CONSIDERATION. ADJOURNED DEBATE. (Hansard, 27 May 1872)

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, that on a former occasion the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill (Mr. Winterbotham) had not the opportunity of informing the House as to the number of 776 Petitions and Memorials which had been presented in favour of an alteration of the law, such as was now proposed. He might, however, be able to supply the deficiency now; but whether so or not, he (Mr. J. Lowther) was of opinion that very little need existed for anything of the kind; and that if it did, or there was any glaring evil connected with it, the House would have been deluged with Petitions upon the subject. The boundaries of boroughs were set out under the Municipal Act of 1835, and, with the exception of the Act of 1859, the system established by the former Act had not been interfered with. Under the present law two-thirds of the members of a town council might memorialize the Judge of Assize, who would appoint a barrister to determine what alteration, if any, should be made in the boundaries of the wards; but the present Bill proposed that one-third of the town council should have the power, and that the authority to whom the application should be made should be the Home Office, and not the Judge of Assize. Such an alteration, however, might lead to the mischievous and pernicious result which a similar provision had given rise to in America, and which was known as "Jerrymandering," resulting in the practice, that the moment any political party was dissatisfied with the result of the elections, they proceeded to set the law in motion for an alteration of the constituencies. He therefore hoped the House would not accept the present Bill, and he would move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be taken into consideration on that day six months.

§ MR. STEVENSON
said, that according to the present law no change could be effected unless two-thirds of the whole number of councillors agreed to the proposal. Many attempts had been made to procure those two-thirds, and they had always failed; in the borough he represented, for instance, there existed a great necessity to alter the wards, in order to adapt them to an entire change of circumstances and a great increase of the population; and they were landed in the difficulty of not being able to accom- 777 plish that object for want of the Bill now before the House. This Bill was therefore necessary, and he hoped the House would pass it.

§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN
said, that the proposed change would be very great, and ought not to be agreed to without much consideration; in fact, he knew of one or two instances in which it would lead to great abuse. It was the less excusable to proceed in the way now proposed, because there was another mode of arriving at the same object by means of Provisional Orders, and without the expense of a private Bill. His hon. Friend (Mr. J. Lowther) had, therefore, done good service in opposing the Motion, and if he went to a division he should support him.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, that if the question was opened at all, they ought to go further than was contemplated by this Bill. There were 60 or 70 boroughs where the municipal boundaries shut out about one-third of the population of the town, and that was an evil which ought to be redressed. He should support the Motion of the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther).

§ MR. LEEMAN
said, he differed from his hon. Colleague (Mr. J. Lowther) in his views of the Bill, which he regarded as a necessity arising from the outgrowth of the large towns since the passing of the Municipal Reform Act 37 years ago. While it might have been better to have brought the suburbs of towns within more extended municipal boundaries, yet if that question was not yet ripe for legislative action, that formed no valid reason why the country should not avail itself of so much of good as was proposed by the Bill of the Government. The large towns had so extended themselves as to present the greatest possible discrepancies between the number of councillors and the number of municipal electors and values of properties in the different wards. It had been his (Mr. Leeman's) lot to have filled municipal office, almost from the passing of the Municipal Reform Act, in the City represented by his hon. Colleague and himself (York), and having watched the outgrowth of that City, he could give no better illustration of the necessity for some means of revision of existing wards and of equalizing municipal representation from time to time in all their large towns than the City of York 778 presented at that moment. This was the relative condition of the six wards into which the City was divided—Bootham, town councillors, 6; electors, 709; gross rental, £20,406; acres, 98; Micklegate, town councillors, 6; electors, 2,163; gross rental, £50,357; acres, 1,049; Castlegate, town councillors, 6; electors, 728; gross rental, £19,769; acres, 61; Monk-town, councillors, 6; electors, 2,238; gross rental, £28,972; acres, 440; Guildhall, town councillors, 6; electors, 537; gross rental, £17,201; acres, 25¼ Walmgate, town councillors, 6; electors, 1,573; gross rental, £23,892; acres, 296. In other words, the three smaller wards, covering 184 statute acres, and with an aggregate of 1,974 voters, occupying property of the gross estimated rental of £57,376, were represented in the town council by 18 councillors, whereas the three larger wards, covering 1,785 statute acres, and capable of continued expansion, had so grown out as now to number 5,974 electors, or thrice the number of electors in the three smaller wards; and the three larger wards having a gross estimated rental of £103,221, or nearly double that of the three smaller wards, were yet only represented by the same number of councillors. He (Mr. Leeman) had returns from Leeds, Hull, Newcastle, Birmingham, and other places, all more or less presenting the same discrepancies as the result of the constant increase and outgrowth of our cities and towns, and all showing the necessity for power to town councils to seek from time to time such revision of their wards or the equalization of their representation as was proposed to be given by the Bill, and which the existing law failed to secure. He could not therefore support the views expressed by his hon. Colleague against the Bill, but for the reasons he had stated was prepared to give it his hearty support.

§ MR. CAWLEY
held that the Bill was not required, as the Bill of last year had made all the alterations needed. The measure now before the House would change the whole principle under which that work had hitherto been done, for it would place the machinery at the absolute disposal of the Secretary of State, who might then alter wards as he chose. By one portion of the Bill it was proposed to give to one-third of the council a power equivalent to that of the majority, and such a scheme would 779 strike at the root of municipal government.

§ MR. WINTERBOTHAM
said, that the criticisms hitherto passed upon the Bill differed from those made in the present discussion. In the debate on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) no attempt was made to show that the measure contained the dangerous elements indicated by the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther). The whole object of the Bill was to carry out the Act of 1859, which had proved a dead letter. Under that Act it was provided that the initiative might be taken by two-thirds of the council, who were to go out of office. He thought it was hardly to be expected that they should make such a sacrifice. It was alleged that fresh powers were to be conferred on the Secretary of State, but he would have no more power in the matter than the Commander-in-Chief.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, there was an essential difference between this Bill and the Bill of 1859. The principle of the Bill of 1859 was that the majority should take the initiative; but the principle of this Bill was that the minority should take the initiative. He protested against conferring such a power, and until he had heard better reasons urged for the change it would meet with his opposition.

§ MR. WHEELHOUSE
said, he should like to know what was the object of placing the Order which was to be made on the Table of the House? If the Bill were adopted, it would work a change through every municipality in England. In boroughs, where everything was done by persons under political bias, the result would be that they Would come to the Privy Council, when they had a majority, with just such a scheme as they thought desirable for their own purposes. If the question of municipalities was to be dealt with at all, it should be by a large and comprehensive measure, and not piecemeal, as this Bill proposed to do.

§ MR. DODDS
, in opposing the Amendment, said, there was imperative need in the borough he represented for the provisions of the measure under notice.

§ MR. CAWLEY
moved an Amendment, in line 16, page 2, to the effect that a majority of the council or one-third of the ratepayers of the borough should have the power of making the recommendation to the Privy Council.

§ MR. WINTERBOTHAM
said, the Amendment was really the same one on which they had just divided, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would, therefore, not press it.