§ As amended, further considered. CLAUSE 36. —(Application to Scotland.)
§ This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:
§ (3) Without prejudice to the right of a woman in Scotland to be registered as a local government elector for any local government electoral area where she would be entitled to be so registered if she were a man, a woman in Scotland shall only be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a constituency (other than a university constituency) on the like conditions as in England, and Section three of this Act shall accordingly apply without modification so far as it constitutes a basis for the Parliamentary franchise as provided in Sub-section (1) of Section four of this Act:
§ (4) For the purpose of the local government franchise the following provisos shall be substituted for the first proviso enacted in Section three of this Act, that is to say:
§ Provided that for the purposes of this Section the word "tenant" shall include—
- (a) a man occupying in virtue of any office, service, or employment
2061 any dwelling-house which is not inhabited by the person under whom he serves; and - (b) a man occupying as a lodger any room, or rooms, of the yearly value (if let unfurnished) of not less than ten pounds who claims to be registered in respect of such occupation, or, where not more than two men are in the joint occupation of lodgings and the yearly value thereof (if let unfurnished) is not less than twenty pounds, each of such men who claims to be registered in respect of such occupation:
§ And provided further that where any land or premises are of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds, it shall not be necessary in order to entitle the owner thereof to be registered as a local government elector in respect of such land or premises, that he should at any time during the qualifying period have occupied the same:
§ (5) The Section of this Act relating to registration officers and areas shall not apply, and in lieu thereof—
§ The registration area shall be the area (whether a county, a burgh, or some particular portion or district thereof) for which under the Valuation Acts an assessor is appointed and the assessor so appointed shall act as the registration officer for that area:
§ (6) The provisions regarding the appointment of an assistant judge in the Section of this Act relating to appeals shall not apply:
§ (7) The first Sub-section of the Section of this Act relating to expenses of registration shall not apply, and in lieu thereof—
§ The expenses of registration (including any expense incurred by a registration officer as party to an appeal) shall be assessed and levied in any one of the modes allowed by the Valuation Acts with respect to the costs and expenses of making up the valuation roll:
§ (8) The Sections of this Act relating to returning officers and to the discharge of returning officers' duties by an acting returning officer shall not apply, and in lieu thereof:
§ The returning officer at Parliamentary elections (other than a university election) shall as heretofore be the sheriff, and the power of appointing 2062 deputies conferred by Section eight of the Ballot Act, 1872, on certain sheriffs shall be exercisable by any sheriff who is returning officer for more than one constituency or who, by reason of sick ness or unavoidable absence, is incapacitated from performing any of the duties devolving upon him as returning officer, and in the event of of no such appointment being made by a sheriff so incapacitated or in the event of any vacancy in the office of sheriff at the time when any of such duties require to be performed, the sheriff-substitute at the place at which the writ for the election is appointed to be received, shall act as returning officer, and shall perform all the duties and have all the powers (including the power of appointing deputies) of such returning officer.
§ Amendment proposed [26th November], in lieu of Sub-sections (3) and (4) left out, insert the following:
§ "(3) The Section of this Act relating to local government franchise (men) shall not apply and in lieu thereof—
§ (a) A man who is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for a local government electoral area if he is on the last day of the qualifying period and has been during the whole of that period—
- (i.) the owner of land and heritages within the area of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds: Where lands and heritages are in in the joint ownership of two or more persons and the aggregate yearly value of the lands and heritage is not less than the amount produced by multiplying ten pounds by the number of the joint owners each of the joint owners shall be treated as owning lands and heritages of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds; or
- (ii.) the occupier as tenant of lands and heritages (other than a dwelling-house) within the area, of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds: Where such lands and heritages are in the joint occupation as tenants of two or more persons and the aggregate yearly value of the lands and heritages is
2063 not less than the amount produced by multiplying ten pounds by the number of the joint occupiers each of the joint occupiers shall be treated as occupying lands and heritages of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds; or - (iii.) The inhabitant occupier as owner or tenant of a dwelling-house within the area; or
- (iv.) the occupier of lodgings within the area of the yearly value if let unfurnished of not less than ten pounds;
- Where lodgings are in the joint-occupation of not more than two persons and the aggregate yearly value as aforesaid of the lodgings is not less than twenty pounds, each of the joint lodgers shall be treated as occupying lodgings of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds; or
- (v) the inhabitant occupier in virtue of any office, service, or employment of a dwelling-house within the area which is not inhabited by any person under whom he serves in such office, service, or employment;
§ (b)
- (i) the ownership or occupation in immediate succession of different lands and heritages, dwelling-houses, or lodgings, as the case may be, in the same Parliamentary county or in the same Parliamentary borough shall have the like effect in qualifying a man to be registered as a local government elector for a local government electoral area therein, respectively, as the continued ownership or occupation of the same lands and heritages, dwelling-houses, or lodgings within that area; and
- (ii) the occupation of a dwelling-house shall not be deemed to be interrupted by reason only of permission being given by letting or otherwise for the occupation thereof as a furnished house by some other person for a part of the qualifying period not exceeding three months in the whole;
§ (c) In this section 'owner' has the same meaning as 'proprietor' in the Valuation Acts, 'lands and heritages' has the same meaning as in those Acts, and 'dwelling- 2064 house' means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling;
§ (4) Sub-section 1 of the section of this Act relating to franchise (women) shall not apply, and in lieu thereof—
§ (a) A woman who is not subject to any legal incapacity shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a constituency (other than a university constituency) if she has attained the age of thirty years and if either she or her husband is on the last day of the qualifying period occupying jointly or severally as owner or tenant any land or premises in the constituency (hereinafter in this Sub-section called `the qualifying premises'), and has during the whole of the qualifying period so occupied any land or premises in the county or county of a city in which the qualifying premises are situated
§ Provided that for the purposes of this Sub-section—
- (i.) the word `tenant' shall include a person who inhabits by virtue of any office, service, or employment any dwelling-house which is not inhabited by any person under whom he serves in such office, service, or employment;
- (ii.) the word `tenant' shall not include a person who occupies a room or rooms as a lodger except where such room or rooms are let to him or her in an unfurnished state;
- (iii.) a woman, though she or her husband may have been occupying land or premises in the constituency on the last day of the qualifying period, shall not be entitled to be so registered if she or her husband, as the case may be, commenced to occupy the land or premises within thirty days before the end of the qualifying period and ceased to occupy them within thirty days after the commencement of such occupation;
- (iv.) the occupation of a house shall not be deemed to be interrupted by reason only of permission being given by letting or otherwise for the occupation of the house as a furnished house by some other person for a part of the qualifying period not exceeding four months in the whole;
- (v.) not more than two persons shall be deemed to be joint occupiers of the same land or premises unless they are bonâ fide engaged as partners carrying on their profession, trade, or business in the premises; and
- (vi.) the word 'county' means a county inclusive of all burghs therein except a county of a city, and the word 'dwelling-house' means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling.
