SECOND READING. (Hansard, 14 May 1888)

LORD BALFOUR
, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the measure was of such importance that it would not be courteous to the House if he did not state in general terms the object for which it had been introduced. The Bill really formed a part of another measure which was now before the other House of Parliament, and, had time served, it would doubtless have been more convenient to their Lordships to have them both before them at the same time. Nevertheless, in consequence of the exigencies of time, it was necessary for the Bill to be passed into law as early as possible. The object of the Bill was to extend municipal franchise to counties, with the addition that in future the occupation of land to the extent of £10 a-year should be a sufficient qualification. The register would be made up in the same manner as the municipal register now was. The register of occupiers was made up with three divisions; the first contained those qualified for Parliamentary and municipal purposes; the second list was composed of those who were entitled to exercise the Parliamentary franchise only; and the third division consisted of those qualified for municipal and not Parliamentary purposes. The third division of the register would have placed upon it all the female occupiers duly qualified to vote, and any Member of their Lordships' House qualified to vote for the County Councils. One clause of the Bill made it compulsory that in all the districts of the Metropolis the register should be made up according to the situation of the property, and not alphabetically. A power to do this existed at the present time, and some districts had availed themselves of it. In future the 119 register for the Metropolitan district must be all made up in one way, and this way had been chosen as the most convenient to the greater part. He trusted their Lordships would give the Bill a second reading.

THE EARL OF JERSEY
said that he could not allow that measure to pass its second reading without pointing to several defects which he trusted would be remedied in Committee. Under the Bill an owner of property who was not resident would have no voice in the selection of the County Council, and would not be able to sit upon it. He should like to hear from the Government whether they could not reconsider the position in which owners of property would be placed by the Bill in the event of their being non-resident?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he regarded the Local Government Bill generally as being based on a sound principle—namely, that of establishing County Councils, which were to be elected directly by the inhabitants of the county. He should have been glad, however, to have the same franchise for the election of Members of Parliament as for the election of the members of the County Boards; but he fully recognized the fact that there were difficulties which could not be at once overcome. Still, he could not help entertaining the hope that it might be found possible in the future to assimilate the franchises and to simplify those very complicated registers. He also trusted that some improvements would be introduced into the present system of registration, which was exceedingly complicated and unsatisfactory. The object now in view was to put the counties on practically the same footing as the boroughs, and to give the owners a vote in counties would be to introduce an inequality so great that he felt certain it could not be maintained. If their Lordships were not prepared to introduce the owners' vote into all the municipalities, how could they support its introduction in the counties? There was the objection to the proposed franchise that it left untouched another local franchise by which the Boards of Guardians were elected. For his own part, he could not conceive that it would be possible long to maintain those two 120 franchises side by side with each oth without serious questions arising; but he would reserve further observations until the Bill now before the House of Commons came up to them.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said, he adulated that the Government had a fair excuse for asking their Lordships to accept the Bill without discussion; but, as the noble Earl who spoke last showed, the measure in its present shape only touched the fringe of the question, and there must be further legislation in its train. He was anxious that those matters should be fully considered by their Lordships in a future Session, and he therefore gave Notice that he would to-morrow move that the Bill should only continue in force till December 31, 1889. The Government were going to lay down the serious principle that owners should be excluded from a share in electing members of the Local Councils. In endeavouring to attain uniformity between county and municipal government, he feared the Government were sacrificing the substance to the shadow. He hoped their Lordships would not lose sight of the great importance of this Bill because of the larger Bill which was to follow.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)
wished to correct a misapprehension which might arise from a remark of his noble Friend who moved the second reading. Peers were not prevented from taking part in elections by a Resolution of the House of Commons, but by the Common Law of the land.