Opposition Bench, and their Friends in that House, and it would be necessary for the Irish Members to raise a very serious question. If some considerable time, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, was to elapse before the Bill was again taken up, and before anything was again to be done, the other measures might come on before it. The Redistribution Bill might come on on Report and upon 674 the third reading, and this Bill might be altogether left behind. He should regard such a circumstance as most disastrous; because it might afford an excuse for the House of Lords to object to any additions which might be made to the Bill by the House of Commons, and, in fact, to repeat the course which they had several times adopted in years past. He, therefore, wished to have a clear understanding. He desired to know, in the first place, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) considered it necessary that the Bill should here-committed; and, secondly, whether the Government considered it necessary that the Bill should be re-committed in, reference to the Schedules? If not, whether they were of opinion that the Report stage would be sufficient for the examination of the Schedules; and, if so, at what date they proposed to take the consideration of the Report? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University consider that Wednesday next would be appropriate for the Report stage, and that it would afford him sufficient time for making inquiries? If it were fixed for any later date, and any considerable time was occupied in inquiry, the result would be a great and dangerous delay in the reprinting of the Bill. He, therefore, thought it his duty to ask for some further understanding from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland as to the delay which would take place.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the Government had only two objects in regard to the Bill, one of which was to get it passed as quickly as possible, which, for reasons other than those which had been mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. Panel, was of great importance to the country. That was, therefore, the first object; but it was further desirable that those who were interested in the matter should not be deprived of a reasonable opportunity for considering the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had spoken as if the Government had allowed the English Committee to frame part of the Irish Bill. Nothing of the kind had been done. The Committee on the English Bill upstairs did not frame this Bill; but they decided that 675 the forms, instead of being fixed by Orders in Council, should be embodied in the Bill itself, in Schedules attached to it; and it was felt desirable that the same thing should be done for Ireland as was done for England. Therefore, the Government had added to the Bill, which was originally a small and simple Bill, these rather cumbrous Schedules. He admitted that they did contain a good deal of complicated material; but he did not think that any thorny matters were involved. Still, as the Schedules were complicated, it was only reasonable that time should be given for their consideration. The hon. Member complained that a proposal had been made which involved a loss of time before the re-committal of the Bill, and suggested that the Schedules should be considered and reported. They were quite ready to adopt that suggestion; but the complaint which was made was not unreasonable—namely, that matters of this sort would not be so well discussed in the House as in a Committee. Personally, he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) was willing to take either course—either to re-commit the Bill in regard to the Schedules; or to stop the progress of the Bill, in order to get the Schedules discussed consistent with a reasonable opportunity of obtaining the opinion of persons interested in the question. He could not say now to what day it would be necessary to adjourn the Bill; but he could assure the hon. Member it would be the earliest day they could get.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he would point out that the delay had been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). He (Mr. Gibson) had not suggested it himself. He had only said that with 25 pages of Schedules it was only reasonable to give time for examining them.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland maintained that the English Committee had not been allowed to draft the Bill. He (Mr. Sexton) contended, on the other hand, that they had, in point of fact, drafted a very vital part of it, because it appeared that the forms inserted in it were to be those which were considered suitable for use in England.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. 676 Sexton) was under a misapprehension. All the English Committee decided was that the forms in regard to the English Bill should be inserted in the Schedule, and not fixed by Order in Council; but they did not prescribe what the forms were to be. There were two courses open—either to insert the forms in Schedules attached to the Bill, or to settle them by Order in Council. As the first course had been adopted in the ease of the English Bill, it was considered desirable to pursue the same course in regard to the Irish Bill.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, that, at any rate, the principle of the infusion of the Irish forms in the Bill was decided by the English Committee. It was to be regretted that no Irish Member had been upon the Committee, and hon. Members who had been engaged in other Committees upstairs had not, as yet, had an opportunity of perusing the forms. Those forms extended over aconsiderable number of pages; but they were told that they contained nothing upon which there was likely to be a difference of opinion, and, therefore, might be dealt with at any time with very little legal help. He thought the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was a fair and proper one, and that it would be very easy, on the Report, with the Speaker in the Chair, to settle and discuss the question. He wished to understand whether or not the Government consented to the suggestion of his hon. Friend—that they should discuss the Schedules on the Report of the Bill, and that they should take the Report on Wednesday? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that the House had two objects—first, to pass the Bill; and, secondly, to afford a reasonable time for the examination of the Schedules. He (Mr. Sexton) thought the examination might be completed in a very short space of time, and he was most unwilling that the progress of the Bill should be unnecessarily delayed. He thought they were all agreed as to the necessity of passing the Bill as quickly as possible; and, personally, he should be disposed to insist, as far as he could, on the Bill being allowed to hold its place in the relative progress of the three Bills which it now occupied, and that it should not be allowed to fall behind either the English or Scotch Bill. At present, it 677 was in front of the three Bills, and it ought to be allowed to retain that position. It could not be forgotten that on two previous occasions the will of the House of Commons had been overborne by the House of Lords, who had twice thrown out an Irish Registration Bill passed by the Lower House. The Irish Members, therefore, required some security and guarantee as to the date on which the Irish measure would be sent to the House of Lords, so that they should be able to know what the decision of that House was before the other Bills were sent up. If the Irish and Scotch Bills were submitted before a definite verdict were obtained with regard to the Irish Bill, the Irish Members might find themselves in a hopeless position, and the Government would be unable to take any definite action. The House of Lords might even throw out the Bill, as they had done on former occasions. Therefore, the pivot on which the whole question turned was this—that the Irish Bill should retain its present place in the order of procedure, and, if it was at all practicable, that it should be the first Bill to be sent up to the House of Lords. He also wished to know how Clause 2 was intended to operate if this Amendment were inserted? It provided that—
The forms contained in the First Schedule to this Act, or forms to the like effect, may he used for the purposes of: the Parliamentary Registration Acts in substitution for the corresponding forms used for the same purposes before the passing of this Act.As the Amendment stood, the forms now provided in the Schedule were to be the forms adopted without any power of alteration. He wished to know if those forms were to be always permanently used?
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he would suggest that after the words "Parliamentary Registration Acts," in the Amendment, the words "and this Act" should be inserted, or it might be held that the forms inserted in the Schedule did not apply to the last Registration Act. He presumed it was the object of the Government to carry out the provisions, not only of the previous Registration Acts, but also of the Act now being passed. He would propose an Amendment to that effect for the purpose of eliciting the opinion of the hon. and 678 learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Ireland.
§ Amendment proposed, to amend the proposed Amendment, by adding, after the word "Acts," the words "and this Act."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, this Act would be cited as "The Registration Act, 1885," and, therefore, it seemed to him that it would come under the description of "Parliamentary Registration Acts" proposed to be inserted in the clause.
§ MR. HEALYsaid that the object of the Irish Members was an intelligible one—namely, that by whatever means it might be obtained, whether by recommitting the Schedules, or not recommitting them, but taking them upon the Report stage, the Bill should not be unduly delayed in finding its way to the House of Lords. They insisted upon having some security upon that point. They knew that the House of Lords would destroy their chances, if they possibly could. They had already proved their malice twice, and he did not wish to give them another chance. He complained strongly that the Government had not brought in the English and Irish Bills together. He had asked the question over and over again, but had never got a satisfactory answer. They had received a pledge, two years ago, from the Prime Minister, which had not yet been redeemed, and they had no promise that it would be redeemed. What he wished to know was, whether, now the Bill had been brought in, it would not be left to the mercy of the House of Lords to play what pranks they pleased with it, at the instigation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who had moved a number of Amendments without caring whether they were accepted here, but confiding in his Friends in the other House to adopt them? Therefore, the Irish Members would have no guarantee whatever that anything the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed would not be ultimately carried, and he wanted to know what the position of the Bill would be with regard to leaving the House?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, there was every intention on the part of the Government to carry on the three Bills pari passu. They were all required for the same purpose, and there was no intention of unduly delaying them.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he was unable to say at present, and he would point out to the hon. and learned Member that he himself had originally proposed that there should be delay. The Government were anxious to proceed expeditiously with the Bill, consistently with a fair discussion of it. Some hon. Gentlemen suggested that it should be discussed on the Report; but, in dealing with technical matters of this kind, a conversation would be better than a formal discussion; therefore, personally, he should prefer to have it in Committee. It would not cause the Bill more delay than the other course.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, the Committee had now been engaged for some time in discussing what day should be fixed for the Report instead of considering the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It certainly appeared to him (Mr. Lewis) that, instead of making progress with the Bill, they were really going backward.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that he was not prepared to rule that the discussion was out of Order, because it was intended that the subject to which the matter referred should be considered on the Report.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he imagined that the Amendment now before the Committee was the one which he had moved.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that Amendment would not be in Order yet, because the Committee had not yet decided to leave out the words proposed to be omitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
§ Amendment (Mr. Warton), by leave, withdrawn,
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, that, before they arrived at the conclusion of the conversation, it was necessary to know how the Schedules were to be disposed of, and at what time they would be taken. At present, the English Bill had only been 680 read a second time; and in the case of the Scotch Bill, the Speaker had simply been got out of the Chair. What he wished to know was, when the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that the Irish Bill was to proceed pari passu with the other Bills, whether they were to continue to occupy the position they now occupied; and, whether the initiative of progress would rest with the Irish Bill as at the present moment?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that, in considering the important Business yet to be disposed of in connection with the electoral system, it was impossible to give an absolute pledge of precedence, especially as it would be necessary to consult the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board, and several other Members of the Government who had taken an active part in the proceedings. His (Mr. Trevelyan's) experience of Registration Bills led him to desire to see them sent up to the House of Lords as early as possible. He would promise, on the part of the Government, that they would see that in this matter the Irish Registration Bill should not be left behindhand. He hoped that hon. Members would accept that promise.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he believed that he would now be in Order in moving his Amendment—namely, to insert, after the words "Registration Acts," the words "and this Act." If the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) would look at that part of the clause which they had just struck out, he would see that the words were "the Parliamentary Registration Acts and this Act." He thought that, on reconsideration, the hon. and learned Gentleman would see that his (Mr. Warton's) Amendment was necessary.
§ Amendment proposed, to amend the proposed Amendment, by adding, after the word "Acts," the words "and this Act."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added,"
681§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL POR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that he had no objection to accept the Amendment; but he did not think that it was absolutely necessary.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he would call attention to the words "as near thereto as circumstances may require," in line 25, which were made to apply to the form prescribed in connection with the registration of Parliamentary voters. He wished to know what they meant?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANthought there was a little ambiguity in the words, but he did not think they would do any harm.
§ MR. HEALYremarked, that in Ireland, on one occasion, a number of processes had been rendered void, because the County Court Judge held that the words should have been "County of Cork" instead of "Cork County." What he was afraid of was that the Revising Barristers might rule all the objections on the Tory side to be in order because they were "as near thereto as the circumstances required;" while, on the other hand, they would rule out all the objections on the other side because they were "as near thereto as the circumstances required." He thought it would be better to secure literal accuracy in the words used in the clause.
§ Question put, and agreed to; words added accordingly.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ MR. WARTON, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 24, to omit the words "so prescribed," for the purpose of inserting "the forms in the said Schedule contained," said, that he partly adopted in this proposition an Amendment which had been placed on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was quite clear that the words "so prescribed" must be left out, because they were simply an echo or trace of what had already been omitted.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 21, to leave out the words so prescribed, "in order to insert the words the forms in the said Schedule contained."—[Mr. Warton.)
—instead thereof.
§ Question, "That the words 'so prescribed' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Question, "That the words 'the forms in the said Schedule contained' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he would admit that there would be some difficulty in striking out the words "or as near thereto as circumstances may require." He was only afraid that by keeping them in, if ever the other side made a mistake, they would get the benefit of it; whereas the National Party, if they made a mistake, would receive no benefit. He thought it would be far better, however, to have the forms in the Act described accurately, and therefore he would move his Amendment. He would also ask the Government if they had made any provision for the supply of these forms, and how the forms themselves were to be procured?
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 25, to leave out "or as near thereto as circumstances may require."—[Mr. Healy.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he was afraid if they were to adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Healy), it would tell much more against him than he supposed, because if there was the slightest variation from the form an objection would hold good. As to the question of the forms to be supplied under the provisions of the Registration Act, printed forms would be supplied. But with regard to the Amendment, he thought it was extremely undesirable that the franchise of any man should be endangered by the omission of a single word, or a letter, in a mere form, because there happened to be a clause prescribing that all the forms contained in a Schedule of an Act of Parliament must be literally followed.
§
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 26, to omit the words, "And anything' in connexion with the said regiatra-
683
tion done in accordance with the said Order in Council or as near thereto as circumstances may admit, shall be deemed to be validly done."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. HEALYasked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland to answer the question, whether forms would be procurable at a cheap rate?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)was understood to say that there would be a Schedule of rates.
§ Question put, and negatived; words struck out accordingly.
§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Dispensing relief not to disqualify, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 68).
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he had to ask the Committee to agree to the Amendment he had placed on the Paper, proposing to omit the clause entirely from the Bill. The clause provided that—
Medical or surgical assistance, or the giving of medicine under any Act relating to Medical Charities in Ireland, should not he deemed to constitute relief under the Acts for the more effectual relief of the Destitute Poor in Ireland within the meaning of the Representation of the People Acts.Now, he thought hon. Members would see from that recital that that provision of the Bill purported to make a very grave and serious change in the laws relating to the representation of the people, not only in respect of Ireland, but also in respect of other parts of the "United Kingdom. He held that it would be obviously contrary to common sense to make such a change in the Representation of the People Act, as that it should be enacted that persons receiving indoor relief should be permitted to exercise the franchise, as it would be equally foreign to the considerations which were usually supposed to prevail in these matters, to permit those who were in receipt of outdoor relief to exercise this franchise. But this was a proposal on the part of the Government to obviate that reasonable restriction, and to enact that, notwithstanding the past and present practice under the existing 684 law, the franchise should be exercised by those who deliberately appealed to public medical aid. He repeated that this was a clause which, if it were retained in the Bill, would constitute a very serious innovation of the existing law. A few evenings ago, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had stated to the Prime Minister that his object was to insure that the Registration of Voters Ireland Act should work an absolute assimilation of the law as administered in England and Scotland. ["No, no!"] He could assure the hon. Member below the Gangway that the words used by the hon. Member for the City of Cork were "absolute assimilation." He contended, however, that there was no such provision nor anything like such a provision as that provided for in this clause in the law of England; and although he always spoke with great diffidence of the law of Scotland, he believed he was correct in saying that there was no similar provision in the law of Scotland either. But the Committee would understand that it was a very serious thing, with reference to Ireland, to propose to introduce an alteration in the law not known in Scotland, and not proposed to be introduced in the case of England. Why, he asked, should this change be made against the corresponding laws in England and Scotland; on what foundation did it rest; on what argument of justice or common sense, or on what plea of a sounder administration of electoral law could it be defended? He ventured to think if the principle of this clause were enacted in the Bill that it might result in fast-and-loose play of the gravest possible character in respect of the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland. He reminded the Committee that if it were introduced as a proposition sanctioned by Act of Parliament, that the recipient of dispensary relief should be qualified to vote, it would be but a step further in the same direction to say that the recipient of outdoor relief should be qualified to exercise the franchise, and the whole system of the Poor Law of the country would be exposed to attacks, which he ventured to think would lead to serious consequences. Further, he did not think that the exceptional enactment of the principle of the clause would add to the self-respect of the voters in Ireland; on 685 the contrary, he believed it would lead to the impairing of that independence of character and status which the country had a right to expect in. those who were permitted to exercise the franchise and return Members to Parliament for the administration of its affairs. He remembered a leading Member of that House pointing out, in a great discussion which took place on one of the Reform Bills, that one of the most serious and grave dangers that would have to be guarded against in the future would be a lax administration of the Poor Law under the new system; and he (Mr. Gibson) could but think that such a provision as this would, particularly if it were enacted exceptionally for Ireland, amount to the introduction of a laxity of the gravest kind. Medical assistance in Ireland was intended to be given to those who could not pay for it themselves—that was to say, to those persons who were really in need of it, and could not procure it. Although it was desirable that those who required medical relief should have it, yet he must point out that the dispensing of medical relief in Ireland was a practice which, in many cases, had been the cause of scandal and abuse; and doctors had been summoned by what were called "red tickets," or "scarlet runners," to assist those who could very well pay for themselves. And if it were found that in an Act of Parliament, it was permitted, sanctioned, or encouraged that persons should receive dispensary relief and still retain their right to the franchise without any qualification whatever, it must lead to the extension of an abuse which pressed already very hardly on the Medical Profession in Ireland, inasmuch as it would appear to have received the sanction of Parliament. The arguments relating to this question lay within a narrow compass, and they were so obvious that he did not think he should be justified in pressing them at greater length upon the Committee, or in occupying further time in the consideration of the subject; but if any arguments should be used, or any statements made, which rendered it necessary that he should re-enter the discussion, he reserved to himself freedom to say a few more words in support of the Amendment which he now begged to move.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 29, leave out Clause 3.—(Mr. Gibson.)
