§ Order for Committee read.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)In moving that you, Sir, do leave the Chair, I will, as requested by some hon. Members, explain the purposes and objects of the Scottish Registration Bill. I may say that I do not propose to ask that anything more be done than that the Committee be set up to-night, so that there shall be time for the Bill to be circulated in Scotland, and the clauses taken not sooner than next week. In regard to the Bill, I may say that there is one clause in it which has a similar object, and is analogous to a clause in the English and Irish Bills. I mean the 5th clause, which contains a special provision as to voters in 1885, which provides that—
Any person deemed to be an inhabitant occupier, under section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, shall be registered in like manner as though the Representation of the People Act had been in existence throughout the year 1884, and had been duly carried into effect.That clause is framed to meet the possibility of its being held that the service franchise could be defeated by saying that, inasmuch as it was created for the first time by Section? of the Act of 1884, there had not been the requisite period of possession. The person entitled to the service franchise is to be deemed to be an inhabitant occupier of such dwelling-house for the creation of the new qualification; and in case it should by any possibility be held that that is a new qualification, this clause has been introduced for the like reason as the corresponding clauses in the English and Irish Bills. With respect to the rest of the Bill, I may say it is directed substantially to obtain an amendment of the Valuation Roll, which, as is well known to the Scotch Members, is the basis of the voters' list, and there are various particulars in which there seems to be room for amendment of that Roll, and obtaining a simpler and speedier method of making out the voters' lists. Under the Valuation Act of 1854, comparatively simple forms of Schedule were provided. 599 The forms of Schedule there provided, and the enactments regarding them, were repealed by the County Voters' Act of 1861; and somewhat more elaborate forms of Schedule were there provided, containing some things which we regard as unnecessary, and not containing certain things which are now essential to meet the requirements of the existing law. I may mention, for example, that in the form of Schedule provided, the heading "Tenant" was divided into three classes—tenants under 19 years, tenants between 19 and 57, and tenants over 57 years. It appears to us that that was an unnecessary subdivision, and we propose to simplify it by simply making one class of tenant. There was another entry in the Roll which I think, by almost universal consent, is unnecessary. I refer to the head which deals with the matter of feu-duties. Now, feu-duties are no longer a qualification for voting as regards the future. As regards the past, of course, there is already the information contained in the existing Rolls. And the requisite information can now be obtained without encumbering the Roll, which will now be a much longer document than it was formerly, by keeping up that heading; and so we propose no longer to continue it. There are various other matters with regard to which we think that the present Boll has been simplified. We propose by one of the sections here to allow an Order in Council to vary from time to time the forms of the Roll, and to obviate the necessity of any Parliamentary sanction being obtained for that end. That, I think, is common to this Bill with the English and Irish Bills. Then, in regard to Clause 4 of the Bill, I may ex-plain that that has been introduced with the object of providing certain additional means of obtaining the requisite information to those provided by the Act of 1884, which has been represented by many experienced assessors as scarcely applicable, and scarcely so simple as might be desired; and, accordingly, we have provided certain additional means for obtaining that information. As regards Section 6, it has been thought necessary to provide for each dwelling-house having a separate entry, inasmuch as each dwelling-house may be the subject of a separate qualification. It has been thought right that a separate entry 600 of it should be made. No doubt, it may sometimes happen that the whole of a dwelling-house may be occupied by a person not a voter, possibly by a woman, or by a minor; but, still, that is by common consent agreed to be a useful entry, as well for rating as for every other purpose. Then, as regards Section 7, that is directed to provide that, where the parish is divided into, or forms part of, more than one polling district, the register of voters in such parish shall be made up separately for each polling district. In regard to Section 8, I may say that if there had been no question except that of Parliamentary registration, it would probably have been unnecessary; but then, even in the case of burghs which under the Bill now going through Parliament—I mean the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill—may cease to return, or may continue to return, a Member to Parliament, they will continue to have a municipal registrar, and, consequently, it has been thought right to preserve the separate entity of the burgh, rather for municipal than for Parliamentary purposes. In regard to Section 9, that has been directed to providing a simple and cheaper form of advertisement than formerly existed. There was great complaint that the method of advertising was unsatisfactory and very expensive, and, accordingly, Section 9 is directed to a cheaper method of making the requisite publication. Section 10 is quite an executive clause, intended to provide for the appointment of assessors to counties that are divided, and I scarcely think that any explanation is required in regard to it. With regard to Section 11, it