HC Deb 15 February 1832 vol 10 cc393-402

On the Motion for going into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill,

Lord Althorp

observed, that he was at all times unwilling to propose sitting on Saturdays, and if the remaining clauses of the Bill, without the schedules, could be got through on that night and Thursday, it was not his intention to propose that the House should sit on the ensuing Saturday. Friday was devoted to supply.

Mr. Goulburn

said, it was of great importance that the Boundary Bill should be brought in previously to their entering into the consideration of the schedules, he trusted, therefore, it would be speedily laid upon the Table.

The House in Committee.

Clauses 62, 63, and 64, were agreed to.

On Clause 65 being read, which limits the time of polling in boroughs to two days,

Mr. Wason

rose to move the Amendment, of which he had previously given notice. He wished that in all boroughs where the registered voters did not exceed 1,000 in number, the poll should continue for one day only. He regretted to understand that he should meet with few supporters, as Ministers were determined to oppose the Amendment; but he must be permitted, notwithstanding, to say that he considered his proposition to be in strict conformity with the principles of the Bill. They had limited the poll to two days where there were 15 or 20,000 voters, which would, he feared, be too short a time to allow all the electors to poll. This was done with a view to prevent those scandalous scenes of bribery and corruption which occasionally prevailed. He would, therefore, ask any hon. Member if two days were sufficient to poll so many constituents, whether one day would not be an ample time to poll 1,000? Every person acquainted with the management of borough elections, knew that it was after the first day's poll upon the number of electors who had not given their votes was accurately known, that the most debasing scenes of bribery and corruption took place. But, perhaps, it might be said, there were few boroughs whose constituency would be limited to 1,000 by the Bill, and, therefore, it was not worth while to legislate upon the subject. He found, however, that of the 160 ancient cities and boroughs which would still retain their privileges of sending Members to Parliament, only eighteen possessed a constituency above that number. His great object by the amendment was to prevent bribery, which he held to be a worse evil than nomination. Considering it a question of principle, he must say, that he intended to call for a division upon his motion.

Lord Althorp

admitted that the amendment was not contrary to the principle of the Bill, but it by no means followed, that it would be advisable to adopt it. Undoubtedly it was desirable that the period of an election should be as short as possible, and it was with that view that the time generally was limited to two days in all boroughs and cities. But as this clause provided that not more than 600 voters should poll at one polling place, if the time was confined to one day where the constituency was above that number, several polling places in proportion to the numbers must be prepared, and this would put the candidates to an increased expense. The hon. Member's amendment went upon the doubtful principle, that it was on the last day's poll, that bribery was most likely to prevail, but in that remark he could not agree. He trusted that the new constituency would be so respectable as not to be open to such a suspicion. For these reasons he must oppose the amendment.

Mr. Wason

regretted that the noble Lord should not assent to his Motion. He must persist however in pressing his amendment.

The Committee divided on the amendment:—Noes 91; Ayes 1; Majority 90.