§ Question proposed, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, they were accustomed to these arguments from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). They always listened to him with great respect, and. saw in him the apologist and champion of the Poor Law in Ireland. But they had the right hon. and learned Gentleman telling them to-night that the Dispensary Poor Law had been greatly abused. Well, he (Mr. Sexton) was ready to admit that he had seen some allegations to the effect that the dispensary regulations had been called into operation under questionable circumstances; but his own experience was, that those allegations related only to a very minute proportion of the cases in which medical aid was dispensed. Moreover, the details of dispensing medical relief under the Poor Law was as completely under the supervision of the Local Government Board as the details of any other Department; and the Local Government Board was composed of persons so vigilant—excessively so sometimes—and of persons whose conduct was so closely watched in that House, that he ventured to say no suggestion deserving attention at their hands would be passed over, and that if there had been any accidental abuse of the provisions of the Poor Law in this respect the Local Government Board would have taken good care to check it before that time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had certainly perplexed him in the course of his speech with the argument that that House ought to strike out this clause in order to preserve the independence of character and status of those who voted. But whether men were independent or not, they were not in the habit of going to a doctor of their own choice; they did not go to the dispensary for pleasure or recreation. If a man went to a doctor, no matter the class to which he might belong, he went to him because he was ill; and, therefore, he did not see how the independence of character of the persons concerned could be brought into this question at all. He said that this independence of character and status for which the right hon. and 687 learned Gentleman was so anxious could be maintained, even though poverty might compel the individual to accept the aid of a dispensing doctor. If a man were able to pay for the medical assistance which he received for nothing, there was, of course, an abuse which ought to be corrected; but, looking at the matter from the other point of view, if the individual were unable to pay the doctor for the medical aid that was necessary for him or his family, the requirements of humanity and civilized life demanded that the aid of the doctor should be given to him or his family free. And if that necessity were met, how could anyone contend that a man should be deprived in consequence of the first right of citizenship, because he had not preserved his independence of character and status? He supposed, as it would seem from the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that a man's independence was to be measured by the length of his pocket; but he (Mr. Sexton) declined to accept that view of the case, and he repeated that a man's status might be perfectly independent, even if his poverty deprived him of the necessities of life. Let the Committee consider the great disproportion that existed between the fees exacted by medical men in Ireland and the incomes of the poor class of men in that country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in the course of his remarks had delivered himself of a curious fact when he spoke of the absolute assimilation of the law in respect of the three countries, England, Scotland, and Ireland, which he stated the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) intended to bring about. [Mr. GIBSON: I quoted the report in The Times.'] He (Mr. Sexton) cared not for the report in The Times; he asked who was the writer of that report? Was he a sworn shorthand writer? He had heard his hon. Friend often speak of assimilation of the law; but he bad never heard him reach the superlative term of "absolute assimilation." There could be no such thing as absolute assimilation of laws; because the first necessity of law was that it should conform itself to the circumstances of the country in which it had to operate, and as no one would say that the circumstances of England and Ireland were similar, there could be no absolute assimilation of law in respect of 688 them—it would be impossible to apply an absolutely similar principle to the people of the two countries at largo. The people of England, as compared with those of Ireland, were better able to live and pay the doctor; and the existence of medical aid societies was a recognized fact in England. In dealing with the poor, the doctor's fee in England was almost nominal; but, so far as he was aware, the Irish doctors as a class were not in the habit, except under compulsion of the "red ticket," of discharging any medical function for their fellow-creatures unless on payment of a guinea. Now, what, he asked, was the use of expecting poor people in Ireland to pay a guinea, half-a-guinea, or even half-a-crown, for any medical attention received from a private practitioner? The thing was an impossibility; and if they could not pay, why should it be suggested that they should be shut out from the exercise of the franchise? Here was a classification of the agricultural holdings in Ireland. The number of holdings of one acre and under was 49,000; of from three to five acres, 53,000; of from five to seven acres, 59,000; and of from seven to 15 acres, 39,000. There were in Ireland more than 200,000 holdings of between one acre and 15, occupied by families who were drawing their living from them, after satisfying the landlord by paying rent and taxes. Now, he asked if any Member of the House would have the hardihood to go to the Table and say that the income of any one of those holders of farms was such as to allow them to pay a single guinea to the doctor in the course of a year? The whole scale of medical fees in Ireland must be reduced, unless it was to remain outside the means of the population to pay for medical relief: and he challenged anyone to show in the case of the poor people of Ireland, and in face of the incomes they derived from the cultivation of their holdings, why, being unable to pay the medical fees at present demanded by the Profession, they should in addition to that have the penalty inflicted upon them of not being allowed to vote. They contributed to the rates; and that being so, they had a right to expect and to receive something in return. However, the Government had inserted a clause in the Bill which he considered to be perfectly just in principle; it would have been a mockery to 689 do otherwise, and the only construction he could put upon the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that, while endeavouring to exclude the class of persons in question, he hoped that the object of the recent extension of the franchise might be defeated by a side-wind.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, as a general rule, hon. Members on those Benches were glad to listen to the speeches of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) on Irish affairs, because he had knowledge of the subjects on which he usually addressed the House; but, in the present case, he (Colonel Nolan) believed the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew very little of the subject practically. He was an eminent barrister, and he had lived long in Dublin; but there was nothing, or very little, in common between the people of that city and those of the districts of Ireland principally concerned in this question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, moreover, was a statesman a good deal drawn upon by the Conservative Party, and who was in the habit of attending and speaking at large meetings in England; but he (Colonel Nolan) did not think that he knew much of the so-called "scarlet runners" in Ireland. He (Colonel Nolan) had given away many of those tickets in his capacity of secretary to one society and chairman of another, and he ventured to think that he represented the feelings of the people on the subject as well as any man in Ireland. He knew that the Boards of Guardians held strong views on this point. If the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were adopted by the Government, and the clause under notice struck out of the Bill, it was believed that the Franchise Act. so far as an enormous number of the people of Ireland were concerned, would be a farce. With regard to the refusal of medical men in Irelend to take less than the fee of a guinea from the very poorest men, it was felt that this was something that must be changed—and it must be changed either by the general consent of the Medical Profession in Ireland, or else by action on the part of the Government. He wished to point out, however, with regard to the fees exacted by medical men in Ireland, that although they received £1 for their assistance 690 they saw or attended the individual three or four times for that amount. But were they to enact that because a man could not pay £1 for medical aid when he or his child, for instance, were ill, he should be deprived of his right to vote? He (Colonel Nolan) could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was not solely a question of "scarlet runners" that was involved here. Even if a person in employment who might be considered tolerably well off were ill, he was expected to go to the dispensary in the nearest town for advice and medicine; and it was absurd to say that unless people in that position paid a guinea to the doctor they should lose their vote. Then there was another argument in favour of retaining this clause in the Bill. The country was talking of war, and were they to say to officers in the Army and Navy that they would be disqualified because they received gratuitous medical advice. Everyone knew that they had gratuitous medical advice; and did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that those officers lost their independence of status and character when they went to the surgeon of their regiment or ship? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the people in Ireland would lose their independence if they did not pay for medical relief. But he (Colonel Nolan) said that every one of the men who paid £6 or £7 rent for the land they farmed did pay for it. They paid for it in the shape of poor rates to the extent of 5s. or 6s. a-year; and if any of them only drew to that extent for medical aid, he contended that they were independent men. And the right hon. and learned Gentleman would shut out a man who got five or six shillings' worth of advice, although he paid a large sum for poor-rate. Since he (Colonel Nolan) was a child, the old system of medical relief for the poor had been superseded by the present dispensary system. That system had been established in Ireland, and the people had been trained up to it. But for that system, medical aid clubs might have been established in Ireland; but they had not grown up there, and it would take 40 or 50 years to build them up. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say to the people—"Because you have not established these clubs, you shall be shut out from the franchise altogether." If the Amend- 691 ment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were adopted, the most frightful confusion would be created; clerks of Unions and apothecaries would have to be summoned before the Revising Barristers to say whether they had given tickets and medicine or not; people would be called upon to produce their books and documents to satisfy the requirements of the Act; and all that, he need not say, would cause an enormous amount of trouble. Speaking with regard to his own county of Galway, if the clause which the Amendment proposed to strike out were retained, he did not believe there would throughout the county be two contested cases before the Revising Barrister; whereas if the Amendment were adopted, it would be very easy to have 20,000 such cases. If this clause was not passed, the Committee would be upsetting the whole Poor Law system in Ireland, and they would go a long way towards reversing the principle on which the Franchise Bill rested.
§ COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he thought his right hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment before the Committee was under a total misapprehension as to the operation and scope of the Medical Act in Ireland. That Act, before the passing of the Medical Charities' Act, constituted the system of relief in Ireland. It provided for dispensary districts administered by subscribers, and the present law was simply engrafted upon it and adapted to it. The Committee would find that in the Act the words "poor persons" were most carefully used, and that the words "persons in receipt of Poor Law relief" were as carefully avoided; and he would point out that the reason why this was done was simply this—that not only were the circumstances of the great mass of the people in Ireland totally different from those of the great mass of the people in England, but that the Poor Laws of the two countries were likewise different. The number of people who could receive outdoor relief and medical relief in England was much larger, in proportion to the rest of the population, than it was in Ireland; and not only were laws in Ireland much more restricted than in England, but the administration of them was more restrictive. When the present law was made, the Guardians were left to 692 decide whether individuals came within the meaning of the words "poor persons" or not. Not only was there a different practice in respect of some Unions, but it was easy to see that John Smith, for instance, might be a poor man in the eyes of people in his neighbourhood, while he would not be considered to be so by persons who lived a few miles off. If, therefore, they were to disqualify persons who received medical aid free, Parliament would not only be doing a respectable class of persons a great injustice by excluding a large number of them from the exercise of the franchise, which right had been just conferred upon them, but it would lead to inextricable confusion in view of the varying rules and practice prevailing in the different Unions of Ireland. How it could ever have entered into the mind of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin to make the proposal that was now before the Committee, he (Colonel Colthurst) was unable to conceive; and he could only suggest that he had never thoroughly considered the Medical Charities Act, what it was intended to do, and what it had done in Ireland.
§ MR. BRODRICKsaid, it would appear, from the views expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), that he thought that the acceptance of medical relief almost amounted to a qualification for the exercise of the franchise. That was a sufficiently startling proposition; but when the hon. and gallant Member proceeded to argue that because officers in the Army and Navy were entitled by the Regulations of those Services to medical advice they also ought to be disqualified—why, he (Mr. Brodrick) thought the hon. and gallant Member might have gone the length of proposing to disfranchise convicts in gaol, who also received medical relief; and it would do to talk about at election time quite as well. He thought the question of equality as between the two countries was worthy of consideration; and if any inequality should exist in that respect hereafter, it would surely be greatly to the disadvantage of the hard-working English labourers who had been admitted to the franchise, who had subscribed, and were subscribing, considerable sums of money to societies in order to avoid placing themselves in the position of having to apply for free medi- 693 cal assistance. When the Irish labourers did the same thing, that would be about the period when it would be desirable to give this class of people in Ireland the vote; and Parliament would avoid doing what he and others on the Opposition side of the House had protested against all along—namely, the giving to a class of voters, the equal of which did not exist in England, the entire preponderance of the Irish franchise, a preponderance which was pointed out, when the Franchise Bill was under discussion, to be as large as 458,000 in 760,000. The houses of these men were under £1 valuation. It would be an exceedingly good thing if, by the absence of this clause, every one of these men were cut off from the franchise; and it was upon that ground, and largely in the hope that a considerable number of the constituents of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), or those who would be the constituents of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, would be prevented from outvoting the intelligent classes of the community—those who had a stake in the country—that he (Mr. Brodrick) would vote against the inclusion of this clause. He hoped the Government intended to listen to reason. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) pathetically appealed to the Government not to allow this Bill to be dealt with adversely by another Chamber owing to its being sent up so late. If the hon. and learned Gentleman really felt the force of his own appeal, he would support him (Mr. Brodrick) in objecting to the inclusion in the Bill of provisions which no Chamber was likely to consider proper or right. It was exceedingly likely that the House of Commons would see the Bill again if they sent it up to the House of Lords containing such a monstrous and unequal provision as that which was now included in it. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) retained this clause in the Bill, it would be very desirable, when the proper time came, to change the name of the measure from "The Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill" to "The Registration of Voters and Paupers Enfranchisement (Ireland) Bill." Before he sat down he wished to say that it was perfectly well understood, during the progress of the Franchise Bill last year, that even the Prime Minister most strongly objected 694 to leaving Ireland out of the Bill, on the ground that, although he did not profess the class of voters was the same as in England, he thought that there should be absolute equality of franchise. If that rule were to be observed on this occasion, the Government could not fail to strike out this clause. If, on the other hand, they retained the clause, it was a breach of the most positive statement of intention on the part of the Government. He hoped that the Government would see fit to exclude this clause from the Bill.
MR. GORSTsaid, he was not quite so ferociously virtuous as the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Brodrick). No doubt, it was a very attractive and general principle, and one that he (Mr. Gorst) had always supported in the House of Commons—that England and Ireland should be treated exactly alike, in all matters of principle, at all events. In England it was the law that persons who were in receipt of parochial relief, in which medical relief was included, were not entitled to enjoy the franchise; but he understood from the admirable speech delivered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County Cork (Colonel Colthurst) that in Ireland the administration of medical relief was entirely separate from the ordinary administration of poor relief. It, therefore, seemed that in England and Ireland the receipt of medical relief did not stand on the same footing. If a person received medical relief in England, he received ordinary parish relief, because parish medical relief was dispensed in England exactly in the same way, and under precisely the same conditions, as common parish relief. There was no doubt that in the incidence of the franchise in England, this fact had led to great abuse; indeed, he had heard great complaints made that the power of dispensing medical relief had been used by unscrupulous politicians in English parishes for the purpose of disfranchisement. He remembered well a ease in which a doctor, who was paid by the parish for attending the accouchement of the women of the lower classes, attended indiscriminately the wives of voters upon both sides of politics; but he put down on his list only those who belonged to the Party to which he was opposed, thereby disfranchising all the husbands: whereas the 695 husbands of the women on his own side of politics retained their votes. This showed in itself how the dispensation of medical relief was abused. Of course, there were cases in which a man might be driven into the receipt of medical relief whether he pleased or not; and, therefore, it was clear that this was a kind of relief that could be abused, and could be used for political purposes. If it was possible, even in England, to separate the receipt of medical relief from the receipt of ordinary poor relief, he should be much inclined to support such a separation; but in England it was not possible, whereas in Ireland it was. It appeared that in Ireland, owing to Act of Parliament, the administration of medical relief was separated entirely from the ordinary distribution of public charity. Now, he would like to call the attention of the Committee to the way in which the English poor, in a precisely analogous case—that was in the case of the receipt, not of medical relief, but of educational relief—were treated. Where an English labouring man was not able to pay the school fees for the attendance of his own children at school, he was entitled to go to the Guardians, and from the Guardians to obtain out of the Poor Law funds the amount of the fees to be paid for the education of his children. Now, that was a case of the receipt of public money, receipt in a certain aspect of Poor Law relief, but it was receipt of a kind of relief which was not the ordinary poor relief; it was not connected with the administration of the ordinary Poor Law relief. A man was bound by law to send his children to school, and to pay certain fees; educational relief, therefore, was not at all the same thing as relief in the shape of food and clothes. Under these circumstances, was a poor English labourer disfranchised? No, because, by the Elementary Education Act, it was specifically provided that the parents who were unable, by reason of their poverty, to pay the fees of their children in public elementary schools, could apply to the Guardians, and the Guardians, being satisfied with the inability of the parents to pay the fees, should make such and such grants, and then it was expressly enacted—
That the parents shall not, by reason of any payment made under this section, be deprived of any franchise right or privilege, or 696 be subjected to any disability or any disqualification.He was entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) in treating the poor in Ireland exactly as they treated the poor in England; and finding that they did not disfranchise the poor in England who obtained, by reason of their poverty, additional relief, he was inclined to vote against the disfranchisement of the poor of Ireland who, by reason of their poverty, received medical relief.
§ DR. LYONSsaid, he did not believe the Medical Profession in Ireland had any desire whatever to stand in the way of the enlargement of the franchise. This clause, however, raised a difficulty of long standing, and one which it was to be regretted had not hitherto been dealt with. It was to be regretted that Her Majesty's Government had not condescended to take the advice of one or two persons thoroughly acquainted with this matter, because, if they had done so, the difficulty might easily have been removed. It could not be properly said, or said with a shadow of truth, that the Irish people had not received very generous assistance, under all circumstances, from the Medical Profession. The people themselves were the first to recognize that fact. The remuneration of the medical men was not at all adequate to the amount of assistance they rendered in very many cases. The real difficulty in the case arose from the system of "red tickets." That system had been made for a series of years an engine of oppression and extortion upon the Medical Profession. Unfortunately, in many instances, persons of the farming class considered that, in times of prosperity, they were entitled to enforce the gratuitous attendance of the doctor just as they did in times of adversity. The habit of receiving gratuitous medical relief grew upon the people, and they remained under the impression that they were always entitled to receive that relief, no matter how great their prosperity might be. As an instance of the "red ticket" system being used, as he had said, as an engine of oppression, he might tell the Committee that if a medical man was disliked in his district, the expression had become common—"We will soon red-ticket him out of the place." "Red tickets" were very easily given; 697 there was no sort of control with, regard to the issuing of them; everyone liked to be generous in that which cost him nothing, and the small shopkeeper was always ready, on the slightest pretence, to tell a customer—"Oh, I will send the doctor to you." It often happened that doctors were sent many miles to attend the most trumpery cases. Of his (Dr. Lyons') own knowledge, he knew of a case in which a patient living at a considerable distance expressed a great desire to see anew "iron horse" the doctor had got A "red ticket" was issued to the applicant, and the doctor—who used a bicycle, his salary not enabling him to keep a horse—was sent seven miles, with the result that he saw the so-called patient standing at the door, who, the a and there, frankly stated the circumstances under which the "red ticket" had been issued. The system of "red tickets" was one he had always looked forward to devising some means, with the consent of the House, of remedying. There was no in suparable difficulty in the matter. The clerk of the Union and the relieving officer had full knowledge of the circumstances and financial position of all persons in their districts, and nothing would be easier than to classify those at all times entitled to gratuitous relief, and those whose position enabled them to pay a fixed moderate charge. He thought that in times of prosperity the well-to-do people of Ireland should be obliged to pay a fair amount for medical assistance; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) whether he could not, on this occasion, give some pledge that he would, on an early day, take steps to prevent the abuse he (Dr. Lyons) had indicated?
§ MR. HEALY, interrupting the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Lyons), asked whether it was in Order for an hon. Gentleman in the House, who was supposed to be addressing the Chair, to speak to himself?
§ MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) had not condescended to tell the Committee who were the one or two persons whom the Government ought to have consulted on this matter; but, if he was right in assuming that the hon. Member was one of those persons, he (Mr. Charles Russell) was exceedingly glad that the Govern- 698 ment had not consulted him. He thought it would be a source of great injustice in Ireland if this clause were not retained in the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) mixed up with the question of the retention of this clause, and so did the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons), the question of the possible abuse of the system of giving white or red tickets. There might be the abuse indicated; but that was not the question before the Committee; that was a matter which could be redressed, and ought to be redressed, by the action of the Local Government Board, to whom application could be made, if any hon. Members would put them in possession of the facts. Dismissing the question altogether of the supposed abuse in the distribution of medical relief, upon the general question he had only one word to say. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the county of Cork (Colonel Colthurst) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had made this matter very clear. His hon. and gallant Friend near him (Colonel Colthurst), who understood the actual working of the system well, and who therefore was entitled to speak on the matter, had pointed out how the system worked, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had made it clear to the Committee that the relief was such that it was not in truth considered by the people of Ireland as parochial relief. He was sure that no one who knew the feeling of Ireland would suppose that the person who received outdoor relief in Ireland, or parochial relief inside the Union, was regarded at all in the same category as the small farmer who, in the case of necessity, applied to the medical officer to put down disease, which was not only a matter of relief to a particular individual, but also a matter of great concern to the public generally. He could not but think that a great deal of the argument that had been addressed to the Committee, although it had not been disclosed, was really dictated by the kind of feeling which was obviously in the mind of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Surrey (Mr Brodrick), who, in truth, wanted by this side-wind to undo, to some extent, the effect of the Franchise Bill itself.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, there was one aspect of this question on which he should like to address a few words to the Committee. It was perfectly clear from the debate that this was really not merely a question of registration, but a question of the extension of the franchise in Ireland. It had been argued by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that without this clause the extension of the franchise in Ireland, which had been already assented to by Parliament, would be largely inoperative. That being so, the question naturally occurred why this matter was not dealt with by Her Majesty's Government in the Franchise Bill, rather than in the Registration Bill, and whether it was reasonable or not to ask the House of Commons, after the question of the franchise had been settled by common agreement, that this question should be re-opened, so far as it affected Ireland, by the clause that was now before the Committee? Now, Her Majesty's Government had themselves, in previous debates during this Session, adopted the principle that it was not right to reopen the question of the franchise, because, when Amendments upon that point were moved by various Members in the Committee on the Redistribution Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), while admitting in more than one instance his own sympathy with the Amendments proposed, declared the Amendments could not be considered, as the question was already settled. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) suggested, a fortiori, that it ought not to be re-opened by a Registration Bill which purported to be merely a measure for enacting such alterations in the law as might be necessary to carry out the Franchise Act which had been already passed, and the Redistribution Bill which was now passing through the House of Commons. But it was contended that the circumstances of the Medical Charities Act in Ireland and the Poor Law system of England were so essentially different, that if the alterations now proposed were made in the Irish law, they would be no precedent for any-similar change in the English law. No one in the House could speak with more knowledge on the subject than the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Cork (Colonel Colthurst), and he (Sir 700 Michael Hicks-Beach) admitted what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had said with regard to the different administration of the Medical Charities Act in Ireland, and the system of Poor Law medical relief in England. No doubt, in Ireland the medical charities were not administered by officials of the Poor Law. It was a separate system altogether, and therefore it had come, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had said, to be looked upon by not a few of the population of Ireland as really no system of Poor Law relief at all. Well, that was the strongest testimony that could be given by any hon. Member to the truth of the facts alluded to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), and subsequently dwelt upon by the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons)—namely, that there was considerable abuse in the administration of the Medical Charities Act in Ireland. It was admitted by high authorities that abuse of the system did exist. [Mr. HEALY: What is the supervising authority?] The authority supervising was unquestionably the Local Government Board; but when persons who were legally appointed to administer the system, and those who came under it, looked upon it from the point of view of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not think it would be possible for the supervising authority to check the abuse. He did not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Cork as to the essential difference between the Irish and English systems. The essence of both of them was that they consisted of relief paid from public sources—paid by the ratepayers—whether it was administered by those who were intrusted with the administration of medical relief, or by the Poor Law Guardians; and in his humble opinion, if Parliament agreed to this change in the law with respect to Ireland, it was striking a very dangerous blow at the whole electoral law of the United Kingdom, which made the receipt of relief a disqualification for the franchise. It had been urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham, that the arguments which had been used should not preclude the adoption of 701 the clause, for the reason that the administration of medical relief in England could not be so separated from the administration of other relief as to leave the acceptance of other relief a disqualification, while the acceptance of medical relief remained no disqualification. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not wish to put his opinion on a question of law against that of the hon. and learned Member; but he could not help thinking that it would be almost as easy to repeal the law in England which made the acceptance of medical relief a disqualification as to repeal the law which applied to Ireland. It was a matter of great social interest whether the acceptance of relief under the Poor Law system in England, or under the Medical Authorities in Ireland, should be felt by those who received it to be of the nature of relief from public sources, or should be looked upon from the point of view suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell). Any hon. Member who had watched the progress of Poor Law outdoor relief in Ireland for the last 15 or 2') years, would know that this idea of relief—being in the nature of a charity rather than a relief from public sources—was not without conderable danger in Ireland. It was a great danger in England, too. On looking at a late Report of the Irish Local Government Board, he had seen that the amount expended in outdoor relief in Ireland had doubled during the last 10 years, whilst the expenditure on medical charities had increased 20 per cent during that period. He thought that if the disqualification for the exercise of the franchise was a bar to anyone who could really do without it from seeking for relief of this kind, it was a good thing from a social point of view to retain that; but, at any rate, he did not think that a change should be made in the law without the whole system of disqualification for the franchise being seriously considered by Parliament. He believed that it would be generally admitted by the Government and the House that the acceptance of what was called medical relief was not consistent with that independent frame of mind on the part of the voter to which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had alluded in his speech. He thought it ought to be a disqualification 702 for the franchise; and, therefore, he very much regretted that Her Majesty's Government should have felt it necessary to raise this important question, and propose this important change, in this Bill, which, he ventured to submit, had no proper connection with the subject. If Her Majesty's Government intended to effect this alteration in the law, the question should be raised directly, and on its own merits, and not brought forward in a measure of this sort.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would first allude to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons). He knew several dispensary doctors in Ireland, and was aware that they occasionally had patients who paid them; but he could repudiate that they were willing to purchase immunity from the grievances they had to complain of by the disfranchisement of a large portion of their fellow-countrymen. He believed no body of men could be more surprised or indignant than they would be on finding their case mixed up with the question of the disfranchisement of their fellow-countrymen. He was convinced that they would endure ten times more rather than lend their sanction to the efforts of the hon. Member, or of anybody else, to bring about the disfranchisement of a large portion of the Irish people. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would say this to the Committee generally—namely, that there was no proposition which could come before them in connection with this Bill, or any other Bill this Session, which could more clearly test the legislative capacity of this Assembly and its legislative grasp and its statesmanship than its method of dealing with this question. This was one question which would show the people of Ireland whether or not there was an awakening intelligence in this House as to the manner in which Irish questions should be dealt with. For what did the arguments against this clause all mean? The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) deserved the gratitude of Irish Members and of the Committee generally. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) that the hon. Member for West Surrey was the one speaker on this occasion who had given the real reasons of the Party to which 703 he belonged for the attitude they bad taken up. The real reason—and let the Committee face it and know of this hostility—was not a desire to raise the social status of the Irish citizen, but to keep down that social status by depriving the people of a voice in the destinies of their own country. The real reason had been stated by the hon. Member he had mentioned, who had been candid enough to say that, if he could have his way, 50 years would elapse before the mass of the Irish people would have any voice in the control of their own affairs.
MR. BRODEICKI said I hoped it would be long before those persons in receipt of medical relief in Ireland were admitted to the franchise.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORYes; but the hon. Member had connected that with a statement that the persons holding small portions of land in Ireland were unfit to exercise the franchise. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) put the two statements together, and interpreted them by saying that the hon. Member's opposition to this proposal was based on a desire to deprive the poorer classes of the Irish people of any voice in the control of their own affairs. The right hon. Gentleman—a late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach)—had disclaimed all hostility to the measure; but the right hon. Gentleman would be inconsistent with his whole career if he did not offer most vigorous hostility to everything like Irish reform. What were his arguments? He proposed to go round all the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst); but he was careful to overlook the most pregnant of those arguments. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham had pointed out that a large number of the people of this country were receiving what was practically out-door relief by having their children educated in the Board schools, although no one proposed to make that a bar to their exercising the franchise. Nothing could be more fallacious or more absurd than to suppose that things called by the same name in England and Ireland meant the same thing in the two countries. They found this fallacy existing in connection with almost every proposal which had ever been made in the interests of Ireland. With regard to land- 704 lordism, a mistake of that kind had been made. The landlord of Ireland and the landlord of England were so totally different that they might almost be called by different names. So was it also with this system of medical relief. In England there was a variable scale of all doctors' fees. The hon. Member for the City of Dublin said that nothing could be more mythical than the supposition that a guinea was given as a fee in all cases to a doctor in Ireland; but, in spite of that observation, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) maintained that every medical man in Ireland who would accept anything less than the ordinary fee of a guinea would be "Boycotted" by the rest of his Profession. What was the case in England? Why, if they went into the poor parts of London, they would find open dispensaries where a bottle of medicine and advice was given for the small sum of 6d. Anyone acquainted with the relations existing between medical men and their patients in this country would know that it was possible to get medical assistance in England at a price infinitely below that charged by the doctors in Ireland. Some people said—"Why do not the Irish form clubs for medical assistance?" The answer was that there was not that system of social education among the Irish people to enable them to do it which existed in England. [Mr. BRODRICK: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member cheered that observation. He had found fault very much with these poor people for being paupers, and had said that because they held small portions of land they should be deprived of the Parliamentary franchise; but he had not observed that the hon. Member had accompanied that observation with any reproach to the landlords, who were content to take a considerable amount in the shape of rack rent from these poor people. In England they had this system of clubs, and of opening practically free dispensaries, and they had a variable scale of medical fees; and they compared a system of that kind with the system prevailing in Ireland, which required a medical man to charge no less than a guinea under penalty of being "Boycotted" by the rest of his Profession. He should be very much surprised if the majority of the English Conservative Party followed the lead of the right hon. and learned Gentleman 705 the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) on this occasion. The right hon. Baronet, an ex-Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, had asked why this had not been brought on in the Franchise Bill? Well, it would be more convenient if right hon. Gentlemen in the responsible position of the right hon. Baronet would pay a little more attention to the history of questions like this. If he had paid a little more attention to that history he would know that the proposal was made in the Franchise Bill, and was ruled out of Order, and as not germane to the Bill, by the Chairman. That was the reason why the clause was brought forward in the present measure. Finally, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) must altogether object to what he might almost tall the hypocritical plea—that this clause was opposed because of a desire to improve the social status of the Irish people. He had said before that the object was to keep the status of the Irish people as low as possible by depriving them of any voice in the control of their own affairs. He would go further, and say that this Bill, if passed in an unamended form, while producing an apparent equality in regard to the franchise between the people of Ireland and the people of England, would be an absolute mockery and a delusion when accompanied by the disfranchisement of so many voters.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, they bad had two separate estimates of the value of this clause; the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had said—and he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) was disposed to agree with him—that it lay in a very small compass indeed. But the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had taken a much higher ground, and had told them that this was a supreme test of the legislative grasp of the House of Commons, and of its statesmanship. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) did not deny that that was one aspect of the case for which there was something to be said, though it was his experience in the House of Commons that the words statesmanship and statesmanlike were always applied to that particular line of conduct which the hon. Gentleman speaking at the time happened to prefer. He himself 706 did not profess to have an accurate criterion as to the conduct of any Member of the House; but, to come to the point, it seemed to him that they ought to consider what was the rationale of the disfranchisement of those who might seek to obtain medical relief in Ireland, if it were not because they were supposed to be in a position of dependence. A man who received parish relief in an ordinary sense—and there was no indoor or outdoor pauper, as no doubt all would agree, who was in a position of independence—could not be admitted to the franchise. It would be against public polity to admit him; but then came the question, was the kind of relief they were now discussing of such a nature as to interfere with the independence of the person who received it? The Government had come to the conclusion that it was not; otherwise, of course, this clause would not have appeared in the Bill. The system in Ireland bad been sufficiently explained to the House to-night, and whatever might be the merits or demerits of that system about which they had heard so much, it appeared to him nothing to do with the question before the Committee; and this, at all events, was certain—that, if any accusation was brought against the present system in Ireland, it was this—that persons of too high a class of the community took advantage of the system; and therefore, from that point of view, it was not so liable to the imputation of interfering with the voter's independence as it would be in other cases. It was said, indeed, that the system was bad; but if it was so bad, this, at any rate, was not the way to improve it. If it was a bad system, injurious to the community and so forth, then, in the name of reason, let them set about reforming it; but do not let them try to reform it by a side-wind in this way by imposing the penalty of disfranchisement upon those who were obliged to take advantage of it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had spoken of this as introducing a change in the law. (He Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) did not know that that point had been taken up; but it was a very open question whether it was a change in the law at all; it was rather, in the view of many competent and qualified persons, a declaration of what the law now was. 707 If that question had not been raised, he was not disposed to raise it himself; but, even if it were a change in the law, he should not be averse to it on that account. What was the object of the opposition to this clause? The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) had, with most captivating frankness, told them a good deal upon that point. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) could admire and appreciate the consistency of the hon. Member, because he believed he was himself opposed to the extension of the franchise to a lower class of voters in Ireland; and, therefore, he was willing to take advantage of any means which could keep them out of it. But the House of Commons could not take that line at all. All of them who were willing and consenting parties to the Bill passed at the end of last year surely could not now by this subterfuge—because it was nothing less—disfranchise those to whom it had been understood to be one of the objects of the Bill to give a vote. On the other hand, the object might be—and he could appreciate the motives of those who acted under that contention—to bring pressure to bear upon the people in order to prevent what seemed to him to be an abuse of the present system. That, he maintained, was a thing not to be done in this particular way. If it were to be done, let the Local Government Board see to it, and if they were unable to do what was necessary, then let the Legislature be resorted to. Do not let them in this roundabout way use the electoral arrangement of the country for the purpose of effecting this object. He did not think it was necessary to go into the matter any further. As the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said, the matter lay in a very small compass, it had been now well discussed, and he trusted that they might be allowed to take a division upon it.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 20: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 126.)
§ Clause 4 (Appeal where Chairman or Revising Barrister refuses to state a case. 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26,s. 37) agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Polling districts).
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he would like to ask whether the Government had con- 708 sidered the question of providing polling districts, and whether they would consider the necessity of providing also additional Revision Courts? In the case of the county of Dublin last year, they had offered, if necessary, to pass an Act to enable the Lord Lieutenant to make additional provision for the county of Dublin. Now they would be having a tremendous number of new voters coming in. and it would be perfectly impossible to have them properly attended to unless there were an additional number of Revision Courts. He believed the Lord Lieutenant had power in some cases, with the consent of the Privy Council, to appoint additional Revision Courts; but there was great difficulty in getting the consent, and, unless pledges were given that money which was available would be used for this purpose in Ireland, they would be placed in an unfortunate position in regard to this subject. They had provided for additional Revising Barristers, and, that being so, there was no reason for their not providing that they should do the work in one district and then in another.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, there was sufficient power under the Act of 1873.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to point out that they had now arrived at a new state of things, owing to the large increase that was being made in the constituency. He wished, therefore, to ask whether the Lord Lieutenant would reconsider the entire question, and whether also the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland would give the matter his attention It was important in a large number of cases, in which the number of voters upon the lists would be enormously increased, that a sufficient number of Revision Courts should be provided—say, one Court for every 1,000 voters—so as to render them easily accessible to the new voters.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he thought the Government ought so to arrange that the voters should, if possible, be able to attend Revision Courts within seven miles of their own residences. Although he himself represented the smallest county in Ireland (Louth), he found that in the Southern Division of that county voters would have to walk a distance of 17 miles for the purpose of maintaining their right to be upon the Register. If 709 it was necessary, under the old system, that the electors should have polling-places within four miles of their residences, he did not see why, under the new Act, which so largely increased the number of electors, it should not be necessary to have Revision Courts within a distance of certainly not more than seven miles. Unless some such suggestion were carried out, and some pledge given on the part of the Government to the Representatives of the Irish people that the labourers should not be compelled to walk a distance of 17 miles for the purpose of maintaining their rights, in the face of some three penny objection, a large number of voters would be subjected to very considerable hardship. As far as the Lord Lieutenant was concerned, they had very little hope of obtaining what they required from that authority. Attention had been drawn in that House time after time to the injustice perpetrated under the existing system; and they certainly had a right now to ask the Government to consent to such an enlargement of the number of the Revision Courts in Ireland that the agricultural labourers, who would now be placed on the Electoral Roll, should not be compelled to walk enormous distances in order to maintain their right to vote. It would be a great scandal if such a thing were permitted, for if men had to walk a distance of 17 miles one day, they would hardly be in a condition to do any work the next. He thought, therefore, that something more was required than the mere assertion of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland that the matter was one in which sufficient power was given to the Lord Lieutenant under the existing law. The Act referred to had been in operation for 11 years, and during all that time the Lord Lieutenant had had ample opportunities of considering the matter; but in no single instance, as far as he (Mr. Callan) was aware, with the exception of the county of Dublin, had the Lord Lieutenant increased the number of Revision Courts.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, Monaghan was another exception.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, his hon. and learned Friend was right. What was 710 done in Monaghan was on behalf of the Tories, and no such enlargement was ever made in any other part of Ireland than those mentioned. Under the Act of Parliament, the Revising Barristers would receive £100 additional salary for holding their Revision Courts, and they were only called upon to sit an average of two days in the 12 months. They could not, therefore, complain if they were inconvenienced to some extent by holding additional Courts; and certainly it was they, and not the electors, who, if anyone, ought to be inconvenienced.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he would remind the Committee that they were now considering line 25 of the clause, which proposed to revise certain Acts referred to in the Schedule. It should be remembered that the Ballot Act gave a Revision Court to every polling or Petty Sessional district—he was not quite sure which—and what he wished to suggest was that they should revert back to what had been done at the time of the passing of the Ballot Act, that they should repeal the clause which had repealed the section of that Act dealing with the Revision Courts, and having regard to the tremendous number of electors which would now be thrown upon the Register, that they should enact that the Revising Barristers should hold Revision Courts in every Petty Sessional district, which, he believed, had been the case under the Ballot Act. He would urge that this suggestion should be adopted, and made applicable to the 1st Schedule of the Bill. He thought also that line 25 of the clause required amendment by putting in the number of the Schedule. There would be a series of Schedules in the Bill, and line 25 had reference to what would be the first of those Schedules, all of which, he suggested, ought to be numbered or defined by letters of the alphabet.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he assured the Committee that the Act of 1873 gave ample power for the appointment by the Lord Lieutenant of any Revision Courts that might be thought necessary. With regard to what had been said about the Ballot Act, he thought the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was under a misapprehension, and that the section he had referred to gave power to appoint Revision Courts in all the polling districts.
§ MR. SYNANthought there had been some confusion with regard to the operation of the Ballot Act. Under that Act there was power to increase the polling districts. These districts were fixed at the Quarter Sessions. The revision of the registration was also a matter belonging to Quarter Sessions. The question that now arose was whether, in consequence of the increased number of voters who would be placed upon the Register, they would have sufficient facilities afforded them for maintaining their rights as electors under the revision provided at Quarter Sessions. He did not think they would be sufficient, and was of opinion that further provision ought to be made under the 4th clause of the Bill, and not by an Amendment relating to polling districts, which would have nothing to do with the revision of registration. The revision of votes at Quarter Sessions was one thing and the fixing of polling places at Quarter Sessions was another. Under the Ballot Act the polling places were increased to such an extent that every polling place was brought to within four or five miles of the electors' residences; but the revision of the Register was not similarly dealt with, and he thought that some provision ought to be made under the Bill—by which the number of voters in Ireland was almost doubled—for an increase in the number of Revision Courts. He thought the matter was one with which the Government ought to deal. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) seemed to think that the Ballot Act had provided for what was needed; but this was not so. The Ballot Act merely left the question of revision where it was, at Quarter Sessions, and the only way to increase the facilities for revision was by an Amendment of this Bill increasing the number of Revision Courts.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Syrian) laboured under a great mistake in attaching to the Quarter Sessions both the revision and the polling. It might have been so in the olden time, when the hon. Member first came into Parliament; but, at the present day, the registration and polling questions were settled at separate Sessions altogether, and wholly apart from the Quarter Sessions. Each of these matters was deal with at separate Sessions.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), while technically correct, was essentially wrong.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, the main point at issue was whether there was any reason why the electors should be under the necessity of walking a great many miles for the purpose of attending the Revision Courts. In a county like that which be represented (Galway), where there was no contest at all about registration, he did not see why the Government should be put to the expense of appointing a number of additional Revision Courts. In cases where, as in Galway, under ordinary circumstances, there would be no fighting at all, it would be a farce and a ridiculous expenditure to institute a number of new Courts. His own experience was that the calling over the Roll at Quarter Sessions was a thing that only occupied five minutes or so, and the matter was settled. But in cases where large additions of voters were made to the Register, where, for instance, there might be a supplementary list of 4,000, 5,000, or 6,000, and where every Liberal objected to every Conservative, and every Conservative to every Liberal, and any voter who happened to keep his own counsel on political subjects was objected to by both Parties, it became a totally different matter. In those cases he considered that a multiplication of the Revision Courts would be found necessary, and he hoped that means would be taken to provide the requisite facilities.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that, to his own knowledge, there were cases in which electors would have to walk a distance of 15, 16, and even 17 miles to get to the nearest Revision Courts. He was in the recollection of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), and of other hon. Members, when he stated that in many counties in Ireland several thousands of notices of objection were served upon electors on both sides at every revision; and unless a sufficient number of Revision Courts was provided, it would be next to impossible for the voters to be able to attend them and maintain their rights.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) that there was ample jurisdic- 713 tion at present for the appointment of Revision Courts, to be held at such times and places in the course of the year as the Lord Lieutenant might deem fit. The Act of 1877 gave the power of holding Quarter Sessions more often than those already fixed; but he had no doubt that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland would look into the matter and satisfy himself as to the existence of the necessary powers, as it was obvious that if sufficient power did not exist for the provision of the requisite number of Revision Courts some further provision ought to be made for the purpose of insuring that result.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the Ballot Act of 1872 provided certain machinery for the appointment of new polling districts, and that Act was amended by the Act of 1873, which latter Act also provided machinery for the appointment of Revision Courts. The two things were perfectly distinct.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he quite agreed that the 3rd section of the Act of 1873, which amended the Ballot Act of 1872, gave the Lord Lieutenant power to provide Revision Courts where necessary; but what he complained of was that this power was never exercised by the Lord Lieutenant. In the case of Lublin it was only after a tremendous struggle that the Lord Lieutenant was induced to give some additional Revision Courts, and he gave them with a most meagre hand. The greatest possible pressure had to be brought to bear on that occasion; several Memorials were sent to the Lord Lieutenant on the subject, and the result was that he did not give half the Courts that were wanted. When, however, the Tories found that they had not a sufficient number of Revision Courts in Monaghan, and the magistrates sent up an application for additional Courts, the county being formerly a Tory county, they were able to get what they wanted. Why, he asked, did not the Government undertake to deal with this matter? There ought to be some hard-and-fast line laid down for the appointment of a certain number of persons to hold Revision Courts, or the Lord Lieutenant should be compelled to give a Revision Court for every 1,000 electors. As the matter at present stood, the section of the Act of Parliament 714 which gave the existing power said the Lord Lieutenant might by Order in Council appoint Revision Courts, and so forth. He (Mr. Healy) would not say that there ought to be a Court in every Petty Sessional district; but he thought there ought to be one in every town of any size—say, with a population of 2,000, or having Town Commissioners. Revision Courts ought to be held in all such places—at any rate for the present year. He would not carry his proposition beyond this—It was proposed to appoint a greater number of Revising Barristers, and to take other additional means to provide for the registration necessitated by the Franchise Act; and he thought, therefore, the Government ought to be anxious to see that the new law was properly, fairly, and efficiently carried out in every respect.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the circumstances connected with the present legislation would necessarily require a much larger scheme of revision than would be requisite in ordinary years; and he would promise, on behalf of the Government, that the matter should be carefully considered in the spirit indicated by the last observations of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy).