§ (b) A woman registered by virtue of this Section shall be deemed to be registered by virtue of her own or her husband's local government qualification."—[Mr. Munro.]
§ Adjourned Debate resumed on Amendment proposed, in Sub-section (3, a, iv.), of the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "of the yearly value, if let unfurnished, of not less than £10; where lodgings are in the joint occupation of not more than two persons and the aggregate yearly value as aforesaid of the lodgings is not less than £20, each of the joint lodgers shall be treated as occupying lodgings of the yearly value of not less than £10."—[Mr. Adamson.]
§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
Mr. DUNDAS WHITEIs that Amendment put in such a way as to save my Amendment which comes next, namely, to leave out the word "ten" and to insert the word "five"?
Mr.SPEAKERIf this be adopted it will dispose of the main Amendment down to the word "or" at the end of Sub-section (3, a, iv.).
§ Mr. GULLANDThe point which we were discussing when the House ceased consideration of this Bill the other night was whether the money qualification in respect of the premises of a lodger should still continue. I was rather disappointed that when the Secretary for Scotland had an opportunity of remedying this old anomaly in the municipal franchise he did not take advantage of it. This lodger vote no longer applies to the Parliamentary franchise, but in the municipal franchise it is an anomaly of long standing. It has been a constant source of irritation for over twenty years, and the people who have had anything to do with it in Scotland 2066 would have been very glad if the right hon. Gentleman could have abolished it in municipal matters as it has been abolished in Parliamentary matters. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the £10 limit was kept for owners and tenants, and therefore it sems to be reasonable that it should be kept for lodgers. But I would remind the House that the value is quite different in the two cases. For owners and tenants the value of £10 is on the valuation roll, and there is no doubt about it. It is an ascertained value which everyone knows, but with the lodger it is different. The £10 there has no relation to the £10 in the case of the owner or tenant. The valuation in the case of the owner and tenant is definite and undeniable. With regard to the lodger it is hypothetical and uncertain and has no relation to the valuation roll at all. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the leading case on this subject is the case of Kelly v. Little, 1897. That was a case at Quarter Sessions, which decided that in determining the clear annual value of an unfurnished lodging the fact that the house of which they formed part is entered in the valuation roll as of the annual value of £5 was not conclusive evidence that the lodgings were not of the annual value of £10. The result of that case was that the valuation roll, when it has to do with questions connected with the lodger franchise, is not conclusive evidence, but only an intimation of evidence to be taken into account along with other evidence. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is the case which has ruled this subject since 1897. I will give another case. It is that of Flynn in 1899, where the claimant set forth in his declaration that he had been for the statutory period tenant of a room of the clear annual value, unfurnished, of £10 or upwards.
4.0 P.M.
No objection was lodged, but the sheriff ascertained from the valuation roll that the house, which consisted of three rooms in all, was entered at £12 10s., and he rejected the claim. The Court reserved judgment and admitted the claim, holding that there was no evidence to rebut the primâ facie evidence of the declaration. I could give my right hon. Friend other cases, but I think I have made it quite clear that the entry in the valuation roll has nothing to do with the value of the lodger's holding.
What is the system on which the lodger at present gets his vote? It really does not depend upon the valuation roll. It 2067 is the individual opinion of every sheriff, and I do not believe there are more than three or four sheriffs who agree on the basis on which they should allow a lodger to be entered. It has become very much a matter of private arrangement between the sheriff and the agents of the parties. In Glasgow, for instance, a lodger is admitted, provided his other qualifications are all right, on a rental of £10 10s. The room that he occupies necessarily is much less than that, perhaps one of two or one of three; but if the whole house has a rental of £10 10s., one lodger can get a vote, two lodgers on a £15 rental, and three on a £19 15s. rental. I understand in some other constituencies in the West of Scotland the scale is the same. In Edinburgh, on the other hand, it is different. I have had a great deal to do with it, and I know the Edinburgh case very well. For a large number of years it was the custom to survey each house where a lodger claimed a vote, and to strike a proportion of the value of the room that he occupied to the whole house, and if the proportion came out at £10 he got a vote; if it did not, he did not. Therefore, of course, in Edinburgh for many years there was a very small number of lodgers who got put on the roll. Then in Edinburgh an agreement followed whereby one lodger was allowed on a £13 rental, two for a £17 rental, and three for a £21 rental. But to show how changing the custom has been, not only in different parts of the country but in one borough, in 1914 this was changed again, and it is now agreed privately that one lodger is allowed on for £11 10s. and two for £15, with an additional £5 of rental for each lodger thereafter. Throughout the country every sheriff has his own reading of this Section. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, if he sticks to the provisions of his Amendment, what is to be the procedure in future? What is to be the test? At present he has a sort of hold because a lodger has to claim, and therefore his claim comes before the Registration Court and there is some means of ascertaining the facts. But now I am very glad to say my right hon. Friend has departed from the claim. But that makes it all the more necessary that we should have some definite understanding as to what this whole plan means. Therefore, I ask what is to be the test in future, and who is to be the judge of this hypothetical £10 value? 2068 These male lodgers are all on the Parliamentary register, and why should they not be also upon the municipal register? There was an old idea that to have a municipal vote a man should make direct payment of rates. That has gone long ago, because now a large number of tenants do not pay their rates directly, and the Service franchise men do not pay their rates directly, so that that excuse for retaining this system has gone, and it would be an immense improvement if my right hon. Friend would take his courage in both his hands and make the municipal the same as the Parliamentary register. At any rate, if he could now see his way to do that, he ought to sweep away this old anomaly, which has caused much friction and trouble in the past and will cause more friction in the future because of the new difficulties that will arise.
