COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 13 April 1886)

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)
I do not wish to offer any further opposition, and I would advise my hon. Friends to withdraw their opposition to the admission of the police to the fran 1551 chise, provided the Government agree that no officers shall vote who only occupy Government premises; if, for instance, some hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the Government will undertake to insert in the Bill a provision to the effect that— No officer or public servant shall be entitled to vote by reason only of the occupation of Government premises. It seems to me very unreasonable that the occupation of Government premises ought to entitle a man to the franchise. I do not wish to continue any opposition to the Police Force as such, and I only oppose this Bill upon particular grounds. I think the offer I make is a very reasonable one, and I trust it will be accepted by the Government.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)
I am not quite certain whether I followed the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman. There was a good deal of conversation in the House while he was speaking, and it was with difficulty I heard his remarks. I understood him to say—he will, I hope, correct me if I have not understood him aright—under the service franchise which was created last year a person was allowed to vote who occupied a whole room himself in public buildings like barracks. There certainly was great doubt whether the Act of last year was intended to apply to soldiers occupying single rooms in barracks. After considerable discussion, before different Revising Barristers, a test case was carried to the Superior Courts; and it was there decided that a soldier, whether he was an officer, a non-commissioned officer, or a private, who occupied a whole room in barracks, was entitled to the franchise, and that decision is now held to be the law of the land—at least, it has not been appealed against. I do not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to propose to alter the law in respect to the service franchise generally, but to propose to alter it in so far as it applies to the Royal Irish Constabulary. If effect were given to the hon. and learned Gentleman's wishes the state of things would be this—that whereas, in England, the soldier or the policeman occupying a room in barracks would be entitled under the service franchise to the 1552 franchise, a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, whether officer or private, occupying a room in barracks, would be disqualified. Do I understand the hon. and learned Member correctly? [Mr. T. M. HEALY assented.] Well, Sir, if that is the case, it will be impossible for us to assent to exclude specifically a member of one particular body, half military and half police, from the privilege which the soldier has, and which the policeman in this country has. I do not see how, logically or reasonably, it would be possible to accept the Amendment. I do not think that the law in respect of the service franchise is in a very satisfactory state; the law is open to considerable question, and I know that is the opinion of a good many officers commanding regiments. They very much doubt whether the efficiency of their regiments has been improved by the very peculiar form the service franchise has taken; but I do not think it would be a wise thing to say to a man—"If you are a soldier, officer or private, occupying a separate room, you may have the privilege of voting; if you are a policeman, officer or private, occupying a separate room, you may have the privilege of voting; but if you are a member of the Irish Constabulary this privilege shall be denied you." If I have correctly understood the hon. and learned Member, I do not think it is possible to accept the Amendment.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)
I was very glad to hear the conclusion at which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Guilders) arrived. There is, however, one point which he has not mentioned, and which, I think, the hon. and learned Member for South Londonderry (Mr. T. M. Healy) will admit is an argument against his Amendment. In Ireland the Constabulary live in barracks which are Government property; but in England—in my own county, at any rate—some of the police also live in barracks, which are county property. I could conceive no reason whatever for disfranchising constables who live in barracks which are Government property, and enfranchising police who live in English barracks which are county property. I am not very favourable to this Bill; but I hope it will be allowed, at any rate, that the position of the Irish Constabulary and the English police shall be the same in this respect.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)
Perhaps I may be allowed to explain. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that we agreed to the second reading of this Bill on the understanding that it should not apply to the Royal Irish Constabulary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) is, perhaps, unaware of that fact. What I now propose to do is to make a still further concession to the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), and to the Police Force generally. It may not be known to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) that the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill is willing to leave out of the Bill entirely the Royal Irish Constabulary; and what I propose is that they shall not be omitted, but that no person residing in Government premises shall enjoy the franchise by reason only of such residence. Under my Amendment any married constable living out of barracks, or any constable living in lodgings, will be able to enjoy the franchise. I do not wish to keep the right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) to the pledge he gave upon the second reading, providing the Government will accept the alteration in the more modified form I suggest. That will enable the Bill to be passed in its entirety, as it has been very generally approved; and, at the same time, it will relieve us of the suggestion that we are disinclined to allow them a vote. If the Bill passes with my Amendment the Government can do no harm whatever. What I propose is to relieve the Government of any suspicion whatever of drafting a force of policemen down to a certain district at election times, and thereby upsetting the ordinary balance of Parties. If the right hon. Member in charge of the Bill will not accept my Amendment we must ask him to fulfil his pledge to us, and to insert a clause to exclude the Royal Irish Constabulary.

