HC Deb 12 July 1861 vol 164 cc832-43

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER.

I feel it my duty, Sir, to state to the House my objections to the Bill in its present form. It was my intention, when my hon. Friend first introduced it, to take no part in the discussion on the Bill, because I felt that the seat which I hold, and which has often been the subject of contest, would naturally cause any part which I might take, no matter what it might be, to be open to misconstruction. I also felt that the Bill of my hon. Friend was one of which much might be said in its favour, while much might be said against it; it undoubtedly involved a very great novelty in principle—and on the whole, I think that the balance was against it. At the same time I admit that there was a strong primâ facie presumption in favour of a Bill the object of which was stated to be to increase the facilities possessed by certain peculiar constituencies for exercising the franchises with which they had been intrusted. I did not approve the principle of the Bill which my hon. Friend introduced, but I think he is entitled to say that the House acceded to it on the second reading without the expression of any marked difference of opinion. It is not my intention to make any Motion on the present occasion, though I feel it is my duty to say "No" to the third reading, because I think the better course to take—if the House be so inclined—is to move the recommittal of the Bill. ["No, no!"] I have merely stated that, in my opinion, that would be the right course, and Gentlemen who say "No" simply assert that in my opinion that is not the right course. Being an authority on that point, I must say' "Yes." I think the proper mode of proceeding would be to recommit the Bill, with a view of raising the question as between the principle of the Bill as now before us; and the principle of the Bill as introduced by my hon. Friend, and assented to by the House. I want hon. Gentlemen to understand what I really mean when I desire the principle of the Bill at the present moment as being different from what it was when the Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend. I may be wrong; but I do not believe that many hon. Gentlemen in this House are aware of the extent to which the Bill has been altered, and how deep these alterations have cut into its very essence. As I understand, the principle of the measure was this:—My hon. Friend said, "Parliament had chosen to create constituencies, of which a large number are non-resident; and, that being so, it is fit to give those non-residents facilities for tendering their votes without their personal presence, which facilities would not be necessary in the case of constituencies in which the bulk of the electors are resident. I will introduce a Bill to enable them to give their votes by voting papers." I must say that I think the Bill of my hon. Friend was prudently and well drawn for the purpose of effecting the object which he had in view. My hon. Friend did not leave it to chance in what way the votes were to be given or transmitted, he provided that the votes should be given in the form of a written declaration made before a justice of the peace, who was obliged to declare that the voter was personally known to him, and that the vote so given should be transmitted to the returning officer through the medium of a registered letter, the effect of which was to make the Postmaster General, a public officer, responsible for the delivery of the voting paper to the returning officer. Now, how did the Committee deal with this Bill? It is no longer a Bill to enable non-residents to vote by means of voting papers instead of by personal attendance. That is supposed to be its object; but it is cer- tainly not the essence of the present Bill; and I must say that I have heard no attempt to justify the Bill as it now stands with reference to the peculiar constitution and needs of the University. The Bill is one to authorize all electors, resident or non-resident, to adopt proxies which are to give an authority to the holders either to vote or not, as they may think proper. That proposition certainly is of a most extraordinary character, and as strange and startling an innovation on our electoral law as has ever come before us. I am aware—and I admit it at once—that the change was made by a Select Committee entitled to great authority in this House, and I trust the House will not think their time wasted in the discussion of a measure of this kind, in respect to which, though it is primarily applicable only to a University constituency, the day may come when the precedent established by the Bill may be taken by those who wish to adopt it as applicable to other constituencies in the country. I believe the object of the Select Committee was to make a provision against errors in the form of the voting papers, and they, likewise, wished to make some further provision for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person, and the genuineness of the vote. Now, in my opinion, as regards the first of these objects, the Bill is totally ineffective; and as regards the second, it is entirely unnecessary. There is no reason why we should not have been satisfied as respects the identity of the voter with the proposal of my hon. Friend; and with respect to the prevention of errors, the mere fact of the transmission and re-transmission of the voting paper not only greatly increases the risks of error but of fraud. There is no security for the delivering of the voting papers, they may be lost or duplicated, and how could the voter who was called on to sign a new paper declare conscientiously that he was not called upon to sign it because it was cancelled? It appears to me that very great difficulties, indeed, will arise from the transmission and re-transmission of these voting papers between the proxies and principals, notwithstanding that the object of the Committee may have been to give increased security and correctness in the voting papers. The paper may be lost, and the voter will not know how the fact is. [Mr. HUNT: Oh!] I do not know why the hon. Member for Northampton should take this extraordinary course.

