LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) ELECTORS BILL.— [BILL 181.]

HC Deb 07 May 1888 vol 325 cc1488-543

(Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Long.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 3rd May.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 2 (Extension of burgess franchise to county electors outside Municipal boroughs),

MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, that in the absence of the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Car- narvon (Mr. Rathbone) he wished to move the Amendment which stood in the name of that hon. Member—namely, in page 1, line 19, to leave out from "the burgess," to end of clause, and insert— Every person entitled to vote in Parlialiamentary elections in respect of any qualification in any part of a county not within the limits of a borough, shall be entitled to be registered to vote as a county elector in the parish in which the qualifying property is situate: Provided, that a person having more than one qualification in the same county shall not vote more than once in the election of the same county authority. (2.) "For the said purpose there shall be added to the lists of Parliamentary electors in counties separate lists of persons who are disqualified for being registered as voters in Parliamentary elections only by reason that they are peers or women, and those persons shall be entitled to be registered as county electors under this Act. The principle of the Amendment, which substituted the Parliamentary for the municipal franchise, had been supported by various Committees of Quarter Sessions and Chambers of Agriculture throughout the country. Perhaps he might be permitted to trouble the House with a short quotation, which gave in more concise and forcible language than he could use the opinions of a noble Lord in favour of a single register—Lord Thring, who was a high authority on local government reform as well as a strong supporter of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). That noble Lord, in The Nineteenth Century for the present month, said— The Parliamentary franchise is universal; the other, the municipal, is confined to the boroughs. Select the first, and you will have one revision, one register—practically, one system of law. Take the second, and you have a country overlaid with two systems, and not the less difficult to carry into execution that, as regards the lowest qualification, the one is only distinguishable from the other by an almost microscopic examination. That put in a very few words the disadvantages of the course that the Government proposed to take in reference to the Bill. They proposed to create, for the first time in country districts, a new register, different altogether from the register which already existed for Parliamentary purposes in those districts. He would first point out to the Committee that the case of the country districts differed widely from that of the great towns, and his Amendment did not affect the franchise in municipal boroughs at all. There were good reasons why the municipal boroughs should be treated differently from country districts. The franchise possessed by the boroughs had existed for more than 50 years, while in the country districts they were creating a new municipal franchise for the first time. In regard to the Metropolis, the House had decided the other night that a new municipal franchise should be created within the Metropolis. That decision ought not to prejudice the present Amendment. There might be reasons why the Metropolis should be treated as if it were not part of a country district, but a municipal borough. It was the largest town in the Kingdom, and the Government might fairly treat the Metropolis on the same footing as municipal boroughs, while they treated the country districts very differently. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) had somewhat misled hon. Members on that side of the House, at all events, as to the nature of the new register which would exist in the country districts when this Bill was passed. He had given a description of the ingenious manner in which the double register was made up for municipal boroughs under the Act of 1878. He had pointed out that the list was made up in three divisions, the first of which included those who were entitled to vote for Parliamentary and municipal purposes, while the other two divisions included those who had a vote for one of those purposes. He (Mr. Hobhouse) wished to point out that under this Bill a double register, made up, no doubt, on this ingenious system, was proposed to be extended to the country districts. This system did not snake one register out of two; but was calculated to save cost in printing and in mechanical matters rather than to save trouble to the overseers, who had to snake out the lists. Hon. Members had only to study the precepts contained in the Schedules to the Registration Act of 1885, in order to see that the task of the overseers in making up the register was not an inviting one for any person. Each of these precepts covered a space of no less than 30 pages of the large edition of the Statutes; and the person, whether he was a trained lawyer or a layman, who had to make out one of these precepts, was certainly not a person to be envied. In the next place, he (Mr. Hobhouse) desired to point out, in regard to the divisions, that the first division was simple enough, because it included every person who had a vote for Parliamentary elections, and also for municipal purposes. But the second division included a class of voters who might not be very numerous, but whose qualifications it was extremely difficult to detect and to classify without very considerable trouble. In the second division, which contained Parliamentary voters only, there were such classes as £10 lodgers, service voters, occupiers of £10 houses who did not pay borough rates, and certain householders who sublet for short periods. Then there was a third division, containing the names of Peers, women, persons who were occupiers of buildings that were not dwelling houses, and other persons who had no right to vote for Parliamentary purposes. He mentioned these facts, to show how difficult it was to make up the double lists, even under the present system of divisions, and he would suggest that it would be infinitely more simple to have a single register for both election purposes, with the addition of Peers and women ratepayers as was suggested in the Amendment. It would be a far more simple matter to add Peers and women to the roll for Parliamentary elections than to make up double registers as was at present done in municipal boroughs. The change would also give great popular satisfaction. It was certainly impossible to bring home to the mind of the ordinary voter why he should have a vote for a Member of Parliament, and be denied a vote for the members of the new County Council. There was another great argument in favour of a single register. As the Bill now stood, they were practically disfranchising those who had been enfranchised for Parliamentary purposes. The Parliamentary franchise at present excluded Peers and women, who were qualified to vote at municipal elections. No Member of the House objected to these persons being admitted to the franchise under the present Bill. On the other hand, many persons were included in the Parliamentary franchise who were excluded from the municipal franchise—such as lodgers, owners who were not in occupation of dwelling houses, and service tenants. None of these persons, however, were so numerous that hon. Members need be afraid that any of them would swamp the rest of the constituency. Take the case of the lodgers. As a rule, they constituted a superior class of voters, and he could not see why they should be denied a vote for a member of the County Council when they had a right to vote for a Member of Parliament. Take, also, the service tenant. He had been considered specially worthy of enfranchisement by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) three years ago, and the admission of that class created a new distinction between the Parliamentary and municipal franchise. He thought the Government would be well advised if they would include the service tenants. Then came another class—the freeholders. He maintained that that class had a very strong claim to be enrolled upon the list of electors—certainly a much stronger claim than they had to vote for Members of Parliament. It was confessed by financial authorities on both sides of the House that the owners of land were large ratepayers. He had referred the other night to the able Memorandum of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that subject, and there were also high authorities to the same effect on that—the Opposition—side of the House. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) told them the other day that in the rural districts land ultimately bore the weight of the rates, and he also showed by elaborate calculation that all over the country the owners of property bore more than one-half of the rates. It was an undoubted fact that in the present condition of the agricultural districts the rates very soon, if not immediately, found their way on to the shoulders of the owners of property. Surely that was a convincing proof that the owners of land were vitally interested in the question of local taxation. He wished to put this question to Her Majesty's Government. Was not an owner of a large estate, who resided more than seven miles from the county in which he owned property, quite as much interested in the wealth of that county as the occupier of a very small holding, on which the landlord paid the rates, but who happened to reside within the county? He would take the two cases—that of a landlord who owned property and paid the rates, but who did not reside in the county, and the other of a tenant who occupied a holding and did not pay the rates, but did reside in the county. In the one case the Government disfranchised the owner of the property who had by far the largest interest in it, while they enfranchised the man who had a comparatively insignificant interest in it. The disfranchisement also involved disqualification because none of the men to whom the privilege of a vote was denied had any right to sit on the County Councils, either as elected or selected Councillors. That was a very serious matter. That disqualification as regarded the owner was an entirely new thing. At present he had a right to vote for and sit on Boards of Guardians, Local Boards, and Boards of Improvement Commissioners; and he was only disfranchised in municipal boroughs, where the incidence of rate-paying was very different. If the owners of property were entitled to vote at the election of Members of Parliament for the country districts, surely they ought to have a voice in voting for those who were to conduct the local administration, and a right also to become local administrators themselves upon questions in which they bad so much interest. No one who had listened to the debate on the question of the Poor Law on Thursday night could doubt that within a few years the new Authority would exercise Poor Law powers; and surely they would not deny to the owner as such the right to have a voice in the administration of those Poor Law burdens which had always been regarded as hereditary burdens on the land. He trusted the Committee would allow him to refer to one or two objections which might be raised to his hon. Friend's (Mr. Rathbone's) proposal. In the first place, the Government might say that this was a small matter; that very few persons would be qualified under the Parliamentary franchise, as proposed, who would not be qualified under the present Bill. He granted that, but it did not affect the principle in the least. No doubt, there were very few women who would be qualified to vote under the Bill; but that was not a reason why they should deny them the right of voting, or declare that their names should not ap- pear upon the register. Then, again, there was a certain class of persons who had, to his mind, a strong claim to the right now proposed to be denied them. He knew a gentleman who, at that moment, was compelled to serve the office of High Sheriff of a county, on the ground of holding large property in the county; but, nevertheless, he did not reside in the county, and would, therefore, not be allowed to vote for members of the County Council, or sit upon it, notwithstanding he was considered fully competent to serve a responsible and most burdensome office. Then, again, there were hon. Members in that House who took an active part in local business who would not be qualified under the Bill to sit on the County Council of their county. He maintained that it was most undesirable to exclude Members of that House from taking an active part in the administration of local affairs. The Bill affected not only large owners, but small owners who did not happen to live in the county. It affected a large class of elder sons, who were at present magistrates, and many others who, if it passed in its present shape, would have no status either to vote or to sit as County Councillors. He warned the Government that, unless they made a concession in the matter, six mouths hence there would be a considerable outcry; because in many counties it would be found that very useful and active men, who ought to be candidates for seats on the County and District Councils, were prevented by the Bill from standing for election, and serving the public interests. It was said that these could easily manufacture a qualification by occupying some portion of their property; but he maintained that that suggestion was preposterous, and only worthy of the time of rotten boroughs and faggot votes. Even if an owner of property Were to sleep for a few nights upon some portion of his property, it would not meet the case, because it was impossible under the Bill to get a qualification to sit on the County Council the first period of three years, unless the person seeking the qualification had been in occupation for 12 months preceding a certain date in June next. It must be remembered that the first session of the County Councils would be the most important session in their history, seeing that they would have to lay down broad lines of administration, and determine what their future should be—whether for good or for evil. It was most important, therefore, that good men should not be disqualified for taking part in the first election of the County Councils. Another important point was whether or not the Parliamentary franchise was inconsistent with the doctrine of "One man one vote." He would put it to his hon. Friends who believed in that doctrine, that it either meant that no man should vote more than once for the same representative Body—[Cries of "Hear, hear!"] He was glad to receive the assent of his hon. Friends. It that was the real meaning of the doctrine, it was certainly embodied in the Amendment. It was, however, quite possible that some hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House might desire a further and more sweeping provision, and might say that no man ought to vote for more than one County Council. If that was not accepted as the meaning in any part of the House, it was not necessary to argue the point. [cries of "Hear, hear!"] Then he looked upon that argument as being entirely disposed of, and he would put it to the House that the true test of qualification was this—that every man possessing a substantial interest of any kind, whether as occupier or lodger, service tenant or freeholder, within a county or district, should have a full qualification both to vote and sit on the local Councils under the provisions of the Bill. For all those reasons, because of the inconvenience and utter want of necessity for setting up a new register, because it was unjust to disfranchise and disqualify the classes he had referred to; and, lastly, because it was extremely unwise to limit the field from which the local constituencies should choose their administrators in future, he urged the Government to give their best consideration to the Amendment which he now begged to move.

Amendment proposed, In page 19, to leave out the words from "the burgess" to the end of the Clause, and insert— Every person entitled to vote in parliamentary elections in respect of any qualification in any part of a county not within the limits of a borough shall be entitled to be registered to vote as a county elector in the parish in which the qualifying property is situate: Provided that a person having more than one qualification in the same county shall not vote more than once in the election of the same county authority. (2) "For the said purpose there shall be added to the lists of parliamentary electors in counties separate lists of persons who are disqualified for being registered as voters in parliamentary elections only by reason that they are peers or women, and those persons shall be entitled to be registered as county electors under this Act."—(Mr. Hobhouse.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Hobhouse) had done so on two grounds, the principal of which was that if the Amendment were adopted, there would only be one register, and that more than one register would be extremely inconvenient in the country districts. The hon. and learned Gentleman also advocated the acceptance of the Amendment on the ground of the injustice to those who would be excluded if his proposal were not adopted. Upon the question of a single register, the hon. and learned Gentleman implied that he (Mr. Ritchie) had somewhat unintentionally misled the House as to the effect the Bill would have if it were passed in the way it had been proposed. He did not think, however, although he might be a prejudiced person in the matter, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had fairly pointed out in what way he (Mr. Ritchie) had misled the House, when he said that the effect of the provisions of the Bill would be to establish a single register in the country districts in precisely the same way as it was now established in boroughs. The only difference between the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman and the plan of the Government, so far as simplifying the list was concerned, was that there would be two lists according to the former, and three according to the latter. It was quite clear, unless the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed that the Parliamentary franchise and the municipal franchise should be identical, that it would be impossible to have only one list, and he did not propose to give to Peers and women the power of voting for Parliamentary purposes. Therefore, in any case, the only difference between the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman and that of the Government was that there should be two lists according to the hon. and learned Member's proposal, instead of three lists now. He could only repeat what he had said on a former occasion, that if the Bill passed as it now stood, the register which was now prepared in all the boroughs would be the same register, neither more nor less, as would be prepared for all the country districts. One curious part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal, and he (Mr. Ritchie) did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman justified it, was that it would leave the borough register exactly as it was now, and would create in country districts a totally different register for the same purposes as that which was now in existence in boroughs. The hon. and learned Gentleman justified that by saying that the borough franchise had been in existence for 50 years. He (Mr. Ritchie) did not understand by what process of reasoning the hon. and learned Gentleman arrived at that conclusion. He (Mr. Ritchie) should certainly arrive at a totally different conclusion from the facts the hon. and learned Member had adduced. If it were the case that the borough franchise had existed in the boroughs for 50 years, and had been successful in operation for that period, surely it would be to cast an unnecessary slur upon that franchise which had existed so long, if they were not to take advantage of it when they were extending municipal franchise to the whole country. The proposition was that the municipal duties, which had been so long and so well performed by Municipal Councils throughout the length and breadth of the land, should be extended to the whole country. They said that to do that it was necessary to extend the qualifications. The municipal franchise was a ratepaying occupation franchise, and that was the franchise which the Government proposed to extend to the counties. So far as the register was concerned, he thought he had shown that if the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman was adopted, it was not likely to simplify the register; whereas if the register, as proposed by the Government, were adopted, the fact that it would not be a complicated or expensive register was amply shown by what the hen, and learned Gentleman had himself said. He would point out what the state of things would be if the proposal of the hon. and learned Member were adopted. There would be a different franchise within the borough from that which existed outside the borough—that was to say, that if an elector lived outside a borough, and happened to be a service voter, or a lodger, or an owner, and not an occupier, he was outside the limits of the borough, and would have a vote, for the County Council; whereas those persons who lived inside the borough, and were under the same conditions, would not have a vote in the election of County Councils. He (Mr. Ritchie) confessed that he did not know how it was possible to justify the retention of two franchises for the same purpose. Then, again, there would be this further anomaly—that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman would establish two franchises for elections to the County Councils, which could not in any way simplify matters. In one district, there would be a totally different franchise from that which would exist in another district. Then the hon. and learned Member said, why not give the franchise for lodgers in the country districts, and he gave this curious argument in favour of making a difference between an inside borough and an outside borough. He said that in places outside the boroughs,. lodgers were not numerous. What did that mean? Inside the boroughs they were numerous, and there the hon. and learned Member did not propose to enfranchise them; outside they were not numerous, and he would give them a vote.

MR. HOBHOUSE

said, he was sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman; but as a matter of fact, he had never discussed the question of enfranchising lodgers inside boroughs.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the hon. and learned Member had certainly used that argument indirectly by saying that lodgers were not numerous in the country districts, while they were numerous in the boroughs. In the one case, he was not going to enfranchise them for municipal purposes, although they were numerous, and outside the boroughs, where they were not numerous, he proposed to enfranchise them. What he would say in reference to the point and others, was that it might be all right and proper to consider the whole question of the municipal franchise, in order to see whether it ought to be amended so as to include some of those who were not now included in it; but he maintained that that question ought to be dealt with as a whole, and that what was done in the country districts should also be done at the same time in the boroughs. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed also to give the owner in the country districts a vote. He (Mr. Ritchie) was not prepared to argue that there was not much force in what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said as to the share in the rates borne by owners; but he would point out that the number of unoccupying owners in the counties was exceedingly small, and, therefore, unoccupying far as the unoccupying owners were concerned they were in the same position as the lodgers, and it was a very small matter. [Cries of "No!"] He ventured to say that the number who would get the franchise, and who did not possess it at present, would, in the counties, be very small indeed. In the boroughs, however, there was a large number, and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to exclude them. By the distinct words in the Amendment they were excluded in the boroughs. Why was that? Because he knew very well if he proposed to give the municipal franchise to owners in boroughs, the boroughs would at once raise a great outcry against the proposal. If no other argument could be adduced in support of the proposal, it was certainly not desirable to extend the provisions of the Bill simply for the very small advantage which owners outside the boroughs would obtain, while it was withheld from owners inside the boroughs. It might be a very proper thing to consider hereafter; but he was perfectly certain that if they entertained that great question now, it would endanger the success of the Bill. He knew that his hon. and learned Friend who had moved the Amendment, and his hon. Friend the Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvon (Mr. Rathbone), who originally put it down on the Paper, had been for a great number of years staunch supporters of the principle of the division of rates between the owner and the occupier. On that side of the House, no doubt, there were many hon. Members who were not prepared to ac- cept that principle. There was not much force in the argument used as to the division of rates, and he did not think that if due consideration were given to the question of the representation of owners, there were few Members on that side of the House who would not be prepared to accept the doctrine of the division of rates. What was said was that if the owners were to be made liable for the payment of half the rates, they should have au adequate share of direct representation on the County Councils. This giving of a vote to owners would undoubtedly raise the whole question of the insufficiency of the representation of owners, notwithstanding that they were saddled with the liability of paying one-half of the rates. It would undoubtedly create and raise the point whether, if the owners were represented, it would not be a strong argument for dividing the rates equally between the owners and occupiers. One of the arguments used by the hon. and learned Gentleman was worthy of the attention and consideration of the Committee. The hon. and learned Member said that the owners, if they were not also occupiers, would not be capable of being elected to the County Council under the provisions of the present Bill. He (Mr. Ritchie) acknowledged that that was so, and he was quite prepared to say that he thought it was a point which ought to be remedied, but the Government could not, consistently with the lines of the present Bill, accept a franchise other than the franchise they had laid down—namely, a municipal franchise. He did think, however, that there was a strong argument in favour of saying that owners of property in counties, whether ratepayers or not, should be qualified to be elected to the County Council of the county in which they held property. That, however, was a matter which did not arise on this Bill, but would arise on the larger Bill, and the Government would be glad to give a most favourable consideration to any proposal to that effect, which might be suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman when they came to discuss the larger measure. He thought he had now disposed of all the points which had been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he would repeat that the proposals contained in the Bill were proposals to extend municipal rights and privileges throughout counties, and that they took the municipal franchise as they found it. That franchise had been in existence for a great many years. It had been wisely exercised, and the Government could not ask the House to depart from the principle they had laid down.

SIR RICHARD PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

said, he thought there was one point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Hobhouse), which had not been answered by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. One of the arguments raised by the hon. and learned Member had reference to the incidence of the service franchise, and he (Sir Richard Paget) wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if, when this Bill was extended to Scotland, or when it was applied to England, where the service franchise was operative to a large extent, those who now voted under the service franchise, such as agricultural labourers, would be disqualified under the municipal franchise. He thought they might look forward to the time when the provisions of the Bill would be extended to Scotland, and what he wanted to know was whether, in that case, those who voted under the service franchise would enjoy none of the privileges of the electors under the Bill. That was an important point, and he should be glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say in regard to the matter. Reference had been made to the question of divided rates, and it was admitted on all sides that it would be impossible to divide the rates between the owner and the occupier without giving the owner proper representation. The question of divided rates, however, was not at that moment properly before the House, and when it came up for consideration would be the proper time for saying whether the franchise ought to remain in its present condition. His point was, that when the question of divided rates came up for consideration, then would be the moment to say whether the franchise was such as it ought to be, and whether the owners ought not to be fully represented. If they were going to divide the rates, it might be fairly contended that the owners should be adequately represented on the Council. The point raised by the Amendment had reference more particularly to the adoption of a single register, and he was strongly of opinion that something in the nature of the Amendment should be adopted. Certainly, the matter was one which required a little more consideration than had been given to it.

MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvon, Arfon)

said, he did not think it of much use to prolong the present discussion, because it was clear that it would arise in a better form afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had rightly stated that one great reason why he (Mr. Rathbone) was anxious to raise the question now was that, to his mind, it was of great importance that there should be a division of rates between the owners and occupiers, and that taxation and representation ought to go together. He thought a great many of those who did not take much share in local administration themselves were not aware of the danger which might arise from the withdrawal of the owners of property from taking their fair share in Local County Government. It was not, however, in the County Councils that the danger would arise, but in the local Councils they were now multiplying. As the Bill now stood, with two bodies dividing the work now done by one, and owners not directly taxed or represented, he believed that in the District Councils it would be found extremely difficult to get them to look after the interests of the locality until they found debts and difficulties tied round their necks for generations. He should certainly raise this question again when they came to the other Bill, and he hoped that those who valued good administration, and thought it ought not to be in the hands of a single class, but of all classes of the community, would agree with him as to the necessity of bringing the experience and qualifications of all to bear upon the question of Local Government. It was only in that way that they could get any approach to efficient and economical Local Government, and he repeated that the present industrial position of Great Britain was what made the question of rating, taxation, and debt a very serious one in the country. He thought his hon. and learned Friend would do well not to press the Amendment at the present moment, but to reserve it until the larger Bill was reached.

MR. GURDON (Norfolk, Mid)

said, he was sorry that the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvon recommended the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) to withdraw the Amendment. It related to a question which had been much discussed in the country, and he could assure the hon. Member that there had not been a dissentient voice raised against it. In his opinion, it would be of great advantage only to have two registers instead of three, and he trusted the Government would reconsider the matter, and that, while doing so, they would remember the class of men to whom it was proposed to hand over the County Government.

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, H.R., Holderness)

said, he did not think the argument of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, that because the municipal franchise had worked advantageously in the boroughs for 50 years, it would, therefore, be a good franchise for the counties, was altogether a sound argument. He was inclined to think that, whether property was rightly or wrongly shut out from the exercise of a vote in the boroughs, at any rate it was much more important that it should be enjoyed by property in the counties. He was strongly disposed to think that property ought to have full representation upon and a large voice in the construction of the various County Councils. He said this not in favour of property as such, but rather in favour of the rates that were to be paid by property. He could not understand how hon. Members could resist a proposal to give a vote to men who now paid the rates, whom they hoped to compel to pay the rates, and on whom all the rates would ultimately fall. In spite of the difficulties which might be experienced in recasting the Bill so as to give property a vote, he maintained that those who were in favour of that principle ought upon the present occasion to vote against property being excluded altogether by the Bill from a voice in the new county government. He trusted that the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Hobhouse) would take a Division in order, at this early stage in their proceedings, to decide definitely whe- ther it was proper or not to extend the municipal franchise over the whole country. If the hon. and learned Member pressed the Amendment to a Division, he would certainly vote with him.

MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT (Roxburgh)

said, he wished to record his voice in favour of the acceptance of this proposal by the Government. He had not gathered from the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) any adequate reason why the Amendment should not be pressed to a Division. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board declared that, as a matter of convenience, it was desirable to retain the register which already existed in municipal boroughs; but he had always been given to understand that it was most desirable to have one register for all purposes, both Imperial and local, Parliamentary and municipal. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, before going further, to reconsider the decision he had arrived at, with a view of establishing one register without following the principle of a household franchise in boroughs, which practically excluded many thousands of persons from the enjoyment of the vote. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, in the remarks he made, had certainly grappled with the reasons given by his hon. and learned Friend for making this proposal. It was highly improper to exclude from any voice in the management of county affairs those who contributed very largely to the rates. If there was anything to be said against the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend, it ought to be fully stated and properly discussed. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the question of giving the franchise to owners did not arise under the present Bill.

MR. RITCHIE

No; I did not say that. What I said was that the question of the owners being qualified to sit on the County Councils was one which did not arise under this Bill, but under the other.

MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT

said, he was sorry if he had confused the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. He would only add that those who resisted the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend were disqualifying those who very largely con- tributed to the rates from taking part in the future municipal government of the country and the administration of the local funds. He should have no hesitation in supporting his hon. and learned Friend if he took the Bill into the Lobby.

MR. AMBROSE (Middlesex, Harrow)

said, he should support the Amendment to the extent that it gave the owners of property a vote in connection with the management of the county affairs. The hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone), however, placed the Committee in this difficulty. He had associated the owner franchise with the lodger and service franchise, and many hon. Members on that side of the House—certainly he, for one—were of opinion that such franchises could scarcely be recognized in purely county questions. Surely lodgers and service tenants were not entitled to have a voice in the management of roads and county property. Therefore, he could not vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, although he was anxious to accept an owner franchise.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, he had taken part in Local Board elections as a resident owner, but under this Bill that privilege would be taken away, and he could never vote except as a resident. At present, in the election of Boards of Guardians, the owners' suffrage existed. If the Bill passed, however, the character of Local Board elections would be entirely changed. They would be conducted under the provisions of the Bill, and those who now voted as owners would no longer vote as such. In other words, in every Local Board district owners would be actually disqualified from voting. As an owner he had enjoyed the privilege of taking part in various Local Board elections; but hereafter he would have no voice in the management of local affairs, except he happened to be a resident. He hoped he had made the position sufficiently clear to the Committee. They were now, as the Bill stood, taking away a right and a privilege which had been confirmed as recently as 1875 by the Public Health Act. He quite agreed that at this particular moment it would not be convenient to continue the discussion; but he trusted that, though it might not be discussed now, the question would be revived hereafter. Speaking for himself alone, he was not absolutely sure that the Municipal Corporations, and those who took part in municipal elections, would be unwilling to add an owner suffrage to the other suffrages now in existence in the boroughs. In his opinion, a certain amount of owner suffrage would give solidity and character to municipal elections, and he thought the experiment was worth trying by a Conservative Government. He did not think that any loss would be incurred by it, and he was sure that such a proposal would be regarded by Members of the House with great satisfaction, and would be cordially welcomed by those who were in the habit of supporting the Government. In regard to the other point, which had been alluded to by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, he hoped provisions would be made in the other Bill for establishing an ownership qualification for a seat on the new County Councils. He believed that such a provision would give very great satisfaction to the electors, and he was also of opinion that the new institution about to be created by the Bill would thereby be materially strengthened.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would reconsider the provisions of the Bill, because, if they were passed in their present shape, as he understood them, an owner of property might be rated at any sum; but unless he actually lived on the property he would be disfranchised, and have no voice in the elections in that part of the county where his property was situated. It was absurd that the possessor of a highly rated property for woods, fishing, and shooting should be deprived of a voice in the government of a county in which it was situated merely because he lived elsewhere. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would correct that statement if it was inaccurate.

MR. T. ROBINSON (Gloucester)

said, he understood the Government proposed to adopt the same franchise for the election of county councillors as now existed in the municipal boroughs, which he thought was right; but the Amendment before the House proposed, among other things, that freeholders should be added to the burgess list, but to this he objected, and he thought this suggestion would not give satisfaction to those who lived in towns. He had taken an active part in the borough management, and he knew that the existing borough qualification gave satisfaction. When the revising barrister came round to revise the Parliamentary list of voters, he also revised the municipal list, and all those who occupied land, or buildings to the value of £10, or were householders within the borough, were put on the list with a double qualification, both Parliamentary and municipal. Then at the end of the list came those who were rated under £10 and the women who were entitled to vote as occupiers were added. He had found that system to work exceedingly well; but by the Amendment, as it stood, every owner would have a vote whether he was a resident or not. He opposed that provision, also any system of plural voting; and if a Division was taken, he should support the Government.

VISCOUNT LYMINGTON (Devon, South Molton)

said, he was afraid that it was impossible for him to support the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for East Somerset. In the first place, although this was not an argument he would press upon the Committee, there would hardly be an excuse for the Government, after having introduced a measure in a certain popular direction, that they should be willing to make provision in it for the special representation of owners of property. As a matter of fact and experience, he did not believe that the number of owners who would be disqualified owing to their having no residence would be sufficient to justify the introduction of such an Amendment. He gathered from what fell from the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Ambrose) that he and others would be prepared to vote for the Amendment as far as it conferred a vote upon the owners of property; but, on the other hand, that he and others were not prepared to support, or would unwillingly support, the Amendment as it stood, because it involved the introduction of the service and lodger franchise. He thought that the Committee, before they accepted the Amendment, ought to weigh carefully all that it involved. It involved the creation of gross anomalies. If it were agreed to, municipal boroughs and rural districts would be placed under totally different systems of franchise. With all deference to hon. Members who had spoken in the debate with great authority and experience, he should like to ask them whether they supposed that the borough's of England would approve of any proposal which would have the effect of conferring upon the ground landlords in towns who paid no rates a direct vote on municipal matters. Having been a Representative of a borough for some time, he could entirely endorse from his own experience what fell from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. T. Robinson)—that such a provision would be strenuously opposed by the towns. Another reason why he (Viscount Lymington) objected to the proposal was that it would introduce the lodger and service franchise. There were many lodgers in the towns, but very few lodgers in the rural districts, and while the lodgers in the counties would be enfranchised those in the towns would still remain disqualified. Did hon. Members who supported the Amendment on Conservative grounds, and with the knowledge that the Metropolis would in any case be excluded from its operation, wish to swamp the ratepayers' vote in the boroughs with a low-class lodger franchise? So far as the service franchise was concerned, it might be a very proper franchise for the election of Members of Parliament, but he did not think that one's butler or gardener ought to have the right to vote upon rural questions. He would, therefore, support the Government in their resistance to the Amendment, but he hoped it would not be pressed.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

said, he did not know whether the discussion was purely academic or whether it was to result in a Division. He had only risen for the purpose of saying that if the Amendment went to a Division he should vote with the Government, because he looked upon the proposal as distinctly retrogressive.

MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg)

said, that if the Amendment went to a Division, as he hoped it would, he would support it on this ground—that the anomalies it was intended to remove were anomalies which might be dealt with in different stages of the progress of the Bill. The Government and the country were embarking under the Bill in an entirely new system of Local Government administration. They were sure to have anomalies arising in any attempt to introduce an entirely new condition of things, and as they arose an attempt must be made to deal with them, and, undoubtedly, it would be necessary to sweep others away on a future occasion. They were now striving to assimilate and bring into an intelligible and homogeneous form the local administration of the Imperial administration of the country, and he should certainly support the Amendment, as it was a step in the direction in which they wanted to go. He could not sympathize with the argument of the noble Lord the Member for the South Molton Division of Devon (Viscount Lymington that one's butler or gardener was perfectly fit to vote upon matters affecting Imperial policy, but was not fit to vote upon the question of a county loan or a county rate. He (Mr. Waddy) should have thought that, so far as the question of interest was concerned, it would be all the other way. In small matters there could be no harm in letting the butler have his vote, but in matters of Imperial policy and legislation it was desirable that more provision, information, and a deeper sense of responsibility should be brought to bear. Sooner or later it would become necessary to assimilate the two existing franchises, and in so doing he trusted that they would greatly improve them wherever they needed improvement, and that they would get rid of that monstrous absurdity, the plurality of votes. He entirely approved of the principle which they were about to inaugurate in the new legislation—namely, that they were going to assimilate the government of the country in Imperial matters in Parliament with the government of the country in local matters elsewhere. He was prepared to support and carry out that principle wherever it might lead him, and, therefore, he should vote for the Amendment moved by his hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. RITCHIE

said, he hoped that hon. Members were quite alive to the results which were likely to ensue—according to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Brigg Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Waddy)—if the Amendment were passed. What they had to do was one of two things—either of accepting the proposal to create great anomalies which could not possibly be defended, or to introduce a series of changes which would practically amount to municipal reform. It was extremely undesirable, that in a measure of this kind, they should do either the one or the other. It had already been pointed out that the anomalies would be extremely great, and that in endeavouring to remedy an evil in one part of the district they would be creating a far larger grievance in the municipal boroughs. There was another point he mentioned to which no hon. Gentleman had alluded, and that was that at two different parts of a country district there would exist different franchises relating to the same county government. That was an anomaly which could not possibly be defended, and if it were extended to the boroughs they would be practically introducing municipal reform. His hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) said, that the extension of the ownership vote to boroughs would be acceptable. All he could say was that he believed any proposal of that kind to extend the ownership vote to boroughs would be refused by the municipalities. He recollected that when Sir Charles Dilke was proposing a Bill of this kind in a speech which he made at Halifax, he said that, although there was a desire that the rates should be divided between the owner and occupier, he greatly feared that even with such a boon as that the boroughs would not consent to have the ownership vote extended to their municipal life. The hon. and learned Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) asked what it was proposed to do with the service vote in Scotland. All that he could say was that the Government did not propose in the present Bill to disqualify or disfranchise any person. They did not confer a new franchise upon anybody, nor did they disqualify or disfranchise anybody. As to Scotland their aim and belief was that no occupier of a cottage should be disqualified from having a vote. Of course, the gardener and the butler and so on would be disqualified, but if he was disqualified for the enjoyment of the county franchise, surely it would be necessary to disqualify him for the enjoyment of the borough franchise also; and the Government certainly did not contemplate the introduction of a measure which would entail such consequences. They had taken the municipal franchise as the basis upon which the Bill should proceed. That was the franchise upon which municipal privileges were based at present, and the Government felt it was the only safe ground they could stand upon. If they were to depart from it they would find themselves embarked on all manner of disputable points, and it would be seen from the discussion which had already taken place that whilst some other hon. Members were prepared to vote for the Amendment, because it would do certain things, others were prepared to vote for it because it would not do other things. He asked the Government, therefore, to assent to the proposals contained in the Bill and not to adopt the Amendment.

MR. HOBHOUSE

said, he was grateful for the concession which the Government had made, which he understood to mean that they would introduce into the second Local Government Bill a prevision to give to the owners of property, whether registered as county voters or not, a qualification for sitting on the County and District Councils. In consideration of that concession, and impressed as he was with the desirability of not unnecessarily occupying the time of the House, he would not put the House to the trouble of a Division, but would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. AMBROSE ,

referring to the Amendment standing in his name, in page 1, line 19, after "the," leave out to end of Clause, and insert— Qualification of electors for members of Local Boards under The Public Health Act, 1875, and the scale of voting prescribed by section eight, and rules 10, 11, 12, and 13 of schedule 2 to that Act, shall extend to every part of a county not within the limits of a borough, and a person possessing in any part of a county outside the limits of a borough the qualification specified in rules 10, 11, 12, and 13 of schedule 2 to the said Act, shall be entitled to be registered under this Act as a county elector, in the parish in which the qualifying property is situate, in accordance with the scale of voting prescribed by such rules, said, that he did not intend to move the Amendment in that form. His intention had been, if he was successful enough to secure the omission of the original words of the clause, that the Amend- ment should then become a Substantive Motion, and it would be competent for hon. Members to move such Amendments to it as they deemed proper. The Amendment involved two principles—one was that the owners and occupiers of cottage property should have a vote, and the other was the abolition of the plural vote, against which a strong opinion had already been expressed by an hon. Member opposite. He proposed, therefore, to break up the Amendment as originally drawn, and to deal, in the first instance, only with ownership votes. As regarded the ownership vote for Parliamentary purposes, it consisted of a freehold of the value of 40s. per annum, or a freehold of £5, or a leasehold for a specified number of years of a certain value. These qualifications practically minimized the property rights and reduced them to next to nothing, and it was well known that in dealing with questions of that kind many difficulties would be placed in the way of persons claiming the right to vote upon a property qualification. According to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, these owners were to have no sort of voice in the election of Councils, by whom they might be subjected to the heavy penalties under the Local Government Bill. His right hon. Friend said the question was only a small one. He (Mr. Ambrose) admitted that in respect of the election of Parliamentary Representatives it was a small matter; but he denied that it was small if they dealt with property owners in the sense in which they were to be used by the Local Government Bill. He would ask his right hon. Friend, who told them that this Bill was to be on a popular basis, how he established his proposition? In what respect was it on a popular basis if he began by narrowing the electoral basis, and striking out a portion of those who were entitled to vote? His right hon. Friend said there were not many persons who would be affected. But he (Mr. Ambrose) had considered how the Bill would act with regard to one parish out of six in his Division—namely, Willesden, and in that parish alone there were no less than 640 registered owners who were entitled to vote on the election of members of the Local Board, every one of whom would be disfranchised by this Bill. Only a quarter of the number entitled to vote were at pre- sent on the register. They had heard something about coachmen and gardeners being entitled to vote. He did not say that those in service should not have a vote at all. If they were ratepayers, or if they occupied houses, they would have their vote; but that was quite another matter. His point was that the service franchise holder who lived in another man's house, and the lodger franchise holder also, might be very proper persons to be on the Parliamentary Election Register; but in this case they would have to do with the expenditure of local funds. In the parish of Willesden, again, there were no less than 1,805 tenants at weekly rents. Not one of those tenants paid rates directly; not one of them was affected by the amount of the rates; all of them might with a light heart vote for any policy, or any councillors who might be in favour of extravagance, and they would not be affected by it. Let the Committee consider how unjust it would be that the 1,805 weekly tenants should have each a vote, although they paid no rates, and that not one of the owners of the property, although they paid the rates, would be entitled to vote in respect of this franchise. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had announced that this was to be a popular measure. He (Mr. Ambrose) wanted it to be so, and he would make it popular by extending its basis, and including a large number of persons who would otherwise be shut out. It was said it would be an anomaly if they gave owners a right to vote, because it would be side by side with the borough franchise. But he would point out that there was a very considerable distinction between the management of boroughs and that of districts which were partly urban and partly rural. The borough was an area with a dense population; you might draw a line around it, and the population would be found to be inclosed within a very small circumference; there was in a borough a community of interest, and what suited one part of the people was likely to suit another part. By means of newspapers everyone knew what was taking place, and public opinion was thus brought to bear upon the Town Council, and there was some security that good measures would be passed. But in a rural, or partly rural and partly urban district, there was nothing like homogeneity; there might be a very large and straggling area, and a large number of people liable for rates from which they derived no benefit, He could refer to a case where in consequence of a sewage scheme the rates of an owner were increased by £20 a-year, although the work, having proceeded a certain distance, was stopped because it was found that at a particular part there were only a few gentlemen's houses who would be served by it. He mentioned that to show that there was not in these districts the same community of interest which existed in boroughs. The borough franchise which was created in 1836 was a considerable extension of the franchise then existing, and it was a popular measure within the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman. But the case now was very different. He only asked by his Amendment the maintenance of what was the status quo; in other words that there should be no disfranchisement, and he thought it only fair to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the second part of his Amendment which dealt only with the ownership vote.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 19, to leave out all the words after the word "England," to the end of the Clause, and insert the words "Every owner and also every ratepayer as defined by Rules 10 and 11 of Schedule 2 to 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' in respect of property situated within any part of a county, and within the limits of a borough, shall be entitled to be registered under this Act to vote as a county elector in the parish in which the qualifying property is situate,"—(Mr. Ambrose,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the word 'The' stand part of the Clause."