is, probably, enough to say that it has been suggested from various parts of the country, and I think with very good reason, that it is better that the assessor should not hold some of the offices which are mentioned in this section. We propose that he should not be employed as a collector of poor rates, or as a factor or labour agent. That will meet with the general sense of the House, I think. With respect to the 12th section, I may simply say that it is directed to provide for the case of police burghs. Under the Valuation Act there were only Parliamentary and Royal burghs provided for; but in many cases, under present law, the police burgh is such 601 an important community that it seems reasonable to provide for a separate valuation of the accounts of property, which have previously been provided for in the case of Royal and Parliamentary burghs. I have gone through all the clauses in a very few words, because I do not propose that they should be considered now; but I think any hon. Members who are familiar with the work of making up the register in Scotland will see that the various provisions here are all directed to simplify and make more effective the provisions of the existing law. I do not say that the Bill is not susceptible of amendment, and between now and the time when we come to consider the clauses hon. Members will have an opportunity of suggesting any Amendments that may occur to them. But what I have said will, I think, make plain the objects with which we have introduced the Bill in its present form.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the particular form of this Bill. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would pardon him (Mr. Warton) for saying so; but he had noticed all through the speech they had just listened to that the word "section "had been used instead of "clause," which it was usual to adopt in connection with Acts of Parliament. He (Mr. Warton) did not know whether, in this matter, there was a difference between Scotch and English law; but, according to ordinary Parliamentary proceeding, it was customary to use the word "clause." So far as the 5th clause was concerned, it seemed to him (Mr. Warton) an extraordinary proposition, that after they had solemnly arranged the date at which the Franchise Bill should come into force as an Act—that it should not come into force until 1st January this year—they should assume, under this clause, that the Franchise Act had been in existence during the whole of 1884. It seemed most absurd that, after all the discussion which had taken place on the subject, and the serious Amendments which had been moved—notably the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey)—as to the date at which the 602 Franchise Act should come into operation, they should pass a measure which assumed that it had come into force a year before it did. With regard to the service franchise, in respect of which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had inserted this 5th clause, he (Mr. Warton) remembered moving an Amendment to the proposal in the Bill to provide that the service franchise was only to come into operation in the event of a contract entered into between the master and servant, and requiring evidence of the contract. This singular and new kind of franchise was very undefined as compared with every other kind. It was difficult to see service in the same way as one could see a house that a man was occupying. He had moved an Amendment so as to secure a starting point in the case of the service franchise; but he had been met by the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Gladstone), and other right hon. Gentlemen opposite, with the statement that it was not at all necessary. Now, they saw the result of his Amendment being refused. They found that there would be all sorts of doors open to fraud and imposture. Persons would be coming forward on all hands, saying they had been occupying the relative positions of master and servant, and arrangements patched up in a few days for a political purpose would be declared in the coolest manner possible, and would, under this 5th clause, stand as if they had existed during the whole of 1884. This seemed to him a most extraordinary provision, and he was not all sure that the House would consent to it when it came to consider it in Committee. He anticipated that if it were passed it would lead to a wholesale manufacture of service qualifications, and would, consequently, be-become a prolific producer of fagot votes. He hoped the 5th clause would be rejected. He did not intend to follow the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate through the other clauses of the Bill.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid, they were all indebted to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate for his clear statement with regard to the provisions of the Bill before them. They were especially indebted to him for making his speech tonight, because they were all anxious that the Bill should be pushed forward with the least possible delay. It seemed, so 603 far as he was able to judge, that it would effect a substantial improvement in the Registration Law of Scotland. They had the advantage at present of a more simple system of registration than either England or Ireland, and the Bill would still further simplify that system. It would have the further advantage of putting the counties more on a level with the boroughs in this respect—that the county assessors would have the obligation laid on them of making up the voters' list more rapidly than the}' were obliged to do at present. He hoped the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would take care that they should have sufficient time for the due consideration of the clauses. He did not wish, at this moment, to go into the details of the Bill; but seeing that it was only put into their hands this morning, and that those interested in the subject had not had sufficient time to consider it, he would ask the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to take care that sufficient time was given for the due consideration of the clauses.