HC Deb 04 May 1882 vol 269 cc200-11

Clause 9 (Qualification of burgees).

MR. BIGGAR

proposed to leave out lines 18 and 19, with the object of doing away with a provision which was constantly evaded, and which had no practical effect—namely, the provision which required ratepayers in a borough not only to be ratepayers of premises, but to have residences in such borough before they could vote as electors. No matter how large a ratepayer might be in a borough, if he had not rated premises which he could call his own domicile he could not vote as a burgess in the borough. That provision was constantly evaded, and he had evaded it himself. For a number of years he was a ratepayer to a considerable amount in Belfast; but he had no vote for municipal purposes. After a time he felt disposed to become a member of the Town Council, and, in order to qualify himself for that position, he fitted up a bed-room in the premises for which he had been rated, and by sleeping there a few times he was able to declare himself a bonâ fide resident within the borough—when, in reality, he was living with his father, as he was before he manufactured his franchise. In that way this principle was evaded, and it was unreasonable to impose conditions which were really never acted upon in practice. Another case in illustration occurred this year. The Lord Mayor of Dublin had to manufacture a qualification exactly as he had done. The Lord Mayor actually resided seven miles beyond the City of Dublin; but, although a large ratepayer in the City, he had no vote, and, in order to qualify and to make certain that he would not be disqualified as Lord Mayor, he slept a few times in a room in his business premises, and so obtained the qualification.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, leave out lines 18 and. 19.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. HIBBERT

admitted that the law was very often evaded; but, at the same time, he could not agree to the Amendment. The law, as stated in these two lines, was drawn in exactly the same way with respect to municipal elections as in regard to Parliamentary elections, and the qualification as to residence was put on exactly the same footing. For that reason he thought it would be undesirable to accept the Amendment. Since the passing of the Act of 1835, it had always been the custom to require 12 months' residence in a town as a qualification, and he could not agree to such a change as that now suggested. The Bill, moreover, was rather a Con- solidating Bill than a measure to amend the law.

MR. BIGGAR

doubted whether the hon. Gentleman had correctly stated the law. He had never heard that a ratepayer had to prove residence as well as occupation in order to qualify for a vote at a Parliamentary election. It was not so in Ireland, and he had voted in respect of premises in which he had never lived. He had never had a residence in his life, and he was convinced that a ratepayer in Ireland was qualified to vote, whether he had any residence or not. The real practical effect of this provision was simply to disqualify a comparatively small number of people who might have weight and influence. Many unmarried sons lived with their fathers as he did; but he was registered on the Register as a Parliamentary voter, although he could not vote for a Town Councillor. He thought the hon. Gentleman was incorrect, and this was one of those absurd provisions which could always be evaded if people chose to take a little trouble to do so. More than that, it set up a system of colourable qualification; and he could not agree that, because this was a Consolidating Bill, therefore the law, which seemed absurd in some respects, should not be amended now that there was an opportunity such as might not occur again for a long time.

MR. HIBBERT

said, that what he had stated was the law in England. He was not aware what the law in Ireland was, and this Bill only applied to England. That had been the law since 1835, and he did not consider it wise to make any difference between the qualification for Parliamentary and for municipal elections.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

Does this Bill apply to Parliamentary elections?

MR. HIBBERT

No.

MR. GILL

Are we to understand that this Bill does not extend to Ireland?

MR. HIBBERT

Certainly; it is merely a Bill to consolidate ail Acts relating to England.

MR. WARTON

inquired whether the hon. Gentleman had considered the propriety of extending the seven miles' limit somewhat?

MR. HIBBERT

said, he should be sorry to alter the number of miles, because that was the same limit as for Parliamentary elections; and, unless it was intended to alter the limit in those cases, it would be unwise to alter it here, more especially as the Register was the same for both purposes.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he would withdraw his Amendment. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman as to the inconvenience of making a distinction between Parliamentary and municipal elections was an important point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?"

