HC Deb 29 March 1895 vol 32 cc521-3

On the Order for Second Reading,

MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

called attention to the different treatment meted out to England and Ireland as illustrated by this Bill. The Bill was one to extend out-door relief and to give, great facilities for relieving distress in Ireland, when at the present moment they had a Committee upstairs considering the relief of distress in England. A large sum of money had been voted for distress in Ireland quite lately on the Supplementary Estimates, and now this Bill was also brought in, while nothing was being done at the same time for England. There was no question but that in England there was as much distress as in Ireland. The question of outdoor relief was a most important one, and, as an English and a London Member, representing a district where there was a great deal of poverty, he thought this different treatment of the two countries was most unfair.

MR. J. ROSS (Londonderry)

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he considered the third clause an essential part of the Bill, and he put the same question in regard to the first clause?

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

said the Bill was the mere counterpart of the Bill brought in in 1881 by the right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, and of that brought in by the right hon. Member for East Manchester in 1890. The hon. Member had asked him to withdraw that clause which relieved from electoral disability those who were unhappy enough to require relief, but the same reasons which had actuated right hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition Bench in bringing forward similar Bills in previous years actuated him in bringing forward the present measure, and he hoped under the circumstances the Bill would be allowed to pass the second reading, as it would impose no charge whatever on the British taxpayer, but would simply allow boards of guardians in Ireland to do certain things, for which, if they did them wrongfully or wastefully, they would have to suffer themselves.

Mr. ROSS

said the right hon. Gentleman had said nothing about the first clause, which gave an unlimited power to the guardians which had never been proposed in previous Bills.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, the provisions of the Bill were identical with those of previous Bills, and it was his intention to adhere to the Bill in its present form.

MR. F. G. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman had announced his intention of adhering to the third clause, he must object to the further progress of the measure.

Debate accordingly adjourned till Monday.