§ The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro)My right hon. Friend has made a most interesting speech, and as I listened to him citing cases I could almost fancy myself back in the Law Courts again. But let us see the real meaning of the Amendment. Its object is to abolish the value limit which, under the existing law in Scotland, attaches to the lodger vote. What would the result of that be? Obviously it would mean adult suffrage for lodgers, and I have a little difficulty in seeing why they should be privileged in that respect when the House has determined that there shall not be adult suffrage all round. In addition to that it would involve this, that any number of lodgers could qualify for precisely the same premises. According to the decision of the House the other day an occupier must have a house of £10 value. An occupier who had a house just below £10 in value might have lodgers, and every one of them would be entitled to vote while he himself would not. That would be quite an anomalous position in which to place the lodger, however much one may desire to improve the franchise, as I hope we are doing. This would be to introduce quite a startling innovation into our law in Scotland and one far greater than any which I have been up till now asked to give effect to. I would remind the House of the history of the matter. The net result of the provisions of the Bill as introduced was that in Scotland a great measure of our local government franchise, including the 2069 lodger franchise, disappeared, and I was waited upon by members of all parties, Liberal, Conservative and Labour, and asked to maintain the local government franchise substantially as it is to-day. I have done so. No member of the deputation asked —
§ Mr. PRINGLEYes, I did.
§ Mr. MUNROIf I am wrong, I withdraw, but, according to my recollection, no one suggested that the lodger qualification should be abolished. My hon. and learned Friend suggested the abolition of the necessity for a claim, and that has been given effect to. But, having given that undertaking, I am really not prepared to go further. The difficulties which have been pointed out by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gulland) and my hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) are really largely administrative, and I am hopeful that in the future many of the difficulties which have prevailed in the past may be overcome. The assessor will in the future, in the absence of a claim, have to make up his mind quite definitely as a skilled man upon the value of the premises, and I do not anticipate that under that system there will be so much difficulty as there has been in the past. Accordingly, I am hopeful that under the new system which I propose to introduce, in response to pressure brought to bear upon me in this House to which I have yielded, these anomalies of administration will disappear. At any rate, I put it to the House as a matter of fair play that I have met the demands which have been made upon me. In the first place, I have restored the lodger franchise, as I was asked to do. In the second place, yielding to pressure from all quarters, and after consulting the responsible and skilled authorities in Scotland, I have abolished the necessity for a lodger claim. Having done these two things, I am urged to go a great deal further than I undertook to go, and further than I think it would be proper to go in a Bill which is a compromise between parties, and therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment, but will reach the conclusion, on reflection, that I have met him very fairly by making the two concessions I have referred to.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI congratulate the hon. Member (Mr. Adamson) on having received the support of the right hon. 2070 Gentleman (Mr. Gulland). I was, however surprised at his attitude, and I think his arguments have been very effectively met by the speech we have just heard. The House has already decided upon a £10 valuation for the occupier's vote, and why we should abolish it entirely for the lodger's vote I cannot conceive. The local government franchise is granted in respect of the payment of rates. The whole thing arises from the fact that individual owners and occupiers cannot possibly, in many cases, provide for themselves the necessary supplies in the way of water, lighting, scavenging, and so forth, which have to be provided by a co-operative system on which they are rated, and the local government franchise is a right to vote on the expenditure of money for these services. We have departed from that already in this Bill to the extent that we have given the wives of married occupiers votes to which they are certainly not entitled as ratepayers. I objected to it, and still do. It is a monstrous thing to have done. A person occupying one of a row of cottages, for which he pays £10, who is a bachelor, has only one vote in respect of the money he provides, and because a man in another cottage has a wife he has two votes in the spending of No. l's money. If we are going to make up our minds to abolish the old principles which have guided us in this matter, and which are obviously fair, we shall know where we are. But we should certainly not introduce a principle of that kind into a Bill of this sort which is only remotely connected with the question. We are getting on. I do not know what the next thing will be, but I support the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Munro) in the attitude he has taken. It appears to me to be a perfectly monstrous thing to permit, as this will permit, any number of lodgers, in a house which may not entitle its owner as an occupier to a local government vote, an opportunity of voting. The right hon. Gentleman's arguments are unanswerable. It is nothing to the point that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gulland) brought up the question, which has been discussed ad nauseam for years, on the varying opinions as to what constitutes a £10 qualification for a lodger. There are varying circumstances, and all have to be taken into account, and naturally the financial results are different in one case from what they are in another. It depends entirely on the valuation of 2071 property and land values, and all the rest in different localities. Therefore, it is not fair to say that in one case ten guineas qualifies and that in another it requires £11. The lodger's rent includes a great deal more than the actual proportion of the rent of the house for which the man may pay £10. Therefore, of course, the rental is necessarily higher. The right hon. Gentleman has made out an unanswerable case for the rejection of the Amendment, and I trust the House will support him.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThe argument which has been drawn from the hon. Baronet is somewhat different from that which the Secretary for Scotland has put before the House. The hon. Baronet has suggested that the lodger franchise is based at present on a rate-paying basis. That is totally inconsistent with the facts, and I am surprised that the hon. Baronet, even in speaking to this House which is so willing to listen to anything which he says, should have put forward such an absurd proposition. He also told us that we are going to be guilty of a strange anomaly—that you will have an occupier of a house of less than £10 valuation not entitled to a vote, while lodgers may qualify for votes under this Amendment. That is precisely the law as it stands, according to the decision in Kelly's case which my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries Burghs mentioned. Though the rent was only £5, the lodger was entitled to a vote because he was held to occupy premises which, if they were unfurnished, were of the value of £10, so that that anomaly at present exists.