MR. RITCHIE

said, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not think him desirous of saying anything die respectful in regard to his views. if he did not follow him in the discussion raised, because he understood that his hon. and learned Friend proposed by his Amendment to do practically that which the Committee had just decided should not be done, that was at least the effect of the withdrawal of the Amendment. His hon. and learned Friend now proposed to give to owners a vote as county electors, and he was going to follow that by proposing another Amendment which would give the owner, if he were an occupier in both capacities, a plural vote. That he (Mr. Ritchie) took to be entirely antagonistic to the principle of the Bill, and he regretted for the reasons already given in reply to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hobhouse) that the Government were unable to accept the proposal.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Lancashire, Darwen)

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) was withdrawn upon his own responsibility, and he pointed out that hon. Members on those Benches sympathized with the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view. He did not think his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had given any real answer at all to this request that the ownership vote should be considered. The right hon. Gentleman had avowed this in his last speech; but it was true that in his former speech he had given what went for an answer, although he did not think it would satisfy hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that the principle of the Bill was the extension of municipal Government to counties, and that, therefore, it was necessary to make no difference in the franchise proposed for the boroughs and that of the counties. But, if they were to appeal to precedent, it would be seen that the House had always looked on boroughs and counties as being in a different position. He thought that something in the nature of principle of ownership election might be extended to the County Councils they were now proposing to establish. He would be glad if it were possible to extend the ownership vote to boroughs, but he recognized that it was impossible to disturb the municipal franchise in boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was not in any way a disfranchising measure, but he submitted that this proposal to give the whole control of the elections to occupiers was to a certain extent a disfranchising of owners. It was provided in the Local Government Bill that many of the powers of various departments were to be handed over to the County Council. The Government were proposing to hand over the control, which owners as well as occupiers now had, to the occupiers alone. Therefore, he said that in principle there was no doubt that his hon. and learned Friend was perfectly right in his contention. As to the particular ownership franchise he wished to establish, he submitted that he was right in proposing to establish the franchise which now existed under the Public Health Act, and which was possessed by owners as well as occupiers. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not intend this to be the final franchise, and that it might in the future be altered.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the noble Lord had misunderstood him. He was arguing that they could not in this Bill propose to amend the Municipal Corporations Act, and he contended that it must form the subject of another measure.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

said, the right hon. Gentleman would see that this did not affect his hon. Friend's argument, because he did not propose to interfere with that Act. The argument, at any rate, might be held that it was possible that in future they might alter the franchise as they pleased. He submitted that unless the owners did not get the vote now they would not get it at all. The service franchise might be established among electors for the County Council; but he ventured to prophesy that if at that moment the owners' franchise were recognized it would never be recognized, and, therefore, it should be secured now. It might be true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that it would not make much difference whether owners were admitted or not; but, supposing it to be true, there was all the more reason why his hon. and learned Friend's proposal should be accepted. Owners of property considered—wrongly, as he believed—that they ran an enormous risk in passing this Bill, and it would therefore be well to concede this little point which would gratify them and make them believe the Government had their interest at heart. He hoped, for these reasons, that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to give his hon. and learned Friend some hope that the proposal would be considered, because, otherwise, he should be obliged to support the Amendment by going into the Lobby with him.

MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government! Board had told them, when he introduced the Local Government Bill, that as "they all entered by one gate," the Government would not propose to have any complicated suffrage in this matter. They proposed in the counties precisely the same suffrage which had worked so well in the boroughs. He (Mr. J. E. Ellis) thought it would be admitted to be desirable that they should take no backward step. What they all desired was to approach simplicity of qualification. He resolutely set his face against the introduction of any complicated franchises, whether the plural vote, the cumulative device, or ownership suffrage; and he should on this occasion support the Government in what he believed to be the vital part of the Bill—namely, the introduction of simple residential household suffrage.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, N.W.)

said, that up to the present time he had never had any doubt that the ownership vote ought to carry with it more weight than it had done. When the last Act was passing through the House he had put down an Amendment to the effect that no one should have a vote who did not pay his own rates. No doubt, the time had gone by when they could go back on the measure passed by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but it was a reasonable proposition to say that taxation and representation should go together. And he ventured to say that it was an omission on the part of his right hon. Friend and the Government that this principle had not been embodied in the present Bill. As his hon. and learned Friend had pointed out, a county was not like a borough, where people were close together and often of one way of thinking. It extended over a very large area, and to get the inhabitants to agree to one course of action might be a matter of extreme difficulty; and, under the circumstances, it was a very little thing to ask that where a man had property he should be allowed to vote for a County Councillor in each division in which that property was situated. It seemed to him that a great injustice would be done to owners of property unless they were more fairly represented than was proposed in the Bill.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said, he was sorry the Government had not treated this Amendment with a little more consideration. They were now establishing a new franchise for counties, and he urged on the Committee to make it as good as it could be made. The Parliamentary franchise was conferred upon the people because they were taxed; but here the question was that of rating property, and owners of rated property ought surely to have the right to vote. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. J. E. Ellis) seemed to consider this a retrograde proposal; it was the first time he had ever heard the extension of the suffrage called a retrograde step. They wanted to make the franchise as large as possible; but this exclusion of owners would make the Bill to a very large extent a disfranchising measure. Hon. Gentlemen who were in favour of this Amendment asked that non-resident freeholders should have a voice in the taxation of their own property. There was nothing retrogressive or contrary to the principles of political economy in the Amendment.

MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport)

said, he thought the Government were not quite aware of the strong feeling which existed on this subject, much stronger than would be shown by the division. There was a large number of Members on those Benches who, while they felt strongly on the point, were yet very unwilling to press the Government if they could help it, knowing that almost any provision in the Bill would be better than that they should be turned out of Office and the maintenance of the Union endangered. He thought that those who were in favour of the Amendment were entitled to something more in the way of reply than they had received from the Government Bench. As the matter now stood owners were to have no vote at all, while their money was to be voted away by those who had no property. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to give a little more consideration to this matter. As he (Mr. Gedge) had said, they felt very strongly that ownership should carry with it the right of voting, and if they found that principle recognized by the Government, they should regard the Bill with a very different feeling from that with which they regarded it at present.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I understand the sympathy shown by hon. Gentlemen with the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Harrow Division of Middlesex (Mr. Ambrose), but I trust they will feel that Her Majesty's Government were only doing their duty by adhering to the principle laid down in the Bill. We are fully conscious of the importance of securing the representation of property; but we believe that representation will be secured by the legislation now proposed, although, at the same time, we feel that it would be impossible to introduce plural voting. We have taken the borough franchise as a model for the counties, and we have made no alteration in the existing system to show that, in our opinion, no danger is to be apprehended. Those who possess property will retain the influence which I believe they very worthily exercise among their neighbours and friends, and I have no fear whatever that property will be unfavourably affected or taxed unduly and improperly by the exercise of the franchise which will be conferred upon a large number of persons. While we respect the motives of hon. Gentlemen who support the Amendment, and while we are ready to go as far as we possibly can to meet their wishes, we are bound, however, under all the circumstances, to abide by the principle of the Bill.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, that the danger of an attack upon property was not what was apprehended; but it was feared that there would be among the councillors selected under the proposed franchise without any direct property representation, an imperfect sense of the necessity for economy in administration.

MR. AMBROSE

said, he wished it to be perfectly understood that his Amendment did not include plural voting; it tended only to give to owners of property a voice in questions of rating. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had stated that while the expense of management in rural districts had only increased during 30 years to the extent of 12 or 13 per cent, the rates in London had increased by 69 per cent, and in other Municipal Corporations by 59 per cent; and whatever might be said with regard to the economical administration in boroughs, it could not be denied that, on the whole, there had been a very large outlay. He had hoped for a more favourable reception from Her Majesty's Government, and he felt bound, under the circumstances, to press the Amendment to a Division. He assured his right hon. Friend that he should do so with great reluctance and pain; but he felt it was an absolute duty upon him, and every Member of the Conservative Party, to protest against the exclusion of owners of property. They were on the point of handing over the levying of taxes to people who did not pay those taxes. That, he said, could not be good for the country; and he was convinced that if the Bill was passed in its present form, bad results would follow in respect of expenditure and management. The country would find out that the Bill was absolutely inadequate for the protection of property, and mischievous, not only to the Conservative Party, but to the country at large.

SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

said, he wished to make two observations on what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for the Harrow Division of Middlesex (Mr. Ambrose). First of all, he wished to state that he was glad to hear the hon. and learned Member was going to divide the Committee, because the Division would be of extreme importance both with regard to the Amendment itself and the future; secondly, he was glad to hear that, in order to put the matter in a clear shape, the hon. and learned Member was going to withdraw that part of it which related to plural voting. The Division was, therefore, going to take place on the question whether property owners should be separately represented or have a residential franchise. He was glad to hear the words of true wisdom which had been spoken from the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) had stated that property owners might consider themselves to be sufficiently and properly represented by residential franchise. That was the issue upon which they were about to vote, and it was a principle of which the last had not been heard, but which would be appealed to with effect on other and future occasions.

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)

said, he thought the Government were quite right in adhering to the principle of the Bill; but, at the same time, he thought his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Ambrose) was also right in standing by his principle, and he (Commander Bethell) was very glad to hear that he would divide the Committee on his Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 259; Noes 52: Majority 207.—(Div. List, No. 94.)