MR. HUNT

rose, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer declined to give way. In resuming his seat, the hon. Gentleman said, I only rose to say that I meant no discourtesy.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Now, just let us see how this extraordinary system—as I must call it—of voting by proxy is likely to work. And, first, I must consider the case of possible fraud, for the Bill takes in that view by providing penalties against it. However unlikely—I may say impossible—the case of fraud may be in a University election, yet we must include it. If we sanction these principles in University elections in consequence of what we may think of the high character and intelligence of the constituency, it will not be easy to deny to others what we give to Universities, even though we may think them of low character and intelligence. Now, let us consider the provisions of the Bill. In the first place, there is no limit to the number of proxies one person may hold. Any number of voters, without any limit what ever of a numerical description, may empower any voter to become their proxy. The only limit is that the proxy shall be able to say, on presenting the vote, that the voter is personally known to him—that he is personally acquainted with the voter. Now, take the case of the Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. The Master of Trinity is brought into acquaintance every year with, perhaps, 150 young men, a large proportion of whom become part of the constituency of that University; so that the gentleman holding that office would be able to say that he was acquainted with, perhaps, not less than 1,000 of the constituency. He would, therefore, in all probability, become the holder by proxy of many hundred votes. What is the next provision? It is that any number of voters may delegate their power of voting to any single proxy; that every voter may choose any number of proxies he pleases, and may indicate in the voting paper any number of names, by any one of which persons his vote may be tendered at the poll. I believe an unlimited number of proxies may be named by any one voter, just as any number of voting papers may be held by any one proxy. That is not all. Besides this provision, every voter who has thus given a proxy may run a race against his own proxy, and it may depend upon the accident of who gets first to the poll who shall give the vote. That appears to me to be an extraordinary provision, for which I have not heard the shadow of a reason assigned. But further than that—under the singular provisions of the Bill, the voter and the proxy may both come to the poll at once, and may both, at different polling places, tender the same vote without the possibility of any objection; and, to complete the ridiculous effect of the provision as it stands, this may happen:—A B, the voter, may go, and may in one polling place honestly tender his vote for C, while D E, the proxy, may, at another polling place, honestly tender the vote of A B for F. ["No, no!"] It must be remembered that, of late, power has been given to the Vice- Chancellor to increase the number of polling places. [Mr. DODSON: Not exceeding three.] Clause 2 says that the vote may be given by proxy at any one of these polling places, and the voter may also vote at any of the polling places. I think I have shown the climax of the errors and inconveniences which have been forced upon my hon. Friend. I have stated the effect of the provision, which would be to give occasion to an immense amount of error and inconvenience for no purpose whatever connected with the object of the Bill; and, if we are to suppose the existence of fraud, to open the door to the perpetration of frauds innumerable. Let the House remember that there is already one vicious element in a University constituency with which all those who have been connected with University elections cannot fail to be practically acquainted. It may not hitherto have told so much in Parliamentary as in other elections, but under this Bill I think it would be found more conspicuous in Parliamentary elections. I refer to the disposition towards College combinations, and the working out, through those combinations, of selfish wishes and limited views, instead of adopting the broader views connected with the whole University. College organization is in fatal conformity with the other injurious provisions of the Bill as it now stands, because, of course, the authorities of a College would be able to say that they were personally acquainted with all who had passed through the college, although their acquaintance may have diminished to the lowest degree, and a number of proxies may be accumulated in the hands of these authorities which may be intrigued with, or used as a means of obtaining an illegitimate influence over a candidate, to obtain pledges from him, and to destroy the pure and honest freedom of all parties at such elections. These are consequences for which I am determined to be in no degree responsible. I was not favourable to the original principle of the Bill, because, although the present mode of University elections has its inconveniences, still I think it has the effect of keeping up the academical constituencies in contact with academical influences; but under the system proposed by my hon. Friend, we should cease to see this accademical influence operate as before. However, I do not now raise the point for contest. I challenge my hon. Friend to state why he has acceded to his extraordinary scheme, which is quite apart from the principle of his Bill—introducing between the voter and the recording of his vote a third and independent party, who may actually frustrate the intentions of the voter, subject to the almost ridiculous remedy that the voter may compete with his proxy who shall be soonest at the poll. I shall not detain the House longer, and thank it for its patient attention to a statement of details. As far as my own academical interests are concerned as a Member of this House, I do not know that it should at any time have any material interest in the provisions of this Bill. At all contested elections in which I have taken part in the University of Oxford, I have always been returned by a majority both of the resident and of the non-resident voters, conjointly and separately. I have no idea what the operation of these provisions would be as regards myself at future elections, but they are so extraordinary in their character, and so needless for the professed object my hon. Friend has in view, that I trust they will not receive the sanction of the House.