§ Mr. GULLANDThe hon. Gentleman is not quite right in that. I think that the tenant of that house has a vote whatever its value. It is only the non-occupying owner, the owner of premises which are not let.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI think that that is so. That just illustrates the difficulty of the hon. Baronet in appreciating the Amendment. The real question is, are we going to make the local government franchise, so far as lodgers are concerned, identical with the franchise for Parliamentary purposes? My own view has always been, in spite of the varying opinions introduced into the Bill, that there was no ground in logic for any distinction between these franchises, that in fact, if 2072 you were going to have a wide franchise for Parliamentary purposes, there was no possible ground for making a narrower franchise for the comparatively less important matter of local government. I am surprised that the Secretary for Scotland, now that the opportunity has been given him to take the judgment of his Scottish colleagues on this question, should have thrown the weight of his authority against a proposition at once so easy and so fair. It is true that at the deputation to which he has referred the bulk of the Scottish members agreed to a compromise to maintain the local government franchise as it is. Personally, I was always opposed to that. I had hoped that when it was left to Scottish opinion, Scottish opinion would have insisted on the local government franchise being identical with the Parliamentary franchise. I believe that Scottish opinion, by an overwhelming majority, is in favour of that policy, and I believe that, if the Government leave it to the unfettered decision of the Scottish members here, there is not the slightest doubt but that a majority of more than five to one would be in favour of that proposition. We have had the Government leaving such things to the House. It has become the fashion on the Report stage to leave decisions to the House. Is it to be the fashion to leave decisions to the House only when it suits the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs? That is the real proposition. The Secretary for Scotland once resented a suggestion which we made that he was in any way under instructions from the hon. Baronet. He has the opportunity of asserting his freedom this afternoon. After the speech of the hon. Baronet I hope that this matter, which is purely a Scottish matter, will be left to the House. I am sure that if it were left to the House and hon. Members voted as free men they would go into the Lobby with the right hon. Member for Dumfries.
§ Mr. C. PRICEI have received a communication from Edinburgh protesting against the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman made to the House on 13th October, which means that the lodger in order to secure a vote at all local elections must pay about 3s. 11d. per week for an unfurnished room. This protest points out that in past years political agents in Scottish constituencies arranged a lodger vote ranging from £10 to £16 2073 per annum, and if a lodger resided in a house rented below the sum arranged he had to lose a day's work attending Court to prove his claim for a vote, which prevented thousands of young men, particularly in mining districts, from obtaining the franchise. It continues:
This meeting is of opinion that the broad-based democratic franchise in the Representation of the People Bill, intended for Parliamentary contests, should be adopted for local government elections, and urges if Parliamentary sanction is not obtainable for this claim that £5 might be substituted for the £10 in Mr. Munro's Amendment in order to lessen the difficulties hitherto placed in the way of lodgers in low-rented houses obtaining votes.
§ This protest, received from Edinburgh, expresses the opinion of a great mass of poorly paid people who exercise the lodger franchise. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give way because, notwithstanding the explanation made by him, I am perfectly sure that this view is one which is not entertained by the great mass of these lodger voters.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 112.