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, he rose to move the Amendment standing in his name, which provided that those entitled to be registered under this Act should be ratepayers. The Bill, in declaring the qualification of voters, adopted the qualification enacted by the 9th section of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882; and nothing could be better than the clause which governed the qualification in that case. The condition was that the elector should be rated in respect of poor rates made in the last 12 months. He had no objection whatever to that qualification; the payment of rates was therein made a condition precedent to the administration of rates. But that Act was governed by another Act of Parliament, which provided that the Vestry of any parish might from time to time order that the owner, instead of the occupier, of rateable hereditaments under £8, should be rated to the poor. The effect of that was that every occupier of a house at a rent under £8 would not pay directly one farthing towards the rates; the whole of the rates would be paid by the owner, and not by the occupier of property, and yet the occupier would have a direct voice in the administration of the rates. Now, what became of the principle about which they had heard so much from the Front Bench, and from the right hon. Gentleman, particularly, who brought in the Local Government Bill, as to taxation and representation going together, if those who did not pay one farthing towards the rates were to have an equal voice in their administration with those who directly paid them. It had been suggested during the debate that it would be a good thing for the rates to be divided between owners and occupiers. But the right hon. Gentle- man the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) himself had said that it would be impossible to divide the rates between owner and occupier, unless at the same time the representation was equally divided. But this was not a question of dividing the rates between ratepayers and owners; it was a question of the whole of the rates being paid by the owner. [An hon. MEMBER: And occupier.] No! under the compounding Acts the occupier would not pay anything at all. The result of this would be that in some places one-half of the electors, and in others two-thirds, would not pay rates directly at all; they would have no interest whatever in the amount of the rates; they would never hear at their doors the tap of the collector asking for their contributions. In many places they would entirely out vote all the other electors put together; and it was possible under this Bill that the whole of the District Council, and almost the whole of the County Council, should be composed of men who did not contribute a single farthing to local taxation. That, surely, was a grave matter, and one which deserved some attention at the hands of the House. They all knew perfectly well that the only check upon reckless expenditure in the matter of rates was that those who imposed the burdens had themselves to pay for them. Some argument might be raised possibly upon the fact that the Parliamentary franchise was based upon a non-direct rate-paying qualification. Why should it not be? The Parliamentary franchise was quite a different thing to the franchise which affected the administration of rates. Everyone was taxed by Parliament, and therefore everyone should be represented in the House of Commons; Parliament was a legislative assembly, and everybody was interested in the laws of his country. Therefore, he dismissed at once the argument founded upon Parliamentary franchise, which found no parallel in the franchise to be created under the Bill. Next as to the municipal franchise, which was based upon the compounding Acts. Was the example of the boroughs deserving of imitation? He altogether contradicted the statement that the borough administration had been economical. Boroughs, they all knew, under the present franchise, had been influenced by political considerations, and that influence had, to a great extent, drawn the Municipal Councils into extravagance, which had sometimes culminated in corruption. Therefore, if it was said that the franchise worked well in boroughs, he replied at once that it had produced extravagance to such an extent that the rates were now rising by leaps and bounds at about £800,000 a-year; and if they went on thus, the whole of the sum granted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, amounting to £3,000,000, in aid of the rates, would be consumed in additional taxation in four years' time. They all knew that the state of indebtedness of the boroughs was such that many of them were on the verge of bankruptcy, and that the debts amounted altogether to £180,000,000. Therefore, if the success of the municipal franchise was brought forward as a reason for extending it to the counties, he said that it had not worked so well that they should pass it on to the counties without consideration. He (Mr. Stanley Leighton) hoped he should not be met by a non possumus; where there was a will there was a way; and he trusted that argument would not be used against his Amendment. He feared more the ignoramus argument, because the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) had told the House that he knew nothing of the numbers of the non-ratepaying electors who were to be placed on the electorate—that is to say, the right hon. Gentleman had not considered it worth while to take into account the number of those who did not pay rates directly, but who would by this Bill share in the administration of the rates. If they accepted the principle that taxation should accompany representation, why should they not in some way or other limit the Compounding Act. His object was, not to propose disfranchisement, but to give the Government an opportunity of declaring whether they would not in some way limit that Act. He suggested that the operation of the Act should be limited to those places where it was at present in force, and that it should he amended by confining it to those short tenancies of one month where the tenant was, so to speak, here to-day and gone to-morrow. But whatever the Government might do with regard to this matter, he wished strongly to point out the extreme hardship with which this Compounding Act bore upon the free- holder. The occupying freeholder was rated to the full amount of his property, yet every owner of a number of cottages could compound under the Act at a remission of 30 per cent; the result was that every freeholder was charged so much more because the Compounding Act allowed the owner of many cottages to pay 30 per cent less than his due share of the rates. That appeared to him to be a strong argument in favour of limiting the operation of the Compounding Act. They ought to try to place the franchise on a sound basis, because they knew that further functions would shortly be placed in the hands of the County Councils. Poor relief was certain soon to be placed. in their hands. What could be more injurious to the independence of the agricultural labourer, and more disadvantageous to the maintenance of the standard of wages, than to have a number of persons administering outdoor relief who did not pay one farthing towards the rates? That alone was a very good reason why they should take care that everyone who had a vote for the election of County Boards should feel directly the incidence of the rates. For these reasons he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice; and he trusted the Government would be able to suggest some way of limiting the operation of the Compounding Act to some extent, even if they could not go the full length of his proposal.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 22, after the word "person," to insert the words "being a ratepayer."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

said, he had listened with great interest and attention to the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, and he regretted that it was not possible for the Government in the present Bill to make the concession which he desired. The argument of his hon. Friend was to the effect that it was very desirable that taxation and representation should go together, and that the franchise should only be in the hands of those who paid rates. As a general principle, he did not mean to dispute the truth of the proposition which his hon. Friend put forward, but he asked the Committee for a few moments to listen to the details of his hon. Friend's arguments. His hon. Friend was obliged to admit that the present municipal franchise did not involve the necessity of payment of rates by the occupier. His hon. Friend said that the municipal franchise had led to great extravagance in towns. He (Sir Richard Webster) was not able to say positively whether that proposition was true or not, but it had been stated by the Representatives of urban districts during the present Session that there had been no extravagance in the sense to which the hon. Gentleman referred. They had to consider what the towns received for the money expended. They had public buildings, free libraries, washhouses, paved streets and other conveniences. The argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) was not that the rates were too heavy, but that the rural districts would get more than their share of the grant as between the urban and rural districts. He was not aware that anyone had had the courage to suggest that the Compounding Act should be repealed or modified in regard to the exercise of the municipal franchise. They must therefore either proceed on the principle of assimilating the municipal franchise to the rural franchise or upon some other principle. He sympathised to this extent with his hon. Friend, that, if it should be established that the result of this legislation was undue extravagance, and if that was shown to be caused by those who voted, and yet did not pay the rates, then a strong case would have been made out for Parliamentary consideration. No one suggested that the rural taxation would be as high a rate in the pound as was now levied in boroughs, and that it would involve the same amount of extravagance as that alleged to have taken place in urban districts. His hon. Friend had made a suggestion which, if it were possible to see how it would turn out, they might be able to adopt; but he had given them no means of arriving at such a conclusion, and, in reply to his suggestion with regard to the limitation of the Compounding Act, he said that this also depended on the same argument which he had ven- tured to put forward—namely, if it could be shown that the municipal franchise had worked badly, then a proposition might be put forward for an Amendment, but as long as it was their duty to recognize the municipal franchise of 1882 to be statutory, it seemed to him impossible to depart from the principle of the franchise adopted in this Bill. He could only again assure his hon. Friend that it was not from any wish on the part of Her Majesty's Government not to deal with this question if it were possible to do so, that they could not consent to his proposal, but because when they were dealing with the present state of affairs with regard to counties they found it absolutely necessary to adopt the municipal principle.

MR. WHITLEY (Liverpool, Everton)

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had stated that it was intended to apply the municipal principle in this Bill. Under the Municipal Corporations Act the ratepayers had the power of exercising control with regard to expenditure; it was distinctly provided that, before the principle of the Municipal Corporations Act came into operation, there must be a poll of the ratepayers, and he knew that when there had been extravagance a poll of the ratepayers had been had. He asked whether it was the intention of the Government to give the ratepayers in the counties the same powers as the ratepayers in the boroughs possessed? It was a serious matter to deprive of their votes men on whom the burden of taxation fell, and if that was the intention of the Government, he asked that the same provision might be made between owners and ratepayers as now existed under the Municipal Corporations Act.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that of course his hon. Friend would see that this question did not arise on the Bill before the Committee. He should be glad if his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to press that point upon this occasion. The Government, however, would certainly look into the matter.

MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

said, he hoped he was not to understand that the right hon. Gentleman had committed himself by his last answer to the Amendment. [Mr. RITCHIE: No, no!] Question put, and negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Registration of County electors).

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 19, after the word "repealed," to insert the words, "and revising assessor for such borough shall not be elected."

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 23, after the word "applies," insert the words, "and the said lists of county electors and of occupation voters for Parliamentary elections in such parish shall be made out in divisions, as provided in the said Act: Provided, that a person whose name appears in any list of county electors or burgesses in a county may object to the name of any other person on a list of county electors or burgesses for a parish in that county, and may oppose the claim of a person to have his name inscribed in any such list"—(Mr. Attorney General.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

asked, whether the Government would give an assurance that with regard to London some provision would be made for drawing up the register by streets?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

said, that the Amendment before the Committee did not touch that question at all. The Amendment was with reference to making out the list in three divisions.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 1, before the word "section," to insert the words "where such parish is not within a Parliamentary borough."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

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

MR. LAWSON

said, that in London they wanted to get a uniform and simple system of registration. At present it was optional whether the registers should be made out alphabetically or by streets, so far as the Parliamentary elections were concerned. It depended on the will of the magistrates in the different boroughs of London. Municipal boroughs were dealt with as a whole by the Town Council, not in parts. They were now about to establish one authority for London, and it was quite clear that there should be a uniform system of registration The street plan had been adopted in St. Pancras, where those engaged in the practical work of registration found that they could work much more easily from the street lists than the alphabetical list. He should not press the Amendment of which he had given notice to a Division, because it would be out of Order if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Attorney General was carried; but he would be satisfied if his proposal were embodied in some other part of the Bill. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) was not opposed to the Amendment; but he would point out that the confusion and the expense resulting from the existing system would be a serious difficulty in the way of the Local Government Board.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

said, that in his district, they had found great convenience from having a street register; because it was sometimes impossible to get access to individuals by means of the alphabetical system. The question was not a Party one; on the contrary, the principle was approved by persons of all shades of politics in London, and, therefore, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would see his way to adopt the proposal of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Lawson).

MR. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

said, he believed that the plan of having the register by streets had been found of great convenience to all parties connected with this work, and it had prevented people from being put on the register who ought not to be there. He hoped the Government would agree to the Amendment.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, the only difficulty was whether it was desirable to make it compulsory that the register should be made out according to streets. No doubt, it would be very desirable to have one uniform system; but the Committee were aware that the question with regard to places within London was very carefully considered by a Committee in 1885, which came to the conclusion that it was not desirable in other than Parliamentary boroughs that there should be street lists. The Government, however, would consider between that time and Report whether the principle should be made compulsory.

MR. LAWSON

said, the Committee of 1885 made no Report with regard to the Metropolis.

