§ Order for Committee read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir Henry James.)
§ MR. FAWCETT, in rising to move—
That no measure dealing with the expenses of Returning Officers is likely to reduce these expenses which does not interest the constituencies in economy by relieving candidates of the charge,said, that the two Law Officers of the late Government, who were responsible for this Bill, had scheduled the charges connected with an election. It was only fair to assume that they would not desire to call upon candidates to deposit more than would meet the expenses of the Returning Officer, because if the money were deposited the probability was it would be spent. If the tendency of the Bill would be to promote economy and diminish expense he would not oppose it; but it appeared it would have a directly contrary effect. To show this he would take a few examples, constituencies of different sizes, in different parts of the country. The deposit required was to be proportionate to the number of electors. In Sheffield a deposit would be required of £1,200, and at the last election the Returning Officer's expenses were £600. At Huddersfield the Bill would require a deposit of £600; and at the last election the expenses amounted to £248 19s. 4d. At Cambridge £300, instead of £166 14s. 11d. At Rochdale £600, instead of £363 5s. 1d. In Leicester the candidates would have to deposit £750 and the Bill, instead of diminishing the expenses, would increase them by 150 per cent. The same results would be found in a multitude of other places. What was the fair conclusion to be drawn from these facts? If the ingenuity of the two Law Officers of the Crown in the late Government manifested itself in framing Schedules which, instead of diminishing election expenses, would increase them by 100 or 150 per cent. it was evident that economy in Parliamentary elections could not be secured by means of Schedules. Let the House remember what had been done in municipal and school board elections. These were very moderate, 401 because it was not the candidate but the constituency that bore the expenses, while in Parliamentary elections the reverse was the case. There was no reason why elections should be more expensive in one case than the other, and the certain way to economy was not by framing Schedules, but by interesting constituencies themselves in that economy. At Southampton the school board election cost £140, and the expense of conducting the Parliamentary election the same year were £550, or 400 per cent more. At Bodmin the school board election cost £29, and the Parliamentary election £130—again an increase of 400 per cent. At Bristol the school board expenses were £393, while the last Parliamentary election cost £840, and the next election would cost £900 if this Bill should pass. The school board election at Dudley cost £240, and the Parliamentary election £700. In Exeter the school board election cost £90, but they fleeced the candidates at the Parliamentary election to the amount of £720, being an increase of about 800 per cent. With such facts before them as these, which could not be gainsaid or disputed, it would be trifling with the common sense of the House to say a word more to prove that interesting the constituencies themselves in economy was a remedy for extravagance. But, as a matter of principle, he put it to the House whether there was any reason why a gentleman who stood for the school board should not pay the necessary expenses, while if he stood for a seat in Parliament he should pay these expenses? Furthermore, it should be borne in mind, that if the constituencies had to bear all the cost, the expenses would be reduced to a minimum, as the same ballot-boxes, the same stamps, the same polling-booths, and the same machinery would do for all elections; but there was no security that under this Bill the candidates would not be obliged to have new booths and ballot-boxes, although the town might be in possession of them already. It had been proposed that the expenses of Parliamentary elections should be borne by the Consolidated Fund; but there was no more reason why the Parliamentary elections should be defrayed from that source than the school board elections, and any proposals to allow constituencies to put their hands into the Imperial 402 Exchequer for any such purpose ought to be resisted by the House with the utmost resolution. He was told that there was a growing feeling against any addition to local rates, and Members declared that if they voted for any proposal to increase them they would incur a great amount of unpopularity. With respect to the burden which his proposal would impose upon the ratepayers, he had taken the cases of the constituencies in which the charges of the Returning Officers were heaviest, and he found that, even if these charges remained as heavy as they now were—and he had shown that they might be 300 or 400 per cent less—the burden