HC Deb 08 March 1883 vol 276 cc1733-6
MR. BROADHURST

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the issue of the following circular to the electors of Mid Cheshire:— Mid-Cheshire Election 1883. Central Committee Rooms, Knutsford, Feb. 27th, 1883. Sir,—I beg to enclose a copy of the Address of the Hon. Alan Do Tatton Egerton, the Conservative Candidate, at the approaching Election for this Division, and to solicit on his behalf your Vote and support. May I ask the favour of your returning the annexed paper by post, stating whether or not the Hon. Alan Do Tatton Egerton may calculate on your support. I am, Sir, Your faithful servant, Lance Bentley, The Hon. Alan De Tatton Egerton's Central Agent. You vote at Holmes Chapel. whether he is aware that on the day following the issue of this circular, or within a very short time after receipt, it is the custom for the landlord's agents or bailiffs to go to the farmers and ask if they have filled up and returned the forms; on obtaining a reply in the nega- tive they invariably ask for the form and fill it up at the time, and ask for the farmer's signature to it, which of course for obvious reasons they are not in a position to refuse; and, whether this mode of putting pressure on electors is legal; and, if so, whether he will make it illegal under the Corrupt Practices Bill?

MR. GUY DAWNAY

said, that as a similar Question to that of the learned Member for Stoke stood upon the Paper in his name, he should like to ask the Attorney General, Whether he was aware that before the circular in question issued, by the Conservative candidate was in the hands of the electors, a somewhat similar, but rather less courteous, circular was received from the Liberal candidate; and whether he was aware that, so far as the Conservative candidate or his agents knew, there was not the slightest shadow of foundation for the assertion contained in the second part of the Question of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst)?

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

said, he also begged to ask the opinion of the Attorney General with respect to an electioneering circular which he (Lord Claud Hamilton) received about two months ago, and which was largely distributed in the constituency of which he was an elector. The circular was as follows:— 76, Sloane Street, New Year's Day, 1883. Dear Sir,—May I have the honour of adding your name to the list of my Committee at the present election.—Believe me, yours truly, CHAS. W. DILKE. Accompanying this was a paid post-card addressed to the right hon. Baronet, and on the back was the number of the elector, 18.063, and the name C. J. Hamilton (Lord), M.P.

THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

Sir, I need not inform the House I knew nothing of the circumstances of this matter until the Question appeared on the Paper. I found upon inquiry that upon the 27th of February the circular mentioned in the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) was issued to all the electors of the division of Mid Cheshire. It is also accurate that on the 28th a circular was issued on the part of the Liberal candidate, but I am informed it was only sent to out-voters. In answer to the second part of the Question, I think it right to state that I have received assurances on which I think I can rely from Mr. Egerton in relation to the estates over which he has most influence that no agent of his has endeavoured to obtain from any voter information as to how he would vote. Dealing with the question as not affecting any particular Party, I believe there will be a general feeling that if the circulars were issued with the object of obtaining knowledge how a voter intended to vote, and if influence is used to make him sign that circular and so make him state how he will vote, I think that, while it may be doubtful whether it is undue influence, it is at all events against the spirit of the Ballot Act, because it compels a man to state openly how he is going to vote instead of making him record his vote secretly. When the Corrupt Practices Bill was before Parliament last year my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson) placed an Amendment on the Paper which raises the question, and although there is great difficulty in practical legislation in defining the difference between a general circular and a particular request to an individual, I am sure the House will give the Amendment full consideration. With regard to the Question of the noble Lord, if he will kindly inform me how he answered the circular I shall probably be able to give a better opinion as to the nature of the transaction.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

I beg to state, in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that I deposited it in the family museum as a curiosity.

MR. BROADHURST

said, he would accommodate the Attorney General with both the circulars, and he would then see a distinct difference between the two, more especially as one was sent to out-voters only.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

asked the Attorney General to explain the difference between having a personal interview with an elector and asking him to vote in a certain way, and sending a circular through the post, which contained the same request in writing. What was the difference which made the one illegal and the other legal?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

Sir, I think the House will agree with me that it is a very inconvenient course to discuss by question and answer that which would have been far more effectually considered when we deal with the matter as one of legislation. In this instance the case put to me is that of an agent or a landlord asking a tenant whether he will or will not give a written promise to vote in a particular way, the tenant knowing that if he refuses he will probably be visited with the consequences of such refusal. That is different from asking an elector for his vote.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

asked what was the Attorney General's authority for saying that Mr. Lance Bentley was an agent of a landlord, or that Mr. De Tatton Egerton was a landlord?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

I said nothing of the kind. I said the Question put to me involved that proposition, and if the noble Lord will read it he will see it does.