2075| Division No. 122.] | AYES. | [4.23 p.m |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Allen, Major W. J. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Frederick (Dulwich) | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Archdale, Lieut. Edward M. | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) | Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse) |
| Barnett, Captain R. W. | Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.) | Pease,Rt.Hon.Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Barnston, Capt. Harry | Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire) | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) | Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T. | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Hewart, Sir Gordon | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E. | Pratt, J. W. |
| Bellairs, Commander C. W. | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Raphael, Major Sir Herbert H. |
| Bird, Alfred | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bowden, Major G. R. Harland I | Hope, John Deans (Haddington) | Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.) |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Remnant, Col. Sir James Farquharson |
| Brassey, H. L. C. | Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H. | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Ingleby, Holcombe | Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York) | Samuels, Arthur W. |
| Butcher, John George | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) | Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur |
| Cator, John | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G. |
| Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George | Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey) | Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton) |
| Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick | Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kellaway, Frederick George | Spear Sir John Ward |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr | Starkey, Captain John R. |
| Cheyne, Sir W. W. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. H. |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Larmor, Sir J. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Layland-Barrett, Sir F. | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.) | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Tickler, T. G. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lindsay, William Arthur | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Currie, George W. | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Walker, Colonel William Hall |
| Dalrymple, Hon. H. H. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Wardle, George J. |
| Dixon, C. H. | Macmaster, Donald | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Duke, Rt. Hon. Heu[...]y Edward | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.) |
| Du Pre, Major W. Baring | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Weigall, Lieut.-Col. W. E. G. A. |
| Fell, Arthur | Macpherson, James Ian | Whiteley, Herbert James |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | ||
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham) | Maden, Sir John Henry | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Marriott, J. A. R. | Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth) |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Foster, Philip Staveley | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Gelder, Sir W. A. | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward |
| Gibbs, Col. George Abraham | Newman, Major John R. P. | Younger, Sir George |
| Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Yoxall, Sir James H. |
| Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Norman, Sir Henry | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord |
| Gretton, Colonel John | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir J. | E. Talbot and Captain F. Guest. |
| Guinness, Hon. W. E.(Bury S. Edmunds) | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke | Boland, John Pius | Clancy, John Joseph |
| Alden, Percy | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Collins, Sir W. (Derby) |
| Anderson, W. C. | Brady, Patrick Joseph | Cowan, Sir W. H. |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) | Bryce, J. Annan | Crooks, Rt. Hon. William |
| Barton, Sir William | Burns, Rt, Hon. John | Crumley, Patrick |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Chancellor, Henry George | Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy). |
| Bliss, Joseph | Chapple, Major William Allen | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Dickinson, Rt. Hon. W. H. | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Smith, Capt. Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | London, Thomas | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Edge, Captain William | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.) | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk. B'ghs) | Stanton, Charles Butt |
| Ffrench, Peter | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Sutherland, John E. |
| Field, William | McMicking, Major Gilbert | Sutton, John E. |
| Fitzpatrick, John Lalor | Mallalieu, Frederick William | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Fleming, Sir J. (Aberdeen, S.) | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Middlebrook, Sir William | Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.) |
| Gilbert, J. D. | Molloy, Michael | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Glanville, Harold James | Morgan, George Hay | Tillett, B. |
| Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford | Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.) | Tootill, Robert |
| Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Hackett, John | Nolan, Joseph | Walters, Sir John Tudor |
| Harris, Peicy A. (Leicester, S.) | Nuttall, Harry | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Parrott. Sir James Edward | Watt, Henry A. |
| Higham, John Sharp | Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Hinds, John | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Hogge, James Myles | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Holmes, Daniel Turner | Pringle, William M. R. | Williams, Aneurin (Durham) |
| Holt, Richard Darning | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Rendall, Athelstan | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Robinson, Sidney | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Jowett, Frederick William | Roch, Walter F. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Joyce, Michael | Rowlands, James | Yeo, Alfred William |
| Keating, Matthew | Rowntree, Arnold | |
| Kenyon, Barnet | Scanlan, Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—Mr. |
| King, Joseph | Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield) | Adamson and Mr. Dundas White |
Mr. WHITEI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3, a, iv.), of the proposed Amendment, to insert the words, "Provided that this franchise shall not be affected by reason only of the fact that the lodgings are also occupied by a child or minor, or by more than one of these".
The reason why I propose this Amendment is because there is among many electors an impression that if the lodger is not the sole occupier in the strictest sense, then even though the lodgings may be of the value to qualify a man, yet he may lose the franchise which is otherwise given. I remember a case that was brought to my notice of a lodger who occupied lodgings of an amount sufficient to qualify him, but if he had his young brother, who was merely a child, living in and occupying the room with him, that might operate as a disqualification. I am sure that in such cases, where the other occupant is a child or a minor, it would be very wrong merely to disqualify the lodger on that ground; therefore, I have put this Amendment on the Paper in order to make it quite clear that that will not of itself operate as a disqualification. It may possibly be that this Amendment may be unnecessary, but, even if it is unnecessary, I would suggest that it should still go into the Bill to prevent mistakes arising in future, and for the purpose of greater caution. I think it would be very desirable that an Amendment, with any variation that may be suggested, should be embodied in the 2076 Bill, so as to put beyond doubt the settlement of the question that I have raised, and make sure that the lodger who occupies and pays the rent of lodgings which are of the qualifying value shall not be debarred from the franchise merely because he gives hospitality to a child or minor who, I suggest, may be his own brother.
§ Mr. ADAMSONI beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
§ Mr. MUNROI think my hon. and learned Friend, on reflection, will agree as, indeed, he indicated in his speech, that this Amendment is quite unnecessary. In my humble judgment it is either unnecessary or unjustifiable. I will put two cases to my hon. and learned Friend. Suppose in the first place there is a parent and child who live in lodgings; the parent is a party to the contract of let, the child is not; the mere fact that the child is residing in the room belonging to his parent does not in any way make him an occupier, and it could not possibly interfere with the right to exercise the franchise by the parent. As it has become the fashion to cite authorities on the subject, I will present my hon. and learned Friend with the case of Hamilton, reported in I. Fraser, page 208, where it was decided by the Court of Session that though a man resided in lodgings along with his wife—not a minor—there was no doubt at all that he was the occupier of the premises for the purpose of the franchise. That is one view, and in that view the Amend- 2077 ment is unnecessary. Take the other view: Suppose a man is residing in premises with a son, between the age of fourteen and twenty-one years, and suppose that both of them were parties to the contract for the letting of the [...]oom; in that case I think my hon. and learned Friend will agree that the mere fact that one of the two is a minor should not in any way affect or prejudice the right to the franchise of the other, who is not a. minor.
§ Mr. MUNROWell, I submit that the Amendment is unnecessary, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press it.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. WHITEI beg to move, in Subsection (3, b, ii.) of the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "three" ["not exceeding three months "], and to insert instead thereof the word "four." The reason for this Amendment is that in regard to the Parliamentary franchise in the letting of a house, the period is four months. That has already been put into the Bill, and I suggest that, in this case, it should also be four months, instead of three. There is the further element that if you look further down the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, you find, in paragraph (iv.), the words, "qualifying period not exceeding four months in the whole." I suggest the substitution of four for three months in this instance to bring the provision in harmony with the general provisions of the Bill, and also into harmoney with the provisions of this Amendment. Unless this Amendment is adopted there will be some very considerable confusion as to the period of four months and the period of three months. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. GULLANDI beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
§ Mr. MUNROHaving heard the hon. and learned Gentleman, I shall accept the Amendment, because it removes what is an apparent anomaly in the Bill.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
2078§ Proposed words, as amended, there in serted in the Bill.