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he agreed with what had fallen from the last speaker (Mr. Buchanan), that the registration system of Scotland was better than that of England, and much more self-acting. They had not the worry and expense of looking after the registration as in England, where candidates for seats in this House were put to great trouble and expense—in addition to their other numerous troubles and expenses—in looking after the voters on the list. He thought it should be a public burden, and not a burden on the candidates; and he was confident that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would do his best to maintain and improve the good registration which prevailed in Scotland. He (Sir George Campbell) only wished to express a hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would take very great care that, in extending the system to the counties—which would be a delicate and, perhaps, a somewhat difficult task—he did not throw on the candidates similar burdens to those imposed by the English law. His experience in England was that whenever duties of this kind were to be performed, under statutory obligation, by people who held their office for life, they were performed extremely ill, and to that, he believed, was due all 604 the trouble and expense candidates in England were obliged to incur in regard to the registration of voters. His attention had been called to the unsatisfactory way in which jury lists were prepared in England, and he trusted the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would take care to maintain the superior system which existed in Scotland. No doubt it would be difficult to bring the new voters thoroughly and efficiently upon the Boll. His own experience was that in Scotland, under the new system, there was a danger of the compound voting system prevailing in England coming in by superiors undertaking to pay the public rates, and still more would it be so with regard to the service franchise, and he had no doubt great care would require to be taken in that respect. He was sure the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would do his best, and consult the best authorities in Scotland, and give a reasonable interval for the consideration of the clauses.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he had understood, at Question time to-day, that as soon as Mr. Speaker left the Chair, the Government would agree to report Progress, and would fix some day next week for proceeding with the clauses. He would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, if he would be kind enough to say, before the Question was put, when he proposed to go on with the clauses?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, it would be either Tuesday or Wednesday; he was not quite sure which. It would probably be Tuesday; but it might be Wednesday. He proposed to put it down for Tuesday.
MR. DICK-PEDDIEtrusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not take the Committee stage on Tuesday. The Bill came out only last night, and it was quite impossible that the constituents could communicate with Members before that time. He trusted that Wednesday would be the day.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to point out that Report of the Parliamentary Elections (Rodistribution) Bill was down for Tuesday next. If the Registration Bill were put down for the same day, there would be two Bills fixed, each having precedence over all other measures. There would then arise a question as to which could be taken first, 605 each having precedence over the other. He could not understand, under the circumstances, how the Government could think of putting these two Bills down for the same day. Which Bill would have precedence?
§ MR. SEXTONThe Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill was introduced first and obtained its precedence first.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ Committee report Progress.
§ MR. SPEAKERTo sit again—on what day?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)Monday next; but not with the intention of proceeding with it on that day. We will announce then when it will be taken.
§ MR. SEXTONI object to Monday. The right hon. and learned Gentleman a short time ago distinctly declared that it was proposed to take the Bill on Tuesday.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)Monday is fixed, not with the intention of proceeding with the Bill on that day, but of announcing when it will be proceeded with.
§ MR. SEXTONVery well; but I cannot help thinking it would be much more satisfactory if original promises were kept.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he thought they were not guarding themselves with sufficient care against possible contingencies. They had already put down the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill for Monday; but they were told that it might not be taken on that day, as they would be engaged then in considering the Vote of Credit. But it was possible that the Vote of Credit might not last long. The policy of the Government in that respect might be considered wise, and the Vote of Credit might not take long to consider. In that case they would have two Bills down, each taking precedence of the other, and in all probability they would get into a mess. They had better not have down for the same day two Bills, 606 each of which was entitled to be taken first on the day it came on.
§ LORD RICHARD GROSVENORsaid, that if the Bill were put down for Tuesday or Wednesday it would immediately take precedence, and that the Government did not wish at present. If it were put down for Monday, it could be placed for any other day when they saw what arrangements could be made for the Business.
§ Committee to sit again upon Monday next.