§ From and after the twenty-fifth day of November one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven the election of aldermen by single wards shall cease and the election of aldermen shall be by five groups of three wards in each group. Each group shall elect three aldermen every six years and such group shall for all purposes connected with such election be deemed to be a ward, and the groups of wards shall be as follows:—
§ On the north side of the Liffey—
| No. 1. | North City Ward |
| North Dock Ward | |
| Mountjoy Ward | |
| No. 2. | Arran Quay Ward |
| Inns Quay Ward | |
| Rotunda Ward |
§ On the south side of the Liffey—
| No. 3. | Royal Exchange Ward |
| South Dock Ward | |
| Trinity Ward | |
| No. 4. | Fitzwilliam Ward |
| South City Ward | |
| Wood Quay Ward | |
| No. 5. | Mansion House Ward |
| Merchants' Quay Ward | |
| Ushers' Quay Ward: |
§ Provided that at such election of aldermen every voter may vote for two candidates and no more. The aldermen elected at each such election shall hold office for six years and no longer but shall be eligible for re-election if then qualified:
§ The first election of aldermen shall take place on the twenty-fifth November one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight and the existing aldermen shall remain in office until the said date. In the case of any casual vacancy in such office of aldermen prior to such date an election to fill such vacancy shall be held in the same manner as before the passing of this Act. On the said twenty-fifth day of November one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight all the then existing aldermen shall go out of office:
§ Provided always that no person shall be eligible as a candidate for the office of councillor or alderman unless within the time limited for the lodgment of the nomination paper nominating him for election to such office as aforesaid such person shall deposit with the town clerk of the said borough of Dublin the sum of ten pounds towards the expenses of the said election. Provided also that the person or persons who shall be elected a councillor or alderman at any such election as aforesaid shall be entitled to a refund of the sum so lodged and deposited by him.
§ MR. HARRINGTON moved to omit Clauses 19 and 20, which, he said, dealt with the question of minority representation. He asked Mr. Speaker in putting the question to preserve an Amendment in Clause 20 (after "alderman" to insert "representing the three groups on the southern side of the River Liffey."
§ * MR. SPEAKERI will preserve that Amendment.
§ MR. HARRINGTONsaid it was not necessary for him, in asking the House to reject these clauses, to occupy its attention at any great length. These clauses raised for the first time in any municipality in Ireland the question of minority representation, and he repeated on behalf of the citizens of Dublin that if minority representation ought to be extended, the extension should include other parts of the country, and they would have no objection to minority representation. But here was a case in 1667 which one city was taken, and practically its charter was broken up. An arrangement in force since 1840, which safeguarded the rights of the minority was destroyed by this sub-division of wards, and an artificial system was introduced by grouping.
MR. T. M. HEALYrose to order. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member did not include the question of grouping.
§ * MR. SPEAKERClause 20 has to do with grouping.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid the Motion of the hon. and learned Member was to omit Clauses 19 and 20. He should put the question that the clauses down to line 18 stand part of the Bill.