List of the NOES.
Althorp Visc. Grant, Right hon. R.
Alexander, James Grant, Rt. Hon. C.
Alexander, J. D. Grattan, H.
Bankes, W. J. Goulburn,Rt.Hon.H.
Bateson Sir R. Handley, Wm. F.
Bernard, G. Hawkins, J. H.
Best, H. S. Heywood, Benj.
Bentinck, Lord G. Hill, Lord G. A.
Berkeley, Captain Hodges, Thomas L.
Blake, Sir F. Hodgson, J.
Blunt, Sir C. Hoskins, Kedgwin
Briscoe, John Howard, Phillip H.
Bodkin, John J. Hume, Joseph
Boyle, hon. John James, William
Bunbury, Sir H. E. Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F.
Burge, W. Joliffe, Hylton
Burke, Sir J. Jones, Theobald
Campbell, John Lambert, Henry
Carter, John B. Leigh, Thos. C.
Crampton P. C. Leonard, Thomas B.
Currie, John Lennox, Lord George
Dick, Q. Loch, James
Dixon, Joseph Macaulay, Thomas B.
Doyle, Sir J. M. Mangles, James
Drake, T. S. Majoribanks, Stewart
Drake, Col. W. Musgrave, Sir R.,
Ellice, Edward Murray, Sir George
Ellis, Wynn Nowell, Alex.
Ewart, William Nugent, Lord
Ferrand, W. Paget, Sir Charles
Foley, hon. T. H. Payne, Sir Peter
Folkes, Sir Wm., Peel, W.
Graham, Rt.hon, Sir J. Penleaze, John S.
Pepys, C. C. Walker, Charles A.
Petit, Louis H. Warburton, Henry
Price, Sir R. Warre, John A.
Ponsonby Hon. G. Webb, Col. A.
Schonswar, George Weyland, Major R,
Skipwith, Sir G. Williams, Sir J.
Smith, R. V. Williams, W. A.
Stephenson, H. F. Williamson, Sir H.
Strickland, George Willoughby, Sir H.
Strutt, Edward Wood, Charles
Stuart, Lord Dudley Wood, Ald.
Stewart, Edward Wrightson, Wm. B.
Taylor W. Wetherell, Sir C.
Thicknesse, Ralph Wood, Col.
Tracy, Charles H. TELLER.
Venables, Alderman Baring, Francis T.
Villiers, T. H.
Waithman Ald.
List of the AYES.
Gisborne, Thomas TELLER.
Wason, R.

The 66th Clause, which enacts that each person shall vote at the booth appointed for his parish or district read.

An Hon. Member

begged to ask the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer this question:—Supposing that a borough were divided into two districts, and that an elector had a qualification by freehold in both, in which of the districts would he be entitled to vote?

Lord Althorp

replied, that he would be entitled to vote in that district in which he generally resided.

Mr. Ewart

suggested that the application of this mode of voting to the borough of Liverpool would be very inconvenient. There the practice was, to form the polling place into booths, which were marked alphabetically, and those persons whose names began with A voted in one division, while those names that began with B voted in another, and so on. That practice had been found very convenient in avoiding disorder and confusion. He should be sorry to see the practice altered in that town.

Mr. Wason

agreed with the hon. Member: he had been present at many elections for Liverpool, and had seen 1,500 persons vote in one day at the same place, without the least confusion.

Mr. John Campbell

said, that similar practice was adopted in the borough which he had the honour to represent, and was found very convenient. He, therefore, urged that the practice should be allowed to continue in those boroughs where it already existed.

Sir Charles Wetherell

said, the whole machinery of the clause was only calculated to create confusion. He supposed that in- formation of the several places of polling were to be placed on the Church doors, or some other conspicuous place, otherwise he did not understand how the parties interested were to know to which booth they were to go. It certainly, in his opinion would be better to confine the polling to one general place.

Lord Althorp

was convinced that, in large towns, it would be necessary to have several places for polling, and the clerks employed at these places would doubtless be selected from their local knowledge of the electors of their district. If an alphabetical plan of voting was introduced, and only one general place employed, that advantage would be lost. Another advantage was, that by having several distinct places, it would most likely prevent large and tumultuous assemblages of persons

Mr. Schonswar

agreed with the noble Lord. He preferred the plan of voting by districts. Where there were only freemen to poll, no doubt the Town Clerk could recognize them with facility, but when there was a numerous constituency of householders, a local knowledge of their persons would be absolutely necessary.

Mr. Goulburn

thought that if the plan of voting in districts was adopted, it would be advisable to tell the voter in which district he was to vote, and where the polling place would be situated when he was registered.

Mr. Hunt

was fully convinced that it would be necessary to make some provision to acquaint each voter before an election in what place and district his vote was to be taken.