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he was afraid the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan did not go far enough. That hon. and learned Gentleman would be content with having a Revision Court in each town where there were Town Commissioners; but, if this recommendation were adopted, it would leave a large number of small towns that had not Town Commissioners without any means of revision at all. In his own county (Louth) there were only two Courts, which, he contended, were not enough. There ought to be one at least in each barony, which would give five instead of two Revision Courts to the county.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to know, before the clause was agreed to, whether the Government did not think it necessary to indicate the Schedules referred to in the Bill by numbers or initials?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he was afraid they could hardly amend the Bill in that way at the present moment; but he would consider what it would be best to do on Report.
§ On the Motion of Mr. CAMPBELL-BAOTERMAN, the following Amendment made:—-In page 2, line 25, after "the," insert "Second."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 6 (Remuneration of officers. 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69.s. 73; 31 & 32 Vict. c. 49.s. 23).
§ MR. R. POWER moved an Amendment to the effect that the power of fixing the remuneration of collectors of Unions and poor rate collectors for their services in carrying the Registration Act into effect should be vested in Boards of Guardians, and not in the Local Government Board for Ireland, as was proposed by the clause. He said he was at a loss to understand what it was that induced the Government to put such a power in the hands of the Local Government Board as would be given to them under this section if it were carried without amendment. Of all the public Boards in Ireland, he did not think there was any so unpopular as the Local Government Board. He should like to know on what ground they were to be asked to place in the hands of a more or less irresponsible authority the disbursement of those payments, an expenditure to which they did not contribute, while those who actually did contribute the means of paying the money were to have no voice in the manner in which it was to be expended? The ratepayers had no control whatever over the Local Government Board in Ireland; and this fact sufficiently showed how differently the two countries were treated, because in England the ratepayers had perfect control over the manner in which the money they contributed was to be spent. He found that in England it was necessary that a certificate should be given to the overseers by the Revising Barrister, under Section 57 of the principal Act, for expenses incurred in carrying into effect the provisions of the Act, this certificate to be final and conclusive, provided it was signed by the Revising Barrister in the open Court. In Ireland, however, there was no open Court in the case. In addition to the provision he had just quoted, the ratepayers in England had a right to inspect the accounts and object to any items before they were allowed by the Revising Barrister. Therefore, in England the ratepayers 716 had a perfect right to object to any item of expenditure brought before the Revising Barrister for his signature; but under the present Bill the Local Government Board might expend ten times too much or ten times too little, and the unfortunate ratepayers would have no voice whatever in the matter. Another point was, that in this instance the Government had departed from the course pursued in regard to former Registration Bills. By the Bill of 1850 he found that the Guardians had the power of fixing the salaries of all the officers, and paying them for any expenses they might have been put to; and he should like the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to say why he had departed from this precedent, and thrown the power into the hands of the Local Government Board in Dublin? He (Mr. R. Power) might say that he thought it would have been much better if the expense had not to be taken from the local rates at all; but the Government had determined not only that the money was to be contributed by the ratepayers, but that those who made the contribution should have no voice whatever in regard to its disbursement. If the Local Government Board were to retain the power of paying those salaries, and the ratepayers were to have no voice in the matter, the Government ought to have brought forward some different scheme by which the Local Government Board would be guided, and not leave it to that body to pay twice as much in one place as they might pay in another.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 12, to leave out the words "Local Government Board for Ireland," in order to insert the words "Board of Guardians,"—(Mr. Richard Power,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'Local Government Board for Ireland' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it was the opinion of the Government that the Local Government Board was the best qualified body to secure a reasonable and not too high a remuneration being paid to those public servants for the performance of these duties.
§ MR. LEWISthought that if there were need for the intervention of the Local Government Board, or some other 717 sufficient authority, for the purpose of seeing justice done between the clerks and collectors of Unions and the ratepayers, this was the case in which it had arisen. He had to remind the Committee of an instance he had brought before the House on the second reading of the Bill, only two days ago. He had then informed the House that the Athy Board of Guardians had proposed to appoint certain gentlemen who were secretaries of the National League for the purpose of making out the list of voters in the various Unions. This proposal was brought before the Board without any previous notice; and although the attention of the Guardians was called to this fact, and they were asked to postpone the matter in order that due notice might be given, they had declined to do so, but had there and then, on the spot, appointed as fit and proper persons to make out the new lists seven gentlemen whose special qualification was that they were secretaries to the National League. At the next meeting it was proposed to fix their remuneration. Now, if this sort of thing were to be tolerated elsewhere in Ireland, it would be easy to imagine what sort of a remuneration would be given. One particular class of persons they would remunerate handsomely, while another class would hardly be remunerated at all. With respect to the Amendment before the Committee, he regarded it as utterly unintelligible and unworkable, and, moreover, wanting in point of definition. It was an essential matter, in which the independence of a Government Board was necessary, to see fair play between the ratepayers and the officers. In England it was a different matter; the business of making out the lists lay with the overseers, who were not entitled to receive anything but their expenses. No doubt they could remunerate any sub-official for manual labour; but the "bills" referred to on these occasions were not bills for remuneration, for he believed, as a matter of law, they were not entitled to remuneration. But they were allowed expenses, which were audited in the public accounts, the overseer, however, giving his services just as the Sheriff did in other matters, without receiving remuneration. He hoped the Government would be firm in holding to their clause.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, it was but a trivial opposition which had been offered to the Amendment. Though the terms of the Amendment were not perhaps those a cultured lawyer would use, still the object was quite clear; it was to take away from the central body the power of fixing the remuneration of clerks and others concerned in the business of registration, giving that power in each Union to the Board of Guardians; and he thought the Board of Guardians would be a more fitting body to fix the remuneration than the Local Government Board in Dublin. In the first place, the Board of Guardians would provide the money; and generally, unless some incapacity could be shown, the people who had to provide the money for the discharge of a public duty ought, through their representatives, to be allowed to say the extent to which their money should be expended. The Local Government Board had not that knowledge of what would be the work under the new franchise to enable them to fix a scale with adequate speed. If the clause were agreed upon in its present form, and the Bill in due course was sent up to the House of Lords, where, after a time, it might pass and ultimately receive the Royal Assent, then, and not till then, the Local Government Board set about fixing the scale of remuneration. This would be productive of something very like disaster to the public interest. The demand on the time of the public rate collectors would be overpowering; and if they were left in doubt for a month or six weeks as to what remuneration they would receive for their extra duty, they would go about that duty in a careless apathetic manner, instead of with that energy the public interest required. He took it to be a prime requisite that the collectors should know immediately or very soon how much they were to get; and if the Government accepted the Amendment allowing the Boards of Guardians to fix the amount of remuneration, the Boards would at once, from their knowledge of local circumstances, knowing the number of people to be put upon the Register, the extent of work from each collector, their knowledge of the rate-producing Returns and their funds in hand, take a full view of all the elements of the case, and fix a fair scale of remuneration. If, on the 719 other hand, out of an obstinate desire to leave all power in the hands of a central body, taking it out of the hands of Boards having only a limited representation, if the Government persevered in that, then the result would be that nothing definite would be known for weeks to come as to the amount of remuneration to collectors, and necessarily the effect would be that collectors would not interest themselves as they ought; they would know you could not really recover penalties, though they were in the Act; and thousands or tens of thousands of people entitled to be on the Electoral Boll would have their names omitted.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he hoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. B. Power) would not be accepted. He thought it most undesirable to throw upon Boards of Guardians, among whom in Ireland, as was well known, strong Party feeling existed, delicate work of this kind in connection with the registration of voters; and that rate collectors and clerks of Unions should be solely dependent on Boards of Guardians. He did not think the latter wanted any such power, and he knew that rate collectors and clerks of Unions wished to have the scale of remuneration fixed by the Local Government Board; and he also believed that rate collectors knew already that they were to be paid for the work, and he believed they would enter, and were entering, on the work with pleasure. Hitherto they had done the work and were paid nothing, and it would be most undesirable to accept an Amendment, the result of which would probably be great inequality in the scale of payment throughout the Unions in Ireland, some Unions paying highly, others paying very little. He thought a fixed scale, such as was the case in preparing the jury lists, should be arranged by the Local Government Board, and then collectors would know how they were to be paid.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he was surprised at the grounds upon which the hon. Member (Mr. T. A. Dickson) objected to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power). The hon. Member spoke of irregularity in payments; he was surprised that an hon. Gentleman should hand himself over to the interest of a narrow class to 720 the detriment of the constituency he represented. He stated that it was undesirable that Boards of Guardians should have the power of fixing the remuneration, and he said rate collectors were paid nothing for the work now. But then, when they proposed to collect the rates in certain parishes, they were well aware of the duty that would devolve upon them in connection with Revision Sessions; and therefore, in making their estimate for what they would do the collection, they took into consideration the duty of preparing the Electoral Roll. He said the Board of Guardians did not wish for the power; but he would ask the hon. Member, was there any Petition from any Board of Guardians asking the House not to impose this duty upon them? Was there any Resolution expressive of the wish that the Local Government Board should take this power from them? He (Mr. Callan) stated, with all the authority that attached to the Representative of a large county, that the Boards of Guardians did not wish to have the power of fixing the remuneration; but he would ask the hon. Member to state in the House, could he point to a single vote of any Board of Guardians in Ireland expressing directly, indirectly, or by implication, any such wish? He knew the hon. Member had been entrusted with a number of letters from officials of the Poor Law Board; but he had yet to learn that the hon. Member had representations from Boards of Guardians, in Tyrone or elsewhere, suggesting that any Board wished to have this power taken from them. If so, then perhaps the hon. Member would avail himself the opportunity, and give the name of any Board of Guardians, to substantiate his assertion he had ventured to make in opposition to the Amendment.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, from his own knowledge he was certain that Boards of Guardians did not wish this work cast upon them.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he accepted that explanation. The hon. Member's expression was "Boards of Guardians did not wish it." But to turn to the objections of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). First, he must say the clause contained that to which Irish Members for years had objected—the levying of taxation without representation. One of the great objections to the 721 Grand Jury Laws was that they gave the power of levying rates without the representation of the ratepayers; and so this Bill would withhold representation from the ratepayers, while imposing taxation. Some two years since, there was a Bill before the House, and referred to a Select Committee on which he (Mr. Callan) sat, a Bill in reference to the superannuation of Poor Law officers; and what substantially killed that Bill in Committee so effectually that the Government did not bring forward the question now was the demand by Mr. Robinson, Chief Commissioner and representative of the Local Government Board, that the Board should have the power of fixing the retiring allowances of Poor Law officers, overriding the authority of the elected Guardians, and now there was the attempt made by the Government, undercover of this Bill, to take away from the Poor Law Guardians the power of fixing the remuneration of those officers. The hon. Member for Londonderry said the Amendment was an attempt to give power to Boards of Guardians such as they had never had; but the hon. Member, though representing an Irish constituency, could not have read the Irish Poor Law Act, or he would know that under the existing law power of fixing salaries was given to the Poor Law Guardians. Every item of expense, however, was audited by the Government auditor, and unless this official sanctioned the expenditure, he surcharged the unfortunate Guardians who signed the cheque. Nothing could be paid that was not approved by the Government auditor. He(Mr. Callan) certainty strongly supported the Amendment for many reasons, and was surprised that it was resisted by the President of the Local Government Board, who he believed had never attended a Board meeting on a single occasion; or if he had done so, he (Mr. Callan) would be glad to be corrected. On the other hand, let the right hon. Gentleman bring forward any single instance of neglect by Boards of Guardians of the duty that fell upon officials under the existing Registration Act. If such could be shown, there might be some reason for introducing this clause into the Bill. Until a sufficient reason was shown, he certainly thought Irish Members were bound to support the hon. Member for Waterford. The Local Government 722 Board of Ireland—in fact, the Irish Executive—knewthat in the near future there would be some extension of local self-government, and so they wished to absorb and gather to themselves all the power they possibly could, so as to leave County Boards, when appointed, as little as possible to control. He was most anxious that Poor Law collectors and clerks of Unions should be properly remunerated for the work imposed upon them; and unless a case could be made out showing the incapacity or disinclination of Boards of Guardians to fix the scale, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford.
MR. CHARLES BUSSELLsaid, he rose to offer a suggestion. He was in favour of the principle that those responsible for raising the rates should have the ordering of their distribution; and, certainly. he was not in favour of putting all control over the remuneration in the hands of the Local Government Board; but he thought there were certain possible difficulties that, in dealing with particular work of this kind, might create some inconvenience. It was desirable there should be remuneration provided for these officers for work done, and it should also be provided that there should be some uniformity of payment, some system, so that one set of Guardians should not proceed on one principle, and others upon a principle totally different. It seemed to him the power of the Local Government Board, in reference to the appointment of officers, suggested an analogy which might be followed in the present case. The clerks and collectors were appointed by the Guardians, but in each case subject to the approval of the Local Government Board; and he would suggest that, in the present case —of course, the language of the clause would require alteration—the action of the Guardians should be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board. That would bring matters into exact analogy with the power of the Local Government Board at present, and would effect something like an uniformity of payment all over the country. An hon. Friend near him said the Board of Guardians gave no remuneration; but that point was answered by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan). Undoubtedly. the collectors knew of the 723 conditions when they accepted office; they knew the character of the work expected from them. So much for the general question; but he took the opportunity of asking the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question upon another point. This clause provided for the remuneration of a new set of officers under new circumstances; but he did not know whether representations had been made to the right hon. Gentleman, as they had been to himself and other hon. Members, in relation to the case of those who had performed corresponding work, or a great part of it, in relation to boroughs now disfranchised—whether these officers had a fair claim for compensation? He knew that in some instances the remuneration of clerks and county officials had been fixed in consideration of work done in connection with revision when they accepted office. He did not know that this was strictly germane to the present discussion; but he desired to mention it.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, as to the last question of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Charles Russell), he did not think it arose under this clause; but. as a matter of fact, representations had been made by town clerks of boroughs about to be merged, but he could not say the claim could be allowed—they must follow the fate of their brethren elsewhere; he was al- most sure it never had been done. As to the new proposal of his hon. and learned Friend, as he said before, he was very much in the hands of the; Committee. He preferred himself the Bill as it stood. He could assure hon. Members—though, perhaps, they would not accept that assurance as worth much—that the Local Government Board were not so gluttonous of authority that they desired to assume a duty of this sort; but the Government thought they were an independent body, to whom might be entrusted the interests that had to be considered. Next to that, to provide for the payment of clerks of Unions by the Boards of Guardians, subject to the approval and control of the Local Government Board, would, perhaps, be better than leaving them absolutely at the mercy of the Guardians, who were often—he did not wish to say anything against them, but in matters of this sort, touching politics, were apt to be 724 swayed by political Party feelings. If he found a strong expression of opinion in favour of the compromise, he should not be disposed to stand out against it; but still he would prefer to leave the clause as it was.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not understand the tone of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. A Minister of the Crown came there, and threw his discretion on the floor of the House for any Member to pick up, abandoning that reasonable independence he was bound to assume as Minister of the Crown. ["Oh, oh!"] He (Mr. Gibson) expressed his opinion as it presented itself to his mind on this as on other questions; but he passed to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), which, of course, was ingenious, as would be expected. But did it hold water? Would it not be open to this broad objection of a substantial kind—that the Local Government Board, as the Bill stood, was the central body to lay down the rule for the whole of the Boards of Guardians in Ireland?—that was clear and authoritative, speaking from a neutral standpoint, and laying down a rule for the guidance of all Ireland. But supposing the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member adopted, then Boards of Guardians—it might be several sets of them in the same county—would have very different standpoints. One Board would have a very different standard from another Board; and the Local Government Board, instead of laying down one scale, might have to consider and adjust from 40 to 80 scales for the whole of Ireland. Suppose from the North of Ireland—he did not know whether they were more liberal there than in the South—but suppose the Local Government Board found that in the North or the West, or elsewhere, there was one scale laid down for the payment of clerks and collectors of Unions—a high scale, which, with modification, the Local Government Board approved—and then suppose from another part of Ireland an entirely different scale was presented for exactly the same work, what would the Local Government Board do? Were they to drop the rate agreed on to the lower scale, or were they to raise the lower scale to the figure agreed upon? They 725 must level up or level down, and if that was the way the Amendment would work, would it not be doing the very same thing the Bill would do as it stood? What would be gained by the proposed alteration? As he understood the right hon. Gentleman, he declared to stand by the clauses of the Bill.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, what he stated was that there were two ways of providing payment—by the Local Government Board and by the Guardians. He pointed out the pros and cons, and, of the two, thought the method proposed in the Bill was the best.
