§ Clause 10 (Qualification by occupation of premises in immediate succession in divided borough).
§ MR. FIRTHsaid, the Amendments which he had put on the Paper were not exactly after the nature of Amendments, but were in the way of extending the provisions of Clause 10, so as to prevent there being in London absolute disfranchisement of a large number of persons. The right hon. Gentleman 1481 the Leader of the Opposition had the other night, as he understood, expressed the idea that this Bill should not be a disfranchising Bill. As it stood at present, however, it was a disfranchising Bill, and, as regarded London, to a very large degree. He believed it would affect a good many thousand votes in London in this way. At the present time the law was that there might be qualification occupation by succession within the particular limits of any borough; and with respect to large boroughs outside London—as, for example, Liverpool and Manchester—that provision and power was maintained, but with respect to boroughs in London divided on parish lines that power was not retained. At the present time it was possible for persons to move from Hammersmith to Fulham and from Fulham to Kensington and preserve their right of voting; but under this Bill in future it would not be possible for a man to move into any one of the boroughs into which London was divided without losing his qualification. Clause 10 as it now stood was not intended to preserve that right; and, therefore, so far as those who now resided in large London boroughs moved from one part to another, unless they remained in the same parish, this measure would in respect of them be a disfranchising measure, and a disfranchising measure to a very large extent indeed. With one or two exceptions, there was no common stereotyped character about the London borough boundary line as it existed now. There was an Amendment on the Paper, put down by the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), which had apparently the object of preserving the existing boundary lines. He admitted that if that clause were passed this Amendment would not proceed; but when it was reached he believed it would be shown that it was not a practical clause which could be inserted in the Bill. Dealing, therefore, with the Bill as it stood, he thought the clause would be a largely disfranchising provision. He had suggested that there should be occupation in immediate succession with respect to parts of the Metropolis. Now, for his purpose it must be admitted that the Metropolis was as much one town as were the many towns which would re- 1482 tain this power. They found constantly that people who only moved from their houses one street or two lost their qualification according to the part into which they moved. He did not suggest that his proposal should be extended to the lodger qualification; it was purely a household qualification, and it was suggested in the clause that it should apply throughout the whole Metropolis. Of course, if this were a crude and vague suggestion, standing alone without any intimation of the manner in which it should be carried out, it might be urged that it had not been properly placed before the Committee. Therefore he had added a subsequent clause, by which the Committee would see that the provision would be easily and fairly carried out. The clause was as follows:—
Where a person qualified by occupation (otherwise than as a lodger) to be registered as a voter shall, during the period of qualification, have moved, in immediate succession, from one Metropolitan constituency to another, he may claim in succession, provided that, in addition to his claim, he shall deliver to the overseers a declaration showing the nature, description, and period of the qualification in the constituency from which he has moved, such declaration to be certified, after due inquiry into the correctness thereof, by the overseers of the parish in which such qualification was situated, who shall make and publish a list of the persons making such declarations, and in all cases where they are certified as correct the Revising Barrister shall insert the names of such persons in the list for the constituency in which they are resident. It shall be the duty of the overseers on whom the said certified declaration shall be served, immediately on its receipt, to obtain from the certifying overseers a duly certified copy thereof, which copy shall be open for inspection at such hours, and in like manner, as are claims and objections.That he was told by those who were more experienced than himself was a perfectly practical way of carrying his proposal into effect. Now, the number of votes his proposal would affect in London had not been exactly calculated; but according to the most reliable estimate they would amount to something like 15,000 or an average, practically, of about 1,500 votes for each of the existing Metropolitan boroughs. The Bill, therefore, was a disfranchising measure, to the extent that it divided existing boroughs. