HC Deb 10 May 1898 vol 57 cc939-55

Amendment proposed— Page 8, line 31, at end, insert"— Provided that the Local Government Board, on request made by a resolution of the council of any such borough passed by two-thirds of the members voting on such resolution, may by order apply to the borough the provisions of this Act with respect to the duration of office of councillors, and make such incidental provisions as appear to the Board necessary or expedient for bringing such application into full effect, and in particular for making the triennial election of councillors coincide with the triennial election of aldermen."— (Mr. Gerald Balfour. )

MR. M. HEALY

I confess that I do not think that this is a good Amendment, or one that will in any way improve the Bill, and I hope the Government will carry out the Bill in its original form. Having regard to the fact that the county involves a large area, and consists of one-member districts, I apprehend it would be very difficult to carry out in the county the system of triennial election which exists in boroughs. Therefore, although I think the county system would be desirable if it could be carried out in boroughs, I do not think that that is practicable. Whatever is to be said in favour of triennial election in counties, I think there is nothing to be said in its favour as applied to boroughs. In a borough you have division into wards, and the wards are not single-member wards; they have sometimes as many as six or eight representatives. With boroughs divided into wards in that way, it is convenient that a certain number of councillors and aldermen should go out of office every year, so that each locality should have the power to import new blood, and that a certain proportion of the council should every year be compelled to go before the electors. A borough is in that respect wholly unlike a county, where you have an aggregate of population, and fresh questions are continually arising, and the local circumstances are entirely different. I think, therefore, it would be better to leave the law as to boroughs as it stands at present. I have another objection to this Amendment, and that is this: I think the law with regard to boroughs ought to be the same all over Ireland. At present every locality has a separate law. Cork has a different system from that of Belfast; Belfast, again, has a different system from that of Derry. That is not only so with regard to the franchise, but it is largely so with regard to rating, and a number of other matters relating to the government of boroughs, which makes it exceedingly difficult, not only for lay men but even for lawyers, to state what the law is in any particular locality. We have not many municipal boroughs in Ireland, but, I think, with regard to so many as we have, the law should be the same—the same franchise, the same period of election, the same method of election, the same distribution of members going out of office at the same time. I quite concede that this clause proposed by the right honourable Gentleman will make it possible for any locality either to adopt the provisions of the Act or not. That does not commend itself to my mind. In my view, there could be no option in this matter; the municipal law in these matters should be governed by Act of Parliament, so that one may tell, on looking at the Act, what the law is in any particular locality. For these reasons I trust the right honourable Gentleman will not press this Amendment. I do not think it will be an improvement on the frame of the Bill. I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman intends that, in cases where this clause may be adopted, every year a local government register should have to be prepared. I apprehend that under this Amendment that will have to be done every year, whether an election takes place or not. If that be the intention of the right honourable Gentleman, I think it makes matters worse. The registration law is certainly sufficiently tangled and complicated already, without bringing in the further element that in different localities the register should be made up on different principles.

MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, W.)

I am sure this Amendment would be generally welcomed in Belfast, and I hope the Chief Secretary will not be induced to give way, but that he will press the Amendment.

MR. P. A. M'HUGH (Leitrim, N.)

I think we should hear from the Chief Secretary some arguments in support of this Amendment if it is to be pressed. It is stated in the Bill that there is to be no change in the constitution of boroughs. This sub-section, if passed, will certainly involve a change. Aldermen are at present elected for six years; it is now proposed that they should be elected only for three years. I should like to know from the Chief Secretary what is going to take place in boroughs next year. Some of the aldermen, of course, were elected this year, and, according to the law as it at present stands, they would be entitled to hold office for six years. Are these aldermen to seek re-election when the borough council is being elected next year? There is also another point raised by the honourable Member for Cork, which, I think, deserves the attention of the Chief Secretary. The honourable Member wants to know whether the Local Government electoral list is to be made up every year, or every three years. If a vacancy occurs in a borough council, how is that vacancy to be filled up? If by election, it will be necessary to have a new list every year; if by co-option, of course, a list completed once in every three years would be sufficient. I think we are entitled to some explanation from the Chief Secretary on these points.

