§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee).
§ Mode of taking the Poll.
§ Clause 3 (Regulations as to polling).
§ MR. KENNAWAY, for Mr. STEPHEN CAVE, rose to move, in page 3, line 18, to add—
The hon. Gentleman said, he hoped the effect of the proposed Amendment would be, if adopted, to make the Ballot more workable, and not liable to the chief dangers which were apprehended from its adoption, such as personation and fraud. Whatever advantages the supporters of secret voting hoped to obtain from it, there was no doubt great danger that the Bill of the Government, as it now stood, would afford facilities for fraudulent voting on a large and extensive scale; and when he looked at the complicated details and arrangements provided in the clauses of this Bill, he was reminded of those well-known lines—
- "(a.) Each ballot paper shall have a number or letter or other distinguishing mark printed on the back thereof, and have attached thereto a counterfoil, with the same number or letter or other distinguishing mark printed on its face;
1745 - "(b.) The presiding officer, before delivering a ballot paper to any elector, shall enter on the counterfoil of the ballot paper the number of the voter on the Register;
- "(c.) At the close of the poll the presiding officer shall, in the presence of the agents of the candidates, or such of them as may be present, seal up the counterfoils of the ballot papers, and send them by the earliest practicable post to the keeper of the ballot papers;
- "(d.) The production from proper custody of a ballot paper purporting to have been used at any election, and of a counterfoil marked with the same printed number, letter, or other distinguishing mark, and having a number marked thereon in writing, shall be primâ facie evidence that the person who voted by such ballot paper was the person who at the time of such election had the same number as the number written affixed to his name in the Register of Electors."
Oh, what a tangled web we weaveWhen first we venture to deceive!But be that as it might, if they were to have the Ballot, he should be glad to co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council in preventing personation and fraud, for he was anxious to make the system of secret voting, if it was to be established, work as satisfactorily as possible, that the secrets of the Ballot should not be wormed out of poll-clerks, or able to be obtained by private individuals, and that no private person should have it in his power to tamper with the voting papers. In the words of Sydney Smith, there should be a plain opportunity afforded to everybody to tell an undiscoverable lie. Now, the scheme which he was venturing to propose was that the ballot paper should be attached primarily to a counterfoil; that on the counterfoil and the ballot paper there should be the same number; and that when a man presented himself to record his vote, the returning officer should tick off his name on the register, 1746 and should mark the number of the register on the counterfoil, so that it should be possible in the event of an inquiry by a Court of Law, and by a Court of Law only, that the vote could be identified and traced. He found that a good system of secret voting had been described as one winch furnished an easy means of identifying a vote by a Court or Judge, while it was made practically impossible that it should be traced by any other person. That test of secret voting had been propounded by the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the Bill of last year, and the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had lately said that the essence of the Ballot was that it should be completely secret, adding that he meant by that expression that "a voter should not be able to prove to anyone how he voted," for if it were otherwise, the object of the present measure would be defeated. That being so, he maintained that his Amendment was not inconsistent with that definition, that it gave a really "secret" ballot, and, moreover, it was considered only last year by the Government to be essential. He would ask, what was the reason that they had changed their minds on this matter? There was, besides, danger that elections should be decided by the votes of persons not duly qualified to vote. Now, suppose the returning officer admitted 20 votes which he ought not to have admitted, were the candidates to be put to the expense and the constituencies to the turmoil of another contest because those votes could not be traced? That difficulty was felt in America, where the States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, had found it necessary to adopt a plan whereby votes might be traced; it was much complained of in New South Wales and Queensland; and it was thought that the plan adopted in Victoria, which was in substance that contained in the Amendment, should be introduced in other colonies, especially as, according to Mr. M'Culloch, it had not tended to diminish the security to the voter. Again, the Bill afforded no means of proof that the voting paper put into the box was the same as that given by the returning officer to the voter. That shuffling of voting papers was one of the great means of bribery under the Ballot. The use of a particular stamp by the returning officer would not prevent forgery, for stamps 1747 might be got at and voting papers copied. That that was quite possible was evident from the fact that even the papers for a competitive examination in the Civil Service had on one occasion been abstracted. When that was done there was an unlimited power of bribery and personation; no check could be applied, because votes could not be traced; and, even if there was no fraud, the returning officer and his servants would be exposed to much suspicion. The crux of the Ballot had always been to find means for combining a scrutiny with a secret Ballot, and as the difficulty, which was a real and practical, not an imaginary one, was altogether ignored by the Bill, he asked the Committee, by affirming the Amendment, to say that, through the Courts of Law and the Judges, who were at all events above suspicion, votes should be traceable in the case of an Election Petition. He begged to move the addition of sub-sections providing that each ballot paper should have a number or letter, or other distinguishing mark printed on the back, with a counterfoil similarly marked, in order to trace the vote of each voter if necessary.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 18, after the word "Election," to add the words—
(a.) Each ballot paper shall have a number or letter or other distinguishing mark printed on the back thereof, and have attached thereto a counterfoil, with the same number or letter or other distinguishing mark printed on its face"—(Mr. Kennaway.)