§ MR. HARRINGTONsaid the proposal of the hon. and learned Member's clause was that the whole of the corporation should go out of office every three years, and the effect was to limit the franchise preventing burgesses in wards where there were three vacancies from voting for more than two. It was the first time the experiment was to be tried in any Irish municipality, and in face of the facts that no opportunity had been given to the citizens of Dublin of considering the proposal, and that it was emphatically condemned by everybody who had spoken on the subject as representing Dublin, he appealed to the House not to force this upon the citizens of Dublin. The hon. and learned Member had no claim to speak in any representative capacity for Dublin, and of all shades of political opinion the hon. and learned Member would be the last the citizens of Dublin would select to speak for them in the House. Having represented the City of Dublin for eleven years, and having the support of two colleagues in the representation of the city, he felt he was not making an unreasonable demand when he asked that an indignity of this kind, which implied that the minority had not been treated fairly, and that the citizens of Dublin could not be intrusted with the franchise which obtained elsewhere, he thought he was not making an unreasonable demand to the House for the rejection of these clauses.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid as regards Dublin this would be an innovation on the present state of the law, but could anyone pretend to deny that it was desirable, when extending the franchise to make this reform? Of course, when new machinery was proposed in any Bill, it was met with the objection that it was novel and would prove unworkable. Such phrases he had himself used, no doubt many times, and naturally, when these hardy annuals sprang from the mouth of his hon. Friend, he was not in the least astonished. There were precedents for the proposal in the clause, and it was recognised in English School Board elections. A precedent existed in Belfast, and by arrangement between the Catholic Bishop and the Town Clerk, Catholic representation was secured in that Orange city. He repudiated the charge of "jerrymandering," there was nothing of the kind in the proposal. The principle of minority representation had existed since 1840, and the passing of the Corporations Act. The gentlemen who arranged the lists were called assessors, and in the appointment of these and the arrangement of the lists regard was had under the Corporations Act for minority representation. This had been in vogue for half a century, with the result that in the City of Derry, in spite of the narrow franchise, the Catholics of Derry were able to return a Nationalist assessor. In dealing with elections of councillors, it was as desirable to have as full a representation of the citizens as possible. True, the outlying townships were Conservative and did not allow Nationalists to sit on their boards, but he hoped to see the city extended, and these boards coalescing and consolidating with Dublin, and then minority representation would be needed for Nationalists, and they would have the benefit of these clauses. It was impossible to secure minority representation without adopting the principle of grouping. Long ago he advocated the principle of minority representation, and more than elsewhere was it desirable to have full representations of opinions in Ireland, and though now he was attacked for proposing an innovation, he felt sure that when it was embodied in the law, and its effects experienced, there would be a demand for its extension to the rest of the country.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid if the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken up the position that he desired to secure the representation of the minority as it was required in Belfast, his position would he tenable and his argument unanswerable. In Belfast there was a large Catholic population without representation on the Corporation, and if in Dublin there was a large and influential Protestant population without representation the position of the hon. Member would be impregnable. But the fact was, and it had been repeatedly pointed out in Debate on the Belfast Bill, the Protestant and Unionist minority were represented on the corporation to a larger extent than their numbers could properly demand. The demand for this proposal did not come from the Protestant and Unionist minority, and no reason existed for applying to Dublin a system which did not exist in any other municipality in the three kingdoms. His own views on minority representation were, he believed, in agreement with those of the hon. and learned Member. When the question arose in the Debates on the Home Rule Bill in 1893, he spoke strongly in favour of securing minority representation in the proposed Irish Parliament, and he would be delighted to see it established throughout Ireland, but there was no demand for this artificial system in Dublin, where the minority were properly represented at the present moment. If this system of minority representation, which in principle was a good one, was to be applied to Ireland at all, it ought to be applied impartially to all parts, and after careful consideration by Parliament, and not by the operation of a clause in a private Bill. There were precedents for extending the franchise by private Bills, but there was no precedent for a private Bill altering the mode of election. The grievance was intensified enormously by the fact that it was done without consultation with the citizens of Dublin, and without the approval of any section of opinion in the city or the corporation. All sections of the Corporation were unanimous in opposing these clauses, and the minority repudiated the protection which the hon. and learned Gentleman pretended to offer them. Not a single meeting had been held in favour of the clauses, and there 1670 had been many resolutions passed against them.
§ MR. J. DILLONsaid that he objected to the clauses on two grounds. The Committee had already passed clauses extending the franchise; and these clauses were disfranchising in their character. Further, they conveyed a gross insult to the City of Dublin. The case of Belfast told strongly against these clauses. In Belfast, so great was the intolerance of the Protestants, that the Catholics never had any representation on the corporation. But in Dublin no complaint had been made of the intolerance of the Catholic majority. The cumulative vote was demanded for Belfast; but the Government declined to give to Belfast an artificial system of voting, which was not in existence in other cities of the United Kingdom. Now it was proposed to submit the City of Dublin to the humiliation and insult which the Government declined to inflict on Belfast. The hon. and learned Member for Louth, with great and unusual generosity to his opponents, said that he wished to give 10 seats in the corporation to the Unionist Party; but he could not share that generosity. In the past the Unionist Party had had a fair share of representation and of the emoluments of office. The system of voting proposed was entirely novel; it was not known to the English law at all; and on this occasion he felt bound to support the hon. Members for the City of Dublin. The application of so great a change as minority representation in municipal government ought to be the subject of consideration in a public Bill. He, personally, was distinctly opposed to minority representation in municipal government, but at any rate it ought not to be brought forward for the first time in a Water Bill.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.appealed to the House, in the interests of business, to come to a decision on the question under consideration.
