HL Deb 16 March 1908 vol 186 cc104-9

House in Committee (according to Order).

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

LORD EVERSLEY moved an Amendment providing that the Act might be adopted, not "for any borough," but for "any metropolitan borough" by a resolution of the council, passed by a majority of three-fifths of the members present and voting. He said that on the Second Reading of the Bill he had ventured to point out the very great difference between provincial councils and metropolitan councils. In the case of the latter the elections were triennial, the whole of the councillors being elected every three years, and it undoubtedly did happen occasionally that all the councillors elected were of the same way of thinking. But in the provincial boroughs one-third of the councillors retired each year, and in almost every case the boroughs were divided into wards returning three members each; the result was that one member in each ward retired annually. His noble friend Lord Courtney would admit that his scheme would not work to the best advantage in a constituency returning only three members; it was framed mainly for constituencies returning five or more members, and there undoubtedly was something to be said for giving an opportunity to the minority to return a member. In the case of a three-member constituency the scheme would work out not very differently from that of the cumulative vote or the arrangement made in the Act of 1867 for three-cornered constituencies in Parliamentary elections. In those cases the minority had an opportunity of returning one member, and he thought if it were desirable to give an opportunity for the election of a minority member in a constituency returning three members then the cumulative vote or the scheme in the Act of 1867—namely, that of giving two votes instead of three to each elector—would work very much simpler and better than the elaborate scheme proposed in this Bill. Not a single witness who appeared before the Select Committee on this Bill made any complaint in respect of provincial boroughs. The evidence was to the effect that the system of election now in existence, whereby one-third of the members retired annually, gave general satisfaction, and the Municipal Corporations Association, representing the corporations throughout the country, were unanimous in favour of the existing system and against that proposed in Lord Courtney's Bill. He thought, therefore, the weight of authority was very greatly against extending the Bill to provincial boroughs. The effect of his Amendment would be to confine it to metropolitan boroughs.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'any borough' and to insert the words 'any metropolitan borough.'"—(Lord Eversley.)

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

hoped their Lordships would not entertain the Amendment. His noble friend had been very brief in his explanation of the Amendment; so brief that he had left out one most important fact in connection with it. Lord Eversley had forgotten to remind their Lordships that this was a permissive Bill. It enabled boroughs to adopt the alternative scheme if so disposed, but the effect of the Amendment would be to provide that metropolitan boroughs might adopt the scheme, but provincial boroughs might not. It was admitted that the case of the provincial boroughs was not so strong as that of the metropolitan boroughs; but, nevertheless, it was not so weak as his noble friend supposed. There was evidence of the imperfection of the working of the present system in the country boroughs, and he had had representations from one or two provincial boroughs with respect to the application of the Bill to the provinces. He had even received communications from Scotland and. Ireland asking for the extension of the Bill to those countries; but he would not dwell upon that point. He hoped their Lordships would not curtail the freedom allowed by the Bill to municipal bodies generally to adopt for their elections a system of proportional representation.

LORD ASHBOURNE

, while admitting the force of what had been said by Lord Eversley, thought there was a good deal in the point brought out by Lord Courtney that this was a permissive and not a compulsory Bill. As the measure was an experimental one he thought it desirable that it should be left in its present elastic form, and he hoped Lord Eversley would be satisfied with having made his protest.

LORD BELPER

, as Chairman of the Select Committee, said the Committee had fully before them all the circumstances mentioned by Lord Eversley, but it was to be remembered that this was, after all, to be an experiment. Many of the provincial boroughs might not care about trying it, and therefore no harm would be done; but if any of them wished to try it, why should they be prevented? He thought it would be rather unreasonable to cut them out of trying the experiment if they wished to do so. The Committee certainly made no proposal to limit the Bill in the way proposed, and he hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.

LORD AVEBURY

also opposed the Amendment. Lord Eversley had said that in the country districts there was ample protection for the minority, but he did not explain how that came about. Let their Lordships imagine an election in a provincial constituency where one side had a majority. They carried their candidate one year, the next year the same majority returned another candidate, and the third year the same majority again returned their man. Therefore, although the majority might be a comparatively small one, it secured the whole of the representation. Lord Eversley had expressed the opinion that if this Bill were extended to the provinces, the cumulative vote or the three-cornered system would be preferable to the system set out in the Bill; but he could assure their Lordships that there was hardly anyone who had studied this question and was in favour of proportional representation who did not believe that the system in the Bill was preferable.

LORD ALLENDALE

said that if the Bill was adopted, the Local Government Board were of opinion that there was no reason why the provincial boroughs should not have the same freedom of making a choice as the metropolitan boroughs. The Local Government Board were not aware that there was any great demand for the Bill, but if the Amendment was carried it would necessitate many alterations of a consequential character. In these circumstances he hoped that the noble Lord would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH moved an Amendment in the same clause providing that the Act might be continued in force for any borough by a further resolution of the council passed within six months before the expiration of the further period of three years by a majority of the members present and voting: "and after any such further resolution this Act shall remain in force without any limitation of time." He explained that this Amendment and the other Amendments standing in his name hung together, and were simply intended to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee. It was thought that the Bill in its present shape failed to do so exactly. The Amendments fully carried out, in the opinion of Lord Belper, its Chairman, the intentions of the Select Committee.

Amendment moved. In page 1, line 21, to leave out from the word 'voting' to the end of the subsection, and to insert the words 'and after any such further resolution this Act shall remain in force without any limitation of time.' "—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)

LORD BELPER

said this Amendment and the others standing in the name of Lord Courtney were for the purpose, as the noble Lord had stated, of bringing the Bill in conformity with the scheme recommended by the Select Committee. Therefore their Lordships could safely accept them.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 21, after Subsection (7) to insert the following new Subsection: (8) When this Act ceases to be in force in any borough, one-third of the councillors of which would, but for the adoption of this Act, have retired every year, the particular councillors to retire on the two ordinary days of election next after this Act ceases to be in force shall be determined by lot, in such manner as the mayor may prescribe.'"—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Amendment moved— In page 2, lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words 'expiration of six months from the passing of the resolution,' and to insert the words 'adoption of this Act.'"—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Amendment moved— To leave out Clause 4."—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to, and Bill reported, with Amendments, to the House.

Re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. (No. 29.)