COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 19 May 1885)

THE EARL OF BELMORE
said, he had intended to move the omission of the clause, which provided that the receipt of medical relief should not be a disqualification for the franchise; but as he understood, with regret, that he should not be supported in that course by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) he would not persist in that course, and would not, therefore, trouble their Lordships to go to a division. It appeared to him, however, that the division just taken on the English Bill affirmed a very important principle; and he only regretted that their Lordships would not apply it uniformly to the Three Kingdoms.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (Lord PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, he had been about to point out to their Lordships that the Bill contained a clause similar to that which had just been struck out of the English Bill, in regard to not disqualifying on account of the receipt of medical relief; and he was glad to see that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Belmore) had now withdrawn his opposition to it. He (Lord Carlingford) greatly regretted the decision to which the House had come on the English Bill; but even if he had voted against the exemption in the case of England he should still wish to see this clause retained in the Irish Bill. The noble Earl had spoken of a uniformity of practice; but the fact was that there was no uniformity in the practice of the two countries. The clause had been inserted in the Irish Bill as a matter of precaution, and to remove all doubts; but the fact was that medical relief had never been treated in Ireland as a disqualification, and it was given so widely that if it were now, for the first time, made a cause of disquali- 906 fication, the change would affect a large number of the existing electors. It should be borne in mind that medical relief in Ireland was given upon quite a different system from that which prevailed in England, and not by the Guardians, but by Dispensary Committees. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would not adopt the course they had taken on the English Bill, seeing that the two countries were differently situated in regard to this matter, and would accept the clause providing that dispensary relief should not be held to constitute such Poor Law relief as would disqualify for the franchise.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he had taken much trouble to ascertain the views of different Irish Peers on this matter, and he was bound to say that the most authoritative among them entirely concurred with the view of the Lord opposite (Lord Carlingford)—namely, that the system of medical relief in the two countries was in no degree analogous, and that it could not be said that they would be admitting the principle of enfranchising those who had received Poor Law relief by passing this clause. In the English Bill they had been trying to set up a system that had never been acted upon before, and which would have been difficult to work; but in Ireland the system had existed for a long time, and it seemed that by striking out the clause in this Bill they would be inflicting a great hardship on a vast number of people, and setting up a principle which had never existed before in the administration of Ireland.

LORD INCHIQUIN
said, he entirely concurred with the noble Marquess as to the feeling in Ireland, and admitted that it would be a hard thing to omit the clause. He was, therefore, very glad that a proposal was not to be made to exclude recipients of medical relief in Ireland from the franchise.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN,
in moving the omission of the provision requiring County Court Judges in Ireland, at the instance of a Superior Court, to pay 907 costs in cases where they had made mistakes in the revision of the list of voters, said, he maintained that this would be very hard upon the County Court Judges who were not in the same position as the Revising Barristers in England. In the case of the latter officials, they would accept the work imposed upon them with their eyes open; but in the case of the Irish Judges the new work would be thrown upon them against their will.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, the object with which the clause had been inserted had been to make the law of Ireland the same as that of England. If, however, the position of the Revising Barristers, were, as described, different to that of the County Court Judges in Ireland, the provision might be omitted.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN,
in moving, as an Amendment, to omit the provision requiring registration notices to be affixed to the doors of churches in Ireland, said, he would call their Lordships' attention to the fact that the Protestant Church had been disestablished in Ireland, and that the churches were now private property, upon which it would be an unwarrantable liberty to affix these notices against the will of the clergy. Numerous representations had been made to him by Protestant clergymen in Ireland strongly complaining of the provision in the clause, and intimating that, even if the clause were passed, they would not submit to it. He understood also that the Roman Catholic clergy were opposed to the proposal.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)
said, he would accept the Amendment, especially seeing that it had never been habitual in Ireland to affix these notices on the church doors, as it had been in England.