MR. KNOX

In the city of Belfast there is only one alderman for every ward, and there is no triennial election of aldermen. Therefore, it will be impossible, in Belfast, at any rate, "to make the triennial election of councillors coincide with the triennial election of aldermen." I have never heard, before the speech of the honourable Member for West Belfast, that there is any feeling anywhere in Ireland in favour of this change. I venture to doubt whether that is so, and I would suggest that the right honourable Gentleman should not press his Amendment now. If between this and the Report stage any general feeling were expressed in favour of the change, the right honourable Gentleman could reconsider the matter, and, if he thought fit, make his proposal again on Report.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

I would point out that this Amendment is only permissive. I do not think any of the dangers can arise from it which honourable Members opposite appear to apprehend. I notice that, while the honourable Member for Cork takes a strong view as to triennial as against annual elections in county boroughs, the honourable Member for North Louth has an Amendment on the Paper which goes very much further than this, because he proposes that aldermen should be elected for six years. My Amendment simply proposes that the election in county boroughs should be absolutely assimilated to that in counties. I confess it is not an Amendment that I should press in the face of any general opposition on the part of honourable Members; but, after all, it is only permissive, and I cannot see that the introduction of it could possibly do any harm. I think, on the whole, the system of triennial elections is more desirable than that of annual elections, but we do not propose to force the three years' system on any boroughs. On the contrary, this proposed subsection requires a two-thirds majority in favour of the change. As to the other point raised by the honourable Member for Cork, I am not sure that there is not something in it, and I will consider it before we get to the Report stage. I would suggest that honourable Members opposite should accept this Amendment now, and if there is anything defective in the frame of it we will consider on Report how to meet it.

MR. M. HEALY

I think I am entitled to an answer upon the point I raised—whether the Local Government Register will go on being prepared every year. Is that the intention of the right honourable Gentleman?

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

Yes.

MR. M. HEALY

Does he also intend that vacancies should be filled by co-option?

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

Yes. As the Bill at present stands, I do not think it is avoidable that the Register should be prepared every year.

MR. M. HEALY

I think that will take away any benefit there might be in the proposed change. So far as I am aware, no single Irish local body has desired this alteration, and I would press the right honourable Gentleman, as the Bill as originally introduced did not contain this clause, and as it is plain that it is defective in the matter of wording, to withdraw the Amendment now, and reconsider it, reserving to himself the right of moving it on Report.

MR. P. A. M'HUGH

Whether this Bill passes or not, the Parliamentary Register must be prepared every year; so that, in my judgment, if a supplement had to be added to the Parliamentary Register, containing the names of women and peers living in the district, the extra expense would be very small.

MR. KNOX

If the Chief Secretary intends to urge this as a reason for co-option, I think that is rather an additional reflection upon the Amendment. On the whole, I was against it before, but this makes it, to my mind, even more objectionable a proposal. In counties there is something to be said in favour of filling up vacancies by co-option, because it is obvious that frequent elections in rural districts cause a great deal of inconvenience; but, so far as county boroughs are concerned, there is no difficulty of that kind. If it is possible for a two-thirds majority on a council to adopt this sub-section, the minority on that council may find its representation becoming less and less as the years of the council's existence go on. I think this proposal wilt be considerably resented by almost all the councils, and that the Chief Secretary should reconsider the matter. If any necessity for the change is shown, he can put the Amendment down again on Report.

Question put— That those words be there added.

Agreed to; words added.

Amendment proposed— Page 8, line 31, after 'apply,' insert— (6)The Local Government Board shall, if before the twenty-ninth day of September one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight they are requested so to do by a petition signed by not less than one-fourth of the council, by order prescribe the number of aldermen and councillors and the sub-division into wards in the same manner as in the case of a county council."— (Mr. Knox. )

MR. KNOX

The next Amendment which stands in my name embodies a provision that I think will be useful. The division into wards in the Irish towns, in most cases, took place a very long time ago, and they are now found to be most unsuitable for the purposes of municipal government. At present I believe there is no power at all under the Irish municipal law to revise the sub-division into wards, except by a separate Act of Parliament in every case. In the case of English cities a council may, by a two-thirds majority, revise its own wards. I venture to think that, now that we are setting out on a new scheme of municipal government in Ireland, it would be well to give to any council that may be dissatisfied with the constitution of its wards the right to require the Local Government Board to divide up the borough again at the same time that they are dividing up the counties. I cannot see that there can be any objection to my Amendment, and I therefore move it.