§ MR. HERMONsaid, he trusted that the Amendment would be adopted, for, if so, his objections to the Bill would be to a great extent met. The measure would have this advantage—it would tend to produce greater peace and quiet at elections, and would relieve many persons from the notion that they were controlled or coerced. He objected to it mainly because it tended to fraud. As an employer of labour, having in his employment more persons than there were in many of the constituencies mentioned in these debates, he had hesitated as to whether he should not abstain from voting in this matter altogether, lost it should be supposed that he wished to ascertain how men voted. Some remarks had been made, especially by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James), as to the manner in which employers dealt with their hands. For his own part, he had 1748 not been told how more than half-a-dozen of the people in his employ voted; but he was informed that they acted with a degree of uprightness which he much commended. He believed most of them voted for himself; but those who had not done so suffered no inconvenience. When he canvassed his constituency he found that it would be useless to attempt to change the intentions of those who had already decided how they should vote; and he could not believe men were so open to intimidation and corrupt influences as was alleged by many hon. Members. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make some concession to hon. Members on that side of the House, who only desired to promote purity of election; and that Amendment would not only meet their views, but would advance the objects of the Government, because it was similar to a proposal made by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) last year.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had no hesitation in saying still that a system which admitted of a possible scrutiny was theoretically superior to any other system of voting. But it had never been the practice in that House to act entirely upon theoretical principles, nor did he think it would be wise so to act now. That was a question more of practical working than of theory, and in the opinion of a great many hon. Members—although in his opinion it was a very doubtful point—the plan now proposed by the Government was a better one than that proposed by them last year. The one advantage in the Bill of last year was that a scrutiny might follow an election, and the election be determined in favour of the candidate who had received a majority of good votes. A scrutiny, though difficult, would not be absolutely impossible even under the present system. But how seldom was the ordeal of a scrutiny necessary, and how seldom were the results of an election altered by a scrutiny! Again, it must be remembered that, with regard to the detection of personation and fraud of all kinds, nothing turned upon the proof of how a person voted. If they wanted to detect bribery or personation, they must prove, to begin with, that the voter was bribed or personated, and the question how he voted formed no part of the case. There was no reason why, under that Bill, just as at present, proof should not be given 1749 that a certain voter had received money, and, if he had received it, the return of the candidate on whose behalf he had been bribed would be vitiated. The same result would follow if personation could be traced to a candidate or his agent. Personation was an extremely dangerous game to play, and instead of the present cumbrous mode of proving personation in each case, and then striking off the vote, there were other provisions, which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) would explain, to check and punish the offence, and which could easily be increased, if not found sufficiently stringent. That might be effected by sufficiently increasing the number of polling-places and taking other precautions to insure that the voters coming to particular polling-places should in the great majority of cases be personally known to some of the persons present. If the people were told that, under certain circumstances, the votes they gave might be subsequently proved, there would arise a doubt in their minds whether the votes might not become known under other circumstances than those contemplated by the law, and he ventured to doubt whether, if the Amendment now proposed were adopted, the reception given to the Bill by hon. Members opposite would in any degree be altered. When they were discussing the Ballot Bill of last year, the plan of a scrutiny which had been provided for by that Bill had met with considerable ridicule. Many hon. Members had no possible confidence in the plan. When the Bill was intrusted to him for preparation he did think that theoretically the principle of scrutiny was better, and he did not say that he had altogether changed his opinion. He did not think that anything would be found in his speech showing that he attached great importance to the two systems, or that he had attempted to convey that the question involved anything like a question of principle. He thought it was a question of detail. But his right hon. Friend, who had considered the subject more than he had done, had come to the conclusion that secret ballot would work best, and he was perfectly willing to support his right hon. Friend's proposal in preference to his own.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had thought that the object of the Bill was to have elections truly representing the opinions of the constituencies; but 1750 the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) seemed to think that the paramount object of the Bill was to conceal the votes of the electors, and whatever injustice might be done by the reception of bad votes no redress was to be obtainable. However much he might admire the candour of the noble Lord, he was not at all satisfied with his arguments. It had been suggested by the noble Lord that provisions would be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council which would render a scrutiny possible under the present Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman explained by what means he intended to effect that object he might shorten the present debate. The question before the House, involving the consideration of how a proper representation was to be obtained, was of the deepest moment, and must be argued out. In those colonies where an absolutely secret ballot existed, the Governors represented that what was wanted was that very check against abuse now proposed; and the Select Committee of that House had also come to the conclusion that a provision of the sort was necessary to secure correct representation. There were two questions involved in a scrutiny—namely, the question of the criminality of the voter and the result of the election, and though the noble Lord said that the occurrence of a scrutiny was a rare thing, the correctness of which opinion he (Mr. G. Hardy) took exception to, still the constituency were entitled to have the power of scrutiny; and he had known the result of a great many elections changed by a scrutiny. If a disqualified candidate was rejected under a scrutiny, and if the next highest were to succeed him, justice was done; but if, on the other hand, it was said that a disqualified candidate should not sit, but a new election take place, the candidate who would be entitled under a scrutiny would be put to expense and