§ The qualifying period shall be a period of six months ending either on the 1868 fifteenth day of January, or the fifteenth day of July, including in each case the: fifteenth day:
§ Provided that in the application of this Section to a person who is a naval or military voter, or who has been serving as a member of the naval or military forces of the Crown at any time during the said six months and has ceased so to serve, one month shall be substituted for six months as the qualifying period.
§ Lords Amendments:
§ Leave out the words "or military," and insert instead thereof the words "military or air."—Agreed to.
§ After Clause 6 insert new Clause A.—(Supplemental Provisions as to Residence and Occupation).
§ A.—(1) Where land or premises are in the joint occupation of two or more persons, each of the joint occupiers shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be treated as occupying the premises, subject as follows:
- (a) In the case of the occupation of business premises the aggregate yearly value of the premises must for the purpose of the Parliamentary franchise be not less than the amount produced by multiplying ten pounds by the number of the joint occupiers; and
- (b) In the case of the occupation of land or premises (not being a dwelling-house) the aggregate yearly value thereof must for the purpose of the Parliamentary franchise of women be not less than the amount produced by multiplying five pounds by the number.
- (c) Not more than two joint occupiers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same land or premises, unless they are bonâ fide engaged as partners carrying on their profession, trade or business on the land or premises.
§ (2) Residence in a house or the occupation of a house shall not be deemed to be interrupted for the purposes of this Act 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 part of the qualifying period not exceeding four months in the whole, or by reason only of notice to quit being served and possession being demanded by the landlord of the house, but the express enactment of this provision 1869 shall not affect in any way the general principles governing the interpretation of the expression "residence" and cognate expressions.
§ Lords Amendment read a second time.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKI beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, at the beginning of Sub-section (c), to insert the words "For the purpose of the Parliamentary franchise in a Parliamentary county constituency, and for the purpose of the local government franchise."
This raises the point which I indicated to the Home Secretary. I would call attention to the great importance of altering this Clause in this way. If we do not, we disfranchise a very large number of persons in boroughs. It is necessary therefore, to confine the Clause to the local government areas and to the Parliamentary counties. The Speaker's Conference determined that no change should be made in the law relating to joint occupation of business premises. Not many voters in county areas—I am dealing with the Parliamentary franchise—are concerned in this joint occupation, but in London and many other large towns a large number of the professional classes occupy premises jointly and contribute towards the expenses. I refer to doctors architects, and certainly to barristers. Under the Bill, as amended in Committee and on Report in this House, the rights of those borough voters were safeguarded by a provision which will be found in the copy of the Bill that I have got. I am afraid it is not the most recent copy, but perhaps it has all the charm and value that belong to an early edition. There is in it the proviso—
"In a Parliamentary county not more than two persons, being joint occupiers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same premises unless they are bonâ fide engaged as partners."
That only applies to Parliamentary counties. It did not require that there should only be two persons in joint occupation of premises in boroughs, nor did it require, if there were more than two persons, that they should be partners. It is notorious that in the case of barristers they are not partners, and the same applies to doctors. The rights of borough voters occupying premises under these circumstances were, therefore, safeguarded by that proviso. A similar proviso was made in the case of the local government franchise. It therefore left it that where 1870 there was this occupation in boroughs all those who could at present secure the vote were entitled to retain the vote. In the case of the counties, and in the local government electoral areas, only two persons were to be registered in respect of premises unless they carried on business as partners. The matter really concerns the professional classes in the boroughs. The Lords in Committee put in a new Clause, and before that portion which now appears as their Amendment they inserted these words:
"For the purpose of the Parliamentary franchise in a Parliamentary county constituency and for the purpose of the local government franchise not more than two joint occupiers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same land and premises."
They therefore adopted the intention of this House and safeguarded the rights of the occupiers in boroughs. They limited this provision to Parliamentary counties and to the local government franchise, or, in other words, to the areas which are specified in Clause 7, paragraph (b) as it then stood. That was all right. There was no difficulty. The Speaker's Conference was adhered to and no alteration was made in the matter of joint occupation of business premises except in the area of the county which mattered very little, and the rights of the professional classes in the boroughs were safeguarded. These words, I am sorry to say, for some reason or another were taken out on Report, so that now under this Clause it is provided by paragraph (c) that not more than two joint occupiers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same land or premises unless they are bonâ fide engaged as partners, and that prevails whether in boroughs or local government areas. I cannot for the life of me see why the professional classes who occupy premises under this system should be disfranchised. What happened between the Committee stage and the Report stage in the House of Lords that led them to leave out the words that they had put in in Committee, thus disfranchising a number of persons who otherwise would be qualified to vote? It occurs to me that some small mistake in drafting must have been made. I have no doubt that the persons engaged on this Bill in another place must have been heavily burdened with work, and I cannot help thinking that the words were left out per incuriam. At any rate, some definite explanation must be 1871 given to this House. What led the House of Lords between the Committee stage and the Report stage to alter what had been definitely decided and agreed upon in the Speaker's Conference, what had been definitely decided and safeguarded in this House, and what had been definitely decided and adhered to by the House of Lords in Committee when they brought up their new Clause? What was it that made them so suddenly and for some unknown reason make the alteration between the Committee stage and the Report stage? I hope that the Home Secretary has had an opportunity of following the point, because it is an intricate one and seems to have arisen either from some difficulty or lapse. I cannot see what changed the views of the House of Lords between those two stages and made them leave out these words, with the result of disfranchising a number of persons otherwise qualified in their boroughs to exercise a franchise they have hitherto enjoyed. Therefore, I beg to move to insert the words which have been unfortunately dropped out. All that I do is to restore the paragraph to exactly the form in which it read w hen it passed the Committee stage in the House of Lords.