MR. JOHNSTON

The honourable and learned Member for Londonderry objected to the last Amendment of the Chief Secretary on the ground that the majority would be able to override the minority. Here he proposes that a minority of one-fourth shall override the majority of three-fourths; and not only that the Local Government Board "may," but "shall" prescribe a rearrangement, on the application of one-fourth of any council. I hope the Chief Secretary will resist the proposal.

MR. FLYNN

For once I find myself in accord with the honourable Member for West Belfast. I can hardly understand why this Amendment is proposed. It provides that a very limited number—"not less than one-fourth of the council"—may revolutionise the whole municipal arrangements of the borough.

MR. KNOX

No.

MR. FLYNN

Yes. The words are that on "a petition signed by not less than one-fourth of the council" the Local Government Board "shall"—not "may"—"prescribe the number of aldermen and councillors and the subdivision into wards." I know that in the case of the Cork Town Council that would seem to be a very large order, and it would be the same with other cities. As some councils are situated it would be elevating a minority into a position, not alone of giving them fair play, but the absolute power of conducting the whole arrangements of the city wards, and of placing a halter round the necks of the majority. If minorities have rights, certainly majorities have rights. This is doing away altogether with the rights of the majority. On the mere initiative of a minority the Local Government Board has to do what the minority suggests. I hope the Government will not be so ill-advised as to accept the Amendment.

MR. KNOX

I am really surprised that this Amendment should meet with opposition. My view is that, in starting this new system of local government, it is desirable to start with equal divisions in the towns just as much as in the counties. As a matter of fact, I do not think there is any Irish town, except those that have been distributed in recent years, where the wards are not very unequal. The object of the Bill is to give a fair representation to the people, and that can only be done if you have fairly equal wards. The principle of my Amendment is not in any sense dependent on the idea of a minority bringing about a redistribution of wards. On the contrary, I should be quite willing to empower the Local Government Board to make a re-division without any representation from any body at all. The principle is that in setting up this new system in boroughs as well as counties it would be advisable to equalise the divisions, and that cannot be done under the present law without a separate Act of Parliament being obtained for each borough. I think it is quite clear that that state of things is not a right one. At the present, however unequal the divisions, they have to go to Parliament in order to get a redistribution. The honourable Member for North Cork is very much against the principle of minorities being represented—

MR. FLYNN

No; certainly not!

MR. KNOX

It seems to me that this is the principle of Home Rule, because, if any borough in Ireland wants to get a redistribution, it has at present to come to this Parliament. If that is not required in the case of English boroughs, I fail to see why it should be necessary in Irish boroughs. My proposal is that, in making this new start, we should start with equal democratic electoral divisions in all the boroughs of Ireland. I venture to think that the Amendment is a reasonable one.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)

We have had such experience in Belfast in the matter of subdivision into wards that I confess I am very reluctant to see further experiments made in that direction. The honourable and learned Member suggests that, in the case of English boroughs, there is power in the councils to rearrange the wards themselves, independently of any Act of Parliament.

MR. KNOX

Subject to an application to the Home Secretary.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I believe that is so, and I think we must all desire that the rearrangement of ward divisions in Irish boroughs should be dealt with by precisely the same methods as in the case of English boroughs. But I do feel rather strongly that we ought to exercise a little caution at present. I see no reason why we should have a new departure with regard to this Bill from the principle which has worked satisfactorily with regard to English boroughs. To give the power of rearrangement, as this Amendment would practically do, to a minority or any particular council would bring about arbitrary divisions without regard to numerical proportion. For this reason I cannot support the Amendment.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

The wards in Irish boroughs at present can only be re-arranged through the machinery of a Provisional Order, and my impression is that that is so in England.

MR. M. HEALY

Under what Act is that so in England?

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

I have not the reference to the Act, but that is my impression.

MR. M. HEALY

The right honourable Gentleman will find that that is not so.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

However, I doubt very much whether the proposal of the honourable and learned Member for Londonderry is supported by anything like a majority of the councils of the county boroughs in Ireland. In Londonderry and Belfast the number of wards has been fixed by Private Acts within the last few years, and I must say that it seems to me unreasonable that one-fourth of the members of the councils of these two cities should be enabled to compel the Local Government Board to undertake the whole of that work afresh.