MR. BIGGAR

moved to leave out lines 23 to 26, inclusive, and he explained that the objection to those lines was that, if the governing Party in a borough were disposed to encourage a rate collector, he could exact only the smallest amount of rates; and so a great many ratepayers opposed to the dominant Party would be disqualified. One of the great difficulties in regard to Parliamentary elections was to get people to pay their rates in time; and this provision would be a premium to dishonest rate collectors to abstain from asking ratepayers belonging to an opposite Party to pay their rates. He himself had had a painful experience of this kind in Belfast, because, when the Conservative Party in that borough were very much in the ascendant, their rate collectors intentionally neglected to collect the rates from a large portion of the Liberal electors. The result was that the representation got entirely into the hands of the Conservatives; and that was very injurious, because, thinking they had perfect immunity, they greatly exceeded their borrowing powers. He thought a sufficient qualification would be the payment of one tax or rate, and it was very objectionable to leave a number of collectors to abstain from asking for the rates from a certain section of the electors, with the practical effect of throwing political power into the hands of one Party. For these reasons he proposed this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, to leave out lines 23 to 26, inclusive.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. HIBBERT

said, he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member, and he could not agree with, him at all that these objections would arise to the extent that had been suggested. He did not say it was invariably the case; but, as a general rule, borough rates were collected well up to time by the collectors. As the hon. Member had said, inconveniences might have arisen at Belfast. Nevertheless, he did not think it would be wise to alter the law as to borough rates. So far as he (Mr. Hibbert) was concerned, there had been no application to him on the part of any ratepayers of any borough in England; therefore he could not accept the Amendment.

MR. WHITLEY

said, he could not support the Amendment.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that, as the hon. Member for Liverpool did not approve of the Amendment, he would ask leave to withdraw it. He must say, at the same time, that he was not convinced by the arguments he had heard. He was acquainted with a case where the office of the rate collector was so small that it was impossible, when the last days for paying the rates arrived, for all the people who made a rush to be in time to find standing room within it, and the result was that many people who were anxious to pay could not do so. When travelling through different parts of England, and communicating with Parties, there was no more common complaint made than that a certain class of electors neglected to pay their rates. This would cause a great reduction in the number of electors on the list, and very materially interfere with the elective power of the constituencies. He, however, begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Council; Mayor, Aldermen, and Councillors.

Clause 10 (Constitution of council) agreed to.

Clause 11 (Qualification of councillor).

MR. BIGGAR

said, he would move to leave out from "beyond," in line 5, to "and," in line 7, and insert "within seven miles of the borough." He did not know on what principle a person who was not qualified to vote in a borough should be qualified to act as a member of a Town Council in a borough. To allow such, a thing to take place appeared to him to be giving an unreasonable preference to a class of people whom it was not desirable to elect as Town Councillors. Men would be likely to be elected simply on social grounds because they held high positions—and in spite of their being unable to devote continuous attention to municipal business. Any person entitled to vote should be eligible for election on the Council; but, at the same time, no person not qualified to vote should be considered qualified to sit as a member of the Corporation or Board.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, leave out from "beyond," in line 5, to "and," in line 7, and insert "within seven miles of the borough."—(Mr. Biggar.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. WARTON

rose to Order. The words, as they would be left by the hon. Member's Amendment, would be peculiar, if not absolutely absurd. They would have "resident beyond"—beyond nothing at all. The person would be left, "is resident and not resident," by the Amendment.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he should like to explain to the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) the object of these words he wished to strike out. They were the present law, and were passed in an Act of 1868. They applied only to Aldermen. The Act passed in 1868—which was incorporated in the present measure—enabled Aldermen to live beyond seven miles and up to 15 miles away, and this provision was inserted on the application of a large number of the populous Municipalities of the country. The application was made on the ground that a number of very desirable persons lived more than seven but less than 15 miles away, and that means should be taken to enable those gentlemen to be elected Aldermen. He remembered when leave was given for the introduction of the Bill in 1868, and recollected that what he had stated was the only object of these words. He could not, therefore, agree to the proposal to strike them out. The provision applied only to a very few cases in the country; and as it was thought desirable only a short time ago to enact it, he did not think it would be desirable for Parliament to strike it out.