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

said, he understood that the hon. and learned Attorney General was in favour of the principle being made compulsory if it could be included in the Bill. The system had been applied in Kensington after considerable opposition; but now there was no difference of opinion whatever on the subject.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 11, leave out "Parliamentary;" and in line 14, leave out from beginning of line to "Clerk of the Peace," in line 18, and insert— The Town Clerk shall cause to be printed such number of copies of the revised lists as the Clerk of the Peace may require; and shall transmit the same to.

MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, the Amendment which stood next in his name, had for its object the making of better provision for the registration of voters in the country districts. There were many small parishes where there was no paid assistant overseer, and where, at present, no assistant overseer was required to do the Poor Law work. Since 1885 the registration duties of the overseers had become more complicated, and now that it was proposed to make them still more so by adding a Municipal to the Parliamentary register, it became necessary that there should be in each parish a proper officer to perform these registration duties. The sub-section which he had put on the Paper was merely in the nature of a suggestion to the Government. If they had a better plan for meeting the difficulty, he should only be too glad to accept it. He would, however, impress on the Government the necessity of making better provision, and that speedily, for registration in the future. Great dissatisfaction would be felt if, under the new register, voters were not properly registered. He had suggested the Guardians of the Union as a suitable body to appoint a registration officer, because they were the only existing authority in a position to appoint an officer in more parishes than one. He sincerely hoped that, when we had the District Councils, the Government would deal with the general question of reforming the registration law; but, in the meantime, some temporary provision must be made, and he submitted that that temporary provision could not be effected more cheaply or expeditiously than by the system he proposed.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, at end, add,—(h.) For the purpose of making better provision for the registration of voters in rural districts, the guardians of a union may. with the consent of the overseers of any parish within their union for which an assistant overseer has not been appointed under the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Acts, annually appoint a fit person to act as registration officer for one or more such parishes. Such registration officer shall perform all the duties of overseers of the parish or parishes for which he is appointed in respect of the registration of voters, and the provisions of the Registration of Electors Acts relating to overseers shall apply to him accordingly: Provided that his remuneration shall be fixed by the guardians of the union, and charged on the poor rates of the said parish or parishes, and (if he acts for more than one parish) in proportion to the number of persons on the list of voters for each parish."—(Mr. Hobhouse.) Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, he had listened very attentively to what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, and he could net doubt that the hon. and learned Member had some reason for stating, as he did, that there was some fear that, unless some other arrangement than that now existing were adopted, the registers would not be prepared as they would all like to see them prepared. But the question whether or not the work should be done by a paid officer was a large and important question, and he doubted whether, if anything could be done, it could be done in this Bill. He was doubtful whether it was not a matter to be dealt with when they took in hand the question of registration, which was a subject which he thought must come before the House before long. He (Mr. Ritchie) confessed he had no objection in principle to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but what appeared to him was that, perhaps, it was better that they should wait before dealing with the question until they took in hand the whole question of registration.

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman opposite had received the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) so favourably. He wished to point out, however, that there was another occasion when the question might come on, for he (Mr. Stansfeld) himself had a Registration Bill before the House which contained provisions of this nature, and which, if passed, would simplify the registration of the country.

MR. LLEWELLYN (Somerset, N.)

said, that when the Bill got thoroughly to work, it would be found that the appointment of some official in many parishes for preparing the register was necessary. In many small parishes at present the work was done by the overseers themselves, in order that the localities might not be put to the expense of assistant overseers; but it would come very hard upon them if they were required at the busiest time of all the year to undertake the work of preparing the Local Government Registers. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had stated that he would consider how the difficulty could be met, and that statement was all they could expect at present. But, unless something was done to get the registers properly prepared, it would be found that there was a serious omission in the measure. In a great many parishes an assistant overseer was not necessary; but still it would be necessary that someone should be appointed in those parishes to do the work of preparing the registers, as that was work which it was essential should be properly carried out.

MR. RITCHIE

said, after what had fallen from his hon. Friend who had just sat down (Mr. Llewellyn), and as the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Hobhouse) proposed was merely a permissive proposal, the Government would accept it on the understanding that when they came to the Report stage of the Bill, if they found that it required any Amendment, Amendments would be accepted to that extent.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Roll of county electors).

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 39, leave out "roll," and insert "register;" line 42, leave out "copies," and insert "such number of copies as the clerk of the peace may require;" in page 4, line 1, after "delivered," insert "by the town clerk;" line 2, leave out "roll" and insert "register;" and in page 4, line 1, leave out "forty-nine."

MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.) ,

in moving in page 4, line 6, to insert the words "of county fund for borough fund," said the Amendment was only a matter of drafting.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 6, after the words "town clerk" to insert the words "of county fund for borough fund."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

said, the object the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view would be better carried out by an Amendment which he (Sir Richard Webster) intended to propose in line 8.

MR. HOBHOUSE

Then I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 7, leave out the word "roll" in the first two cases where it occurs, and insert the word "register."

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 8, after the word "ward" insert the words "and of county fund for borough fund."

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E. R. Holderness)

said, he wished to ask a question of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, and to put himself in Order, he would move the omission of Sub-section 3, which was as follows:— If district councils are established under any Act of the present session of Parliament, the clerk of every such council, not being the council of a borough, shall make up a roll of all persons registered as county electors in his district, and where there are wards in a district, of all county electors in each ward, and the above-mentioned Acts and sections shall apply for that purpose with the substitution of 'clerk of the district council' for 'town clerk,' and of 'district roll' for 'burgess roll' respectively.' It was essential that the electoral rolls should be made equally for the districts and the counties. Hon. Gentlemen who were familiar with the formation of the registers would agree with him that it would seem under this sub-section that double expense was to be entailed by registers being prepared under the direction not only of the clerk to the District Councils, but of clerks of the peace.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, to leave out Sub-section (3).—Commander Bethell.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, that this point had not been overlooked by Her Majesty's Government, and he had handed in a verbal Amendment in line 13 to provide that there should be no duplicate printing and that the clerks of the District Councils should send a sufficient number of copies to the clerks of the peace.

MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

asked whether the persons qualified to vote in a district for the County Council would always be qualified to vote for the District Council?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, that was so.

MR. HOBHOUSE

said, the limit as to residence was made to run from the limit of the district in the one case and from the limit of the county in the other.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

No; the limits would be the same.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 11, leave out "roll" and insert "register;" line 16, leave out "roll" in the first case where it occurs, and insert "register."

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

said, he begged to move to leave out Sub-section 4 as follows:— Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent a county elector from being enrolled n more than one division roll. It was quite possible that he might attach undue importance to this Amendment he was moving, because he was not as versed in the law as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General and many hon. Gentlemen opposite, but this Sub-section in the Bill certainly struck him as a strong exception to the application of Clause 45 of the Act of 1882, which dealt with the Register of County voters. Sub-section 6, of Clause 45, provided that an elector could not be enrolled on more than one roll. In Section 51, Sub-section 2, it was stated that no person should subscribe to a nomination paper for more than one ward, or vote in more than one ward, and when he found that a county elector was to be enrolled in more than one Division of the Roll, it suggested to him that an exception might be made to the Section of the Act of 1882, excluding a person from voting in more than one Division, and he should regret to see that. The application of the Register of 1882 to the new county election was not clear. If this Sub-section were left out, it would appear they were not going to allow dual voting in counties which they did not at present allow in boroughs. In a few words such was his difficulty, and he begged to move that the sub-section be left out.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 17, to leave out Sub-section (4).—(Mr. Picton.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he thought he should be able to give the hon. Gentleman a very good reason why this Subsection was put in. The roll would, of course, be also the new burgess roll for the new District Council, and unless an elector, who was qualified to vote for more than one District Council, should have his name put down on the Register for each of the Divisions for which he was entitled to vote, he would be disqualified for giving his vote for more than one District. It was obvious that a person qualified in one rural district ought to be entitled to vote for the District Council of that District. There was no doubt that a person qualified in more than one Division should vote for each of the Districts of the County Council. That would be equally provided for in the other Bill. A man would be entitled to have his name down for the District in which he had a qualification, as otherwise a person would not be entitled to vote for more than one of the District Councils for which he might really be entitled to vote.

MR. PICTON

said, he understood that it was not intended that a man qualified in two Divisions of a County should be entitled to vote for each Division.

MR. RITCHIE

Certainly not.

MR. PICTON

Then I withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 18, leave out "enrolled," and insert "registered;' same line, leave out "roll," and add "register; "and at end, add,— Where in pursuance of section four of 'The Registration Act, 1885,' the Revising Barrister has power to erase the name of any person as a Parliamentary voter from Division One of the occupiers' list, such barrister, in lieu of erasing the name, shall place an asterisk or other mark against the name, and, in printing such lists, the name shall be numbered consecutively with the other names, but an asterisk or other mark shall be printed against the name, and a person against whose name such asterisk or other mark is placed shall not be entitled to vote in respect of such entry at a Parliamentary election, but shall have the same right of voting at an election of a county authority as he would have if no such mark were placed against his name. If under any Act of the present Session of Parliament establishing a council for a county any portion of another county is added to that county for the purpose of such election, such portion of the county register as relates to the electors having qualifying property in the said part so added shall be deemed to be part of the county register of the county for which such council is elected, and the clerk of the peace and other officers shall take such steps as may be necessary for giving effect to these enactments. Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Expenses).

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERRL, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 26, after "peace," insert "or town clerk;" line 27, after "county," insert "or borough;" and in line 28, after "charges," insert "made and charged by him."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 (Contribution by county authorities towards the remuneration of revising barristers).

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)

said, he wished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, before the next Amendment came on, and, to put himself in Order, he would move to omit the 1st Sub-section from the clause—namely:— There shall be annually paid by the county authority of every county out of the county fund into Her Majesty's Exchequer such sum as the Treasury certify to be one-half of the cost incurred for the payment of revising barristers at the then last revision of the lists of parliamentary electors, burgesses, and county electors in that county. The question he wished to put was with reference to the revising barristers, and he desired to know whether it was essential that they should be introduced into the counties. Those who were familiar with the revision of the lists in boroughs informed him that the revising barristers had very little to do in connection with the municipal lists. That being the ease, it would save expenditure if the revising barristers were not introduced into the counties, where the same simple franchise as existed in the boroughs would operate.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, to omit Sub-section (1).—(Commander Bethell.)