§ MR GIBSONsaid, he understood, however, that the right hon. Gentleman, in his original speech, stated he was then prepared to remain of the opinion of those who approved of the Bill, and to stand by the clauses as drawn; and he rather reprobated the statement from the Opposition Benches, that the way in which he presented his views was weak kneed. It was rather surprising, then, just now, to find the right hon. hon. Gentleman had lapsed into a moral position that beggared all description. He was unaware what course would betaken now by the right hon. Gentleman; he had left the Committee in that atmosphere of doubt hon. Gentlemen were so familiar with in relation to greater questions than an Irish Registration Bill. If there was a division, he should certainly support the wisdom that suggested the original draft of the Bill; and he a waited with curiosity and painful suspense to know what would be the ultimate action of the Irish Executive.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, that when a Minister went out of his way, as the Chief Secretary to the Lord lieutenant had done, to say that he would pay some little attention to the opinions of private Members, he was doing a rather good thing in departing from the usual fashion of Ministers, and ought to be encouraged. The point at issue was who should settle how much should be paid to those clerks and collectors; and it seemed to him that both sides had proved their case. One side said the Poor Law Guardians should settle it, and the other that the 726 Local Government Board should do so. But one party proved that the Local Government Board was a very bad authority, and the other that the Guardians were a bad authority; and, so far as he was concerned, he thought both parties were right. The Guardians were a bad authority because they might be on one side or the other in politics, and, therefore, there would be no uniformity over the country. The fact was that the question was not local, but Imperial; and it was a bad thing to leave it to local bodies to settle how much should be paid for what really was an Imperial work. The Guardians might say—"We do not care how the list of voters is cut down; they can cut it down to nothing at all if they like." Then the people who argued that the Local Government Board was an equally bad authority were quite right, because it was unreasonable that, the Guardians having to pay the money, the Local Government Board should settle the amount. Speaking generally, he thought it was a very wrong thing to extract this money from the Guardians at all. It was making the localities pay for Imperial purposes; and so strongly did he object to the proposal, that, on a future occasion, he should have to move an Amendment on the point. Whether the Boards of Guardians settled the salaries or the Local Government Board, both systems, it had been proved, would give rise to great inconvenience. The money should be taken from the Imperial taxes. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had proposed a compromise about as good as they could adopt, to the effect that the Guardians should settle the money in the first place, and that the Local Government Board should have some power of revision. That was a practical way to carry out the scheme—an excellent compromise for getting out of the difficulty. Very often the Boards of Guardians would be anxious to over-pay the collectors and clerks, or, at any rate, to increase their salaries unduly, and then the Local Government Board would come in and say that too much was being paid, and cut down the salaries. He knew cases in which the Guardians fixed salaries at much too high a figure, and where the Local Government Board had to cut them down. The 727 Guardians had to give reasons for fixing salaries so high; but, as he had said, the real difficulty was as to who should pay this money. No matter who fixed the salary, the sting of the thing would remain; the payment was the real sting. If they went to a division, he should support the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power), more because the hon. Member had moved the Amendment than anything else. As a matter of fact, he did not think his constituents cared one halfpenny about the whole matter.
§ MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he rose for the purpose of saying a word which he thought should be said by someone. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, in dealing with the Amendment, in the first instance, had pointed out what must be obvious to everyone who considered the matter at all—namely, that it involved no very grave principle on which the fate of a Government might depend, and that it was not a matter which should excite any very great heat in the breast of hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary objected to have it said that he had a preference personally for a particular course; he would be quite willing to defer to the general view of hon. Members representing Ireland who were interested in the clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) thereupon thought himself justified, forsooth, in getting up and condemning what he called the weak-kneed, and what the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) called the flabby, expressions of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He (Mr. Charles Russell), however, thought the Irish Members ought to be extremely grateful to the Chief Secretary for doing that which it was the obvious duty of every Minister to do, whatever Department he represented, in consulting, as far as he could, those who were especially interested in the question. The question was asked—What would be the result of this Amendment if carried? Why, the result of it would be this. One Board of Guardians might fix one scale of remuneration, while another Board of Guardians might fix another, although practically the amount of work to be done by the officers of the Boards would be almost the same. 728 The Local Government Board would have, and ought to have, regard to the local expression of opinion of those who had to raise the money, but that they should not be absolutely bound by that expression of opinion in case they found it taking the form of giving extravagant remuneration for a small amount of work. The practical result would be that a uniform scale would be arrived at, as would be the case under the Bill as it stood, with this difference, that the influence of the local bodies would practically prevail. As the clause stood, it would appear that hereafter the Local Government Board would have no influence in the subject, whereas in the other case effect would be given to local opinion.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that there were different scales of payment in Ireland at present, and that in such counties as Galway and Mayo larger sums were paid than in such rich districts as Meath and Louth. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power) were accepted, the remuneration might be made commensurate with the duties performed. For instance, in Mayo and Galway, where a large amount of work was to be done, the salaries might be made higher than in Meath and Louth, where there was comparatively little work to do. In the rich districts the expense would be less than in the wilds of Connaught, where, perhaps, ten times as many people as were on the voters' list at present would have to be included. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power) proposed to substitute the Boards of Guardians for the Local Government Board; and if that hon. Member was not present, he (Mr. Callan) thought he might accept for him the arrangement proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell). In that case the Amendment would read—
The Board of Guardians may from time to time, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, fix the scale upon which the clerks of Unions and poor rate collectors shall be remunerated.That would meet the only objection raised. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power) had told him that he should be quite prepared to accept that modification of his Amendment; and he (Mr. Callan) hoped that, for the 729 sake of making everything satisfactory, that proposal would be accepted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland.
§ MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that before the Solicitor General for Ireland rose he would make a suggestion as to the wording of the clause. He thought it would be more convenient in this form—
The several Boards of Guardians in Ireland, subject to the control of the Local Government Board," &c.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he would suggest that the word "approval" should be used instead of "control," because it was in a measure subjecting the action of the Poor Law Guardians to the Local Government Board.
§ MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he had made his suggestion because the Boards of Guardians might not give remuneration where it ought to be given, and the Local Government Board should have power to say that they should.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the discussion as to what authority should fix the rates of remuneration of the collectors and clerks of Unions was carried on under some disadvantage, seeing that they had not yet decided out of what source that remuneration was to be paid. Until they had decided that question it was rather putting the cart before the horse to decide what, authority should control the fixing of the remuneration. The Government proposed by this Bill that the remuneration should be paid out of the local rates, and they also proposed that a Governmental authority in Ireland—namely, the Local Government Board—should direct what the scale of remuneration should be. He (Mr. Parnell) certainly thought that a very objectionable principle to proceed upon, and one which they were bound to oppose. At the same time, if the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power) were in the House, he should suggest to him whether it would not be as well to withdraw the Amendment for the present, in order that they might come to a decision upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) lower down as to the source out of which the expense should be paid. He referred to the Amendment to Clause 6, page 3, after line 17, insert —
All expenses so incurred shall be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund.
THE CHAIRMANI think I may save time if I point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), to which he refers, will not be in Order.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, that upon the point of Order he would remind hon. Members that the arrangement he proposed would practically come to the same thing. His proposal was to leave out from "Guardians" to the end of the clause. The effect of that would be to strike out that part of the section which provided that the Guardians should pay the money. There would then be nothing in the Bill to settle who was to pay the money, and the Government would have to put in words to the effect that it should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
THE CHAIRMANWe have not arrived at that point yet, and I think we are rather complicating matters by referring to it. What I say now is merely to save hon. Members the trouble of going into this matter. The proposal would involve a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, and it is not competent for a private Member to make such a proposal. It could not be put in the Committee.
§ MR. SEXTONWill you, Sir, rule out of Order the Amendment in the name of the Chief Secretary?
§ COLONEL NOLANNo; the right hon. Gentleman is a Privy Councillor, and is privileged.
THE CHAIRMANThe same remark would apply to the Amendment of the Chief Secretary. Until permission to bring forward such a question be obtained it would not be in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to move it, and I understand that he has not taken the necessary preliminary steps yet.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that, at any rate, he could raise the same question on the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). The Committee would be in an unfortunate position if it were not allowed to settle this matter before it came to the discussion of the question raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Waterford (Mr. E. Power). Until they knew out of what source the remuneration was to be paid, it would be impossible for them fairly to decide the authority which they should appoint for the purpose of fixing 731 the rate or scale of remuneration; and he would submit to the Committee whether they should not raise that point on the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), which proposed, in Clause 6, page 3, line 18, to leave out from "Guardians" to end of clause. If that Amendment were carried the Government would undoubtedly be compelled on Report, unless they reversed the decision, to introduce a clause, the assent of the House having been obtained in the meantime to pay the charges out of the Consolidated Fund. They would be placed in a better position to discuss the merits of the question raised by the hon. Member for Waterford's (Mr. P. Power's) Amendment if they had first decided the question as to the source out of which the remuneration was to be paid. He would also suggest to his hon. Friend, with regard to the special merits of his Amendment, that it was of the utmost importance to the success of the lists in Ireland that the collectors of rates, who had to make out the initial lists, should know as soon as possible what they were going to get. If it were left, according to the proposal in the Bill, to the Local Government Board to announce hereafter, in all probability when the work had been all done, and the time had elapsed for performing it, what the collectors and other officials interested in the work were to get, the motive of self-interest would be naturally wanting, and the work would be imperfectly and unsatisfactorily performed. The Amendment of his hon. Friend would leave the matter to the Board of Guardians, and there was a great deal to be said in favour of that. It would certainly be a better principle from every point of view, and an improvement upon the proposal of the Government, because in all probability the authorities would meet almost immediately and decide what they were going to give to the poor rate collectors and the other officials. He (Mr. Parnell) had placed a new clause on the Paper; but he proposed to move to leave out Clause 6, or so much of it as it might be necessary to leave out for the purpose, in order to substitute for it the clause of which he had given Notice. His proposal was to put in the Bill itself what the poor rate collectors should receive. Those collectors were 732 really important officials in the matter, and he (Mr. Parnell) followed the precedent set by the Jurors' Act with regard to the rate of remuneration given to the rate collectors in reference to the placing of names on jury lists. He would make it compulsory on Boards of Guardians in Ireland, free from the action of the Local Government Board, to give so much per head according to the scale for the number of voters returned. The Guardians, however, would have it within their competence to fix the rate of remuneration to the clerks of the Unions also without the Local Government Board having anything to do with it. The question would be divided into two halves. The rate collectors would be collected according to the scales in the Act, and their compensation would be compulsory, and the Boards of Guardians would have discretionary power as to how much they should give the clerks of Unions. He thought, as regarded the action of the rate collectors, that it was of the utmost importance that they should set to work as soon as possible. He was credibly informed that up to the present they had done next to nothing, and had made no preparations to meet the trouble and work which would be thrown upon them. He doubted whether it would be possible to get them to take the enormous trouble which would be involved in making out correct lists unless they were told how much they were to get, and unless the principle of paying them by results were adopted. He thought that, on the whole, his hon. Friend (Mr. P. Power) might fairly withdraw his present Amendment, and allow them to discuss the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), for after they had decided the source out of which the remuneration should be taken they would be in a better position to decide as to the body to control the payment.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to ask a question which was almost a question of Order. It seemed to him that if they looked at the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) at the top of page 635 they would see that, owing to the curious way in which it had been printed, it was in the shape of a new clause, though differing from all the other new clauses, because it said "leave out Clause 6 and 733 insert the following Clause." He (Mr. Warton) apprehended that it would not be possible for the hon. Member to make that proposal if Clause 6 were passed unamended; and he would submit, therefore, that the new clause of the hon. Member was really an Amendment, and not a new clause in the correct sense at all. It was really an Amendment to the clause they were now on; and he, therefore, submitted to the hon. Member that unless the Amendment they were now discussing were withdrawn he would not be able to move his clause.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would be entitled to move his Amendment as a new clause. I am not at all prepared to say that he would be out of Order in the course he proposes. The Amendment before the Committee at the present moment is that of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. B. Power). I do not know whether it is withdrawn.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the difficulty the Committee were in would be met by dividing on the proposal of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. B. Power), and then afterwards those who were in favour of the proposed new clause could vote against the adoption of the clause itself. That would enable them, in the first instance, to obtain a fixing of the rate of remuneration by the Boards of Guardians, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board. Afterwards they could divide upon the clause itself.
THE CHAIRMANAt the present moment the Amendment before the Committee is that upon the Paper. I have listened very attentively to what has taken place. I have heard a great deal about the Amendment the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) intends to move, and Amendments to that Amendment. What, however, is before the Committee is the Amendment on the Paper. I understand that the hon. Member for the City of Cork suggested that that Amendment should be withdrawn, in order that the Committee might consider the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan).
§ MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he would point out that the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) seemed to proceed upon a false assumption, be- 734 cause the hon. Member proposed to leave out Clause 6, and to substitute the clause which stood at the top of page 635. The hon. Member's ground for that was, as he (Mr. Russell) understood it, that they had not yet fixed the fund out of which the remuneration was to be paid. But if the hon. Member would look at his own clause he would see that, so far from saying that the payment should be made out of the Consolidated Fund, which was the object of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) proposed to pay it out of the rates. The proposed new clause of the hon. Member said—
The guardians of the poor of each union shall, by order, make an annual allowance out of the rates to the poor rate collectors, as compensation for the duty by the Registration Acts imposed upon them, in accordance with the following scale:—Two pounds ten shillings per annum to each collector for any number of names up to twenty-five, and two pounds for every additional hundred names up to five hundred, and one pound for every succeeding hundred: Provided, That no collector shall receive a greater sum than fifty pounds in any one year. The said guardians shall allow clerks of unions under the said Acts such sums as they think reasonable.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that what he suggested was that they should at first decide the question as to the source out of which this remuneration should be paid—whether it should come from the Imperial Exchequer or local rates. That apparently could only be done under the Rules of the House by taking a division on the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). That having been decided, and the words of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) having been added to the Bill, he (Mr. Parnell) should not move his subsequent Amendment.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, that if the Amendments before the Committee were not withdrawn the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) could not be put, as it would make the clause absurd. It would make it read—
The Board of Guardians may, from time to time, by order, fix the scale or scales according to which the poor rate collectors and clerks of unions should be remunerated for their services.He understood that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. 735 Power's was not withdrawn. If it were not withdrawn and was incorporated in the Bill it would lead to utter confusion.
THE CHAIRMANThere seems to be a question whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power), as it stands on the Paper, is in Order. The hon. Member merely proposes to substitute for the "Local Government Board" the words "Board of Guardians."
§ MR. GIBSONThe Amendment says "Board of Guardians;" but there are a great many Boards of Guardians in Ireland—over 10!) I should think.
MR. GORSTBut the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power) may add something after his Amendment is accepted which would make it sense.
§ MR. R. POWERsaid, he intended to withdraw his Amendment, although he must say he thought it would be much better to accept it, though verbally wrong; before they settled where the money was to come from. Some of his hon. Friends, however, thought differently; and he would, therefore, withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he would now move his Amendment to leave out from the "Boards of Guardians" to end of clause.
§ MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he wished to move an Amendment earlier in the clause than that, and it was in page 3, line 12, before the word "the" to insert—
Several Boards of Guardians, subject to the control of the Local Government Board of Ireland, may from time to time," &c.He wished to move this and certain verbal consequential Amendments—for instance, the omission of the words "by order," and the omission of the words "by the Local Government Board" in lines 19 and 20. He did not propose to add anything to what he had already said on this subject.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 12, to insert, after the word "The," the words "Several Boards of Guar-
736
dians, subject to the control of."—[Mr. Charles Russell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the reason why he thought it would be desirable that the source from which the money was to come should be settled before they decided upon the relative measures of authority to be vested in the Local Government Board and the Boards of Guardians was this— that if the money was to come from the Imperial Treasury it might then be deemed to be reasonable that the Central Board in Dublin, representing the Government, should have some control over the money, or guidance over the expenditure of the money so provided; but if it was to come out of the local rates, then he and his hon. Friends thought his hon. Friends around him would be disposed to resist any proposal to give control or even guidance to the Local Government Board in regard to the expenditure of the money, because they thought that if the Guardians contributed the money out of their local rates they were entitled to control it. He thought that at the present moment they were putting the cart before the horse, and that it would be better that they should at first say from what source the money should come before they proceeded to consider as to whether the responsibility for the expenditure should be vested in the Local Government Board or the elected Boards of Guardians in Ireland. The objection he had to any reference to the Local Government Board was the grave objection of delay. In this matter time was of the utmost importance. Every day was now of great value; and if the Local Government Board were to have this function under the Bill of fixing the remuneration, nothing would be done until the measure was passed into law. If the Local Government Board saw that it was proposed to confer the function upon them, they would not move a finger until the Bill was passed; and his contention then was, that it would be too late to do the work properly. On the other hand, if they indicated to the Guardians by a Motion in that House that they were to have the authority vested in them, then he presumed those Bodies would immediately act on the in- 737 dication contained in the Bill, and would proceed next week, or in the course of a few days, to fix the rates of remuneration. At present, the whole thing in Ireland was in a state of chaos. The Guardians did not know whether they were to pay the money, and the collectors did not know what they were to receive. Not long ago the Sligo Board of Guardians asked their clerk whether it was the duty of the collectors to make out these lists, and he answered in the negative. The collector had said that he would not proceed with the work until he knew what remuneration he was to receive. The Guardians asked him if he would not go on with the work for a fortnight; to which he replied that he should not like to do so unless he knew what remuneration he was to receive, pointing out that the work would be extremely heavy. A Guardian then said—"Won't you trust our honour for a fortnight?" And the reply was that the collectors could hardly do that after the manner in which they had been treated by the Guardians under the Seeds Supply Act. One of the Guardians then suggested to the collector that he should go on with the work behind the backs of the Guardians—that the Guardians should know nothing about it—and the clerk then exclaimed— Say you will pay the collectors if the Government do not. "To that a decided negative was given. The collector stated that if the Board would give him £40, he would at once proceed with the work; but the Guardians could not promise to do that. That was what had taken place in Sligo, and the same thing was going on all over Ireland every day. The important work of making out the lists was therefore delayed, and every moment was of the utmost importance in connection with such an important matter. The Guardians did not know what they were to do; and until the matter was settled in a definite manner, no satisfactory Return would be made. He agreed that the first step which ought to be taken should be to decide from what source the money was to come. He thought it would be inadvisable to leave the Local Government Board any power in the matter, because of the tendency in connection with that Office to bring about delay—because in all probability several weeks would elapse before anything was done, and 738 the present chaotic state of things would continue.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he was sorry the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had not acceded to the proposal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), to which suggestion the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power) had at once given way. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, after a conference with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, had taken up this matter. [Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL: No, no!] Weil, after an apparent conference with the Solicitor General for Ireland, the hon. and learned Gentleman had moved a modification of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Watorford (Mr. R. Power), which involved almost all the objectionable portions of that hon. Member's proposal. He (Mr. Callan) begged to move, on the proposed Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, that the word "control" be left out, and the word "approval" be inserted. He made that proposal on the ground of precedent, because he found that in the Act of 1850, and in the 13 & 14 Vict, c.69, intituled "An Act to amend the Laws which regulate the qualification and registration of Parliamentary Voters in Ireland," that altered the law for rating in certain boroughs, the language used was such as he proposed. He did not know why the Government should pretend to think that the wording of an Act of Parliament which had existed 35 years was unsatisfactory. The 73rd section of the Act stated—
Be it enacted, that the guardians of the poor of each union shall, by an order, make such annual allowances out of the rates to the clerks of the unions"—the very words used in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork—as compensation for the duties imposed upon them as the said guardians shall think proper …hut no payment shall be made thereunder unless the same shall be approved of by the Poor Law Commissioners"—that was to say, by the Local Government Board. Why should they change the wording of that Act? Why not make the proposed Amendment read so that the payment should not be subject to the control of the Local Government Board, but subject to their approval? He begged to move that the word 739 "control" be left out for the purpose of inserting in place of it the word "approval."