Mr. John Campbell

said, the precise manner of taking the poll might be left to the discretion of the returning officer; and, as in most of the old boroughs, the great part of the inhabitants were acquainted with the manner of voting in such places, he thought such customs ought to remain, and it would be well to introduce a proviso into the clause to that effect.

Lord Althorp

would give the suggestion of his hon. and learned friend his best consideration, before he brought up the report on the Bill.

Verbal Amendments were made in the clause, which was ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The 67th Clause agreed to.

On the 68th Clause being put from the Chair, which fixes the time when the returning officer is to close the poll, and gives him power to adjourn it in case of riot,

Sir Charles Wetherell

objected to the limitation of the duration of the poll to two days. He was fully convinced it would be absolutely impossible in many places to poll all the electors in that time, particularly on the first attempt at a great experimental change, in which the whole system of Representation was altered. The greater part of the first day was generally occupied by the lecture which the candidates gave the electors, or the electors gave the candidates, on their political duties. The latter custom he saw, was getting very prevalent in certain places. This was, perhaps, a very useful practice, and yet this clause would either put extinction upon it, or would limit the duration of the poll to only one day. When the greater part of the first day was thus occupied, he would give the returning officer the power of adjourning the poll to another day. He would, therefore, propose, that after the words "where the proceedings at any election should be interrupted or obstructed by any riot or open violence," the following words should be added—"or delayed by other cause deemed sufficient by the returning officer;" he knew that this was leaving a very wide discretion to the returning officer, but he thought it better that the returning officer should enjoy this discretionary power than that so valuable and ancient a practice as that to which he had referred should be extinguished under our new Constitution.

Lord Althorp

said, he must object to the amendment. When electors knew their time was limited, they would make arrangements to get through their business in the given time.

Sir Edward Sugden

entertained very considerable objections to the clause. He would beg to ask, how it was possible for any candidate to make speeches and communicate with his constituents at several polling places without at least consuming one day, and a candidate must be constantly present to uphold his friends and prevent reports to his prejudice being circulated by his opponents. Again, the clause said, the poll was to be adjourned in the event of any obstruction, but it was impossible to define an obstruction. Nor did the clause say, that if there was a hinderance to the poll in one district only, the poll must be adjourned in all the others, so that the effect of the clause was to closely limit the time of elections with one hand, and open the door to unlimited time on the other.

Lord Althorp

said, if an obstruction took place in a town, it would be the duty of the returning officer to adjourn the poll, in all the districts, to a future day; if the same thing happened in a county, the adjournment need not extend beyond the place where the obstruction arose.

Sir Edward Sugden

said, the explanation of the noble Lord had not got quite over the difficulty. If the poll was adjourned in one place, the electors in that district would know the result of the others, and, therefore, they would have the return in their own hands, so that here was a premium offered for a few electors in one district to make a disturbance, with the certainty that an adjournment of the poll would increase their influence as to the final result.

Lord Althorp

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman was fond of arguing upon exceptions, but as there appeared some reason in the remark he had just made, he would give the subject his best attention, and, in the mean time, consent that the clause be postponed.

Clause postponed.

The 69th clause, which provides that candidates, or persons proposing a candidate without his consent, should be at the expense of booths and poll-clerks, being read,

Lord Sandon

quite approved of the object of the clause, and he thought it would be an additional advantage, if some specific sum was named, that the candidate or proposer must pay previous to the election; this would, in the first place, prevent persons unnecessarily proposing candidates, and, at the end of an election, would prevent any exorbitant charge being made.

Mr. Hunt

said, he objected to the clause wholly; he preferred the ancient and constitutional practice, by which the corporations in boroughs were bound to provide a place for holding the elections, in which case the expenses never came to one-third of the sum charged to the candidates. Westminster was, he believed, the only place where the candidates paid this expense, and that custom was not of long standing. Where the expenses were paid by the returning officer, they did not amount to half what the candidates had to pay.