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)
The hon. and learned Member must remember that a constable will have no right whatever to vote unless he has the recognized qualification of residence. The hon. and learned Member also said that he objected to policemen, soldiers, and everybody of that kind having this power. Well, if that is his opinion, the proper time for him to deal with the 1554 subject will be upon a general question of franchise, and not upon a small measure such as this.

§ MR. T. C. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)
It ought to be the duty of this House to make the franchise as real as possible, and I submit that it ought to be their duty to see that the claims of people such as these are founded upon fact. It is within my knowledge that a largo proportion of the claims made by the military were false claims, and that it is impossible to ascertain whether the claims are bonâ fide or not. When any change of quarters of a regiment has taken place, before the men have been in a place a fortnight, many of them have been placed on the list as entitled to the vote. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that that is an occurrence which ought to be dealt with.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)
I submit that the arguments which have been put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Derry (Mr. T. M. Healy) are perfectly reasonable. Prior to this year, neither the police nor the military could claim the franchise on behalf of the building in which they lived. That is beyond question, and it is surely beyond question also that on the passing of the Reform Act it was never contemplated that the franchise should be conferred either on the military or the police residing in barracks. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the law has not been settled on that point; but the ruling has been given by the Revising Barristers that the military have a right to the franchise under those circumstances, and my contention is that if the law does confer the right it was never intended to do so. If the matter had been expressly brought before the House at the time, I think it is beyond question that it would not have been permitted that that state of the law should exist. What I submit to the Committee is this—here is a change in the law which has been made inadvertently in regard to the military, but which has not been made in regard to the police; and it is no argument to say that it should be made for the police because it was accidentally conferred upon the military. All we ask is this—that policemen shall not get the franchise by virtue of the occupation of Government buildings. We do not ask that constables occupying 1555 separate dwellings shall be deprived of the franchise. All we want is that where they live in barracks they shall not get the franchise by virtue of occupying single rooms in those barracks.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (Essex, Epping)
I think, Sir, that there is some slight mistake on the part of the hon. Member who has just sat down, because the Franchise Act only gave the franchise to the soldier occupying a separate dwelling. With regard to the particular case of the Royal Irish Constabulary, I think that principle is clearly laid down in this Bill, and that the number who would be entitled to the franchise will be comparatively small A great many of them live in barracks, and very few of them will be in possession of such complete control over their own part of the barracks as to entitle them to vote.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)
I am willing to withdraw my opposition, and I would point out that I never opposed the extension of the franchise to the police. My point is this—that if you once extend the franchise to persons residing in barracks, you must have some complete arrangements for taking the registration of such persons. An officer might put the whole regiment on the list if we have no checks. For every challenge we are fined 2s. 6d., which would be a serious thing in the case of a whole regiment; and what I say is that if you admit these people to the franchise you should have some complete method of revision. I contend that with regard to this service franchise that we have not the same safeguards that we have in regard to the ordinary public. We cannot go into the barracks and ascertain where a certain man was at certain times, and I do say that adequate safeguards ought to be provided.

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)
It is not a question as to whether the police or the soldier shall have the service franchise, or whether something more should not be done to provide that the public shall have some better means of knowing that the franchise is properly exercised. The hon. and learned Member is perfectly right in saying that the objector has not access to the interior of the barracks, and no doubt difficulties arise in that respect; but I have pro- 1556 mised that we will bring in a Bill dealing with registration during the present Session, and I have undertaken that this point will be regarded. I do not think, therefore, that we should be justified in excluding these constables in consequence of the difficulties that have been mentioned.

