[BILL 307.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 11 July 1887)

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)
I rise to move that the debate be now adjourned. It is a monstrous thing that we should be called upon to consider this Bill in Committee at the present Sitting. This is a proposal to abolish the Poor Law Guardians in Mayo, and to put the people in the Unions which the Bill deals with under 452 the rule of Vice Guardians paid by the Government. This is not a bonâ fide proposal by the Government on behalf of the people of the districts concerned, but one that will be used by ingenious gentlemen who are opposed to all reform in Ireland to give colour to the pretence that the Irish people do not like their local representatives to manage their affairs. My reason for saying that is, that you have refused over and over again to reform the Irish Guardian system. I am entirely opposed to the Guardian system in Ireland. I regard it as degrading; at any rate, the workhouse is a place where immoral women can get shelter, and tramps lodging. You have refused year after year any amelioration or reform in the system of Poor Law Guardians, and now you would throw the working of the Poor Law system into the hands of jobbers in the country whom the majority of the people would have no power to remove. I say that if the people could have been directly represented on these Boards, the scandals that have occurred would not have taken place. You threw the whole working of these Boards into the hands of the landlord class, and it is a fact that there is a higher qualification for membership of the Boards in these Unions than there is in the county and City of Dublin. That is the case with regard to the Union of Clifden, which is the poorest in Ireland, where the valuation is fixed at £30; and I say that if you insist that the Guardians must be people of a £30 valuation, you restrict membership to a little knot of men who do not represent the people in the Union—men who, in some instances, have betrayed their trust. The remedy of the Government for the state of things in these Unions is to abolish the existing debt; but is it not the duty of the landlords to provide for the poor? The Irish tenants receive no value whatever from the landlords for the rents that are exacted from them. I say that a more disgraceful proposition than the present never emanated from a British Government, and I believe it is owing to the schoolboy Secretaryship of the present Chief Secretary that such a Bill has been laid before us. I am amazed that such a Bill should be seriously laid before the House of Commons, and it will be an encouragement to others, when they see that Guardians who have 453 plunged their Unions into debt can escape the consequences of their acts by means of this Bill, to do likewise. It is monstrous to ask us to assent to a wholesale repudiation of debts; and, therefore, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
At Question time the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) asked me to defer the taking of this Order so that he might put down an Instruction to the Committee, and I suggested that perhaps the most convenient course would be to discuss this point on the Question, "That the Speaker do leave the Chair." The hon. Member expressed his satisfaction; and I hope he will now use his influence with his Friends to prevent the Bill being obstructed.

§ MR. DILLON
I am in rather a singular position. I am perfectly willing to go on, and I signified my willingness to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour); but in the course of the evening I was approached through the usual channels of communication, and asked whether it would meet my views if the Bill were postponed? I stated that I was quite agreeable to that course also, and just now, on Order No. 2, I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether he intended to proceed with Order No. 3, and he said no. All the Members sitting here heard the right hon. Gentleman, and presumed, therefore, that Order No. 3 would not be taken. Now, in regard to the other matter, to be perfectly fair and frank, I may say I do not wish this Bill blocked; but I cannot answer for all my Friends. I have stated from the outset that I shall be no party to the blocking of this Bill; but I am not in a position to give the Government the assurance the right hon. Gentleman requires.

§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)
I should like to make one suggestion before this Bill is proceeded with. I am far from being opposed to the Bill, and my suggestion is that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary should give an assurance that all the bonâ fide debts incurred by Unions ought to be paid. As has been pointed out, it 454 would be a terrible example if the Government were to take over a Union and take power to borrow money and then repudiate the bonâ fide debts of the Union. There may be, however, debts which are not bonâ fide, but I do not think there are many. The Government ought certainly to give an assurance that some provision will be made for the payment of bonâ fide debts.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
If the Government put the Bill down for to-morrow I shall block it. Why not take it on Thursday?

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I will agree to Thursday.