Sir Charles Wetherell

saw no reason why the expenses were now to be borne by candidates, when they had always hitherto been defrayed by the persons who had the privilege of returning them. He had always objected to such an arrangement. It was notorious that the candidates, where it was the custom for this charge to be made upon them, paid three times more than they ought to pay. There was some possibility of a collision between the returning officers and the builder.

Colonel Sibthorp

said, this was the only clause in the Bill that he could tolerate. He had no objection to all the first part of the clause, but he could not wholly agree with the latter part of it.

Mr. Hume

understood, that in some cases the expense of booths amounted to 1,200l. As long as there were only two candidates who agreed, the expense might be trifling, but a third candidate refusing to enter into a common contract with the other two candidates, and acting in concert with the returning officer, might secure his own election by the expense to which he would be able to put the other candidates. He would recommend that the expense should be thrown on the county or borough which might build booths once for all. The expense for one year might provide booths for twenty years. The noble Lord might be sure that he would not have the support of the gallant Colonel, if the clause had not been calculated to injure the Bill.

Lord Althorp

said, that the expense of hustings, as compared with the general expense of an election, would be very small, and it would serve as a species of check to individuals who, with little prospect of success, might come forward as candidates, and thus inflict expense on others.

Mr. Charles Ross

observed, that he did not think there was any occasion for the clause, the arrangement had better be left to the persons interested.

Mr. Hunt

said, the expense of hustings might be considered very light by the noble Lord, but such charges gave wealthy persons a great advantage over candidates in humble life, who were unable to compete with them on account of such expenses. There were such things, too, as corporation funds in existence, which were not always used for very good purposes. On these grounds he begged leave to move as an amendment, that all booths erected for county elections should be paid for out of the county rates; and for those of cities or boroughs, out of the corporation funds, if any; and if not any, out of a rate to be collected in the city or borough.

Sir Edward Sugden

certainly thought that the expense ought to be borne by the county generally, if one of the objects of the Bill really was to diminish the expense of elections. It was difficult to know what the funds of a corporation were, without filing a bill in Chancery.

Colonel Davies

was persuaded the clause would open the door to great abuses, and that sums of money might nominally be given for the expense of building hustings, but really for the purposes of bribery and corruption.

Mr. Strickland

said, he was also fully convinced that, unless there was some limit fixed for the expense, the charges, particularly in large counties where several polling places must be erected, would be very considerable.

Lord Sandon

suggested, that the expense of each polling place should be limited to 25l.

Lord Althorp

said, that although he was desirous to save candidates expense, it was not fair to throw them on the constituent body. If any sum, say 40l., could be suggested that was not too much, or too little, he was favourable to the noble Lord's proposal of limiting the expense; but 25l. was too small a sum.

Colonel Wood

said, the best plan, after all, in his opinion, would be, for each county and borough to erect permanent polling places, the expenses of which might be defrayed by the county or borough, and the candidates charged a given sum for the use of them. This would meet all the objections that had been made against the clause hitherto.

Mr. Hume

said, he very much approved of the proposal for limiting the expense of the hustings; considerable and heavy charges were often improperly made, which prevented persons of moderate means from offering themselves, and thereby deprived the country of the best candidates it could have. Candidates should be encouraged to come forward by all reasonable means. The larger the choice, the better was the prospect of selecting an able Member from among them.

Mr. Sheil

said, that the 1st and 2nd Geo. 4., commonly called Sir Henry Parnell's Act, had defined the expenses of such buildings in Ireland, and its operation had been found very beneficial in limiting expenses.

Mr. Hunt

was quite sure that the sum of 40l., proposed by the noble Lord, would be the minimum charge, and, in many places where it was now smaller, it would be increased to that sum. He should, therefore, take the sense of the Committee on his Amendment.

The Committee divided: Ayes 4; Noes 154—Majority 150.

Further consideration of the clause postponed, and the House resumed.

List of the AYES.
Hume, Joseph Payne, Sir P.
James, William TELLER.
Paget, Thomas Hunt, Henry