MR. DODSON

said, he could not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the accuracy of his reading of either the original or the amended Bill. The right hon. Gentleman spoke in high-sounding words and grandiloquent phrases of the strange and startling innovation introduced by this Bill. But the provision he especially objected to was discussed in Committee for three hours last week, and the most arrange and startling thing connected with that discussion was the absence of the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman felt so strongly on the subject, how was it that he was not present to express his opinion and divide the Committee? Not only was there a discussion of three hours, but there was a division in which the right hon. Gentleman took no part; but within half an hour afterwards there was another division upon an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Youghal, and upon that the Chancellor of the Exchequer voted. It would be an interesting fact to learn how far off was the right hon. Gentleman when the first division took place. When it was wanted to get rid of anything. people had only to give it a bad name, and so the right hon. Gentleman grounded his attack on this Bill by calling it the introduction of the proxy system of voting papers was the system of voting by proxy. The legal definition of a proxy was "one person appointed by another to represent him." That is not the description of a man who hands in a letter. The form of voting given in the schedule was as follows:—"I, A B, do hereby declare that I have signed no other voting paper at this election, and do hereby give my vote at this election for" so and so. The Cambridge University Reform Bill, on the other hand, allowed any member of the Senate to vote at the election for Chancellor or High Steward of the University by proxy. The schedule in that Act gave the form of a real proxy, which was as follows:—"I, A B, a Member of the Senate, do hereby appoint C D to vote in my name for Chancellor (or High Steward) in such manner as the said C D may think proper." The right hon. Gentleman declared that the bearer of the voting paper under this Act was a proxy, pointing out that the Act imposed no pecuniary penalty if he failed to deliver it. But if an elector had the privilege given him of voting without attending in person, it was not too much to require him to find a man on whom he could rely to deliver his voting paper. The right hon. Gentleman thought it strange and startling that the arrival of the vote at the poll should depend on the will of another. But this was very much the condition of things at present. If a voter, living ten or twenty miles from the polling place, depended upon a friend to call for him with his carriage, or to lend him a horse, or a pair of boots, and if that friend changed his mind and did not come, he must be, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the proxy; for it depended upon him whether the voter reached the poll or not. The right hon. Gentleman's next objection was the concentration of votes in a few hands at the University. He thought that this apprehension was exaggerated. The resident members of the University were continually changing. He took his M.A. degree ten years ago, and there was now only one single resident at Oxford who knew him sufficiently well to make the declaration that he was personally acquainted with him, and as this gentleman was opposed to him in politics he was not likely to send his voting paper to him. For himself, therefore, he should not send his voting paper to the head of a College, but should select some neighbour of his own who might be going to Oxford to take charge of his vote. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of College combinations as likely to take place under this Bill. But were such things never heard of now? As to concentration of votes in a few hands, why, under the present system promises were asked for and obtained for particular persons even before they had declared themselves candidates. He held in his hand a circular issued yesterday from the University of Oxford. It was dated "Balliol College," and set forth that it was generally understood to be the intention of Mr. Gladstone to retire from the University of Oxford as soon as the Bill giving an additional seat to South Lancashire was passed. This vacancy would give members of Convocation (it continued) an opportunity of vindicating the character of the University. Sir Stafford Northcote and Mr. Roundell Palmer were likely, it was added, to be put into nomination, and, as it was desirable to secure Sir Stafford Northcote's return, voters were requested to announce their determination to vote for that Gentleman. Then followed the names of four leading gentleman who were willing to receive promises for Sir Stafford Northcote. Now, a thousand written promises might be concentrated in the hands of one gentleman, who would thus exercise quite as much influence on an election as if he had received a few voting papers; but with this difference, that many of the promises for Sir Stafford Northcote would be coupled with the condition—"I will come and vote if you will pay my expenses." The voting papers would get rid of the travelling expenses, which, as they all knew, operated as an inducement for electors to give their votes for particular candidates. The right hon. Gentleman had also urged the number of transmissions and retransmissions of the voting paper which might take place between the elector and the bearer. The House were not bound, he thought, to inquire into this point. It was for the deliberation of the voter how his vote was to be conveyed to the poll, and if the voter complied with the provisions of the Bill he did not see that it was a matter of more concern which of the voter's friends was selected to convey the vote for him than which train he travelled by if he attended in person. Then, again, the time within which the papers were to be signed was strictly limited. The vote was not to be signed until after the returning officer had given the three clear days' notice of the day for proceeding to the election, and until that notice was given the voter could not go before the justice. Another objection urged by the right hon. Gentleman to the Bill was that the voting paper might go up to one polling place and the voter himself to another to deliver his oral vote. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: At the same time.] But Clause 2 provided that the voting paper was to be delivered at "one of the appointed polling places." Now, by the 16 & 17 Vict., the Vice Chancellor might appoint any number of polling places, not exceeding four in all, and declare what Colleges were to poll at those polling places. He apprehended that if the voting paper of a Christ Church man were presented at the polling place for Lincoln, the bearer would be told that was not the appointed polling place. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: That is not stated in the Bill.] No, but the Bill provided that the votes were to be received by the Vice Chancellor or his deputy, "in the manner heretofore used, in all respects as if such votes had been given by the electors attending in person." Now, would it be recording a vote "in the manner heretofore used" if it were received at the polling place not appointed for receiving the votes of a particular College? The right hon. Gentleman's objection in regard to possible frauds went off altogether, for the right hon. Gentleman did not allege any danger of fraud under this Bill, but only apprehended it might be a precedent for the introduction of voting papers for other constituencies where they might lead to fraud. But the House were dealing in the present Bill solely with the University constituencies, and it would be quite sufficient if they took precautions against fraud in the case before them. The adoption of voting papers in University elections would form no precedent for their adoption in other cases, because the University elec- tors, being chiefly non-resident, and voting in virtue of an educational franchise, presented no possible analogy with other constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman had also spoken of the measure destroying corporate or academical action; but how could he reconcile that objection with the approval he had given to the Bill as it originally stood? That supposed academical influence of University electors over each other was a pure figment of the right hon. Gentleman's own brain. Was it to be imagined that men would spend their time and money in going up to the University in order to deliberate with other people as to how they should vote? Men who were so politically undecided of indifferent as that would surely stay at home. The right hon. Gentleman talked of pledges being extorted by the heads of Houses. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made an observation.] He believed he had rightly understood the right hon. Gentleman's words, and the right hon. Gentleman's constituents would hardly feel flattered when they read his remarks in The Times to-morrow. For his own part, he had that confidence in the character of the University electors that he did not believe either that they would seek unfairly to extract pledges from their brother electors, or that their brother electors were in such a defenceless position as to submit to such a proceeding. He had now dealt with all the right hon. Gentleman's objections. That was a Bill simply intended to enable persons recognized as having a right to vote to exercise the privilege with that reasonable facility which they were at present denied. He believed it would have the effect not only of increasing the number of electors who polled at the University elections, but that before long it would very much enlarge and improve these constituencies, because when they found that they could easily exercise their franchise by means of voting papers many men who now took their names off the books would allow their names to remain there. It was rather ungracious that the right hon. Gentleman should object to a measure tending in fact to the enfranchisement of his own constituents. The vote of the right hon. Gentlemen's colleague, the Home Secretary, might at all events be claimed in favour of the Bill, on the ground of what he stated the other night in reference to the Scotch Universities. The Home Secretary had said that until lately it would have been a great objection to enfranchising the Scotch Universities, that their con- stituencies, unlike those of Oxford and Cambridge, would consist only of a small body of professors and very limited number of graduates. By this measure that large body of non-resident graduates in whom the right hon. Baronet took such interest would be enabled to exercise the same influence as was now almost exclusively enjoyed by about 10 per cent of the entire constituency. He, therefore, trusted that the House would now read the Bill the third time.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had confounded the first with the second printed edition of the Bill. He had, in consequence, described the first version as containing good securities which he was now bound to confess he did not think it provided.