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

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, he had in the Paper an Amendment to line 7, to add— And such payment in respect of the revision of the burgess lists shall in future be made by the Treasury out of Her Majesty's Exchequer. and, as this Amendment had some bearing on the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Commander Bethell), he (Mr. Tomlinson) would here say what he had to say with regard to it. He would not move his own Amendment, and, with reference to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had said, he begged to express the opinion that, having had opportunities of ascertaining the facts, he found that the revision in connection with the municipal lists added considerably to the time required by the revising barristers. He believed, under the proposed change, it was essential that the revising barristers should revise the lists for the counties as well as the municipalities. He understood that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to carry out in substance his Amendment, and that they did not wish that the revising barrister should have additional work without receiving additional remuneration.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WRBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

said, it would probably assist the Committee if he were to inform them at that period what the Government intended to do in regard to the revising barristers. The Government could not agree to accept any system of registration which was not done by competent revising barristers. That matter was carefully considered in connection with the Act of 1882. There was a revising authority then in existence; but that authority, being made the subject of careful inquiry, was found unsatisfactory, and it was decided that after a certain date the revision should be by revising barristers. It was not correct to suppose that no legal questions could arise in connection with revision, and therefore it would not be desirable to have the work done by persons who were not competent to deal with such legal questions as might arise. No time would be saved in that way. With regard to the existing conditions under which the revising barristers were appointed, the Committee knew that they were paid 200 guineas a-year for Parliamentary work, paying their own expenses and doing their work within certain days. When called upon to do municipal work they wore paid by the boroughs five guineas a day, for such time as they were engaged doing the work. It was found that those arrangements did not work satisfactorily, and one of the objects in view was to do away with this payment of five guineas per day. It was evident that there would be largely increased work—he did not mean in proportion to the number of new names put on the list—but still there would be largely increased work, and the Government provided in the Bill that one-half of the cost of the revision should be borne by the county, and one-half by the Treasury. Instead of being paid 200 guineas a-year, and a certain amount per day for the municipal work, it was proposed that the revising barristers should do the work once for all in connection with the municipal and county lists, and that they should be paid 250 guineas per annum for it, one-half to be borne by the Treasury, they paying their own expenses. That would effect a saving to the country—counties would not be heavily charged. Those who had looked into the question from the revising barristers' point of view, and also from the point of view of the Government, believed this to be a settlement by no means unfair to those who had to pay, and not an undue remuneration for those who had to do the work. He thought that, probably having regard to the pay which had been given in the past, some revising barristers might have been inclined to ask for a larger amount, but when they came to look into the matter they would admit, he thought, that the sum fixed upon by the Government was sufficient. It was highly important that there should be a uniform system of revision of the lists.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman's reference to the antiquated system which formerly prevailed was very much to the point, and whether the effect of paying these gentlemen £250 a-year would be economical or not he could not say, because he did not know how many five guineas a-piece had been paid to these gentlemen; but his (Mr. Conybeare's) method of getting over the difficulty would be to place the work of revision on the shoulders of the County Court Judges. According to a Return which was printed last year, and according to a discussion which took place in that House, it seemed that the County Court Judges had only half their time taken up with County Court work. That being so, and County Court Judges being quite as capable as the ordinary revising barristers for the work of revising the lists of voters, he thought that such work might very well be handed over to them. From his point of view, however, they would never get the thing satisfactorily managed until they had manhood suffrage. The difficulties in connection with revision in many cases rendered it impossible for working men to exercise the franchise, and until either one Party or the other in the House had the courage to deal manfully with the question, and declare for manhood suffrage, the difficulty would never be overcome.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

said, the hon. Member (Mr. Conybeare) was mistaken in supposing that there was any information before the House to the effect that the County Court Judges, or any large proportion of them, worked so little as the hon. Member said. There was a Bill now before the House to enable the Lord Chancellor to deal with cases where the County Court Judges had not sufficient work to do—giving him power to require those Judges who had too little to do to assist those who had too much to do; and, under the circumstances, it would be absurd—if the hon. Member would permit him to say so—to think of putting the work of registration upon the County Court Judges.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, the Bill the hon. Member referred to was before the Standing Committee, but was not technically before the House, and he was referring to what was at present the case. He was referring to a Return and a discussion which took place in the House last Session. He, therefore, ventured to say that the hon. Member's correction was hardly correct.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, the Bill in question was before the House, the Standing Committee being, by the Rules of the House, technically equivalent to the Committee stage of a Bill in Committee of the Whole House.

MR. CONYBEARE

I know that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining Clauses agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

moved, after Clause 10, to insert the clause which stood in his name.

New Clause:— (Transitory provisions as to the year 1888.) In the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, notwithstanding anything in the enactments applied by this Act, the revision of the lists of county electors may be later than the twelfth day of October, so that it be not later than the thirty-first day of October, and the register of county electors shall be completed on or before the thirty-first day of December in the said year, and shall come into operation on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine, and shall continue in operation until the next register of county electors comes into operation. In the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, notwithstanding anything in this Act or the enactments thereby applied, the Clerk of the Peace in a county may, if he thinks fit, instead of directing the occupiers' list to be made out in three divisions as provided by the Registration of Electors Acts, direct the overseers to make supplemental lists containing the names which would otherwise be contained in Division Two and Division Three of the occupiers' list, and the names so contained in the supplemental list corresponding to Division Two shall be struck by the Revising Barrister out of Division Ono of the list, and the supplemental list corresponding to Division Three shall be treated as if it wore Division Three of the said list,"—(Mr. Attorney General,) —brought up, and read a first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

Mr. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, he took exception to the second part of the clause, as he thought it would lead to unnecessary confusion.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

asked, whether the hon. and learned Member had seen the alterations which it was proposed to effect?

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he had not; but he was informed that the proposal in the new clause would lead to confusion.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, he did not know how otherwise the object in view could be carried out. They had passed a clause to the effect that there should be a revision of the lists, and it followed from that that the lists must be made to agree with each other. No doubt, it would be laborious to make three revisions of the lists effecting certain erasures in the case of one or other; but the alternative would lead to greater confusion, as it would be necessary to put certain marks against certain names, and to refer back to see what each mark meant. It would only be in this way that they could find out whether a man was to have a Parliamentary or municipal vote, or whether the name was that of a woman. That would be a very inconvenient course, and the Government were anxious that the revising barristers should be enabled to do their work thoroughly.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 10 Members being found present,

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, he regretted he had not properly understood his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Tomlinson). If the hon. and learned Member thought the arrangement should be compulsory he would look into the matter; but he would point out that the subject had been before the Clerks of the Peace and others who were interested.

MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

asked why it was necessary to have a special provision for registration that year, which was not necessary other years?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, the arrangement was proposed inasmuch as they must get through the work that year. On other occasions there had been plenty of time. That had been the course adopted in 1885.

MR. HOBHOUSE

said, he referred in particular to the 2nd sub-section.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, he would look into the point.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, he begged to move the following Amendment:—In page 2, after Clause 2, insert the following Clause:— Every person who is entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of a ten pounds occupation qualification within the meaning of the provisions of 'The Registration Act, 1885,' which are set out in the Schedule to this Act, shall be entitled to be registered as a county elector, and to be enrolled as a burgess, in respect of such qualification, in like manner in all respects as if the sections of ''The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' relating to a burgess qualification, included the said ten pounds occupation qualification. His object was to amend the occupation franchise. At present the matter stood thus. In the year 1885 the franchise in municipal boroughs was altered for Parliamentary purposes, so as to include under the qualification to vote land without buildings up to the value of £10. There was no such qualification for municipal purposes; therefore the effect of the Bill would be that in country districts occupiers of land of even considerable value would not have a right to vote, unless they had buildings on the land. He could assure the Committee that this was not an imaginary case. He had the details of one considerable estate, where a large quantity of grazing land was occupied by persons who did not reside in the immediate neighbourhood, and had no buildings whatever on the land. Those persons who had a substantial stake in the neighbourhood would have no right to vote as the Bill now stood, and he thought this proposal ought to be accepted, providing as it did that a person who had a status for Parliamentary purposes should be admitted to a status for municipal purposes. He intended to move a new Schedule later on, if this new clause were accepted.

New Clause (Occupation of land of the value of £10 to qualify,)—(Mr. Hobhouse,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, the proposal was one which, as a matter of principle, he did not see very well how the Committee could resist. It was an occupation and a rating franchise, and he had been told that its omission from the Municipal Corporations Act of 1885 was really more of a mistake than anything else. He therefore hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment. The Government did not at all see why the occupier of land which was rated should not have a vote, although he did not possess a residence on the land. The occupier of the land was, no doubt, as much an occupying ratepayer as anything could make him.

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, he did not think any objection could be taken to the clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

On the Motion of Mr. HOBHOUSE, the following Schedule:— (Ten pounds occupation qualification.) Registration Act, 1885. Definition of Ten Pounds Occupation Qualification. A person entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of a ten pounds occupation qualification in a borough, municipal or parliamentary—

1. (a) must during the whole twelve months immediately preceding the fifteenth day of July have been an occupier as owner or tenant of some land or tenement in a parish [or township] of the clear yearly value of not less than ten pounds; and
1543
2. (b.) must have resided in or within seven miles of the borough during six months immediately preceding the fifteenth day of July; and
3. (c.) Such person, or someone else must during the said twelve months have been rated to all poor rates made in respect of such land or tenement; and
4. (d.) All sums due in respect of the said land or tenement on account of any poor rate made and allowed during the twelve months immediately preceding the fifth day of January next before the registration, or on account of any assessed taxes due before the said fifth day of January, must have been paid on or before the twentieth day of July.

If two or more persons jointly are such occupiers as above mentioned, and the value of the land or tenement is such as to give ten pounds or more for each occupier, each of such occupiers is entitled to be registered as a voter. If a person has occupied in the borough different lands or tenements of the requisite value in immediate succession during the said twelve months, he is entitled in respect of the occupation thereof to be registered as a voter in the parish [or township] in which the last occupied land or tenement is situate, —agreed to, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 253.]