the constituency suffer the evils of a new election. The point was novel in the debate, and he called upon the right hon. Gentleman to consider it. Then, again, if a candidate told voters to vote for him on the ground that the other candidate was disqualified, and that the votes would only be thrown away if they were given to that other candidate, how could anyone tell who had voted for the disqualified candidate un- 1751 less there was a scrutiny? The Ballot was intended in America to be a perfect cloak on the way in which a man voted, yet in Ohio they produced witnesses in some cases where the validity of votes was challenged, to prove by circumstantial evidence how the electors objected to had voted. Witnesses were brought forward to prove that those electors were heard to say that they would vote for so-and-so, and then the matter was left to the decision of the jury. The proposed Amendment in no way interfered with secret voting, and every honest voter might be assured that his vote was secret, because it would only be in the case of an Election Petition that a scrutiny would be made. With voting papers the scrutiny would be easy where required, whilst with a proper system of counter-foils it would be perfectly secure and secret. A constituency had the right to be represented by the Member they had chosen, and in a close contest, where the majority was only four or five perhaps, it would be impossible to ascertain without a scrutiny whether, in a case of bribery, the agent had bribed a certain voter, or if there was inability to prove the agency, it might still be the case that a number of bribed and bad votes might have been given to the candidate at the head of the poll. It had always been said that under the Ballot the bribery carried on would not be the bribery of persons but of classes, and supposing that the members of a club were told that, if a certain candidate were returned, the club should have a sum of money presented to it, would it not be of importance to ascertain whether the members of that club voted in favour of the candidate in whose success they had been bribed to feel an interest? The main object of legislation on that question, he contended, ought to be to provide that the constituencies were properly represented; and unless they adopted the principle of a scrutiny, they would be defrauding the constituencies of the country and sheltering criminals.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, while endeavouring to answer the questions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy), must remark that the charge of inconsistency brought against his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (the Marquess of Hartington) was rather severe, when they remembered instances 1752 of inconsistency of a much greater magnitude. He (Mr. Forster) thought that that question of the desirability of identification of a vote in the case of a scrutiny being required, might be fairly considered one of those points on which a person might change his course of action without exposing himself to the charge of a want of consistency. It was a matter of importance in point of detail; but its importance in point of principle might very easily be exaggerated. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Kennaway) had mentioned the instance of Victoria, as a case in which that identification had been found useful; but from all he (Mr. Forster) could gather on the point, it had been found there to seriously interfere with the secrecy of the vote. He felt it was quite right they should be asked upon what ground it was they had made a change from the scheme of last year, and he would presently answer it; but as to the case of the disqualification of a candidate, he failed to see the pertinence of the point raised by his right hon. Friend, for if the candidate were disqualified, and notice was given that the votes recorded for him would be thrown away, what more was wanted?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that, according to the practice before Election Committees, they must prove one by one that the voters had received notice of the disqualification, and that unless they had the names before them it would be impossible to put the scrutiny in force.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that point might require consideration, but it seemed to him that the difficulty might be very easily met; for nothing would be easier than for the returning officer to say that the candidate was unable to be returned; that the votes given for him would be void. The reason why they had made a change in their scheme was that the plan now adopted by the Government seemed to promise a more complete representation than that of last year, by assuring the voter of absolute secrecy, and thereby allowing him to record his vote free from any undue influence. He did not say that the point was of importance one way or the other; but it appeared more reasonable to the Government on the whole that there was some, though not, perhaps, great, dan- 1753 ger that the secrecy might be violated under the scheme of last year, or, at all events, that efforts might be made to violate it, and that the confidence of the voter in the absolute secrecy of his vote might be shaken. The only advantage of the scheme of last year was that under it there could be a scrutiny, bait that advantage was very much exaggerated. There were ten Petitions for an inquiry without scrutiny for one with scrutiny, and even when it was asked for, the expense was so enormous that the scrutiny generally ended before all the doubtful votes had been examined into. In such cases it was really a question of purse against purse. He could almost defy the right hon. Gentleman opposite to find out a case that would show that a proper representation had been obtained by means of a scrutiny.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) was now sitting by virtue of a scrutiny.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERdoubted whether all the bad votes had been struck out in that or any other case. There were generally circumstances that made one or other of the candidates not anxious to continue a scrutiny. Then it was said that by their present scheme they would diminish the checks against personation; but he believed that it was not probable that personation would increase. His case was that they would by the Bill very considerably check bribery, and there was hardly ever a case where personation was unaccompanied by bribery. He believed that the arrangements for voting would make personation more difficult than it was now. A man would have to take out his voting paper as well as to fill it up and hand it in, and that would afford better opportunities for detecting personation than the simple recording of a vote. A larger number of polling-places being provided, the voter would be better known there than he now was. A clause would also be brought up under which votes would be taken off when personation or bribery was proved. Attempts at personation were now generally made at the end of the day, when the state of the poll showed that the risk was worth running, and when it had been ascertained that somebody had not voted. But the state of the poll would not be known under the new 1754 system, and no information was to be given as to whether a man had or had not voted. Such arrangements would, he thought, check personation more completely than was possible at present.