would amount in the case of the occupier of a £10 house to the price of a single glass of beer once in three years. Could anyone then pretend that if the principle for which he contended was a true one the constituencies would object to pay such a paltry price for the sanctioning of a sound, a just, and a true principle? A friend of his who represented a large borough, but who was no longer a Member of that House, went down to address his constituents, and having done so asked for a vote of confidence. A working man arose and said that he was commissioned by a large meeting of working men to go to the meeting and object to one vote which their Member had given. Of course, his hon. Friend was anxious to know what was the single vote he had given during the five years he had represented the town which they objected to, and he was startled to find that it was the vote he gave against the proposal to make the constituencies pay the expenses of Parliamentary elections. He replied—That vote had given him more trouble and anxiety than all his other votes, because he had given it against his convictions, and he had sacrificed his own feelings because he thought it would please them, and this was the result.When the Party now in office were in Opposition, Members of that Party were never weary of asserting that whatever was brought forward they would not listen to it until, if it imposed a single farthing on the ratepayers, the great question of Local Taxation and Local Government was considered by a responsible Government. Well, the Government which represented that Party had had the opportunity of considering the subject, and yet they had passed—or 403 were in process of passing—Bill after Bill which would impose new charges on the ratepayers, so that the arguments which used to be advanced against him with so much feasibility and force had, to a certain extent, lost their cogency. The question of making the constituencies responsible for the necessary expenses of elections had, unfortunately, been confused with what was regarded as the working men's representation. But he did not bring forward this proposal in the interests of any particular class, or with the view of promoting working men's representation. He believed that the more truly representative that House was the greater and wider would be the sphere of its usefulness. That House was steadily increasing in wealth, and to many it might appear a matter of perfect indifference whether the expenses of the Returning Officer were £100 more or less, and perhaps they would consider it advantageous to them that these expenses should be higher, as the more the election expenses increased the more the area of selecting representatives was diminished. But that suggested a most important—probably the most important—consideration connected with this proposal. If this country had during the last few years been rapidly increasing in wealth, and if the House of Commons had also been increasing in wealth, it was all the more important that there should not be maintained a single artificial barrier which might impede the access of the poor man to that House. Nothing would be more likely to weaken or destroy the efficiency of representative institutions in this country than if an impression were to gain currency that that House was maintaining laws which placed obstacles in the way of poor men obtaining a seat in Parliament. In conclusion, he ventured to recommend this proposal not only on the grounds which he had already named—the practical grounds that it would secure economy and remove any impression that the House was interested in artificially preventing the poor man entering Parliament; but, beyond all, and before all, he was anxious that that House should accept the principle contained in his proposal; because he believed that nothing would more tend to diffuse amongst the people a recognition of the true relations which ought to exist between a constituency and him who represented that 404 constituency. A constituency ought to feel that the man who aspired to represent it—to discharge an important and public trust—did not seek a favour which he was willing to buy, did not obtain a privilege which he could barter or turn to his own advantage. But was it not likely that these degrading ideas of the position of a Member of Parliament might obtain important currency if something was not done to prevent what no one who observed the times could doubt, that, as England became wealthier, a seat in that House was often a position for which the man who obtained it had to pay a heavier and heavier fine—a position which, if a man would gain it, he had to expend a higher and higher sum. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no measure dealing with the expenses of Returning Officers is likely to reduce these expenses which does not interest the constituencies in economy by relieving candidates of the charge,"—(Mr. Fawcett,)
§ —instead thereof.
§ MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, he thought the objections which he entertained against the Bill which the hon. Member for Hackney formerly introduced on this subject still held good. The hon. Member, having but a poor prospect of being able to carry that Bill, now brought it forward in the shape of a Resolution. The proposal of the hon. Member was to throw the expenses of the candidates at Parliamentary elections upon the constituencies, and thus relieve the candidates from such expenses. Now, he (Mr. J. R. Yorke) had been a Member of the Committee appointed to consider the question of Local Taxation, and the question was how far local taxation could be adjusted so as to diminish it; and here he would express a hope that the Government would lay to heart the hon. Member's remarks with regard to that subject. The ratepayers had not obtained such a considerable relief as they were entitled to expect. They should be told that they were to look to the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for further measures of relief from local taxation; and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that among the Chambers of Agriculture and 405 the local taxpayers throughout the country the Budget was in that respect looked forward to with great anxiety. He did not attribute much importance to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney with reference to the increasing difficulty of obtaining candidates for seats in that House, as there was always a sufficient number hovering about the gates of that Paradise who, whenever the oppornity occurred, were ready to go down and pay a handsome sum for the chance of obtaining the privilege. He remembered that one gentleman who had sat on that—the Ministerial—side of the House said he could not understand how life outside of the House of Commons was tolerable to one that had had a seat in it. The result of the last General Election had been to add very largely to the class who earnestly desired to be readmitted to the House. As to the question whether poor men who would be ornaments to the deliberations of the House were prevented from entering it he did not believe that, to any practical extent, they were prevented by the expense attending elections—at any rate, not by the comparatively small item of expense which would be affected by this Bill. He believed that no poor man of intelligence and respectability would have to wait long before a sufficient subscription would be organized by his friends and supporters to enable him to overcome difficulties preliminary to entering the House. If the proposition of the hon. Member for Hackney were adopted, it would not be merely electors, but also women and minors, who would have to pay the expenses of the Returning Officer, and as women and minors were not at present included in the constituency he (Mr. J. E. Yorke) objected to make them contribute to that payment. He agreed in much that the hon. Member had expressed in reference to the working man; and if he thought that the expense of standing a contest was an obstacle to his getting into Parliament, he would vote in support of the hon. Member's Resolution; but while the question of Local Taxation was still pending, he must vote against his Motion.
§ MR. ANDERSONsaid, the hon. Member for Gloucester had alleged that candidates were not prevented from coming forward because of the returning officers' expenses, because plenty were always ready to come. But that 406 was not the question. What ought to be borne in mind was that all the expenses except these of the Returning Officers were entirely under the control of the candidate. The candidates ought, therefore, not to be asked to pay expenses over which they had no control whatever, because in many instances these charges were very heavy indeed. It was not alleged that there was any difficulty in getting plenty of candidates. What was said was that the tendency appeared to be to restrict the candidates to rich men, and it could not be said that the richest men of the country were always the most intellectual, or that the rich people were these who ought chiefly to be Representatives in this House. For his own part, he had always thought it was a great mistake to limit the field of selection for Members of this House. If the expenses of the returning officers were thrown upon the constituencies, they would take care that economy was exercised. This House, however, wanted exclusiveness; and these who were in it desired to prevent other people from entering its doors. ["No!"] He ventured to say there were very few who, in private discussions on this matter, had not heard it said if these expenses were thrown on the constituencies it would enable Tom, Dick, and Harry to compete with these who were already Members. This was the real secret of the opposition to this question, and it was not a matter of economy at all. If the expenses were thrown on the ratepayers, he did not think there was any danger of multiplying the number of candidates beyond what was perfectly reasonable and right; and, as far as he was concerned, he would rather see an abundant number of candidates than see the election confined to the richest men in the country, as it was very much at present. Under these circumstances, he should vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the amount of the charges which Returning Officers could make were clearly defined by the Bill, and if the amount of the deposit was greater than the expenses the candidate who made the deposit would be entitled to have a return of the surplus. No doubt, as the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had said, to interest constituencies in economy was a very desirable object; 407 but, considering the heavy burdens already imposed on the payers of local rates, both in counties and in boroughs, he did not think a transfer of election expenses to them would interest them in economy. His contention was that the ratepayers in the various localities had already sufficiently heavy burdens to bear in the shape of taxation. The hon. Member for Hackney said, in the course of his argument, that if the law was altered in the way he proposed, the burden upon each £10 householder would not amount to more than the cost of a glass of beer. This would be all very well for £10 householders; but to these of higher rental the payment of sums amounting to the cost of many glasses of beer would become decidedly oppressive. Parliament ought not to impose additional burdens on these who were already over weighted and overwhelmed, unless a case of imperative necessity could be made out. He had failed to find out that there was any such case. Another reason why it would be hard to impose this burden was, that a great number of ratepayers had no voice in the election. Again, there might be cases where these called on to contribute to the expense had no interest in the election. There might be two candidates, one a Liberal Conservative and the other a Conservative Liberal, and no extreme man might appear. Yet the Radical ratepayers would have to contribute. Again, there might be a Liberal candidate and a Radical candidate, and no one to represent the body of Conservatives, but the Conservative ratepayers would be called on to contribute. The burden would thus fall on these who had no interest in the election. If the proposition of the hon. Gentleman were adopted, it would multiply contests, of which there were enough already, as Members knew to their cost. If this were made a matter of no expense, candidates would appear for the sake of the fun and excitement of a contest, but at other people's expense. Thus constituencies would be put to the trouble and annoyance of an election by candidates who had no chance of success—the person would be elected that every one knew beforehand was the choice of the electors, but the ratepayers would have to bear the expense. For these reasons, he should oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney.
