HC Deb 13 March 1889 vol 333 cc1549-51
MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he was correctly reported by Hansard to have said, on July 26, 1888— That agricultural labourers hired by the year and occupying houses on the farms on which they were employed (the occupation of such houses being part of their wages) would be entitled to vote for Members of the County Council; whether his attention was, at the same time, drawn to the fact that agricultural labourers, fulfilling these conditions in Northumberland, were being excluded from the Register; and, whether he had yet made the inquiries which he promised on that occasion?

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

The answer cited by the hon. Gentleman seems to have been abbreviated. I have referred to my manuscript, and I find that in my own handwriting this is the answer which I was to have given, and which I believe I did give— If a labourer is not required to reside for the purposes of his service, but merely has a cottage as part of his wages, he would, in my opinion, be entitled to be registered as a voter under the County Electors Act. I am not authorized to decide questions of law, and the answer I gave was based upon a decision of the High Court in a case of a somewhat similar nature. From inquiries I made I understood that there had been a considerable number of complaints on the part of those who considered themselves entitled to the franchise in Northumberland, but, so far as I know, the complaint has been almost entirely confined to that county. If that be so, it may be assumed that the persons referred to by the hon. Gentleman who have not been put upon the register in Northumberland have elsewhere been placed upon the register. However this may be, Parliament has set up machinery by which the question can be authoritatively decided. Any person claiming to be put upon the register whose claim is refused by the revising barrister may appeal to the High Court against his decision. I do not understand that this course has been pursued with reference to the cases referred to, but the question can, of course, be raised in the proper form in connexion with the next revision.

MR. FENWICK

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that also in the county of Durham the miners have been left off the register for similar reasons? Is it not the fact that this matter was brought to his notice on the 26th of July last, and did he not then make a promise to me that he would inquire into the circumstances?

MR. RITCHIE

I certainly said I would inquire, and I have inquired, and I find there were great many complaints in Northumberland. Durham was not in my mind—I have had very short notice of the Question—but I accept the hon. Member's assurance that complaints of a similar character have been made in Durham. I would, however, point out that when the complaint was made on the 26th of July it was too late to take any steps by anybody, even by those who had a right to take steps. The Local Government Board have no right to take steps, and no locus standi in the matter. The proper mode of proceeding is for the question to be raised in the High Court of Justice by those who have been refused votes, and for an authoritative decision to be thus arrived at. It is, of course, too late to admit any fresh persons, so far as voting for the existing County Council is concerned, but before the next election to the Council there will be two or three opportunities of raising the question, and I sincerely hope the course I have indicated will be followed.

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering the great expense of raising a question of this sort in the High Court, he might not in the Bill ha is going to introduce amending the Local Government Act of last Session insert a clause which would settle this question?

MR. RITCHIE

No, Sir; I think it would be almost impossible to draw any Act of Parliament upon such a subject as to which differences might not arise. As I have pointed out, so far as the great bulk of the constituencies are concerned no complaints have arisen, and the fact that one revising barrister in one or another county seems to have interpreted the law in a different way from all the rest of revising barristers does not appear to me to necessitate the Government introducing a Bill, which in any case must be an extremely difficult Bill, ii it is proposed to define accurately what is the existing state of the law. I therefore hope the proper course will be employed, and, looking to the important questions which arise, as well as to the large number of those interested in the matter, I do not think the question of expense ought to be one which should raise any difficulty in the matter.

MR. CHILDERS

I did not suggest the introduction of a Bill, but of a clause in the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman is going to bring forward.

MR. RITCHIE

Yes; but I do no propose to bring in any Bill amending the County Electors Act. The question arises under that Act, and it would necessitate a new Bill.