Amendment negatived.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the next Amendment on the Paper in his name raised the same question; therefore, he did not propose to move it. However, the Amendment which followed was one which seemed to him to be very important, and one upon which he felt inclined to divide the Committee. The object of the sub-section, as he understood it, was to give power to a member of the Town Council to lease or purchase land from, or sell land to, the Corporation of which he was a member. He could not imagine anything more objectionable and anything more open to abuse than this.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12 (Disqualifications for being councillor).

Amendment proposed, in page 5, leave out lines 39 and. 40.—(Mr. Biggar.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. HIBBERT

said, he could not agree to the Amendment; and when the hon. Member reflected upon what it meant, he doubted whether he would divide the Committee on it. No doubt, it did open the door to corruption of some kind; but, at the same time, many cases arose in which members of Corporations owned land which it was most desirable that those Corporations should purchase; and to accept the proposed Amendment would be to throw a great impediment in the way of making such satisfactory arrangements in regard to land. He did not know whether many cases of corruption had occurred; but perhaps the hon. Member for Liverpool, who was very well informed on these matters, would be able to give them a better idea as to the exact state of the case. So far as he (Mr. Hibbert) was concerned, he had not heard of any cases of the kind.

MR. WHITLEY

said, that in some towns the Corporation owned a large quantity of leasehold property, a deal of which was held by members of the Town Council There were many occupiers who held their leases from the Corporation, and who, from time to time, became members of that Corporation. In Liverpool a third or a quarter of the town consisted of Corporation leaseholds; and if they were to enact that no holder of a Corporation leasehold should be a member of a Town Council, they would be depriving the Corporation of that town of some of its most important members.

MR. LEAMY

agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down that it would be a decided mistake to prevent members of a Town Council from holding Corporation leases.

MR. HIBBERT

said, that in all transactions to which the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) had referred, the consent of the Treasury would have to be obtained, and that consent would not be given without inquiry. It would be seen, therefore, that there was a pretty strong safeguard against corruption.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that perhaps he misunderstood the purport of the provision. His contention was not that a member of a Town Council should not hold a Corporation lease, but that he should not bargain for one whilst he was a member of a Corporation. Of course, it should be open to a man, after his lease had been granted, to become a member of a Corporation; but, as in the case of a Trustee, who was unable to take any personal interest in property of which he was Trustee, without going to the Court of Chancery, so a member of a Corporation ought not to be allowed to make any bargain for taking over Corporation property whilst a member of the Corporation. Perhaps the Attorney General for Ireland would remember a case which had occurred in Belfast, within the past two or three years, where a person, on behalf of some minors, took proceedings to set aside the sale of some property to members of a Corporation. It was alleged at the time that the transaction had been of a very questionable character, certain Town Commissioners having given a lease to their own Chairman. It seemed to him that bargains like this could not be defended, and as the matter was an important one, unless a more satisfactory answer were given to him he should divide the Committee on the question. He would propose to amend his Motion, and simply move to leave out all the words after the word "lease" to the word "or" in the next line, as suggested by his hon. Friend (Mr. Leamy). If a person wished to make a bargain with, a Corporation, let him cease to be a member of that Corporation, and let his solicitor act for him in the ordinary way. Whilst he was a member of the Corporation he would be in a position to know whether the lowest or what tender would be accepted, and could regulate his proceedings accordingly. Under such circumstances as these it could not be said that property was in the open market.