§ Amendment proposed, to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "control," and insert the word "approval."—(Mr. Callan.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'control' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
§ MR. LEWISsaid, he had understood the reference of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) to the proceeding which had taken place before the Sligo Board of Guardians in a very different manner to the hon. Member himself. The hon. Member seemed to think that what he had said showed the necessity of having some independent body to stand between the Guardians and the collectors. It seemed to him (Mr. Lewis), however, that the very last body to whom the collectors were inclined to give their confidence were the Guardians. The collectors appeared to distrust the Guardians altogether.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, that if this alteration were not made the power given to the Boards of Guardians would be beside the question entirely. Many of them remembered what was the result of giving the Boards of Guardians power to increase the remuneration of the teachers under the Education Act. They knew what a great difficulty there had been in obtaining additional remuneration for teachers in spite of that provision; and it seemed to him that that was rather a warning why the present matter should come under the specific form of the proposal in the Bill, or why in some way or other control should be kept over those payments. The discussion which had been going on for the last two hours and a-half was entirely owing to the indisposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to show any inclination to stand by his own clause.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that as between the two words "approval" and "control" he did not think there was much to choose, though personally he should prefer the word "approval." He found "approval" used in almost every case of the kind. 740 In the Bill on the subject of registration, two years ago, which measure was sent up to the House of Lords, a proposal was made on this very subject that the Guardians should fix the remuneration, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board. That was an additional reason why he was in; lined to think that the Committee should accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell). He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had enjoyed the benefit of a frightful wigging from the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson); but, after all, he certainly did not think there was any-think very unreasonable in his desiring to arrive at what was the general feeling of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland on this subject. He had explained what the object of the Government on the whole matter was; and he thought, on the whole, that the object might be sufficiently met—that was to say, that of the interests of the persons affected would be sufficiently secured, together with uniformity, by the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, even with the word "approval." He should be very glad to give the Local Authorities any additional power it was thought they ought to exercise.
§ MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he did not care in the least to defend any particular words in his proposal, and if the right hon. Gentleman desired to have the word "approval" in place of "control," he should not defend his own word. He would point out that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) were adopted, there would be a consequential Amendment necessary—that was to say, that the word "may" would have to be substituted for the word "shall."
§ MR. DEASYsaid, he had frequently heard the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Charles Russell) speak strongly against the control of such a Board as the Local Government Board in Ireland. On a question of this kind the hon. and learned Gentleman came in and made a proposal which would have the effect of giving the Local Government Board the control over an enormous annual sum of money which was paid by the unfortunate ratepayers of Ireland. There was a very strong feeling on this point in 741 the South of Ireland from the district he (Mr. Deasy) came from. He had had frequent conversations with collectors on the subject in one of the largest Poor Law Unions in Ireland. The tendency of the Local Government Board, for some years, had been to get as much control as they could in their own hands in regard to the administration of local affairs in that country. Seven or eight years ago the Secretary to the Poor Law Board had given evidence in that House in favour of allowing the Boards of Guardians to fix the amount of superannuation of Poor Law officers; but last year a change came over that gentleman, and he gave evidence of a different character. He was now in favour of giving the control of everything of this kind to the Local Government Board, and of taking it out of the hands of the representatives of the ratepayers. He (Mr. Deasy) considered that evidence extremely vexatious. It had very much annoyed the people of Ireland. Certainly, the Local Government Board deserved no consideration whatever at the hands of the Irish Members; and no one in the habit of attending that House Session after Session could fail to observe that on every occasion on which the Irish Members had obtained the opportunity they had brought forward and substantiated charges of incompetency against that Board—charges of gross favouritism in the carrying out of the laws. He hoped the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) would withdraw his Amendment, and that the Government would not show any favour to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Charles Russell). He trusted that they would carry out the principle they had always been advocating—that was to say, to place the control over the expenditure of the rates, wherever they could properly do it, in the hands of the representatives of the ratepayers. He had never known in any Union in the South of Ireland any Poor Law officer inadequately paid by the Guardians; and as for the likelihood of their paying salaries unduly large, there could not be much fear of that when they took into consideration the large number of ex officio members on all the Boards. He could not understand why it was that this proposal had been made, or the course which had been taken by the 742 right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment, for the reason that the hon. Member for the City of Waterford (Mr. P. Power) had withdrawn his Amendment, on the understanding that a vote would be taken for or against the clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Charles Russell) had evidently been a party to that understanding; and why he should have jumped up to propose the Amendment now before the Committee, he (Mr. Deasy) could not understand.
§ MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that after he had proposed the Amendment, which he considered a fair compromise, he was assured by the hon. Member for the City of Waterford (Mr. R. Power) that he was ready to accept it. The hon. Member subsequently left the Committee, and he (Mr. Charles Russell) had understood from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) that he bad been asked by the hon. Member for Waterford to state that he was prepared to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. CALLANI did not say anything about accepting it; but I said. I believed the hon. Member would accept it. To save discussion, I will withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Amendment again put.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he now begged to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the words "Local Government Board of Ireland."
THE CHAIRMANThat is not appropriate to the present Amendment. The Amendment still stands to insert "several Boards of Guardians, subject to the control of," &c.
§ MR. CALLANThen I beg to leave out the words "subject to the control of."
THE CHAIRMANI am afraid that would not make sense, for the clause would then read—
Several Boards of Guardians…the Local Government Board may from time to time," &c.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, his desire was to leave out the words "Local Government Board of Ireland," and to provide simply that the "several Boards of Guardians may from time to time," &c.
THE CHAIRMANThe proper way to do that would be to negative the present Amendment, and then to propose, instead of those words, "the several Boards of Guardians."
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that for the purpose of saving time, he would move at once the omission of the words "subject to the control of," his object being to leave the Guardians uncontrolled in this matter by the Local Government Board. He had a precedent for that, and he was in Order, seeing that it was his declared intention that he intended later on to move a consequential Amendment to leave out other words.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that on the point of Order, he wished to remind the Committee that it had been distinctly ruled by the Speaker that Amendments might be moved, having the effect of leaving the Question before the House merely the word "That." Of course, "that" was not sense in itself; but it was possible to move to add words to it which would make sense. They had the famous case where the word "That" once remained on the Journal of the House.
THE CHAIRMANIf the question of Order is to be disposed of first, it is true that the word "That" has been left the Question before the House, because "that" can be added to. It is always possible to add to "that" to make sense. In the present case, however, two Amendments would be necessary to make sense.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he had a right to move his Amendment according to his discretion, and he contended that if the Amendment he proposed were carefully read it would be seen that there would be no difficulty in making sense of it.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the Amendment, as he understood it to have been moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), was as follows:—
That the several Boards of Guardians in Ireland may, subject to the control of"—
§ MR. CHARLES RUSSELLThe word "may" does not occur.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, "subject to the control of" occurred. There appeared to be little sense in that if it stood by itself; but, taking it in connection with what followed, it would read—
The several Boards of Guardians in Ireland, subject to the control of the Local Government Board in Ireland," &c.744 He wished to ask the Chairman if that statement of the premises were a correct one? It was their desire that the several Boards of Guardians in Ireland should not be subject to the control of any authority—either of the Local Government Board or any other Central Board. They were, however, willing to adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk, for the sake of peace and quietness, and for the purpose of raising a question they desired to raise subsequently; but only so far as this—namely, "several Boards of Guardians in Ireland." Then they would not be shut out from raising the subsequent question of the control which was not made. No doubt, there must be a control of some kind. If they agreed to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Committee would have decided on some control; and Irish Members objected to any control being agreed to at present.
THE CHAIRMANThere is no doubt that "subject to the control of" is consistent with what follows for the purpose of making sense. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) is to strike out words without which the Motion would not make sense. The object aimed at would be perfectly accomplished by rejecting this Amendment, and then moving, subsequently, to omit the words "Local Government Board of Ireland," and to insert instead, "the several Boards of Guardians of Ireland." That, I take it, is the object of the hon. Member for Louth, which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) desires to support. We must first, however, dispose of the Amendment before the Committee.
§ MR. PARNELLsuggested that, as the two questions were involved, it would be advisable for the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) to withdraw his Amendment and move it in a more simple form.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, the proposition now made had been already suggested, and had been discussed for two hours, after which the Amendment had been withdrawn.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he would ask the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk whether he would withdraw his Amendment in order to move one to the following effect — to which the Irish 745 Members, generally, would be prepared to assent—thatthewords "several Boards of Guardians in Ireland" should be inserted?
§ MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he could not properly do that, as it would be inconsistent with the view he had taken and had submitted to the Committee.
§ MR. CALLANpointed out, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted that proposition there would be no difficulty in the case, as the words would read—
The several Hoards of Guardians in Ireland, subject to the control of the Local Government Board in Ireland.He put it to the Chairman—having had some experience in the House—that it was not necessary to consider any future portions of the Bill. It was proposed by an hon. Member to strike out certain words, and it would be in the discretion of the Committee afterwards to say what words should be added. He (Mr. Callan) would like a distinct ruling on the matter, so that they might have a record of what had taken place hereafter. The Amendment," The several Boards of Guardians subject to the control of," had been proposed, and he (Mr. Callan) had moved an Amendment to leave out "the control of," with the intention, subsequently, of inserting "the Local Government Board for Ireland." That would make sense of the Motion. He thought he would be within his right in moving that. At any rate, before he was satisfied he would ask to have it distinctly ruled that he was not entitled to move to leave out the words "subject to the control of." If the Amendment made nonsense of that which preceded it, then, no doubt, it would not be competent to move it. But here he wished to leave out certain words, in order, subsequently, to make another proposal which would make sense. He wished to know whether an hon. Member could be deprived of his right of moving an Amendment to an Amendment sprung on them, and not on the Paper?
MR. GORSTsaid, that with great respect to the Chairman, he wished to say that he had always understood the Rule of the House to be this—that no hon. Member could move an Amendment which would make nonsense of that which the Committee had already determined should stand part of a clause. 746 But the Amendment the hon. Member had moved would not necessarily make nonsense of the Bill, because the Committee had not yet determined what should follow the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk. The Committee was entirely at liberty to make sense of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth by the determination they might arrive at on the subsequent words. He (Mr. Gorst) thought he was right in saying that Amendments to clauses which did not in themselves make sense, but which required consequential Amendments to make sense of them, were constantly admitted.
THE CHAIRMANThe Amendment proposed could, no doubt, be made to make sense by a subsequent Amendment. The hon. Member for Louth, indeed, has suggested words which he could afterwards move, which would make the clause intelligible; but it is unfortunate that this method of proceeding involves the consideration of two Amendments together. If it is the sense of the Committee that we should take that course, I will put the Amendment.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, this question had been raised by the Poor Law Superannuation Bill. They had wrangled over it for some days; and the Government, owing to the strong objection to the system originally proposed, decided that the matter was within the competence of the Guardians. The Government now proposed to throw the whole thing over again on the Local Government Board, and they had accepted an Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) which was really worse than nothing, because it was simple hypocrisy. The consent of the Local Government Board meant this—that the Local Government Board were in full charge, and could upset any Union Guardians they did not like. It would be more respectful to the Boards of Guardians if this species of control were not given to them at all. Whatever they might do, they knew that the Local Government Board might, or might not, agree to it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) professed to be most anxious to place increased responsibility on the local bodies. Very well, Irish Members made a proposal to 747 intrust local affairs to the Local Boards, of which the landlords generally formed three-fourths; and yet the right hon. Gentleman mistrusted those bodies. The landlords, as ex officio members, formed half of the Boards of Guardians; and then, by reason of the proxy or multiple vote, they generally managed to get a fourth of the elected Guardians, Notwithstanding that, the Government declined to intrust them with so small a matter as the payment of their collectors. This was really a matter upon which nothing could be fairer than to except the Boards of Guardians, and for the very reason that upon those Boards the Tories and the Nationalists were represented; the landlord Party would see, by means of the ex officio members of the Hoards and the gentlemen they elected by the multiple vole, that the collector did his duty to the Conservative section of the people. The Nationalist Party, by means of the elected Guardians, would see that the collector did his duty fairly by the popular Party; and therefore he considered that the Boards of Guardians were ideal bodies for this purpose. He was far from saying that Boards of Guardians generally were ideal bodies; but for this purpose they were exactly the bodies competent to deal with this question. He and his hon. Friends objected to the principle of leaving this matter to the Local Government Board for another reason. When a Bill similar to this was before the House in 1883, he moved an Amendment leaving out a clause similar to this, and he induced the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) to accept a clause dealing with the remuneration on the basis given under the 9th section of the Juries Procedure Act of 1877. What was the remuneration? It was a capitation allowance, and the Conservative Party supported him on that occasion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the county of Dublin (Colonel King Harman) cordially supported his Amendment, because, as they all knew, those officials in Ireland, as a general rule, belonged to the Tory Party. The Government had allowed capitation allowance in the case of jurors; and it was equally the view of the Irish Members that there should be some distinct incentive to the clerks of the Unions and rate collectors 748 to put voters upon the list. He thought that a higher pay ought to be given to the rate collectors—he did not care much about the clerks of the Union, because their work was less important. If a collector received a capitation grant he would see that a full complement of voters were put upon the list. That was the principle Parliament had adopted in the case of the jury list, and why not adopt it in this? He would leave the clerks of the Unions to the Guardians, but he strongly objected to the amounts allowed to the rate collectors being curtailed; unless the collectors got so much per head they would not be stimulated to as active energies as they otherwise might be. Seeing that the Government considered that a sound principle in the case of juries, he could not understand how they could object to apply it in this instance. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) could not take a different stand to that he did three years ago. The Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) might say that the same principle could not be applied in this case as in the case of the jury lists, because the numbers were so very disproportionate. He (Mr. Healy) would suggest to meet that by proposing only a proportion of the amount given under the Juries Act. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had a series of Amendments on this point; but if they were to get at that principle at all, it would be necessary that this proposal about the Local Government Board should be completely abandoned. He did not see why the Government should see fit to depart from what it agreed to in 1883, especially that now there was far more necessity for care on the part of the rate collectors, seeing that there were such large numbers of voters to bring in.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would have stated what the views of the Government were with regard to the remuneration, and the way in which the collectors of rates and other Poor Law officials were to be remunerated in connection with their duties under this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he would get through this Bill more easily by shrouding him self in perpetual silence, 749 and by leaving to such Members as the lion, and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) the duty of repress!) ting the Government on this occasion. He (Mr. Parnell) did not think that the interposition of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had been advantageous or useful to the Government, or calculated to help the Committee in its proceedings, or calculated to save or economize the time of the Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had not put down a single Amendment to this Bill, so far as the Committee knew; and, if they were to believe the announcements in the public Press, the hon. and learned Member did not intend to stand at the approaching General Election for an Irish constituency; it would, therefore, appear that the hon. and learned Gentleman's interest in the Irish Franchise Bill was not even one of a very remote or limited description; in fact, that it amounted to nothing at all. He (Mr. Parnell), therefore, thought that the hon. Gentleman's action in taking advantage of the course adopted by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. 14. Power), who withdrew his Amendment on the understanding that the question, as to the source from whence these expenses were to be derived, should be discussed first —the action of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Charles Russell) in taking advantage of the withdrawal of an Amendment upon such conditions to take up the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. Power) immediately afterwards, and move it as his own, was not creditable to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was, however, not altogether an unprecedented action on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because the Committee would remember that on a certain celebrated occasion he tried to appropriate a clause in the Land Act which went by the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). The subsequent course of the hon. and learned Member in refusing to allow the Committee to discuss the principal portion of his Amendment was not at all a convenient course. For his (Mr. Parnell's) part, he had endeavoured, during the progress of this Bill, to facilitate its course as much as he could; but if they were landed very often in such entanglements, and placed at such disadvantage 750 as they were placed in by the action of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), he did not see how they were to make any progress at all. The hon. and learned Member had evidently not studied the Bill—he had not placed a single Amendment on the Paper. He (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friends had studied the Bill, and they had placed on the Paper Amendments calculated to carry out their views; and he thought they should have been entitled to place their views with regard to the remuneration of collectors, and the source from whence that remuneration should be taken, before the Committee, instead of being pounced upon by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, and cut off from all discussion, and all opportunity of expressing their opinions upon those points, by his action. He (Mr. Parnell) was bound to say he did not think the course chosen by the hon. and learned Member would be found one convenient to the Irish Members, or to the hon. and learned Member himself, or to the Committee in general. But now with regard to the immediate question of the authority of the Local Government Board over the doings of the Poor Law Guardians. He thought the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk should do one thing or the other—he should either trust the Poor Law Guardians or the Local Government Board. He (Mr. Parnell; did not see in what way the registration of voters was likely to be benefited by this mixing up of authority. As he had said before in the discussion on the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power), speed was of great importance in this matter. There were very large numbers of men to be added to the voters' list, amounting,' according to the calculations of those best qualified to judge, to something like 600,000. There was a very limited number of officials to do the work, and it was of importance that those officials should know, on as early a date as possible, what remuneration they were to receive. They would not go to work with any appetite for the work, or any desire to complete it thoroughly and effectually, until they knew what they were to get. "What did the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Charles Russell) propose? The hon. and learned Member proposed that after the Board 751 of Guardians had got over their natural sluggishness, and after they had fixed the rate of remuneration, a further delay should take place until the approval of the Local Government Board was obtained as to the rate of remuneration. He (Mr. Parnell) would have liked to see the remuneration of the collectors fixed by the Act, so that the officials, who ought to be now at work in order that there should be any hope of their completing their task, should get to work, even before the Act was passed, with the knowledge of what they were to receive. The hon. and learned Member proposed as the first delay that the Boards of Guardians would have to wait until the Act was passed before they could hold a meeting. Now, that meeting might not take place for a fortnight, or, in some cases, for a month after the passing of the Act; indeed, it might not take place at all, as there was nothing in the Act to compel the Guardians to fix any rate of remuneration. In some of the most critical counties in Ireland, in counties where it was absolutely necessary that the officials should go to work at once, the time might elapse within which the work was to be done before the officials interested would have any opportunity of knowing how much they were to get for their work. After the Boards of Guardians had taken action, supposing they did take action, would come the further delay occasioned by the necessity of the rate of remuneration fixed receiving the approval of the Local Government Board. Suppose the Local Government Board disapproved of the rate of remuneration, then another meeting of the Boards of Guardians would have to be held. The meeting would have to be summoned by notice, and, therefore, a further delay would have to take place. Perhaps the Board of Guardians would get into a long correspondence with the Local Government Board with regard to the merits of the case, and the question of the rate of remuneration might not be settled until the time allowed had elapsed. Those were serious considerations; they were considerations which would have occurred to the mind of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) if he had taken the trouble to look into the matter. Unfortunately, he bad not taken that trouble. He (Mr. Parnell asked the 752 Government whether, if this was a case in which they were interested, they would not provide efficient machinery for the purpose? What did they do under the Juries Act. They fixed the rate of remuneration by Act of Parliament; they gave power to the Lord Lieutenant, in Council, to make his Order, and they settled that that Order should be of such a practical nature that the rate collector would have an interest in returning a full list of men fit to serve on juries. If it was a question such as that connected with juries, where the Government might easily hang, or imprison, or send some unfortunate peasant into penal servitude, the Government would set their wits to work and produce a complete Bill; they would not be drawn aside by such catchpenny Amendments as that of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell). He also objected to the proposal on other grounds than that of delay. If they were going to trust the Boards of Guardians, why not trust them altogether, why give to the Local Government Board power of which they had got too much already? He entirely objected to this trammelling by the Local Government Board. Parliament had a right to trammel local bodies; Parliament had undoubtedly a right to fix the rate to be paid to the collectors. But what was this Local Government Board in Ireland? It was a Board which was composed of the nominees of Earl Spencer, men who were perfectly notorious for their hatred of Irish national life; for their desire, first of all, to starve the people of the country into submission and then to banish them out of the country altogether. Such was the Local Government Board to whom it was proposed to hand over this important duty connected with the registration of voters. The Committee knew what the result had been of the action of the nominees of Earl Spencer in the case of the Irish boundaries. He (Mr. Parnell) objected to follow the precedent set in that case. He objected to handing over the counties in Ireland to be again manipulated by the nominees of Earl Spencer, especially where Parties were equally divided, and where it would be of importance to obstruct and delay the preparation of the register of voters. He objected to the interference of the Local Government Board in this matter, 753 because they would adopt methods of procedure which would have the effect of rendering it impossible for the peasantry of Ireland to be placed on the voters' lists. The sooner those initial proceedings were taken the better. A great deal too much time had been lost already by the dilatory proceedings of the Government. Why did not the Government follow the precedent set by the Registration Bill of 1883, which the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) agreed to? In that Registration Bill Parliament decided that so much per head of the persons placed on the list should be given to the rate collectors. What had happened in the meantime to induce the Government to change their mind? Surely, if such a provision was good in 1883, it was good now? The Committee had heard no argument whatever from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), or the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan), or the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) against the merits of that provision. Why, if it was good then, was it not left open to the Committee at least to move the introduction of a similar provision on the present occasion; why was this Bill framed upon entirely different principles with regard to the remuneration of rate collectors to the Bill of 1883? The Government knew very well that if they did agree to the addition of a beneficial provision in the Registration Bill of 1883, they might rely on the House of Lords throwing the whole Bill out. They were not quite so certain of the co-operation of the House of Lords on the present occasion. It might be that the House of Lords would refuse some of the provisions, but it was certain they could not throw the Bill out in its entirety. He protested against the conduct of the Government upon the present occasion. It was not fair to the people of Ireland that the Government should take advantage of every side-wind to prevent the peasantry of Ireland obtaining their just electoral lights.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that if the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) seriously believed that the object of the Government, and his (Mr. Trevelyan's) object in coming down 754 that night, was to do their best so as to diminish the number of Irishmen who were to give votes at the next General Election, he was quite welcome to his belief. He (Mr. Trevelyan) certainly never heard a speech which went so little home to his conscience as that which the hon. Member for the City of Cork had just delivered. His (Mr. Trevelyan's) only object on the Representation of the People Bill, on the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, and on the Registrations Bills which he had the honour of bringing forward in that House, or in supporting in the House, and in the support he was now giving to this Registration Bill, which he hoped might soon become an Act, was that the greatest number of Irishmen who were entitled to votes should enjoy the vote. Why was it that the Government were supporting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell)? It was because it was in the form which had commended itself to previous Governments, which had worked well in Ireland, and which, in the opinion of the present Government, was the form which would work the best. The Registration Act of 1864 contained a provision of this exact nature—namely, that the Guardians of the poor of each Union might, by an order, make some annual allowance out of the rates to the clerks of such Unions respectively as the Guardians might think proper, but that such order should not be acted upon, or any payment made, until the same was approved by the Poor Law Commissioners, and payment sanctioned by them. He was not aware that any complaint had been made against the operation of that Act. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had quoted the Bill of 1883. Now that Bill, as brought in. provided that the Guardians of the poor of each Union, might, by order, make such annual allowance out of the rates to the poor rate collectors as the said Guardians might think right, but no such order might be acted upon, or payment made thereunder, until the same should be approved of by the Local Government Board for Ireland. Pressure was put upon the Government, and the fixed scale of payment was agreed upon. That, however, was not the original proposal of the Government; but the hon. and learned Member for 755 Monaghan (Mr. Healy) and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) must remember that the constituencies to which that provision was applied were extremely different constituencies to which this Bill applied. To what extent would the county constituencies of Ireland be increased? The hon. Member for the City of Cork himself had said that the Franchise Act would cause an addition of 600,000 men to the Register.