§ Mr. MUNROI beg to move, in Subsection (5), to leave out the words, "The registration area shall be the area (whether a county, a burgh, or some particular portion or district thereof) for which under the Valuation Acts an assessor is appointed, and the assessor so appointed shall act as the registration officer for that area,"
and to insert instead thereof the words, "Each burgh, the town council whereof was entitled under the law in force at the passing of this Act to appoint an assessor for the purpose of Parliamentary registration, and each county (exclusive of every such burgh), or, where any county is divided for the purpose of Parliamentary elections, each part of the county which lies within a separate Parliamentary division, shall be a registration area; and the assessor of the burgh or county under the Valuation Acts, or where there are two or more such assessors, one of them appointed for the purpose of Parliamentary registration by the town or county council, as the case may be, shall be the registration officer of that area, and all other assessors (if any) in that area shall, for the purpose of Parliamentary registration, be subject to the instructions of the registration officer and shall be bound to act on such instructions:
Provided that, from and after the date when the first register under this Act shall have been completed, an officer of Inland Revenue shall not be appointed or continue to act as assessor for any burgh or county under the Valuation Acts without the consent of the Treasury."
This Amendment proposes to substitute a new definition of the registration area for the definition which is at present in the Bill. It is imperative, as I think the House will agree, that the registration area should be well fixed and known, and the objection to the existing definition which is in the Bill at the moment is that it constitutes the valuation area as the registration area. As my Scottish colleagues know, the valuation area within the county may be changed from time to time, and that would result in great inconvenience in dealing with registration. The Amendment which I ask the House to 2079 accept proposes that the registration area should be the existing area for that purpose, the existing Parliamentary borough and county, and, where the county is divided into Parliamentary divisions, the registration area will be the division.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. MUNROI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (6), to insert the words,
(7) In the application of the Section of this Act relating to right to the use of elementary schools, the expression 'any public elementary school in receipt of an annual Parliamentary Grant' means 'any school in receipt of a Parliamentary Grant.'This is a drafting Amendment consequential upon the insertion of a Clause in the Bill which provides for the use of schools for candidates' meetings. Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. MUNROI beg to move, in the succeeding Sub-section to leave out the words, "The expenses of registration (including expense incurred by a registration officer as a party to an appeal)," and to insert instead thereof the words:
"Any expenses properly incurred by any registration officer in the performance of his duties in relation to registration, including all proper and reasonable charges for trouble, care, and attention in the performance of those duties, and any cost incurred by him as party to an appeal (in this Act referred to as "registration expenses") shall be paid by the council appointing the registration officer. Provided that, where a burgh within the meaning of The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, is not a separate registration area, the council thereof shall pay to the council appointing the registration officer a contribution towards the registration expenses, and Sub-section (4) of Section sixty and Section sixty-six of that Act shall apply, with the necessary modifications, to such contribution. The amount necessary to defray any registration expenses or any contribution thereto, as the case may be."
This Amendment is intended to adapt the provisions of the Scottish Clause to the English provisions of the Bill as they now stand, and the House may take it from me that the general effect of the words 2080 which I now move is that the registration expenses shall be paid in the same way and by the same authority as they are under the existing law.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. MUNROI beg to move, in Subsection (8), after the word "sheriff" ["shall as heretofore be the sheriff"], to insert the words "of the sheriffdom within which the constituency is wholly situated or, where the. constituency is situated in more than one sheriffdom, the sheriff specified in the Sixth Schedule to this Act."
These words are inserted for the purpose of reference to a new Schedule which I propose to move later on. it is provided that the sheriff shall act as returning officer in constituencies which are wholly included in one sheriffdom, but when the constituency includes more than one sheriffdom—there are only seven such cases, I think—it is necessary to specify who shall be the returning officer and the House will see in the Schedule I shall move later our proposal on the subject. This Amendment is necessary to lead up to that Schedule.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. MUNROI beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert,
(9) In the case of Parliamentary elections the place of election shall be a convenient room situated in such place as the Secretary for Scotland may by order, from time to time determine.(10) For the purposes of the Section of this Act relating to alteration of polling districts where necessary the sheriff shall within his sheriffdom be deemed to be the local authority.The object of this proposal is that the place of election shall be determined by myself, or, it may be, my successor.
Mr. MURRAY MACDONALDMy hon. Friend the Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. I. Duncan Millar) has an Amendment on the Paper dealing with that subject, and he has asked me to call attention to it in his absence. It suggests that the place of election shall be scheduled—that there shall be an additional Schedule to the Bill. We are desirous that the Secretary for Scotland shall indicate what principle he proposes to adopt in selecting the place of election. 2081 Take, for instance, the case of a county division named after the leading burgh in that division. Would the right hon. Gentleman propose that the leading burgh shall be the place of election? I represent at this moment the burgh of Hamilton, which is now merged in a county division called the Hamilton Division. Would Hamilton, in the view of the right hon. Gentleman, become the place of election? The same question might be asked in regard to Lanark and other places similarly situated.
§ Mr. MUNROMy hon. Friend has asked me on what principle I shall proceed in fixing the place of election. My answer is that public convenience will be the sole consideration. That it is the only possible principle. I very much demur to stating at this stage, and without the full consideration which each case will receive, what any particular place of election will be, and I think my right hon. Friend will agree that it would not be convenient now, without having had an opportunity to examine the circumstances and, if necessary, hear both sides, to pronounce any final opinion upon that matter. The difficulty is this—and it is brought out in the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire, where he talks about the principal burgh: What is the principal burgh? I do not think I could give any assurance on this point without much fuller consideration than I have yet been able to devote to the question.