MR. HUNT

rose to address the House; but the repeated cries for a division rendered his observations almost undistinguishable. He was understood to say that he had no wish to speak in opposition to the desire of the House, but having taken a great interest in the measure, and introduced some Amendments into it in Committee, he trusted the House would indulge him for a few moments whilst he replied to some of the objections urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the first place, he was anxious to set himself right with the right hon. Gentleman and the House in reference to the interruption which he had noticed. He (Mr. Hunt) stated at the time that he intended no discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, he could assure him that he valued too highly any criticisms he made to think of interrupting him, if he had not felt that the right hon. Gentleman was misrepresenting the provisions of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said if the voting paper was lost, the voter might sign another paper. Now, according to the provisions of the Bill, whether the voting paper was lost or not, it was impossible for him to give a second paper. The only way left to him to correct the matter would be to come up and give his vote in person. There was an objection to the papers being sent direct to the returning officer, on which the right hon. Gentleman had not touched—and that was that votes so sent, and of which no public notice was taken at the hustings, was neither more nor less than the ballot. Besides, it did not provide any security against forgery, which, though not likely to happen, was still a contingency to be guarded against.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he would not detain the House by any argument, as his right hon. Friend seemed to him to have exhausted all that could be said on the subject. But he was unwilling that the House should go to a vote on the third reading without his explaining that he concurred in the objection taken to the measure by his right hon. Friend. He thought its principle entirely new, and liable to great abuse; and if the House should agree to it, and it should be carried into practice, he believed they would soon see reason to repent of their decision.

MR. CONINGHAM

expressed extreme objections to the principle of the Bill, but the cries of the House for a division were so loud and persistent that his observations were totally inaudible. The hon. Member concluded by moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be re-committed.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the word "re-committed,"—instead thereof.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 80: Majority 85.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 3o, and passed.