§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)
I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a very great practical danger which exists in connection with this subject. I will take a case which actually did happen. In the constituency of South Dublin there were 200 soldiers stationed at Portobello Barracks. The election took place, I believe, in November. It has been stated that in the ordinary course these 200 men would have had their station changed, and been removed out of the Kingdom about a week before the election; but, strange to say, they were not removed, and every one of them voted. It was absolutely impossible to obtain any information with regard to them; but it is certainly difficult to imagine that each of them had a separate room to himself in the barracks. This doctrine that soldiers should exercise the rights of citizenship by virtue of the occupation of Government property is certainly an entirely new doctrine. For instance, the right does not depend, in any respect, upon the lodger franchise. Although I do not for a moment declare that a soldier is unfit to enjoy the franchise, I maintain that it is not desirable that he should obtain a vote on account of the occupation of Government premises. It is quite certain that he can have no freehold franchise in connection with a barrack, or any leasehold franchise, and he does not enjoy a £12 occupation franchise. I believe there is at this moment an Act on the Statute Book which provides that a soldier who is possessed of the franchise shall be permitted to be absent on furlough for the purpose of recording his vote; but in all other cases he is confined to barracks during an election. Why should a soldier have greater privileges than a police officer? Yet a police officer, even permanently attached to a station, has not the privilege of the vote conferred upon him, and this extraordinary result has happened—that the soldier gets the franchise which, up to the present moment, has been denied to the police. The fact that this in 1557 equality has been created per incuriam by the Act of 1884 certainly binds the two forces together with sufficient closeness to entitle the Committee to discuss the question now. What was it that happened when the Bill came on for a second reading? Hon. Members on these Benches offered a strenuous opposition to the extension of the franchise to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, not as citizens, but in their capacity as the occupiers or residents of Government buildings. I believe I am not going too far when I say that a promise, perhaps not clearly expressed, but understood by both Parties, was made by some of the Gentlemen sitting on the Front Opposition Bench that this provision in regard to the Constabulary of Ireland should not be pressed. Of course, it would be impossible to remove the names which have already found their way upon the list. The case made was that if the liberty were given in the first instance it might be restricted afterwards by the provisions of a Registration Bill. But a Registration Bill has not been introduced, and has not been discussed by the House; and, therefore, I am unable to say whether it will ever be reached. I think, therefore, that the best policy is not to give a dangerous liberty until we have also provided a proper safeguard. That policy has already been followed this evening on a matter of much more serious importance, and I trust that it will be followed now.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)
I think the Committee might fairly accept the proposal which has been made by the Government. It has always been admitted that the Government are prepared to deal with the matter in a future Bill; but my apprehension has reference to what may happen to it in "another place." A Bill of this kind will certainly pass in the House of Lords; but I am by no means so sure that the provisions of a Registration Bill would pass. But after we have had, at any rate, a fair offer from the Home Secretary, I think it would be a mistake to push the matter any further. I will simply ask the right hon. Gentleman if in the Registration Bill he will be prepared to deal with the matter?

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)
I said, some days ago, that I certainly would do so.

§ DR. J. E. KENNY (Cork, S.)
I would suggest that the Government should undertake to suspend the action of the Bill until the Registration Bill is brought on, so that both may go on simultaneously. The question would then be one of detail. I do not think that any inconvenience would be sustained if the Bill did not come into operation until better registration machinery is provided.

§ MR. T. C. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)
I should like to draw attention to the fact that this Bill might be made the foundation, after a time, of an alteration in the service franchise. I would point out to the Committee that the service franchise, as it is now extended to the police, is far wider than the service franchise applied to ordinary citizens. In the case of the service franchise in civilian life, a servant is only entitled to exercise the franchise when the master does not reside on the premises with him, and only one servant can exercise the franchise out of the same building. [Cries of "No!"] That is certainly the practice in Ireland; and only one servant is recognized as the person entitled to vote by virtue of the service franchise. If an alteration such as that proposed by the Bill is carried out, I submit that it will hereafter be made the foundation of a claim to the service franchise for all the servants any gentleman may have. If we pass this Bill in the shape in which it now stands, we shall certainly be giving encouragement to such a demand.

§ MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)
The last time this proposition was before the House I offered a strenuous opposition to it, because I entertain a very strong belief that it is undesirable the Irish Constabulary should exercise the franchise. As, however, we have much more important subjects to engage our attention, and seeing that we are on the eve of a happier state of things, I have no desire to persist in the opposition I have offered to the enfranchisement of some 13,000 police constables. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Londonderry (Mr. T. M. Healy) that we may now fairly accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and allow the Bill to pass in its present shape on the understanding which has been arrived at.

§ MR. W. O'BRIEN (Tyrone, S.)
I have only just entered the House, and I do not know the exact stage which the Bill has reached; but I shall certainly oppose, by every means in my power, the enfranchisement of the Irish police under the present system.

§ MR. W. O'BRIEN (Tyrone, S.)
I think the division just taken shows the enormous amount of forcing necessary to get this Bill through, and at this hour of the morning I do not think there is any reason why we should go farther with it.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (Essex, Epping)
I trust the Committee will not assent to the Motion. Although the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken represents a number of hon. Members who think that the discussion ought not to be continued at this hour, yet it seems that a very large number of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have practically assented to the passing of this measure on the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Childers). Therefore, under the circumstances, I put it to the hon. Member not to persist with his Motion for Progress.