§ MR. LIDDELLsaid, he thought that no satisfactory explanation had been given of the extraordinary change of opinion which had occurred upon the Treasury bench. In Victoria the vote could be traced, and the fact that the example of Victoria was actually being followed in the neighbouring colonies was a very strong argument in favour of the Amendment. He believed that an increased number of polling-places would tend to check personation; but it should be remembered that these additional polling-places would cause a considerable increase of expenditure on account of scrutineers. To ascertain if a vote were illegal, they must be able to follow that vote. They had evidence that in Victoria personation was increasing under the system of secrecy, and that should be a warning to them. He hoped that the Government would again change their minds, and adopt the proposal that was now made.
LORD HENLEYsaid, the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy) in the case of a disqualified candidate deserved consideration. He was a Member of the Committee which inquired into the Cambridge election when Mr. Forsyth was objected to, and was declared disqualified as holding an office under the Crown. Three hundred voters had voted for Mr. Forsyth in defiance of the notice of disqualification, and the question might have arisen whether these votes were good or bad. He therefore suggested that in cases where a candidate was thus objected to some machinery should be adopted for following the votes, though he should be sorry to see such a system made general at every election, as he thought it would have the effect of clogging the action of the Ballot, the adoption of which measure he had not the least doubt the country generally was anxiously waiting for.
§ MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, he had given Notice of a somewhat less complicated Amendment than that providing that the ballot paper delivered to the voter should correspond with a number upon the register. In that way they would get rid of the necessity for a 1755 counterfoil. The Bill held out a strong inducement to personation, because every vote given under the new system would be a good vote, since it could never be struck out under a scrutiny. Thus, the Bill held out a strong inducement to crime, and then inflicted heavy penalties upon the criminal.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the law seemed to be that votes would be thrown away at an election if it could be proved that the voters had received notice of the candidate's disqualification. An objection might be raised that if the notice of a candidate's disqualification were given after the commencement of the polling, it would be apparently very difficult, as the Bill stood, to ascertain who had voted before, and who after the issuing of the notice. Nothing, however, would be easier than to prevent any such inconvenience by bringing up a short clause, enacting that after the notice had been given all subsequent votes should be deposited in a separate ballot-box.
§ MR. G. B. GREGORYsuggested the necessity of serving the candidate himself with personal notice.
§ MR. MELLYsaid, that although the returning officers and agents of the candidates might act in the most straightforward manner, it would be difficult to persuade voters that their votes would not be ascertained if provision were made for a scrutiny; therefore the Radical Members had always declared they would rather have no ballot at all than one which was not really and truly secret. Personation could not be prevented by ascertaining which way a vote was given, as the chief risk which a personator incurred was that of being handed over to the custody of a policeman at the moment he tendered the vote. Personation, he might add, was extremely rare and extremely dangerous.
§ MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he fully shared in the confidence felt by the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Melly) in the honour and impartiality of the returning officers. Now, under the old system of voting, there was little or no temptation offered to those officers to act unfairly; but human nature being naturally weak, they might not show themselves as fully entitled to that confidence, if they felt that under that secret system detection of offences would be impossible. The right hon. Gentleman 1756 opposite had adverted to the sudden and remarkable change of opinion on the part of his Friends and Colleagues in reference to the subject of secret voting. The course of the right hon. Gentleman himself had been straightforward and consistent throughout, and he had asserted that the conversion of his Colleagues was "reasonable," but he would have described the change more correctly if he had called it "seasonable." It had never yet been shown how, under a system of perfect secrecy, a stop could be put to bribery, and until a satisfactory explanation was given on that point the Committee ought not to pass a measure which, as it now stood, would practically prevent the detection of bribery. His noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that the Bill he proposed last year was the best in theory, but that the present would be a better one in practice. He confessed his inability to understand how this could be. Again, as to his noble Friend's assertion that personation would not be resorted to because it was a very dangerous practice, he thought it was sufficiently obvious that danger did not always deter malefactors.
§ MR. WHITBREADsaid, he thought the Act passed a few years ago was more effectual than the Ballot could be to check bribery; but, at the same time, he did not believe that the Ballot would facilitate bribery. He did not advocate the secret ballot because it would prevent bribery, but because he felt convinced it would protect voters against intimidation and undue influence. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talked a great deal about the desirability of freeing voters from undue influence, while leaving them subject to all good influences; but he should very much like to know what good influence could be weakened by the Ballot. By adopting an absolutely secret ballot they would, no doubt, be placed to a certain extent at a disadvantage in regard to a scrutiny; but that would be outweighed by the advantage of gaining the complete confidence of the voters. With regard to the suppositions case put by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) of a manager of a club being bribed, he would remark that the security of the ballot must be sacrificed if all the papers were to be examined in order to ascertain how particular persons voted.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that according to the hon. Gentleman's the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread's) argument, the object of introducing the Ballot was not only to protect men in doing what was right, but also to protect them in doing what was wrong. It was a strange thing that the Ballot should be defended on the ground that it would enable men guilty of one of the gravest political offences—that of selling their votes for money—to defy detection. It appeared to him that that was pushing the doctrine of secret voting to a most injurious extent. In the case put by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) of a manager of a club being charged with receiving a bribe for the purpose of obtaining 100 votes, it would surely be of the highest importance to ascertain how the members of that club voted. What they said on that side of the House was, that if they were determined to introduce this system they ought also to introduce facilities for preventing or detecting certain evils, such as bribery and personation, for no one could deny that such evils would exist, nor that the proposed safeguard would prove efficacious in preventing them. The only answer was, that, it would shake the confidence of the voter, either because there might have been or were strong reasons to believe misfeasance in the examination of the votes, or they would suspect if the votes were marked that they would become known. To say they had no confidence in the returning officers, and that they would violate their duties by publishing names, was a serious consideration, and if there was no confidence in the returning officer, what confidence could be had in the Ballot? If the returning officers were suspected at all, they would as certainly be suspected of tampering with the ballot-box as of wrong-doing in any other direction. As a matter of fact, however, he believed that the confidence of the voters would be secured if, after the experience of two or three elections, it was evident that secrecy had been observed. It was not easy to give a categorical answer to the question as to what good influences would be interfered with by the adoption of secret voting. There were, however, many good and sound influences at work under open voting which they would fail to feel 1758 when secret voting was adopted. A man's colleagues, his teachers, and others, induced him under the present system to give a vote on public grounds, and not from pique or spite. A man ought to be under the influence of legitimate public opinion when he was called upon to discharge a public duty; but he (Sir Stafford Northcote) would not press it so far as to make public opinion take the part of oppression. It was difficult to draw the line in certain cases as to where beneficial public opinion ended and where public oppression began; but there was a point at which one began and the other ended. They would lose by secret voting that kind of influence which a candidate, and those interested in an election, had to know how such and such a man voted, because how a man voted was an important fact in the eyes of the constituency. In a hundred ways they would lower the tone of the constituency and the moral effect of an election, if they rendered it impossible to say how a voter voted. On those grounds he was of opinion that some means of distinguishing the votes should be given.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, they had already had a full practical discussion on the question affecting the Amendment. It was proposed only to have the vote kept secret till a scrutiny was called for in a Court of Law. But the vote itself, being known, would not enable them to trace the act of bribery, which was the guilty act. Inasmuch as the scrutiny in a Court of Law was not to take place until the vote was declared invalid, the bribery must have been first proved.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he objected to the Ballot and to the clause, not on political, but on moral grounds. It mistrusted individuals, and encouraged evil and dishonest men. The consequence would be, that under the Ballot promises would be given to anybody, and no one would know whether the promise would be kept or not; and if the election turned out differently to what was expected, the innocent would be punished for acts they had never committed. He must take advantage of the opportunity to congratulate hon. Gentlemen opposite on having at length broken the iron bonds by which their eloquence in relation to this Bill had been hitherto fettered. That no advantage accrued to right hon. 1759 Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench from the adoption of the practice to which he referred was evident from the fact that the torrents of eloquence pent up yesterday night burst forth early that morning, and swept away the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his New Mint Bill. No answer had been given by any Member of the Government to the proposition contained in the Amendment. He had, on a former occasion, to complain of the absence of the Prime Minister when the House was discussing important questions, a practice different to the course pursued by the late Lord Palmerston and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). He asked, where were the Law Officers of the Crown? Why were they not on the Treasury bench, giving their assistance to the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill? There were two able English Law Officers, one Irish Law Officer only, because such was the Prime Minister's popularity in Ireland that he was unable to obtain a seat in that House for his Attorney General; but there was a Scotch Law Officer with nothing to do. That Bill referred to the Three Kingdoms, but there were no legal authorities present to assist the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman reminded him of the stag moralised by Jaques in As You Like It. He was "left and abandoned of his learned friends," and when he found himself in a fog or chaos, as he did continually on the 2nd clause, he had to stalk slowly down the House, to consult a hidden and mysterious oracle who sat in a dark corner under the gallery, and who he (Mr. C. Bentinck) was bound to say did not give any satisfactory response likely to save the time of the House.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, in regard to that proposal, he would be glad to learn what safeguard it was proposed to establish against the agent on either side petitioning against an elected candidate, with a view to discovering how the electors had voted. He failed, moreover, to place much confidence in the returning officers, who, especially in the smaller boroughs, were frequently the most violent partizans. He would venture to suggest that when objections were clearly recorded against a candidate he should be considered as disqualified, the election 1760 declared to be void, and all votes given in his favour as thrown away.
§ MR. SALTobserved that the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Melly) seemed to be labouring under a want of self-appreciation, when he complained that a number of men in Preston had voted on one occasion for himself, and on another for the present representative of that town. There was, however, no real inconsistency in the case, inasmuch as the electors might have merely exercised on each occasion an independent judgment. For his own part, he entertained at one time a tendency towards the Ballot; but it seemed that the evidence from other countries, as well as the arguments urged in favour of the Bill, was scarcely sufficiently strong to justify the House in passing such a measure. He had a friend who resided in France a good deal under the late Imperial rule, and his opinion, after the experience of one election, led him to the conclusion that it would be preferable to have open voting as in England. He might also mention that he had the other day been talking casually to two American gentlemen, one of whom accidentally spoke of a man as commanding 100,000 votes. His remark to that gentleman was—"If that is the case you are somewhat too liberal in your distribution of the franchise." The response of the other American gentleman was—"We do not complain of the distribution of the franchise, but of the circumstance that the voters should vote two or three times over." The truth was, that the question involved in the present Bill was one which ought not evidently to be disposed of hastily, and winch required the most careful consideration. It would be far better, therefore, in his opinion, that a decision upon it should be delayed for another year. As to the Amendment, he regarded it as a protection which was almost as necessary for the good voter as against the bad. It was very desirable, in order to remove any imputation of fraud which might rest upon a constituency, that there should be some means of showing that persons to whom suspicion attached were free from blame.
§ MR. PLUNKETsaid, the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) seemed to think the Amendment would be an encouragement for the presentation of Election Petitions. No such fear as that need be entertained by his hon. Friend; 1761 for the prosecution of an Election Petition was a very serious business, involving much expense, trouble, time, and heartburning, and if an Amendment of this character were not adopted, no doubt the initiatory process of presenting Petitions would be seriously interfered with. In reply to a challenge which had been thrown out from the other side of the House by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), he contended that the exercise of beneficial influences at elections would be greatly interfered with by a system of secret voting, observing that the responsibility to that calm, mature, and deliberate public opinion of which Sir Robert Peel spoke, and which came to be recorded after the excitement of an election was over, would be completely done away with under such a system. It would be one great advantage of the operation of the Amendment that a voter would know that he could not dissever himself from his vote; for a man would be tempted to yield more readily to the baser instincts which were at work at elections, if he knew that he would be relieved from all responsibility with respect to the manner in which he happened to have exercised the franchise. He maintained also that there should be a sense of responsibility thrown on the returning officer himself, because in accordance with the proposal of the Government great reliance must be placed on the respectability and trustworthiness of such persons. The importance of that point was all the greater because of the multiplication of the number of polling-places, to attend at which—and he threw the matter out for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—men of the required stamp could not be obtained without adequate payment.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE, in supporting the Amendment, said, he regarded the question it raised from a moral point of view, and contended that, as the balance of political morality was being gradually restored, it was important to consider whether this proposition would tend to purify election proceedings more than heretofore. The conduct of the Government with regard to that question reminded him of the epitaph on the tombstone of an Italian patriot—"I was well; I tried to be better; and here I am." What was the evil to be 1762 guarded against in the secret voting? A certain number of men would vote corruptly in different constituencies. This fact would become notorious in the little sets in which they lived, and as there could be no Petition they would continue these practices with impunity, and would be imitated by others. There would be a gradual weakening of moral obligations, and gradually, not after one election but after two or three, the people would reach the low level of the electors of the United States. And how did the clause of the hon. Member for East Devonshire act? It provided the rod in pickle to punish gross corruption and gross personation. It would prevent the present large number of Petitions being sent in to be told off against each other, and it would often enable the defeated party to recover his own by making terrible examples of startling electoral corruptions. That Amendment would keep alive the terror of the Election Petitions, and the electors would be taught that they could not do wrong with absolute impunity—a warning which the Government Bill did not present. On that ground he should support the Amendment. The Government seemed bent on taking even a more dangerous plunge than that of last year; their ballot omnibus was a still crazier vehicle than that which then blocked up Temple Bar; and he hoped that they would return to a better mind, and, if they must have a system of secret voting, that they would have one with some means of preventing abuses.
§ MR. TIPPINGsaid, as a Conservative convert to this Bill, he might naturally be asked why he supported it. He did so because he found that in the borough he represented the newly-enfranchised voters were unanimous only on one point—in demanding the Ballot. When he attempted to reason with them their answer was—"You don't know what you are talking about; you don't get your living by working in a Liberal mill." Now, he did not say that a Liberal mill was more of a barracoon for voters than a Conservative mill; he only cited the reply to show the feelings of the class. These men lacked moral courage, and were naturally suspicious. There should, therefore, be absolute secrecy of voting; and it seemed to him that there was no choice between the open system of voting or the absolutely 1763 secret system, with all its evils, proposed by the Government.
§ MR. VANCEsaid, that unlike the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Tipping), he knew constituencies where the feeling was universally in favour of open voting. It had been admitted, on the other side, that the Ballot would encourage personation; and that it would be a dangerous portion of the measure. Now, he once represented a city in which there were 10,000 or 12,000 voters; and impersonation was in such force that agents were placed in all the booths to prevent it. In some instances they succeeded. In another place every name in the lists was filled up, and when it was known that from 5 to 10 percent of the electors never attended the poll, the extent of impersonation was at once apparent. When by means of impersonation the wrong candidate was returned by a small majority, there was at present a remedy for the evil by petition. That Bill took away the remedy. About the middle of the day during the last year an admiral and a general went together to give their votes at Chelsea; and on giving their names they were informed that their votes had been given two hours ago. That Bill, by establishing the Ballot, took away the remedy for that kind of impersonation. He believed also that the Ballot would increase bribery to an unbounded extent. The mode of bribing would be a promise of so much money if Mr. So-and-So was returned. He objected to the Bill also because, while it destroyed undue influence, it also destroyed due and proper influence, rendering voters entirely irresponsible for the most important act of citizenship they could be called on to perform. At all events, the Bill should not be driven through just at the close of the Session—its consideration should be adjourned till next year.
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. G. B. Gregory) would not press the Amendment which stood in his name if the one before the Committee were rejected on a division. For the sake of simplifying the question, he thought it of great importance that the Committee should distinctly understand what it was they were discussing. The question was—"Were they to have a ballot which would prevent the detection of fraud and crime." That was the ques- 1764 tion they were discussing. Hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite said—"That is the matter; the protection of the voter should be the first consideration, and for this an absolutely secret ballot was necessary; and that for this the detection of the personator must be given up." Who were the people who would be personated? The electors who had died, and, in towns like Liverpool, those who were at sea. Suppose there should be a double return, how was the right man to be determined? The Government should legislate not for the few weak, but for the great majority of honest electors. He should vote for the Amendment.
§ MR. KENNAWAY, in reply, said, the want of a scrutiny had been found so great in some of the American States that they had legislated to provide one.
COLONEL JERVISsaid, from his long electoral experience, and his knowledge of the proceedings in Election Committees, he felt that the Committee were asked to throw away the chance of purifying elections, for the Bill deliberately threw away all the safeguards against corruption and fraud; and for that reason he felt bound to support the Amendment. In Victoria it had been found necessary to make personation a misdemeanour. In this country thousands of men went to the poll who were not known to the returning officer, yet he was bound to take their word. He differed from the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) in thinking that the Ballot would be any protection to the working man, for a manufacturer who employed hundreds of hands would still be able to obtain information as to how they were going to vote at an election. He begged to ask whether, at that period of July, there was any chance of passing this Bill, and whether the Government intended to go on with it?
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, it had been conceded by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that bribery would not be abolished by this Bill, but would rather be encouraged; and therefore, if undue influence and intimidation were all that hon. Members had to fear, they might vote for the Amendment, because, as far as the total suppression of intimidation was concerned, that Bill would probably turn out to be a failure. Under that Bill it might be impossible to dictate which way a man should vote; but 1765 what was there to prevent his employer saying he should not go to the poll? A hint of that kind would be given in terms which could not be misunderstood. That, he thought, was a point that should receive some attention.
§ MR. A. GUESTsaid, he thought there ought to be some mode of identifying votes in case of personation. By the present system the poll-book afforded that evidence, and a vote could be struck off, but under the Bill any unscrupulous man might personate a voter who was at sea. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would turn his attention to that part of the subject, with a view to bring personators to swift and condign punishment.
§ MR. COLLINSsaid, he could not understand the objection of the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) in reference to Petitions, remarking that they had all heard of gangs of bribers going about to places like Lancaster and Bridgwater, Yarmouth and Norwich. He remembered once seeing half-a-dozen candidates advertised for a vacant seat in a borough since disfranchised; and four of the number were men who had been convicted of bribery or unseated for it. In fact, there were some constituencies where success could not be hoped for unless it was known that the candidate would spend money freely. He believed that, although undue influence would be diminished, bribery would be increased under this Bill; but if it did pass it ought to be accompanied by a new Registration Bill to prevent duplicate registration, and to remove the facility which several qualifications would give to personation under the Ballot. Under the existing system a large number of men, simply from vanity, and for the purpose of advertising their supposed wealth, caused their names to be put forward as being qualified to vote in five or six different places. Those persons should be compelled to select the particular place in which they intended to vote, and their qualification as regarded the others should be ignored.
§ LORD HENRY THYNNEsaid, he wished for explanations with regard to two matters, on the solution of which his vote depended. In the first place, if a voter going to the poll found he had been personated, would he be al- 1766 lowed to vote; if he was so allowed, what would be the positions of the candidate and the constituency; and were there any means of withdrawing the personated vote? On reference to a later clause in the Bill, it would be seen that a man would be able to go from town to town, personating a voter, and afterwards to state that he had been employed by the opposition candidate. As there were no means of tracing the personated vote, one vote would be struck off from the list of the wrong candidate, and his opponent would be a gainer both ways. Then, again, the returning officer in counties being the sheriff, would probably appoint as under sheriff his solicitor. The latter might have been engaged in corrupt practices at many elections, and his clerks employed as his deputies might assist personation, the opposition candidate having no protection against such practices unless he had check clerks on the spot. He had no objection to secret voting so long as the interests of the constituency and the candidates were considered. The hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley) was the only Member of the House who had actual experience of the Ballot. It was said that there was almost more extravagance at the last Bristol election than at any previous one; and, if that was true, they ought to consider well before adopting the Government proposal. If the Government had permitted their followers to take part in the debate, they might have given much useful advice on this subject to other hon. Members who had not studied it so fully.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must inform the noble Lord who had just spoken (Lord Henry Thynne) that the next following clause provided for the case of a man finding that he had been personated. He should be glad to consider any objections about the returning officer at the proper time, but he was not aware that the Bill would induce the sheriff to make any arrangements which he could not make at present. All the objections which had been made, and the danger which had been described, belonged alike to open and secret voting, and there was no more ground for putting them forward as likely to be fostered under the operation of the Bill than there was under the existing system. With regard to the remarks of 1767 the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), he could not see that the Bill increased the danger arising from a double qualification. On the contrary, under that scheme an impostor would be more likely to be detected; and as people could not discover who had voted in the course of the day, the risk accompanying personation would be greatly increased, so that it would be less liable to be attempted. The Government had no right to complain of the tone of the greater part of the debate; but the matter having been fully and fairly discussed, he appealed to the Committee as to whether they could not at once go to a division.
§ MR. PELLsaid, he thought it would be impossible under a system of secret voting to be sure, in the event of a close election contest, that the successful candidate was not returned in consequence of men having double qualifications voting twice.
§ MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he did not admit that the subject had been sufficiently discussed, or that the Committee had received from the Government an answer to the most important part of the Bill. He wanted to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council a distinct explanation as to what machinery there was in the Bill to prevent unlimited wholesale bribery under its operation. He had made several appeals to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, and had not been able to get an answer. The right hon. Gentleman was in a false position—he was an honest advocate of a dishonest course, and naturally found it difficult to answer that which it was impossible to answer.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Norfolk could hardly have done him the honour of listening to any single speech that he had made. From the beginning he (Mr. Forster) had always stated that he had advocated the Ballot because he believed it would put an end to bribery more than any other measure that could be adopted. [Mr. G. BENTINCK: HOW?] Well, how? Surely the hon. Gentleman did not expect him to reiterate the arguments he had already given; but the subject the hon. Gentleman had introduced was not pertinent to the Amendment, which was that when a voter was found to have 1768 been bribed, or to have personated some one, his vote was to be struck off. He must say the Committee would not be acting in its usual course if, after so many hours' discussion, the debate was adjourned before a decision was come to upon the Amendment.
§ SIR LAWRENCE PALK, who spoke amid much interruption, said, that his vote was wholly uncertain, and he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council should bring in some clause or some addition to the Bill which would render personation easy of detection, because that would meet the general approval of the House; but if he would not pledge himself to do so he (Sir Lawrence Palk) would support the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 201: Majority 84.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
§ It being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
§ The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.