MR. P. A. M'HUGH

I should like to ask the Chief Secretary, before we pass from this Amendment, what is the definition of the word "borough," as used in this clause? Does it refer only to the six towns mentioned in the second schedule, or does it include towns such as Kilkenny, Clonmel, and Sligo? If it refers to the latter I should certainly oppose this Amendment, inasmuch as in Sligo we have our ward boundaries fixed by our own private Act, and we object to their being interfered with by the Local Government Board. We do not want any interference with the settlement of our boundaries.

MR. DILLON

I cannot agree with the honourable and learned Member for Londonderry, when he says that this Amendment is based on the principle of Home Rule. I think it would be intolerable that a minority of one-fourth should have power to demand of the Local Government Board an alteration of boundaries against the wishes of a majority of three-fourths. I do not want to detain the Committee by discussing the matter, but I certainly shall oppose the Amendment.

MR. M. HEALY

I understood the Chief Secretary to say that as the law now stands there is power in Ireland to readjust the wards in boroughs by Provisional Order. I have been following the cause of municipal law in Ireland for a good many years, and I cannot agree with the right honourable Gentleman in that. So far as I know there is no power in any authority in Ireland to readjust municipal boundaries. The wards are fixed by the Act 3 and 4 Victoria, and any alteration in them has to be effected by a separate statutory enactment in each case. Although there is something to be said against the principle of the Amendment, and on the question whether a minority of one-fourth of the council should have power to put the matter in motion, it does seem to me that the right honourable Gentleman might consider whether the Local Government Board should not be empowered to make inquiry, and find out whether the existing wards in any particular borough are satisfactory, so that it may not be necessary for the locality to be put to the expense of going for a separate Act of Parliament. The Bill provides a simple procedure for a great number of changes and readjustments; it enables district electoral divisions and urban electoral divisions to be altered; it does everything except the very simple thing of enabling a council, either unanimously or by a majority, to call on the Local Government Board to adjust wards. I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether it was the deliberate intention of the Government to exclude that matter.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

I will answer that question at once. There is no desire on our part to withhold from Irish boroughs any of the powers possessed by English boroughs. I find the honourable and learned Member is right as to the procedure in the case of English boroughs. By the Municipal Corporations Act, 1893 (56 and 57 Victoria, cap. 9), a petition may be presented upon a resolution passed by a majority of the whole council, praying for "the alteration of the boundaries of the wards of a borough, without any alteration of their number," and thereupon an Order in Council passes as a matter of course. I shall be quite prepared to accept a clause embodying a similar provision in the case of Irish boroughs.

MR. KNOX

The answer of the right honourable Gentleman is quite satisfactory. He has now found out that an Irish borough has no power to get the arrangement of its wards altered, except by coming to this House and getting an Act of Parliament; and the right honourable Gentleman has promised, I understand, to embody in the Bill some provision analogous to that existing in the case of English boroughs. While he is considering that matter, I would ask him to ascertain whether there are any particulars in which the English procedure has been found defective, so that he may only apply to Ireland a really efficient procedure. I am aware that, although the English procedure is much better than anything we have in Ireland, it has not altogether excluded some things in the nature of scandals. For instance, in Liverpool, one of the largest boroughs in the United Kingdom, the Liberal minority at one time had control of the town council, and would not apply for an alteration in the wards, by that means keeping the majority from the control to which they were entitled. In that case, on the occasion of the extension of the city boundaries, a compromise between parties was arrived at, and so the difficulty was got over; but no doubt there are many cases in which the present procedure enables a minority to obtain control of the corporation. That is a state of things which we are all agreed it is not desirable to maintain. My contention is that, while we are starting a new system, we ought to provide that the mere view of the majority of the existing corporation—elected as they are, in many cases, on a very narrow franchise, and in most cases representing a minority of the electors—shall not have sole control. I shall not press the Amendment to a Division now, after the promise of the right honourable Gentleman, but I would ask him, in considering this clause, with the view of assimilating the Irish to the English procedure, not to overlook those matters in which the English system may have been found capable of improvement.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I do not want to waste the time of the Committee, but I really must take exception to what seems to be the assumption of the honourable and learned Member, that the English system at all follows the lines of his Amendment. I know of no precedent whatever for one-fourth of the corporation having the right to call upon some public body to set machinery in motion for the purpose of entirely altering the constitution of the corporation.

