COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 13 July 1885)

§ LORD CARLINGFORD,
in moving that the House go into Committee on the Bill, said, that it had been referred to a Select Committee contrary to his own recommendation to the House, his desire having been that their Lordships should deal with the Bill in Committee of the Whole House. In Committee the Bill had been considerably altered. The Select Committee struck out those provisions of the Bill which they all knew produced the rejection of the Bill on its second reading last year, and led to its reference to a Select Committee this year. He regretted the rejection by the Select Committee of some of these provisions of the Bill; but they had been rejected by very large majorities and supported by very small mino- 392 rities. While regretting some of these provisions, he did not intend to ask their Lordships to restore them. He refrained from so doing, because he knew, and their Lordships knew, that it would be a mere formality if he were to make such a proposal. On the other hand, he did not intend to drop the Bill, because he believed that the Bill as it stood, as it had come back from the Select Committee, was a useful measure, and one that might well be passed into law. When last year he presented this Bill, he stated that he did it mainly on the ground that it contained certain provisions which he looked upon as important, and of which he heartily approved, the principal one being the introduction of the ballot into Poor Law elections in Ireland. He did not intend now to go into the merits of the Bill, which had already been largely canvassed, and upon which a large amount of evidence had been taken by the Select Committee. One observation only he wished to make, which was this—that the general effect of that evidence upon his mind was to show that the importance of those provisions which had been rejected, such as those dealing with the machinery of the proxy vote, and the proportion of ex officio Guardians upon Boards of Guardians, had been exaggerated upon both sides, looking at the question from the point of view of the administration and economy of the Poor Law. They had been exaggerated both by the popular Party, and what might be called the landlord Party; and the explanation of this was that the contest between these Parties was a political one. That was the general impression left upon his own mind by the evidence given upon the subject. Although, under special circumstances, and in a time of great excitement, there had been here and there some unjustifiable expenditure of public money by the elected Guardians, on the whole the interest of the two classes was undoubtedly the same—namely, that of keeping down the rates and of administering the Poor Law at the least expense. Before very long these questions must come up again for consideration. No doubt they would soon have to be settled in one way or another in connection with the re-organization of county government in Ireland, which they all knew could not be long deferred. Under all these circumstances he moved 393 their Lordships to pass the Bill as it stood.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD
said, he did not object to the Bill; but it was not required as an improvement to the administration of the Poor Law. The result would be that exactly the same class of Guardians would be elected as had been elected before, and would perform their duties in exactly the same manner.

§ THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD
said, that, no doubt, many of the provisions of this Bill wore most useful; but those which had been cut out of it could not have been passed with any fairness to those who paid by far the greater portion of the rates. For the last five years the Land League had been endeavouring to got possession of all the Boards of Guardians, and there was no doubt that rates were sometimes intentionally raised in order to punish landlords; and, under those circumstances, to reduce the representation of landlords and to take away the right of voting by proxy would be very unjust.