§ MR. PARNELLI do not think they will add half that number under the registration proposals of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that according to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, 600,000, or some large number of men, would have to be dealt with under this Act. Now, that was a different thing from the miserably and scandalously small number of county electors who would have to be dealt with under the Bill which he (Mr. Trevelyan) had the honour to introduce to the House in 1883. He thought it was extremely important that there should be some Supervising Body who could remove from the minds of rival politicians in Ireland the suspicion that the overseers and rate collectors could in any way be influenced by the politics of the Boards of Guardians. He did not think the Local Government Board would find it very necessary to interfere. He felt certain that the interference would not cause the inconvenience or the delay which had suggested itself to hon. Members opposite. He did not think that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) deserved the hard words bestowed upon it by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell): his own belief was that the Committee would take a quieter view and a more practical view of the question and support the Amendment.
§ MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he hoped the Committee would not consider it improper that he should again ask its attention for a moment or two, especially after the observations which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had thought proper to address to the Committee. So far as the observations of the hon. Member related to his (Mr. Charles Russell's) conduct, apart from the present Amendment, he should certainly not notice them. He 756 did not think that the hon. Member for the City of Cork would, when the heat of the moment had passed away, look back with entire satisfaction to what he had said in relation to him (Mr. Charles Russell); indeed, he doubted whether the hon. Member, even at that moment, was quite satisfied that his observations were just. He did not think it would be becoming that he should occupy the attention of the Committee with personal matters which had nothing to do with the present discussion; but in relation to his conduct as to the matter now before the Committee, he must take leave to correct the hon. Member for the City of Cork. It was not true that he had taken no interest in this Bill. It was true that he had been here during the entire discussion, which had now lasted for a considerable time; and it was equally true that the hon. Member for the City of Cork had not been present during the whole discussion. If the hon. Member for the City of Cork had been present when the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power) was before the Committee, it would have been within the competence and right of the hon. Member for the City of Cork to have pointed out that there might be certain inconveniences in the course which was being pursued. If the hon. Member for the City of Cork had been here, he would have known that it was stated to him (Mr. Charles Russell) in the House by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan)—although, as the hon. Member now said, and, of course, he (Mr. Charles Russell) must accept the statement, not by the direction of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power)—he (Mr. E. Power) was prepared to assent to the withdrawal of the Amendment.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he had made no communication to the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Charles Russell), except across the floor of the House.
§ MR. CHARLES RUSSELLthanked the hon. Member for reminding the Committee that that was his (Mr. Charles Russell's) only mode of communication with the hon. Member. He asked to be allowed to remind the Committee of the course which this discussion had taken. When the discussion was initiated, some hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, prominently his hon. 757 Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson), was insisting upon the Government proposal being adopted; because, he said—and therein he was corroborated by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—that representations had reached hon. and right hon. Members from clerks of Unions and rate collectors that the Boards of Guardians were making no arrangements for compensating thorn for the extra labour that would be put upon them. He believed that it would be necessary that there should be some controlling power, not only for the purpose of requiring that remuneration should be fixed, but also to decide what the scale of remuneration should be. Accordingly, on the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Waterford (Mr. E. Power), he had suggested the Amendment standing in his own name in opposition to the Government proposal embodied in the clause. He had said that the principle he was in favour of was that the Boards of Guardians, who raised the money, should have the control of that money, and he said that that was the principle he should like to see carried out. But inasmuch as it had been suggested that in this case the matters to be dealt with were somewhat of a delicate nature, and that complicated considerations might arise which would lead to a want of uniformity of payment—that was to say, a larger payment in some cases than in others, and, in some cases, no provision for payment at all—he said that, while it was necessary that remuneration should be given, there should also be some machinery which would insure uniformity of payment in proportion to the work done; and he had said, in justification, that by that contrivance Parliament would secure uniformity of payment, and also secure the practical control of the Boards of Guardians, who raised the funds, and that, if there were control by the Local Government Board, it would be exercised in the face of the country, and in view of the elected Guardians on the spot. Those considerations, he might add seemed to have some weight with hon. Members on the other side of the House. But there was one more word which he desired to say. What right had the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to address to him the language which he had made use of in reference to this question? The hon. Mem- 758 ber for the City of Waterford rose in his place and proposed to withdraw his Amendment; and the hon. Member for the City of Cork taunted him (Mr. Charles Russell) as if he were a party to the Amendment being withdrawn on the understanding that his (Mr. Charles Russell's) Amendment should be withdrawn. He denied that. The hon. Member for the City of Cork charged him in effect with having been a party to an arrangement from which he had dishonestly withdrawn, and that baseless insinuation of the hon. Member he repelled with contempt and scorn.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, having listened to the discussion on this question, there appeared to him to be great force in the view taken by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that the Committee should settle the basis on which those expenses of the clerks of Unions and poor rate collectors should be charged before they settled by whom they were to be regulated. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had more than once insisted on that proposition being admitted; and on that account the hon. Member for the City of Waterford (Mr. E. Power) had been induced to withdraw the Amendment he had moved to the clause. As the Bill now stood he (Sir Michael Hicks Beach) could very well understand that Her Majesty's Government should feel some difficulty in adhering to it, for it provided that the expenses in question should be paid by the Boards of Guardians, and that the Guardians should have no voice whatever in deciding what the amount of those expenses should be. It had been suggested that the Local Government Board should be the controlling authority in this matter over the Boards of Guardians. Now, the control must either be real or not—if unreal, it would be of no use; and if it were real, it certainly involved interference with local government, which was an objectionable principle, and one which he thought the Committee ought, if possible, to avoid. He must not be understood to say that some control might not be necessary in this case; but he said it was an unsatisfactory way of settling this question, and he would rather like a settlement to be found in the alteration of the incidence of the charge—that was to say, by placing it upon the Treasury rather than upon local rates. If the expense 759 of registration had been for some time past imposed on the localities, he could not conceive that anyone would propose that it should be so imposed now. These charges related to matters which concerned the nation at large as well as the local ratepayers; and it might be said that they were not a local but a national charge. Therefore, it appeared to him that there was force in the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) that there should be some scale established for the remuneration of the officials in question, and that they should be paid according to that scale by the Treasury. Of course, if that change were to be made in respect of Ireland, it should also be made in respect of England and Scotland; and he could see no reason whatever for continuing the incidence of these expenses upon the rates. He hoped that the incidence might be so altered as that it should be placed on the Treasury.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he had stated that he preferred the clause in the Bill, but that he would support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell). He was prepared to do that if the clause were withdrawn and a Schedule brought in fixing the scale of remuneration not only for poor rate collectors, but also for clerks of Unions and Clerks of the Peace, so that the remuneration of all those officials might be fixed. His object was to secure independence of action on the part of those persons. Let the Committee suppose that the poor rate collector or clerk of any particular Union had incurred the displeasure of the Board of Guardians, and that the latter refused them any, or scarcely any, remuneration. Therefore, he said, make the rate collectors and clerks of Unions independent of the Board of Guardians in this respect, so that they might be in a position fearlessly to discharge their duties. Let them be placed in a position of independence with regard to any political Party. He would certainly prefer very much that a scale of remuneration should be fixed in the Bill to which poor rate collectors and clerks of Unions could appeal.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the position they were now in was the result of the Government never accepting the suggestion of anyone, however well acquainted 760 he might be with the subject under consideration. He need not say that hon. Members from Ireland knew more about this question which related to Ireland than any other Members of the House; but, notwithstanding that, they had to come down to the House and hammer away at the Government for hours on a simple question, and then the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) and the Government supporter, the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson), came in and supported the proposal of hon. Members on those Benches. What excuse did the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) give for not accepting their suggestion? The proposal of the Government amounted to this—that the Local Government Board had more intelligence than the House of Commons. It was proposed that they should abdicate their functions in favour of Messrs. Brown, Jones, and Robinson. There were 30 or 40 Members on those Benches in favour of a certain proposal; it had received the support of several hon. Gentlemen representing the Whigs, and the support also of the right hon. Baronet on the Front Opposition Bench (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach); and surely, under those circumstances, their proposal was entitled to acceptance by the Government. But the Government said —"No, we will not accept your suggestion." The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave it as one reason why the Government could not accept their proposal that they did not know how many voters would come on the list. But he would ask, if the Government did not know, how was the Local Government Board— how was Mr. Robinson—to know how many voters would come on the list? If the clause remained in its present form, there would always be uncertainty; whereas if their proposal were embodied in the Bill, all the Government scruples would be removed, and all difficulty about the matter would be at an end. With reference to the clerks of Unions, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Tyrone in thinking that they ought to take the same trouble over the matter of their remuneration as they did in the cases of the poor rate collectors. His opinion was that Her Majesty's Government should withdraw this clause entirely, and consent to bring up another 761 clause on the Report stage of the Bill, embodying the capitation principle.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, that after the many suggestions made in the course of this discussion, the proposal was now made that the clause should be withdrawn, and a clause based on the capitation principle brought up on Report. Now, he objected altogether to the principle of capitation payment being applied in this case. He thought it would furnish an inducement to overseers to put unqualified persons on the list. [Mr. HEALY: They will not be paid.] He did not know that; they would be paid according to the list made up. The list of voters would be very different from the jury list, which was only for the purpose of getting the names of a comparatively small number of persons qualified to serve on juries. This was a totally different case, and, as he said before, he believed the introduction of a capitation grant would lead to a number of unqualified persons being put on the list. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) proposed that the remuneration should be at the rate of £2 10*. per annum to each collector for any number of names up to 25, £2 for every additional 100 names up to £500, and £1 for every succeeding 100; provided that no collector should receive a greater sum than £50 in any one year. It seemed to him that a very fine thing might be made out of that; the collectors might sweep into the list any number of persons for which they would be paid so much a head, and the county would have to be satisfied with it. He hoped that the suggestion to withdraw the clause arrived at after four or five hours' discussion would not be assented to, and that Her Majesty's Government would adhere to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell).
MR. GORSTsaid, that the course taken within the last few minutes seemed to have brought the Committee into a state of unanimity on one point. They had agreed to sink objections and come down upon the Consolidated Fund for the cost of registration. But there was one Member of the Committee who had not spoken, and whose opinion on this matter was entitled to some consideration. He would like to hear what were the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 762 subject, because if the expenses of registration, as was now proposed, were to fall upon Imperial and not upon local funds, they must first get the right hon. Gentleman to open the bank for them. His own opinion was that it was not competent to any hon. Member to move such an Amendment; and he supposed that the Members of the Government who had charge of Irish affairs could not assent to it until they had obtained leave of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He should like to know whether that right hon. Gentleman would hold out any hope that the Consolidated Fund would bear the cost of registration of voters in Ireland? If they were informed by the right hon. Gentleman that that would be the case, the Committee could proceed on the line that had been debated; but, if not, he would suggest that the time of the Committee was being thrown away, and that they must look for some other alternative.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he had never been more surprised than when the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) sprung upon the Government the proposal he had made. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) himself had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Clause 6, and to substitute for it a clause calling on the Guardians of the poor to make certain payments in connection with the registration of Irish voters out of the rates—that was to say, £2 10s. per annum to each collector for any number of names up to 25; £2 for every additional names up to 500, and £1 for every succeeding 100. No one could, after this, have guessed that there was any serious intention to remove these charges from the rates, But the right hon. Baronet suddenly came down and proposed, not only with respect to the incidence of the charge in Ireland, but also with respect to its incidence in the other parts of the Kingdom, that the whole of the registration expenses should fall upon the Consolidated Fund. The right hon. Baronet made that proposal without any Notice whatever, his Friends having made a proposal with respect to County Court Judges in principle similar to that of the arrangement now existing. The Government were suddenly asked with 763 respect to the whole Kingdom, in the course of the discussion on an Irish Registration Bill, to establish a principle throwing a very large charge on the Consolidated Fund. In reply, therefore, to the appeal very properly made to him by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), he at once said that he certainly could not consent to make such a change as was proposed in the Bill, the effect of which would be to cast a very heavy additional charge on the Consolidated Fund at once, and probably a much heavier charge hereafter. He had felt it his duty to make these observations to the Committee, and the question having been put to him by the hon. and learned Member opposite as to whether it would be competent to move an Amendment to that effect, he answered it by saying that no such proposal could be made without the consent of the responsible Minister.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had never heard a more technical answer given on a large subject. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been able to argue the question on those broader grounds on which he (Mr. Stanhope) considered it ought to be argued. His right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had raised this question—Were the expenses of registration a matter of local interest, or were they a matter of Imperial interest? And he might point out to the Committee that that question was not a new one. It had been argued in that House on former occasions, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that it would come forward in connection with the Bill; at any rate, if the right hon. Gentleman did not know it, he would know it before the English Registration Bill left the House. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that side felt that the charges in-question were matters of Imperial interest. They believed that it was a gross injustice to charge the enormously increased expenditure that would be incurred under the Representation of the People Act upon the local rates, and that somehow or other they must find a remedy for the evil.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would ask the Committee to carry their minds back to the year 1868, when greatly increased 764 charges were thrown upon the boroughs of England. At that time Parliament enfranchised a large number of new voters, and the boroughs had to pay in consequence greatly increased registration charges; but not one word was said then about throwing those charges upon Imperial funds. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had nothing to say then in favour of relieving the small towns of the increased burden of registration charges which the Act of that year threw upon them; they were not a matter of Imperial interest then, and the localities were left to bear the charges themselves. But now—17 years afterwards—when Parliament was doing for the counties what in 1868 it did for the boroughs, the county Members came forward, and said—"You must not do for the counties what you did for the boroughs." They were now giving the counties increased representation; and did hon. Gentlemen opposite think it fair or right, in Committee on a Registration Bill, to raise this broad question, and to introduce the novelty of making Imperial taxation pay for the increased representation of the localities? How could they in justice make the boroughs pay their own registration expenses as they had hitherto done, and then say that they should not only pay for themselves, but for the registration expenses of the county?—for that was, practically, what the proposal amounted to. ["No, no!"] Imperial taxation, he contended, did pay for the expenses of representation; but until a week ago there had never been a suggestion that the expenses of registration should be defrayed from any other source than that of local taxation. ["No, no!"] If he was wrong in saying that, why, he asked, was not the same practical view taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite when the boroughs were saddled with increased registration charges '? Having allowed the boroughs to pay those charges in 1868, why was it that the county Members now asked that an opposite course should be followed? The proposal was not only novel, but there was a practical objection to the course proposed.
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)said, he must point out the double irre- 765 gularity that was being committed. The Question before the Committee was whether the Local Government Board or the Boards of Guardians should fix the rate of remuneration to officials for carrying out the registration of voters under the Representation of the People Act. The question under consideration was not as to the source from which that remuneration should come. That was the first irregularity. The second irregularity was the discussion as to whether the registration charges should be thrown on the Consolidated Fund, with regard to which he would point out that the question could not be discussed on this Bill without the consent of a Committee previously setup.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he asked pardon for having transgressed the Rule of the Committee. He was answering the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope).
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the position taken up by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney Gentleman appeared to be this. Being a borough Member, the hon. and learned Gentleman argued that, because the borough Representatives neglected their duty in 1868—
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)Order, order!
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)Order, order!