§ MR. PARNELL (Cork)
I think we have some reason to complain of the way in which the right hon. Baronet has treated us in reference to the course of this Bill. We were distinctly promised, on the second reading, that the Royal Irish Constabulary would be excluded from the operation of this Bill. ["No, no!"] That is, at all events, my understanding of what took place; and if it had not been so, it was in our power, and it certainly would have been our duty, to have blocked the Bill, and so prevented its coming on for discussion. However, the right hon. Baronet has got the Bill into Committee, and he now tells us 1560 that he cannot meet us in the direction of the promise made during the discussion on the Motion for the second reading; and I do not see how we can be asked to proceed with the Bill before we have had time to come to some decision amongst ourselves as to what is best for us to do under the altered circumstances of the case. The right hon. Baronet must be sensible that it is placing us in a very unfair position, and putting us at a very serious disadvantage, in asking us to proceed with the discussion of the measure under the new light which he has thrown upon it by the course of action he is now taking; and I think it is a reasonable request that, in view of the very serious difference of opinion which has been developed, Progress should be reported in order that we may have an interval in which to decide upon the course we ought to take with regard to the Bill.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (Essex, Epping)
I think, after what has fallen from the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that he must have entirely misunderstood, or be misinformed as to the action which I took in this case. I am speaking in the recollection of hon. Members who heard me the other night and to-night, when I say that I merely stated that, individually, I had no objection to remove the Royal Irish Constabulary from the scope of the Bill, on account of the difference existing between the Constabulary and the ordinary police in respect of voting qualifications. I stated, when the Bill was last before us, that, in Committee, I should be prepared to strike out the portion of the Bill relating to the Constabulary, but that I was in the hands of the Committee, and should leave it to the Committee to decide the question. I do not think the hon. Member for the City of Cork has any right to put upon me what I have not stated. I should be sorry if the Motion of the hon. Member for South Tyrone were agreed to; nor do I see what advantage there would be in adjourning on the present occasion, because the Bill has reached that stage when it must be proceeded with unblocked, if I may use the expression; and, therefore, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Childers), as to the way in which he proposes to meet the difficulty 1561 in the case of hon. Members below the Gangway, I think I may appeal fairly to hon. Members to allow the Committee to go on with the Bill.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)
I am bound to say that it must be in the knowledge of the Committee, and of the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill, that if my hon. Friend, and those who take the same view as he does, had regarded the promise of the right hon. Baronet as one which would not exclude the Irish Constabulary, our only course would have been to block the Bill. If the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend were carried, what would happen? As certainly as I stand here, Lord Milltown, in the House of Lords, who is on the watch for this proposal, would get the clause restored; and then, on the consideration of the Lords' Amendments, at a time when we can only speak once, the clause would be finally replaced in the Bill. I think the right hon. Baronet should make the concession we ask, in view of the fact that the Bill is unblocked; and that he ought to carry out what is believed on these Benches to have been the spirit of the pledge that he gave; because, unless we had taken the view which has been stated, the Bill would never have been heard of again.

§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)
It appears to me that there is not the slightest contradiction between the statements of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill. I did not understand my hon. Friend to say that the right hon. Baronet had himself given a definite promise. I understood him to say that a definite promise had been given from the front Opposition Bench. We do not wish to make factious opposition in any sense to the Bill; but it has been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Childers) that a certain time must elapse before this franchise can properly be given to these persons for the purpose of putting them in precisely the same position as ordinary citizens.

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)
The hon. Member must confine his observations to the Motion to report Progress.

§ MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)
The Committee will, perhaps, allow me to say that what I did on a former occasion was to advise my right 1562 hon. Friend behind me that, in certain circumstances, he should not be too strict about including the Irish Constabulary in this Bill. I think that the proceedings of this evening have shown that my advice on the matter of tactics was not altogether bad; but we must remember that the right hon. Baronet did not accept my advice.

§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)
Although I should be willing to grant the Constabulary the franchise I cannot continue to support this Bill, because I believe that a gross breach of faith has been committed.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must confine his observations to the Motion to report Progress.

§ MR. CLANCY
I beg to say that a verbal promise was given by the right hon. Baronet that he would exclude the Constabulary from the Bill; and the effect of that verbal promise was that the hon. Member for South Belfast gave Notice that, in consequence of the concession to hon. Members below the Gangway, he himself should oppose it in Committee. It is well known that in Dublin——

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is not speaking to the Motion before the Committee.

§ MR. CLANCY
If I am not in Order I will not continue; but I must repeat my belief that a gross breach of faith has been committed.

§ MR. J. A. BLAKE (Carlow)
I think the Motion to report Progress is a very reasonable one. I shall support it if my hon. Friend goes to a division; but I trust that the right hon. Baronet will accept it in view of the lateness of the hour.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)
I venture to express a hope that the right hon. Baronet will not think it necessary, after the expression of opinion which has taken place, to resist the Motion for Progress.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
I have no desire to place myself in opposition to the wishes of the Committee, and shall not, therefore, offer any further objection to the Motion to report Progress.