§ Mr. GULLANDThere is a series of other questions which may come up in connection with this matter, such, for instance, as the cases of counties which are united—Caithness and Sutherland. I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be more convenient and much better that this question should be settled in the Bill itself, rather than that the decision should be left for the Secretary of Scotland, who will be taking a good deal of odium on his head when trying to settle the claims of different places. Still, if he thinks this is the proper way of doing it, I hope he will make full inquiry; because I warn him there will be a good deal of feeling on the matter, and it is the possibility of that feeling arising which leads me to think it would be better to settle this in the Schedule itself, as has been done in the matter of the decision as to who shall be the returning officer.
§ Sir J. BARRANParagraph (9) suggests that the Secretary for Scotland may, from time to time, change the burgh which he may select as the returning burgh. I should like to know definitely from him if that is his intention. If it is, I hope he will make it perfectly clear, because, in view of the feeling which has been referred to by my ,right hon. Friend (Mr. Gulland), I think there is something to be said for settling the point now, instead of leaving it to the Secretary for Scotland. I suppose he will not endeavour to placate the people in the competing burghs, by making one burgh the returning place at one election and another burgh at another election. I do not think that that would be conducive to good feeling locally. Then there is the question of consulting all shades of local opinion on this matter. I think it will be to the advantage of those concerned if the right hon. Gentleman will indicate in what way he proposes to do that, so that those who are watching this matter with some degree of interest may know how to proceed in order to make representations on the question.
§ Mr. MUNROI can, of course, only speak again by leave of the House. The proposal which was made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gulland), and which has been rather supported by the hon. Baronet who spoke last, is that Parliament should now fix this matter, rather than that it should be left to the discretion of myself or of my successor in office. The objection to that suggestion is that it would seem unfortunate to stereotype and determine the matter here and now, regardless of all the circumstances which may emerge. We may, for example, have a case where a new railway has been opened up, and has entirely altered the character of a burgh by improving the means of communication. Again, the size of burghs may increase or diminish. Many other considerations may arise, all of which, I venture to think, point in the direction of leaving this for determination, as circumstances may dictate, rather than stereotyping here and now a decision which may, in the circumstances of the future, become inappropriate. My hon. Friend asked how I proposed to satisfy myself with regard to local opinion on the matter. 1 hope he will not press me to state definitely what will be done, but I do not think it will be difficult to do, because there are many channels of information open to one, and my hon. Friend 2083 may rest assured that no determination will be arrived at without most careful consideration of all the relevant circumstances. I do not think he need have any fear of the prospect which he indicated of one burgh being fixed for one election and another chosen for the next election. But one must be careful, having regard to all the circumstances, in what one says now. Still, I do not think in normal circumstances such a case as that would be likely to arise
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. MUNROI beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert,
(10) Except as expressly provided in this Act—
- (a) Nothing in this Act shall take effect so as to deprive any Royal or Parliamentary burgh losing separate representation under this Act of any right, privilege, or status, whether for purposes of local government or otherwise, hitherto enjoyed by such burgh as a Royal or Parliamentary burgh; and"
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI desire to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end of paragraph (a), after the word "burgh," to insert the words,
and a similar status shall be conferred on all burghs included in groups of burghs constituted by this Act.5.0 p.m.I am perfectly content with the words of the paragraph, which provide that ParliamenLary burghs which are to lose separate representation and to be included in a county constituency shall not lose the status they now possess. Our point in that regard is well met by the proposal of the Secretary for Scotland. But I am pleading now for a similar status to be conferred upon burghs which are now included for the first time in a group. In the group which I represent at present three burghs are transferred to another county, and this Amendment will preserve their status. But there are four new burghs included with the group which do not possess a status at present, and I confess it is difficult to understand why they should not obtain it now. I believe that for rating purposes these burghs will be rated by the county authorities, but if they obtain the status of Parliamentary burghs then they will be rated by their own authority. The levy would be made by the county treasurer in the one case, 2084 and, in the other case, the burgh will be requisitioned for a certain amount, and the burgh authorities will impose the rate and collect it. There is not a very grave difference there, or a great difficulty. Other privileges are the privilege of registration. In all these local matters the burghs authorities prepare their own council roll, and will do so, I suppose, if they receive the status of Parliamentary boroughs. I thought the right hon. Gentleman shook his head when it was suggested to him the other night that this status ought to be given, and that he saw difficulties in the way. I have no doubt there arc difficulties, although I do not know exactly what they are. He will tell us if he does not intend to accept this Amendment, but it is not very far reaching as far as numbers are concerned. There are nine burghs in all: Prestwick, Saltcoats, Troon in the Ayr district, Ardrossan in the Ayr district. Clydebank and Grangemouth in the stirling and Falkirk district, Cowdenbeath, Lochgelly, and Buckhaven. Those are the burghs that will be affected; at least that is the information I have from the Convention of Royal Burghs, and I fancy it is correct. They sent me the names, and I think, so far as I have checked them, it is an accurate list. I can only say to the Secretary for Scotland, whether it has any influence with him or not, that the authorities of these burghs, seem very keen on receiving this status. I have received letters from most of them pressing me to bring the matter before the House and to endeavour to secure the status which others similarly constituted have hitherto possessed. I should be very glad indeed if the right hon. Gentleman can in some way or other meet their demand and grant this privilege.