MR. WHITLEY

said, that in Liverpool Corporation property was sold by auction. Where improvements were being effected, and it was found that some of the land which it was desirable to take belonged to a member of the Council, it would be very hard to compel that member to resign his seat in the Corporation before the land could be bought. If such a provision were enacted, it would lead to the retirement of a third of the Town Council of Liverpool. As he had said, in that town all the property of the Corporation was sold by public auction, so that it was impossible for a buyer, who was a member of the Corporation, to have an advantage over anyone else. He had been a member of the Corporation for nearly 20 years, and he had never known of a single instance of corruption, or of anything in the nature of a job.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he must again, call attention to the fact that in all cases the consent of the Treasury was required before any sale or any lease could be made. It seemed to him that if they adopted the plan suggested by the hon. Member for Cavan, they would provide a very roundabout mode of procedure. It would be a very strange thing if a Councillor or Alderman were obliged to retire from the Corporation before he could sell or lease to the Corporation any property which he might own, and which, for public purposes, might be required. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing upon the question.

MR. BIGGAR

, said, this was a matter upon which he had formed a very strong opinion; and, therefore, he was afraid he should have to ask the Committee to divide. Despite what the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) said, it was a well-known fact that in towns where there was not much difference of politi- cal opinions, members of the Corporations did many things out of pure friendship towards one another, although those very things might be opposed to the interests of the whole community. There was no reason why a man should not buy from or sell to the Corporation, of which he might be a member, £100,000 worth of property in which he was pecuniarily interested. The clause did not provide that the consent of the Court of Chancery or the Treasury should be obtained to the transaction.

MR. HIBBERT

pointed out that in another part of the Bill it was provided that the Treasury was to be consulted in all cases.

MR. BIGGAR

asked what part of the Bill the hon. Gentleman referred to? The matter was so important that he did not like to pass it over without ascertaining the sense of the Committee.

MR. HIBBERT

said, it was the 109th clause.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the 109th clause provided that— The Council shall not, unless authorized by Act of Parliament, sell, mortgage, or alienate any corporate land without the approval of the Treasury. And then it went on— The Council shall not, unless authorized by Act of Parliament, lease, or agree to lease, any corporate land without the approval of the Treasury, except as follows:—They may make a lease, or agreement for a lease, for a term not exceeding thirty-one years……; they may make a lease, or agreement for a lease, for a term not exceeding seventy-five years from the date of the lease or agreement, and either at a reserved rent or on a fine, or both, as the Council think fit. He had, however, formed a decided opinion upon the subject, and, therefore, must ask the Committee to divide.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 11: Majority 68.—(Div. List, No. 76.)

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 13 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.

Byelaws.

Clause 24 (Power of council to make byelaws).

MR. BIGGAR

moved, in page 10, line 4, after "council," to insert "confirms said byelaw or." As the clause now stood a copy of the bye-laws were to be sent to the Privy Council; but no provision was made that the Privy Council must formally declare its approval of them. The clause was wanting in this respect, for it might so happen that bye-laws might be overlooked by the Privy Council. Objectionable bye-laws might thus come into force, and he thought it was desirable to guard against such a possibility by the insertion of the words he proposed.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 4, after "council," insert "confirms said byelaw or."—(Mr. Biggar.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HIBBERT

said, he was informed it was quite unnecessary to insert the words suggested. Bye-laws would come in force if they were not disallowed of by the Privy Council; and he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment

MR. BIGGAR

said, he quite understood that bye-laws would come into force if they were not disallowed, and that was what he wanted to provide against. All he desired was that the Privy Council should formally express their approval or disapproval, so that it should not be possible for bye-laws to come into force unless they had first of all been examined.

MR. HIBBERT

said, no difficulty arose at the present time. Bye-laws were always returned from the Privy Council, and they came in force at the very time they were allowed.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he had no wish to go to a division, and asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 25 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.

Supplemental and Exceptional Provisions.

Clause 36 (Declaration or acceptance of office).

MR. BIGGAR

moved, in page 15, to leave out sub-section 2, namely— Every Alderman who has made and subscribed the declaration in respect of estate shall once in every three years, if required in writing by two members of the Council, make and subscribe a declaration that he is qualified to the value or amount mentioned in the declaration originally made by him.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. HIBBERT

said, he was happy to say he could agree to the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 37 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.

Back to
Forward to