§ MR. EDWARD CARSON (Trinity College)said that if he thought that the Unionist minority would be benefited by the passing of these clauses, he would willingly support them. But he was informed that, taking the proposal as a whole—the extension of the franchise and the mode of voting—the Unionist 1671 minority would be a smaller minority in the future than it had been in the past, if the clauses were passed. This particular clause of the Bill would be useless, even if it did not in the long run leave the Unionists worse off than they were now. Therefore, speaking for himself, he should take on himself the responsibility of voting with the hon. Member for the Harbour Division. It was, he thought, a serious matter to reflect upon, that without one word from the Government Benches, the new system of voting should be introduced in a private Bill, and a revolution effected in the municipal government of the capital of Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)said the right hon. and learned Gentleman had compared the Unionist representation in the Corporation of Dublin now with what it was likely to be if this clause were added to the Bill. It must be remembered, however, that the House had already passed the clauses extending the franchise, and the question for the hon. Gentleman to consider was whether in this extension some provision for the representation of the minority was not essential. The right hon. Gentleman could hardly contend that the position of the Unionist Party without the extended franchise and without this clause would be so favourable as under the Bill as it stood. He could not agree with his hon. Friends near him that the Unionist Party would have no grievance if the franchise were simply extended without any means being taken to give them a voice in the affairs of the Corporation, He had made inquiries from gentlemen on both sides of politics in Dublin, and he was told that there was one ward in which it was possible that the Unionists could obtain representation with the extended franchise. That was not a position which the right hon. and learned Gentleman could regard with favour.
§ MR. CARSONWhat I said was that under the scheme of the Bill—the whole scheme—the minority in the Corporation would be smaller by a great many seats than it is now.
§ MR. KNOXsaid the position of the right hon. Gentleman was clear—he wanted to wreck both the extension of the franchise and the minority representation, but that position was likely to confuse the House. It would be impossible, 1672 without this provision, for the Unionists to carry more than one seat if they did that.
§ MR. HARRINGTONMy information is that if these clauses are not inserted elections will turn in the future not on politics, but on business capacity.
§ MR. HARRINGTONMay I be allowed to say that at the last election for Lord Mayor, the Nationalists were only successful over the other side by six votes.
§ MR. KNOXThose Nationalists who on that occasion voted with the Conservative Party were denounced. He perfectly understood the system. ["Hear, hear!" and a laugh.] The fact remained that if, under the extended franchise, the elections were fought on political grounds, the Unionists would not be able to get representation in more than one ward, if in that; and an influential section of the people of Dublin would be kept out of the council. In form he admitted that the plan of the clause was new, but in substance there were many precedents for it. There had been three extensions of the municipal franchise in Irish towns through a private hill, and in each case a maimed franchise had been adopted in order to carry out local agreements. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. J. Redmond) in the case of Waterford, and the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), in the case of Drogheda, had been instrumental in introducing these maimed franchises, which really gave protection and representation to minorities. ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid that while he approved of minority representation, and had supported the principle by his votes in the House for the last 30 years, he was of opinion that so important a subject should be dealt with by the Government in a public Measure. He should, therefore, vote against the clause.
MR. FIELDwas also in favour of minority representation, but considered that the principle should be applied equally all over Ireland, and not piecemeal to Dublin. The scheme of the Bill was revolutionary. Neither the citizens, nor the political associations, nor the working men's societies wanted 1673 it. He had received letters and resolutions from his constituents, protesting against the clause, and he intended, therefore, to vote against it. He maintained that this Bill, so far from increasing the number of minority members in the Corporation, would reduce the number, as he was informed, to five or six. A revolutionary Measure of this kind should not be introduced dealing with the city of Dublin alone. A public Bill dealing with the franchise question ought to be brought in extending such provisions to the whole of the country.
§ Question put, "That the words of Clauses 19 and 20 down to the word 'shall,' in page 9, line 18, stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 106; Noes, 111.—(Division List, No. 384.)
§ Remaining words of Clause 20, omitted.
§ Clause 21,—