§ Sir G. CAVEOn a point of Order, Sir. Before you put that Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, which seeks to make a change in the new Clause, would it not be in order for you first to put the Motion that the House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment? If you adopt that view, I would like to move that we agree to the Amendment with certain Amendments, not including the point to which my hon. and learned Friend refers. Then he would be entitled to move to insert his words.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKOn that point of Order. May I say—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERPerhaps the hon. and learned Member will permit me to speak, because what I am going to say will solve what is probably in his mind. It is not open to the House to move an Amendment after the Question is put from the Chair that the House doth agree or disagree with the Lords Amendment. The proper time to move Amendments is, as the hon. and learned Member has done, before that Question is put.
§ Sir G. CAVEWill you please say how the Question will ultimately stand?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe Amendment to the Lords Amendment is, as it is put to me—I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member in the course of his remarks indicated any change?
§ Sir E. POLLOCKYes, I said that the words should come at the commencement of paragraph (c). That would be the right place, instead of at the commencement of the Clause.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe Question will be, at the commencement of paragraph (c), to insert the words "for the purpose of the Parliamentary franchise in a Parliamentary county constituency and for the purpose of the local government franchise"
§ Sir G. CAVEI have an Amendment to propose in an earlier part of the new Clause.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThen perhaps the hon. and learned Member will withdraw his Amendment for the time being and allow the Home Secretary to move his Amendment., which I understand is an earlier Amendment to the Clause.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKI will certainly give way to the Home Secretary, subject to reserving my right to move my Amendment again at the proper time.
Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir G. CAVEI desire to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words "of joint occupiers; and"
These words seem to have been omitted by some mistake. Obviously, the paragraph will not read as it stands, finishing at the word "number."
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI understand it is a printer's error in the Amendment Paper. I am informed by the Clerk at the Table that the words appear in the Bill; therefore, there is no need for the Amendment which the Home Secretary proposes to make.
§ Sir G. CAVEThen it is understood that those words are included?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERYes.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKI beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, at the beginning of paragraph (c), to insert the words "For the purpose of the Parliamentary franchise in a Parliamentary county constituency and for the purpose of the local government franchise."
§ Sir G. CAVEI quite follow the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend. I understand he desires to restore the Clause to the shape in which it appeared after Committee in the House of Lords. It is true that the words were contained in two different Clauses, and I quite agree that the effect of my hon. and learned Friend's proposal is to restore this paragraph as it came from Mr. Speaker's Conference.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKAnd from Committee in the House of Lords.
§ Sir G. CAVEThat is so, but my hon. and learned Friend knows that the Lords have their own procedure, and make Amendments at later stages than we do in this House. I understand that the Clause was introduced in this shape. My hon. and learned Friend is quite right in saying that under the law as it now stands the restriction in paragraph (c), which confines the number of possible joint occupiers to two, unless they are bonâ fide partners, applies only in a Parliamentary county and not in a Parliamentary borough, so far as the Parliamentary franchise is concerned. But in fact the Amendment was made deliberately, and with the intention of assimilating the law in the boroughs to the law in the counties. After all, there is good sense in it. The desire is to render it impossible in a borough to manufacture a whole number of voters simply by making them joint occupiers. If they are bonâ fide partners there is no objection. If you have five or six bonâ fide partners in a business they become, as such, occupiers and joint occupiers of business premises, and there is no objection to them all being voters, and the Bill is sufficient for that purpose. But is it right that you should manufacture votes by splitting up an occupation among five or ten or twenty people who are not partners at all, but who are only occupiers, perhaps, for the purpose of having the vote? The law in counties has long been a reasonable one. It is not possible in a county to succeed in that process, and I believe that when Parliament prevented that being done it did a wise and proper thing. It is thought—and the Lords are not the only people who think it—to be a reasonable thing to assimilate the law in boroughs to the law as it obtains in counties. It is exactly the same for local government purposes, but for Parliamentary purposes but differs. I think the county law is the right one, and the 1874 borough law might fairly be assimilated to it. I hope that with that explanation my hon. and learned Friend will not persist in his Amendment, and that the Clause will be accepted.
Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.
§ Sir G. CAVEI beg to move, at the end of the Lords Amendment, to insert the words,
"(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, a man shall not be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a constituency in respect of a residence qualification, although he may have been residing in premises in the constituency on the last day of the qualifying period, if he commenced to reside in the constituency within thirty days before the end of the qualifying period, and ceased to reside within thirty days after the time when he so commenced to reside.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, a person shall not be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for a local government electoral area, though that person may have been occupying land or premises in the area on the last day of the qualifying period, if that person commenced to occupy the land or premises within thirty days before the end of the qualifying period, and ceased to occupy the land or premises within thirty days after the commencement of the occupation."
This Amendment is consequential upon what passed at an earlier stage of the day. The House disagreed with the proposal to alter the provision as to swallow voters, and, therefore, we must reinsert in this Clause the thirty days' provision which was originally adopted in this House. These two new Sub-sections will give effect to that provision.
§ Mr. M. HEALYI do not in the least object to these words because they are the necessary consequence of our disagreement with an earlier Amendment, nor do I object to their being inserted at this stage, but I suggest that this is not the proper place for them, because this is a Clause which deals solely with residential occupation. The earlier Clause deals with time, and this is an Amendment dealing with time and not residential occupation. It does not very much matter, but it is a matter of form.
§ Sir G. CAVEI will consider that.
1875 Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.