§ MR. DIXONsaid, he should like to ask the Solicitor General whether the force of his objection did not apply to the elections of town councillors and school boards as much as to the elections of Members of Parliament. It was only lately that this House passed an Act of Parliament to throw the expenses of election of school boards upon the ratepayers; but the moment it became a question of throwing the expenses of Parliamentary elections upon the ratepayers, the whole House was against such a proposal. The fact was, the working classes had come to the conclusion that they were not wanted in that House; and, unless some better arguments could be adduced against the proposition of his hon. Friend than these used by the Solicitor General, it would be very difficult to make them believe that what Parliament considered suitable in the case of municipal and school board elections was not applicable to the case of Parliamentary elections.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he did not believe that the hon. Member (Mr. Dixon) had rightly expressed the opinion of the working classes in this matter, as he felt sure that no hon. Member wished to prevent them being represented in that House—that the working classes felt and acknowledged this. The case of municipal and school board elections was different to Parliamentary elections; because, while in the former they had great difficulty in getting good candidates, in the latter there was no difficulty whatever. The social position attached to the one was a great inducement to many gentlemen to come forward; but, in the other, there was nothing but the prospect of continuous and laborious duties. He thought that a poor man who had been selected by his fellow-citizens as a fit person to represent them would find no difficulty in obtaining sufficient contributions from them to pay for the necessary expenses attendant on his return; but his chief objection to the proposal of the hon. Member for Hackney was that it took the form of an abstract Resolution in opposition to a measure which was urgently required, and contained no definite proposal by means of which his object could be attained.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he had already more than once since he came into Parliament expressed his opinions upon this question, and he now thought 409 that it would be scarcely worth while to enter into the details of the measure, which might be far better discussed and considered in Committee. If he thought the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney would diminish the amount of the expenses of election, he would have found him among his warmest supporters; but, on the contrary, he found that under it these expenses would be increased rather than diminished. At the General Election of 1868 one-fifteenth of the whole of the expenses then incurred were in the shape of the Returning Officers' charges; and if they took any course which calculated to increase the number of contests there would be no obstacle in the way of a sham candidate plunging a constituency into an unnecessary expenditure and disturbing an old Member who, from his long services, was entitled to an immunity from opposition. The late Government he recollected proposed, as a guard against the appearance of such candidates, that whenever a contest took place, the candidate should deposit a certain sum of money, and that that money should be absolutely forfeited if he failed to poll one-sixth of the constituency, and that met with the support of the hon. Member for Hackney. The object of the Bill was to lessen the expense of elections, and it had been brought forward after consulting Members upon both sides of the House. He hoped, therefore, that the House would consent to go into Committee and consider the clauses. An objection had been taken that the expenses under the Bill would be in some cases increased rather than diminished; and this was attempted to be shown by comparing the maximum charges under the Bill with the minimum charges now paid. He protested that in no case would the expenses be increased. The maximum charges allowed by the Bill would be subject to a provision that in no case should the charges exceed the sum necessary to be paid. As a rule, the Bill would reduce the charges to about one-fourth of what they now were. These charges were at present very unequal. In Manchester, with 60,000 electors, they were £1,400, whilst in Marylebone, with only 30,000 electors, they were £1,550. In the present state of the law Returning Officers could really make whatever charge they liked. The Bill 410 had been framed to make the charges equal and reasonable, and he was sure that in Committee there would be every desire to consider fairly any proposal for amending the details of the measure.
§ MR. CHARLES LEWISsupported the Amendment, and said, that he thought that the House had pursued an entirely wrong line upon the subject. He thought that the most simple and common-sense view would be to leave it to the ratepayers to minimize the expenses which they themselves would have to pay. The position of a candidate was one of utter helplessness in reference to disputing the Returning Officers' charges. The great objection to this part of the Bill was that it would really impose a property qualification. What else would it be when if a third candidate for Marylebone wished to come forward, he must first deposit £400 for the Returning Officers' charges? He was of opinion that opposition to the Motion would appear to be a selfish action on the part of the House, while support of the Motion would prove its independence. It was, in one sense, unfortunate that at the last General Election, while contests were going on as a rule elsewhere, there were no contests in many of the great Conservative counties of England, whereby the enormous preponderance of Conservative opinion might have been clearly shown. Was the Conservative majority, he asked, to be maintained by putting a stopper upon the free opinion of the electors? For his part, he thought that if they could not retain their position by opening the door to the free expression of such opinion, the sooner they went into Opposition the better. Conservatives had nothing to fear from contests, because they did not split up into such sections as their Friends opposite did. They voted en bloc for their man, and county Members should not be afraid of having to put their hands into their pockets to defeat bogus candidates. He trusted that the House would not pass the Bill in its present form; but that while limiting the expenses of the Returning Officer, they would allow the constituencies to take upon themselves the payment of the legitimate expenses of the candidates.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTcongratulated the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken upon the example he had afforded of the united 411 action of the Conservative Party. Contrasting his speech with that of the Solicitor General, they could not but see how the Party opposite acted together and voted en bloc. The hon. and learned Member spoke of sections into which the Liberal Party were divided; but he assured the hon. and learned Gentleman that they watched his proceedings with interest and hope. The hon. and learned Gentleman had only used one substantial argument against the Bill—namely, that it had a tendency to create a new property qualification; but the Bill did not create that change, because its object was to diminish existing charges, and to limit what was now an unlimited expense. With reference to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), he might remind the House that though the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James) did not go the full length of that Motion, it went a certain distance in the same direction. Against the principle of that Motion he had nothing to say: the question was whether the opinion of the constituencies was just at this time ripe for its acceptance. He feared that at present it would be distasteful to them. There were, he knew, constituencies who were enlightened and liberal enough to pay the expenses of their Representatives, and he only wished that all were. The majority, however, were not, and if they were they had the remedy in their own hands. As matters now stood, he hoped the House would be content to read the Bill a second time.
§ MR. MUNDELLAappealed to the House, not on behalf of working men only, but of poor men generally. Was it not a fact that some of the most distinguished ornaments of that House were poor men, and it was not pleasant to poor statesmen who wished to come into the House to send the hat round for subscriptions to pay the expenses; and there were places where the expenses would, under this Bill, be considerably increased, perhaps doubled, and even trebled. At Sheffield, for instance, every candidate would have to deposit £400; and where would some candidates—even distinguished statesmen—find that sum on the instant? The question was one of freedom of choice from the whole of England, for there were as many good men out of the House as in 412 it, but many of them could not pay the large expenses demanded of them.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 150; Noes 46: Majority 104.
§ Main Question "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Taxation in Scotland).
§ MR. ANDERSONmoved, in page 3, line 26, after "person" to insert the words "entirely unconnected with any sheriff court and." The object was this: In Scotland the Returning Officer was in every case the sheriff, and therefore it was desirable the person who taxed his accounts should be unconnected with any Sheriff Court. If they did not make such an Amendment, they might have two sheriffs taxing each other's accounts.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEremarked that the special circumstances of Scotland had apparently not been carefully considered in drawing up the clauses of the Bill, and he therefore suggested the omission from the measure of all reference to Scotland, the circumstances of which country might be met by a supplemental Bill.
§ MR. KINNAIRDentirely concurred with this suggestion.
§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he thought that it might be found desirable to require the sheriff to appoint in open Court some arbiter who, in taxing the accounts, would be responsible to the public opinion.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he had no objection to Scotland being struck out of the Bill altogether.
§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEremarked that the Scotch Members were' entirely in favour of the principle of the Bill, and he would suggest that a separate measure should be introduced for Scotland.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Clause struck out.
§ Clause 6 agreed to.
413§ Clause 7 (Use of ballot boxes, &c. provided for municipal elections.)
§ MR. ANDERSONmoved, in page 4, line 16, to leave out "fittings and compartments," and insert "stamping instruments, polling-stations, portable secret compartments, and other fittings and apparatus." The object of the Amendment, he explained, was entirely in the direction of economy, the intention being, in places where there were school boards, municipal and Parliamentary elections, to make it incumbent on the local authority to keep as many as possible of the permanent fittings, so that new ones would not have to be got for every election.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESmaintained that the words of the clause were sufficient for the purpose.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In page 4, line 19, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "and it shall he the duty of the various local authorities to provide at their expense and to maintain all such of the above-named appliances as can he made of a sufficiently permanent character to he available for the various elections wholly or partly within their jurisdiction."—(Mr. Anderson.)
§ SIR HENRY JAMESpresumed the Committee would not discuss this proposal, because the House had already considered it on the Motion introduced by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), which involved the question whether the erection of polling stations should be at the expense of local taxpayers.
§ MR. ANDERSONsaid, he was sorry the Amendment could not be adopted, as if the local authorities were not required to do these things the result would simply be that they would not be done at all.
§ Question put, "That these words be there added."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 126: Majority 54.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, a new clause excluding Scotland from the operation of the Bill was agreed to.
§ Schedule 1.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANmoved, in page 5, line 27, to insert— 414
In Ireland the returning officer shall use a court house where one is available at a polling station, and his maximum charge for using and fitting the same shall in no case exceed three pounds three shillings.Under the Ballot Act the sheriff would have the power of charging £7 7s. for the use of the Court House, and he was certain that the sheriffs in Ireland would always make out their bills on the highest possible scale.
§ CAPTAIN STACPOOLEconcurred in the view expressed by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway. He thought that each candidate should lodge a specific sum in proportion to the population of the county or borough contested.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANproposed words which would prevent the presiding officers in Ireland from sending the ballot-boxes by one car and himself travelling by another, and so making a double charge for the same service.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In page 6, line 19, after the word "mile," to insert the words "In Ireland no charge is to be made for the conveyance of ballot boxes beyond the charge of one shilling a mile to the presiding officer when a charge is made for the travelling expenses of the presiding officer of a station to the place where the ballot papers are to be counted."—(Captain Nolan.)
§ Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he thought it hardly necessary to insert such an Amendment, as it would reflect rather upon the Returning Officers.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, such a state of things as his hon. and gallant Friend had pointed out might exist under the Bill, for Irish sheriffs, although probably not less nice than English sheriffs, looked upon elections as blessed opportunities, very rarely occurring, of making candidates pay under every conceivable heading, and they would be sure to take advantage of the opportunities afforded them by the Bill.
§ MR. GREGORYobserved, that it was the duty of the presiding officer to take charge of the ballot boxes and convey them to the place of their destination. The charge for the conveyance of the ballot boxes included every charge inci- 415 dental thereto. He should support the Schedule as it stood.
§ MR. GRANTHAMremarked that the presiding officers and the clerks had often to incur considerable expense before the election took place. The taxing officer would take care that there was no improper multiplication of charges.
§ SIR PATEICK O'BRIENsaid, that the Bill would not assist Irish Members. He believed that, so far from decreasing the expenses of candidates, it would increase them.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTremarked that if the presiding officer found that one clerk could not convey the ballot boxes he might employ two. If he had only one clerk, and chose to take more vehicles than were necessary to carry the ballot boxes, the charge would be disallowed.
§ MR. DODDSmoved to amend the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Nolan) by striking out the word "Ireland" in order that the Amendment might apply generally.
§ Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "in Ireland."—(Mr. Dodds.)
§ CAPTAIN STACPOOLEsaid, he was unable to see why Ireland should be omitted from the Amendment.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, if hon. Gentlemen really wished the words of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway to be inserted, he should be ready to accept them.
§ Question, "That the words 'In Ireland' stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
§
Question put,
That the words 'no charge is to be made for the conveyance of ballot boxes beyond the charge of one shilling a mile to the presiding officer when a charge is made for the travelling expenses of the presiding officer of a station to the place where the ballot papers are to be counted' be there inserted.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 103: Majority 9.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANproposed to leave out these words in the Schedule which would entitle the Returning Officer to charge for employing an assessor.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that in England an assessor was not required, 416 and it was not contemplated that he should be paid under the Act.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. DODDSmoved the omission of lines 31 and 32, which would enable a charge of 1s. a-mile for the travelling expenses of the clerks of the Returning Officer to be made.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, it was intended that travelling expenses should be allowed only when a class of persons whom it was desirable to employ could not otherwise be obtained. If it would fall in with the wishes of hon. Members who had voted in the minority in the late division, he would, on the Report, propose that the charge for the conveyance of ballot boxes should come under the head of travelling expenses.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he had an Amendment now to propose which only applied to Ireland, the circumstances of which country, in reference to electoral divisions, were totally different to these of England in reference to the charges for journeys by the presiding officer. He had had a conversation lately in Ireland with a presiding officer in reference to his charges for journeys, and he heard from him that he made a good thing of it, for he charged 1a. per mile for going perhaps 20 miles to the sheriff of the county, and the same amount back; and he then charged 1s. per mile for being conveyed to his own home. The travelling expenses of clerks also should not be charged for, because good clerks could be got on the spot without bringing them from a distance. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In line 33, after the word "mile," to insert the words "In Ireland no journey shall be charged for except that of the presiding officer from the polling station to the place where the ballot papers are counted when in charge of the ballot boxes in which the ballot papers have been deposited, the charge of one shilling per mile, including the return journey; clerks are not to be allowed travelling expenses in Ireland."—(Captain Nolan.)
§ MR. GREGORYopposed the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
417§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 122: Majority 58.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Schedule 2 agreed to.
§ Schedule 3.
§ MR. CHILDERSexpressed a hope that his hon. and learned Friend who had charge of the Bill would re-consider the question of amount of security which the Returning Officer might demand to cover expenses, and bring up some modification of this Schedule in that respect upon the Report. Taking the Yorkshire boroughs, he found that at the last General Election the Returning Officer's expenses, excessive as they were in many instances, were in nearly every case less than the amount which this Bill would enable him to demand as security.
§ MR. CHARLES LEWISmoved that the Schedule be omitted altogether. It implicitly restored a money qualification by requiring a candidate to give security for certain expenses, or otherwise to have his name withdrawn from the list of candidates.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he thought that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member was scarcely reasonable, seeing that, as a Member of the Select Committee which considered the Bill, he had an opportunity of objecting to the provision now in question, and did not then oppose it.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that if the Schedule were not adopted, the whole of the expenses would be thrown on the Returning Officer.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, it appeared to him that if the Schedule were passed, a larger fine would be imposed upon candidates than the Returning Officer would have security for.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESexplained that he had omitted to state that he should be willing to lower the sums named in the Schedule. With the permission of the Committee, therefore, he was prepared to withdraw the figures in the Schedule, and bring up lower ones on the Report, when the House might say whether it would accept the reduced ones.
§ MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, he would not trouble the House to divide; but he gave Notice of his intention to 418 move, on the Report, to omit Clause 3 and the Schedule.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next.