§ Mr. ADAMSONI beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. It deals with one I have lower down On the Notice Paper in a more limited form than that proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger), and I take this opportunity to deal with the principle involved. The hon. Baronet has just told the House that there are four of the burghs affected in his constituency. There are three of the burghs affected in my constituency affected by the rearrangement, and of course they will be put into two groups of burghs. The three in my Constituency are Cowdenbeath, 2085 Lochgelly, and Methil and Buckhaven. The borough councils of two of those three have communicated with me asking me strongly to support the granting to them of the status of Parliamentary burghs. I do not see very well how the Secretary for Scotland can refuse to agree to this Amendment. He has provided in his own Amendment for the continuance of the status of Parliamentary boroughs to those who are under this Bill, so far as representation is concerned, to lose that status, and I do not think he can refuse to grant it to those who are being brought in for the first time. I hope he will see his way to accept the Amendment.
Mr. McKINNON WOODMy difficulty about this Amendment is that it has not appeared on the Paper, so that we have not been able to consider it. Further, neither the Mover nor the Seconder has explained to us what the effect of it will be, and my object in rising is the simple one to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will be good enough to explain in detail what this really means, because it depends on the effect of this alteration whether one approves of it or disapproves of it. We want to know what the effect will be on rating, on the question of school management, and on other points. I must protest rather against having an Amendment of this kind, which is a very technical Amendment and which may have effects of quite a serious character that none of us can appreciate without our having had time to consider the matter, sprung upon us in this way by manuscript. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter very carefully before he comes to a decision. I do not wish to oppose the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger), but I do not like to have things sprung upon us which we have had no opportunity of considering or of estimating the effect.
§ Mr. MUNROI regret that I do not see my way to accept the Amendment which has been moved. In one sense my right hon. Friend (Mr. McKinnon Wood) is right in saying that this is a manuscript Amendment of which there is no notice on the Paper, but at the same time I think it is fair to the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) and to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gulland) to say that on Thursday evening, when this matter was partly discussed, it was more than suggested by both my right hon. Friends that they would oppose Article (b) of the Amendment I am now moving.
§ Mr. GULLANDI did not say that.
Mr. MUNROHI rather gathered that there would be some opposition to the second part of my Amendment. I will now take the opportunity to explain some of the objections which must be taken to the acceptance of this proposal. I think those of my Scottish colleagues who have followed the recent trend of legislation in Scotland will agree that, as a general rule, in recent years it has dealt with all the burghs in Scotland upon the same basis, and has determined their relation, not only to the counties but also to one another, by reference rather to population than by reference to whether the burghs happen to be Royal burghs, Parliamentary burghs, or police burghs. In other words, legislation in recent times of this kind has tended less rather than more in the direction of what one might call particularism. In the circumstances, the accident which takes a burgh out of a county for the purpose of Parliamentary representation could scarcely be regarded nowadays, I think, as a reason for altering its position in the very complicated web of local government, whatever the view may have been in former times I would submit to the House, particularly, that in the middle of a, war it is most undesirable that changes involving the separation of areas and of populations, many of them small, from the larger aggregates with which they are in the meant me associated for local government purposes, should be carried through. The policy of the present Bill, as I understand it, has been not to alter the status quo in any matter except that with which the Bill is primarily concerned, namely, Parliamentary representation.
Let me take the nine burghs to which the hon. Baronet referred. To recognise these nine burghs as entitled to the position of Parliamentary burghs, as these were constituted more than fifty years ago before the introduction of our local government system, would be by the stroke of a pen to destroy, or at least to alter and impair in my humble judgment, a structure which has been most laboriously built up during the intervening years in local government matters. There is one other consideration I should like to put before the House. There are eight other burghs, eight large burghs with a population of more than 10,000, which are included in the county divisions—two of them, Motherwell with a population of 41,000, and Wishaw with a popula- 2087 tion of 25,000, being specially named in the Schedule. I ask the House, If the change is justified in the one case, why not in the other? These burghs to which I have referred include Motherwell, Wishaw, Alloa—
§ Sir G. YOUNGERAlloa?
§ Mr. MUNROYes, Alloa with 11,000. Well, if I am misinformed with regard to Alloa, I will withdraw that. Then there are Barrhead, Boness, Fraserburgh, Johnston, and Kirkintilloch, all burghs with a population of over 10,000, and all of which now form part of Parliamentary counties. If one were asked to extend the privilege to the nine burghs to which the hon. Baronet has referred, I do not think I should have any answer to the claim—it has not been made—on behalf of the burghs to which I have referred. I would only say that on this highly technical matter I have taken the best advice that is available, and I am sure that to give effect to the Amendment which has been moved would be to dislocate local government machinery in many directions, in the direction of representation on the county councils, valuation, education, registration, and the administration of a variety of Statutes. I am far from saying definitely that the change is not, or may not be, a desirable thing; but what I say is that if this change is made it ought to be made after most mature consideration and in a separate measure. It does not seem an appropriate change to make lightly in the course of the discussion of a Bill which really refers to other matters. In view of that, I appeal to my hon. Friends not to press the Amendment.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI shall be very glad to withdraw the Amendment if the Secretary for Scotland desires me to do so, but I am bound to put the point that although, as he truly says, it is an intricate matter, the burghs themselves are very anxious to have the status.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
§
Further Amendment made: After the words last inserted, insert the words,
(b) Nothing in this Act, or in any Act in force at the passing of this Act as read with this Act, shall take effect so as to confer upon any police
2088
burgh acquiring separate representation under this Act any rights, privileges, or status, whether for purposes of local government or otherwise, not enjoyed by other police burghs.
In this Sub-section the references to Royal, Parliamentary, or police burghs shall be deemed to include references to the magistrates, town councils, and officers thereof, respectively, and the expression 'separate representation' shall be construed as meaning the right to return, or to contribute as a burgh to return, a member, or members, to Parliament."