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he rose for the purpose of appealing to the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) to withdraw his Amendment, in order that the Committee might proceed to discuss the more important question raised in the second paragraph of the clause. He believed it would be very much for the convenience of the Committee if he would take that course.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, the Bill had been wrongly drawn. The draftsman had first made them spend a lot of money, but had never said until afterwards where the money was to come from. All that confusion arose from the way in which the Bill had been drafted. He saw the Chief Secretary laughing; perhaps the draftsman had drawn it wrongly on purpose. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn, 766 and then they could get to the main question as to where the money was to come from.
§ MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that if it was the general wish of the Committee, he should be most happy to withdraw the Amendment; but he must first have it made clear to his mind that that was the general wish of the Committee; and he was by no means clear upon that point at present.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, the matter stood thus. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) proposed the Amendment as a compromise to the suggestion that the matter should be dealt with by the Boards of Guardians, and not by the Local Government Board. When that suggestion was made, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Charles Russell came forward and proposed as a compromise that it should be in the hands of the Boards of Guardians, subject to the control of the Local Government Board. He (Mr. Gibson) assumed that, having regard to the discussion which was going to be raised on the 2nd paragraph, the Boards of Guardians would not be mentioned again at this stage; and therefore he would suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and the whole of the 1st paragraph should remain as it was. They would then be able to make such observations as might occur to them on the 2nd paragraph.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that if the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk was willing to withdraw his Amendment, he (Mr. Callan) was ready to facilitate that operation by withdrawing his proposal to amend the Amendment.
§ Amendment (Mr. Callan), by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)Is it your pleasure that the original Amendment be withdrawn?
§ MR. CALLANThen, if the original Amendment is not to be withdrawn, I beg to move that my Amendment to it be restored, and that we leave out the words "subject to the control of."
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that as the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had withdrawn his Amendment to the Amendment on the understanding that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) would with- 767 draw his proposal, surely the Government would not now place the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk in the position of not allowing him to withdraw it. If the Government or any Member of the House intended to take that course, the proper thing to do would have been to have objected to the withdrawal of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not see that they could proceed profitably with a discussion upon the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, because after they had arrived at a decision upon it they would really only be at the beginning of the clause, and they would have to discuss further Amendments subsequently, which would undoubtedly come from different sides of the Committee and from different points of view, all of which would take up a great deal of time. He, therefore, thought there were only two courses open to the Committee, if they were to proceed with any hope of making progress—either that the clause should be withdrawn, to give an opportunity to the Irish Executive to consider the question, with the view of bringing up a fresh clause upon the Report; or else the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), who had objected to the withdrawal of the Amendment, should take into account the fact that he would be able to raise this particular question in the subsequent discussion on a new clause which would undoubtedly have to be moved, and that he would not debar himself from adopting the principles he wished to adopt with regard to the control of the Local Government Board, or whatever other principles he might be desirous of inserting, and should, therefore, consent to allow the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk to be withdrawn. There was, undoubtedly, a very general wish on both sides of the Committee that they should proceed to the settlement of the question involved in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), and thus utilize the favourable opportunity which had now presented itself. If the hon. Member for Londonderry did not persist in his refusal to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, the hon. Gentleman would not debar himself from the assertion of the principle which he wished to 768 assert, because it could be asserted in the discussion of the new clause which would have to be moved.
§ MR. LEWISwished to say why he had objected to the withdrawal of the Amendment. During the earlier part of the evening, when there were probably not above 10 or 12 persons in the House, and after they had discussed for two hours and a-half the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Water-ford (Mr. K. Power), that Amendment was allowed to be withdrawn. But 10 minutes afterwards, it was proposed to be moved again, and when he (Mr. Lewis) raised some question on the point, the Chairman told him that he could not object because the previous Amendment had been withdrawn and not rejected. That was why he had wished to draw attention to the matter, and to point out that the withdrawal of Amendments, when followed by re-proposing them directly afterwards, was most inconvenient. However, he had no desire to press his objection any further.
§ Amendment Mr. Charles Russell, by leave, withdrawn.
§ COLONEL NOLAN moved an Amendment to Clause C, page 3, line 17, to leave out all the words after the word "defrayed" to the end of the clause. He said, he did not intend to go minutely into the merits of this question, for the reason that a large number of hon. Members had already made up their minds, and several had already spoken upon it, although on a different Amendment. Hon. Members' minds were, therefore, full of the subject. But he would just explain one point. He had proposed no charge upon the Consolidated Fund, because he knew that that would be out of Order; but what he did propose was to leave out the charge upon the local rates; and if that were agreed to, it would then be the duty of the Government to propose some other way of paying the people who did that work. He thought the Amendment ought to be carried, both upon its merits and according to the strength of Parties in the House. That was not a question of asking that a local rate should be paid out of Imperial resources, but of refusing to pay an Imperial tax out of local rates. They were asked to pay out of every poor Union in Ireland 769 £200 or £300 to return Members to Parliament. Why should the ratepayers have to pay that? They might as well have to pay the Members. If the payment of Members had to be proposed at any time it would have to be proposed out of Imperial taxes, and not out of local rates. The expense of registration should properly be a rate on the whole country at large. He did not see why barristers and rich merchants, who lived in fine houses, and who were rated to a very small extent on those houses, should not take their share of the burden; and why this charge should not be paid out of Income Tax instead of out of the poor rates of the miserably poor. The Committee ought to be strong enough to any this Amendment. He did not see why Irish Members on the Ministerial side of the House should not unite with Irish Members on the Opposition side to vote on behalf of the Guardians of the Poor, and probably some of the English county Members would support them. If he could only get the Irish Members on the Ministerial side, or even one-half of them, to vole with him, and if they would stick up for the Guardians, they ought to be able to carry the Amendment, even in a full House. He would now leave the Amendment to the Committee. It was perfectly plain what it meant. Under it, the charges would not have to be defrayed out of the local rates, and the Government would be left to propose some alternative afterwards.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 17, to leave out all the words after the word "defrayed," to the end of the Clause.—(Colonel Nolan.)
§
Question proposed,
That the words 'the boards of guardians of the several Poor Law Unions are hereby required to pay out of union funds the amounts so fixed by the Local Government Board:
This section shall apply to the Collector General of Rates in Dublin,' stand part of the Clause.
MR. GLADSTONEThe hon. and gallant Gentleman, if I understand him lightly, says that if the Committee negatives the imposition of this charge upon the local rates it will be the duty of the Government to find some other source. It is my duty in some degree to consider what is the duty of the Government, and I differ entirely from the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I give 770 the hon. and gallant Gentleman clearly to understand that he must not reckon upon me to discharge the duty which he seeks to throw upon me. I am not prepared to say that it is the duty of a Government, in considering a Registration Bill, to enter upon the question of the incidence of a particular charge, hitherto paid out of local funds, upon the Consolidated Fund, and I claim for myself entire liberty to decline that responsibility, and to throw upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman—and upon all who may support him, the consequences, as regards this Bill, and any portion of the settlement to which it is directed, that may flow from the vote he intends to give. I will have nothing to do with giving it any countenance, so far as I am personally concerned. [Colonel NOLAN: Hear, hear!] Yes, "Hear, hear." I am glad to see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman understands me. I will give no countenance to the principle that upon a question of this kind, with regard to the incidental consequences of an enlargement of the franchise, with respect to a charge always imposed upon the local rates, that à propos of this clause, the question can be legitimately raised of imposing this charge upon the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will clearly understand that I decline to undertake the duty which, by the vote he proposed to give, he desires to impose upon me.
§ DR. LYONSsaid, he wished to represent the claims of an important body of public officers. He had had very strong representations from the City of Dublin—
MR. GORSTrose to Order. The hon. Member was addressing himself to the 3rd sub-section of the clause. The Question was whether the 2nd sub-section should stand part of the clause.
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)The Question before the Committee is to omit both the 2nd and the 3rd subsections.
§ DR. LYONSsaid, that his attention had been drawn to this matter by a very important body of public officers, who had asked him to represent their claims to that House. No provision whatever was made for the payment of the collectors and the Collector General for Dublin; and yet special provision was made that this section should apply to 771 the Collector General of Rates in Dublin. They were advised—and they had taken care to obtain first-class advice upon the matter—that their position would be indeterminate if the Bill passed as it was now worded; and, therefore, he desired to point out this blot in justice to this body of very responsible public officers, upon whom the collection of the rates would fall.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)I should like, if I may, to call the attention of the Committee to what it is that is now proposed. The franchise has been lowered, from time to time, and the localities which have profited by the widened constituency have hitherto borne the burden of the increased expense of registration. While the franchise was being gradually extended in 1he boroughs, the county Members have never once advised that the localities should be relieved from this increased cost of registration. I would respectfully ask the attention of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire who has already spoken (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) to this point—that wherever there has been an increase of the franchise given to localilies, up to the present moment, those localities have been allowed to bear the increased expense of registration. If he will give an instance to the contrary, I shall be glad to hear it; but, from time to time, when the franchise has been increased, the localities have borne the increased expenditure. There has not been an instance in which there was any suggestion to the contrary. In 1867 we threw upon the boroughs an increased expenditure amounting to a sum of very nearly £1,000,000. Was one word said then about the increased expenditure being borne by Imperial taxation? I must ask the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), who are now representing the counties, to reflect whether there is not a little want of generosity in their proposal? They allowed the boroughs to bear the increased expense. No suggestion came then that there should be aid from Imperial taxation; and, without grudging, the boroughs had borne the cost of the advantage which they had obtained, without a whisper that there should be any aid from Imperial taxation. Now, Sir, progress has 772 been made, and the counties are going to obtain the same benefit this year which the boroughs obtained in 1868; and now the county Members, represented by the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Gentleman, who allowed the boroughs to bear the increased expenditure because it was a local benefit to the boroughs, and not an Imperial benefit, which was then obtained, and who allowed this to go on for 17 years past, come forward and refuse to pay the money. They refused to be placed on an equal position with the boroughs. They say that that which was only local when applied to the boroughs in 1868 is not a local benefit when given with equal hand to the counties, but has become an Imperial matter.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORI rise to Order. I wish to call attention to the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General is repeating over and over again the same arguments, in almost the same words; and I wish to ask you, Sir, whether he does not thereby make himself obnoxious to the Rule against tedious and irrelevant repetition?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)I am speaking to a different Amendment.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)I am speaking to a different Amendment. The Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) was that this expenditure should be borne by Imperial taxation. [Colonel NOLAN: No.] Well, at all events, that it should not be borne by the local rates. The Members for the counties allowed the boroughs to bear it in 1868, and for 17 years they have borne it; but directly it is put on the coures the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire say—"You shall hear more of this if you do not relieve the counties from bearing the expense of their own registration." Well, Sir, may I not ask that there should be equal justice dealt out to the counties and to the boroughs? The Members for the counties, having cast upon the boroughs of England the expenses of this registration, now come 773 down to this House and—I will not use the word I was going to use—I will not say what I mean—but why should they not bear the same burden which they willingly cast upon the boroughs in l868? Are they not as well able to bear it? Have they not the same generosity—the same sense of justice? Why should they cast on the boroughs in 1868 this expenditure, and seek to evade it for the counties now, in 1885? May I point out to the Committee the great danger that they run if once they make one body bear the task of spending money and another body the task of paying for it? The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member opposite is to allow local bodies to incur this expenditure; and it will be extremely difficult to check them. You will have to deal with Revising Barristers and others, and you will allow all this to be paid for out of the Imperial Exchequer. Thus there will be two elements; one body will have to spend the money, with very little controlling power over it, and another body will have to bear the expense; so that you may produce a reckless amount of expenditure on the one hand, and on the other a burden cast upon those who do not derive immediate benefit from that expenditure. I do not know that anything I can say will shake the present combination between Irish Members and English county Members; but it will be found that the principle is not one which ought to receive the support of any of those who reflect calmly and with justice on the subject.
§ MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he did not profess any tender regard for the Consolidated Fund, and he did not see anything objectionable in principle in a charge of this nature, which unquestionably might be said to be a charge of an Imperial character, being met from Imperial sources. But the practical question on which he would like to be informed before he gave his vote was this —supposing this Amendment were carried adversely to the view of the Government, what course would the Government take with reference to the Bill itself? He wanted to be informed on that point, because whatever suggestions might be made in the hurry of the moment about his want of interest in Irish affairs he certainly did take a deep interest in them. The Government were 774 entitled to take this credit to themselves—that on a previous clause which had already been disposed of, and by which, it was sought by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to disfranchise a large body of the people who would otherwise be entitled to the franchise, the Government loyally stood to their guns. He (Mr. Russell) was anxious that the Irish people should have more and more effect given to their vote. He had little doubt about the purpose of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) in moving this Amendment; but he was certain that that hon. and gallant Member would be unwilling to take this course if he believed it would risk the chance of the Bill being passed, and speedily, into law. He therefore thought the Committee were entitled to know what would be the position of the Bill in ease the Amendment should be carried against the Government?
MR. THOROLD ROGERS(who, on rising, was greeted with interruptions from Irish Members) said, he did not understand the meaning of that outrage. His hon. and gallant Friend had suggested that Imperial taxation should be applied for the purpose of meeting the obligations of the local rates; and he was bound to say that it was absolutely irregular that the Committee should be called upon suddenly, without any notice of any provision of the kind, to decide whether it would made a fundamental change in the machinery by which local government and local representation were carried on, and have put before it the issue that there should be a charge put upon Imperial taxation for the purpose of meeting this local obligation, He had entered into an arrangement by which he had paired for the night; but though he should be unable to vote, he would move that Progress be reported.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Thorold Rogers.)
MR. GLADSTONEI am sorry to find that a very serious question has been raised of a nature calculated to interfere in the gravest manner with the purposes of the Government. As so stated, as the purposes of the Government, they have very little special claim upon the Committee; but they are purposes connected with a great extension of the 775 franchise in Ireland—a great enlargement of the legitimate Constitutional power of the Irish people. To the whole of the arrangements connected with these purposes we attach a very great value and importance; and it would be to us a matter of extreme regret if any vote given by the Committee—
§ MR. ONSLOWI rise to Order. The Motion before the Committee is that you, Sir, do report Progress. The right hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself to that Motion, but to the Main Question.
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)The right hon. Gentleman, as far as I have heard, is in Order.
MR. GLADSTONEI would be the last person, Sir, to disobey the ruling of the Chair, and I hope that the moment you perceive that I am travelling beyond the Question you will call me to Order; and I hope, by my obedience to your call, without raising any question upon it as has now become almost a settled rule, that I shall set an example which I think it my duty to set. But I understood that the hon. Member for Southwark moved to report Progress in order to get rid of a discussion which he deemed to be illegitimate. My desire would be to discuss the matter at no great length, but briefly, either upon this question or upon the Motion when it comes on. If there is any doubt as to whether I should be in Order in objecting to the proposal made on the question now raised, in the present circumstances I would far rather postpone any observations which I should otherwise make.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHBefore you reply, Sir, to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, I would ask leave to draw your attention to Rule 10 of the Standing Orders, which requires that when a Motion is moved for the adjournment of the debate or of the House during any debate, or when a Motion is moved that the Chairman of the Committee do report Progress, the debate thereupon shall be confined to the matter of such Motion.
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)I was quite aware of the Rule to which the right hon. Baronet has called my attention. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government opened his argument; but I did not see what the scope of that argument would be. 776 As far as it was opened, it was strictly relevant to the Question before the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman ha diverged from the Question before the Committee to report Progress to discuss another question, I should have done what I have done already this evening—I should have called him to Order.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§
Question again proposed,
That the words 'The Boards of Guardians of the several Poor Law Unions are hereby required to pay out of Union funds the amounts so fixed by the Local Government Board:
'This section shall apply to the Collector General of Rates in Dublin,' stand part of the Clause.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)I must again apologize to the Committee for intervening in this discussion. I must ask the Committee to pause before they agree to this proposal, coming as it does upon us in an unexpected manner. The right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) stated that the effect of this Motion would be, in his opinion, to charge upon the Consolidated Fund the whole of the registration expenses of England, Scotland, and Ireland. I repeat, that the Committee should pause before it adopts that proposal, which certainly no one expected would be put forward. I want the Committee to consider what would be the effect of agreeing to this Motion. If the Motion were agreed to, the Committee would then have expressed the opinion that at the present time, when the Government found great difficulty in providing for the increased expenditure of the country, it was right, as the right hon. Baronet proposes, to add to that expenditure something like £120,000 or £130,000 a-year. Now, I ask the Committee to pause before it makes that addition to the charge upon the Consolidated Fund. As I have said before, it is a serious matter at the present time to propose to increase the charge of £100,000 by the additional sum of £120,000 or £130,000. I ask whether on such short notice, on the proposal sprung upon us by the right hon. Baronet opposite, the Committee is to determine, in view of the great difficulties I have alluded to, to increase the expenses of the taxpayer by that sum?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not intend to deliver on that occasion any fixed opinion on the question as to whether the burden of the registration expenses should be borne by local funds or should be a charge on the Consolidated Fund. He did not intend to give any final opinion on the question. He thought it was open to discussion. He was not much moved by the observation that the charge was an Imperial matter, because there was hardly any charge to which that expression was not applicable; but he said that that was not the proper occasion for the consideration of the question, whether the burden of registration expenses should be borne by local funds or should be a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. As regarded the Amendment, he protested that it was not the function of the House of Commons to be the originator of a public charge. But there was one thing worse than that. If the House was to be the originator of public charge at all, let it be the originator of public charge openly, and let the country know that this or that charge, which was formerly on the ratepayers, had been transferred to the Consolidated Fund, supported as it was in great part by the labour of the country. Let the country know that that had been done by their own Representatives in the House of Commons on their own responsibility. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) was prepared to propose that change in the Constitution, and if the Guardians of that Constitution, who sat opposite, were prepared to support it, it might be that they could overcome any resistance he could offer. They would have a fair discussion; but at present the principle of the Constitution was that the Government were to be the originators of charge, and were to be responsible for placing burdens on the taxpayers of the country. He told the hon. and gallant Gentleman fairly that he did not accept his instruction; he would not work under his instruction, and he reserved to himself and his Colleagues absolute discretion as to what their course with respect to this proposal should be. The Government could not consent to any such proposal on a Registration Bill, because it was not their duty to accept the responsibility, and because it involved a total revolution with respect to the mode of providing for the expenses of registra- 778 tion, which had been established by a long and undisputed series of precedents, and which had never been the subject of complaint until they came to the sacred question of counties as compared with the boroughs of the country, which former, it would appear, were not to be subject to the same taxation as the latter. He answered his hon. and gallant Friend with the fullest acknowledgment of the fairness and excellent temper with which his proposal had been put, that those who chose to introduce a change of this kind, in the opinion of the Government, illegitimate in principle, and not bearing on the present discussion, into the Bill, must be responsible for the progress of the Bill itself, and that the Government must claim for themselves perfect freedom in regard to the course which they might consider it their duty to pursue in respect to the Constitutional principle involved.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: — Ayes 56; Noes 62: Majority 6. (Div. List, No. 127.)
MR. GLADSTONEAs the division which has just taken place will make it necessary, in conformity with the distinct intimation previously given to the Committee, for the Government to consider at large the course they should pursue in respect of the further prosecution of this Bill, in order to give us an opportunity for that further consideration, I move, Sir, that you do now report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Gladstone.)
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought that before the Motion was agreed to, which, of course, he regarded as a natural one under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister might give the Committee some intimation as to what course he proposed to adopt with regard to the English and Scotch Registration Bills. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to agree to similar Amendments in the case of those Bills?
MR. GLADSTONEI propose to go forward with the English and Scotch Bills, and to see whether the House of 779 Commons will give similar votes on those Bills.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.