MR. KNOX

I do not think I said that the English Act contained such a provision. What I did say was that a minority on a council, who yet represented the majority of the electors, ought to have power to secure a proper division.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I know the honourable and learned Member did say that, but I understood that he also expressed a very strong desire that even the English Act should be modified in the direction of his Amendment. I hope the Chief Secretary will not adopt that view.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

I had no idea of adopting the principle of this Amendment, but what I am going to do is to consider the advisability of adopting the English procedure.

MR. P. A. M'HUGH

Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I should like to say that, in my judgment, the honourable and learned Member for Derry is entirely mistaken when he imagines that we have any idea of opposing his Amendment except upon the merits. I think this is a most objectionable proposal, and I hope I am right in thinking that the honourable and learned Member is mistaken in supposing that the Chief Secretary's promised proposal will be at all in the nature of the Amendment on the Paper. As I understand it, the Chief Secretary proposes that there shall be inserted in this Bill a provision giving borough councils power, if they think fit, to apply to the Local Government Board for a re-arrangement of wards, but giving the council as a council the option of either remaining as they are or taking the initiative to bring about a redistribution. That is a very different proposal to that contained in this Amendment.

MR. KNOX

I will not continue the argument, although I should like to answer what honourable Members have said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. T. M. HEALY

had the following Amendment on the Paper:— Page 8, line 31, after 'apply,' inserts— Provided that the councillors shall retire together after a term of three years and the aldermen after a term of six years.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

I think this Amendment is disposed of by the determination of the last Amendment.

Amendment proposed— Page 8, line 31, after 'apply,' insert— Provided that nothing in this Act contained shall alter or affect the number of aldermen or councillors which may be elected by a ward in such borough."—(Mr. M. Healy. )

MR. M. HEALY

The Amendment I now propose is, I think, necessary on the frame of the Bill. Clause 19 provides— (a)The local government register of electors shall be the burgess roll, and persons registered therein and no others shall be the burgesses, and the provisions made by or in pursuance of this Act respecting the qualification and mode of election of councillors shall extend as well to the aldermen as to the councillors of a county borough. Now the only mode of election referred to in the previous part of the Bill is an election by single-member districts. The words I have read, in their ordinary sense, might be taken to refer to election by ballot as distinguished from open voting; but that is not what is intended, because the only previous provisions as to election contained in the Bill are the clauses which provide that the mode of election for the county council shall be by single-member districts. It is a curious thing that when the right honourable Gentleman comes to clause 19, which deals with urban districts, including boroughs other than county boroughs, he frames that clause in a manner which requires no Amendment of this kind. I assume that the Government do not intend that elections in county boroughs shall be by single member districts. I think it is desirable that that should be made quite clear, and accordingly I move this Amendment.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

It is certainly not our intention that anything in the Act should alter or affect the number of aldermen or councillors to be elected by any ward. I will consider whether the insertion of these words or some other words is necessary, but I do not like to accept this Amendment offhand.

MR. M. HEALY

I considered this matter with some care myself. I quite see that it is arguable whether the Bill as it is framed does or does not carry out the intention of the Government, but I think it should be so expressed as to leave no room for doubt.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

I will take care that there shall be no doubt, but I should like to consider whether the words proposed are necessary and proper.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— Page 8, line 3, after 'bye-laws,' insert— Power of appointing a visiting committee for a prison."— (Mr. M. Healy)

MR. M. HEALY

This is really a consequential or draft Amendment. When we dealt with this matter of visiting committees in counties, the right honourable Gentleman said that he did not intend to change the law as it exists in county boroughs or other boroughs; but he is, of course, aware that in boroughs in Ireland the corporations elect persons to represent them on the visiting committees. My contention is that the earlier words of this clause if left unqualified, will be entirely inapplicable. Sub-section 2 of this clause provides that— The provisions of this Act with respect to administrative counties shall, so far as circumstances admit, apply in the case of county boroughs. Now, one of the provisions of the Act in respect to administrative counties is that they shall have no representative on the visiting committees for prisons.

It being twelve of the Clock, the Chairman left the chair. Committee report progress, to sit again this day.

House resumed.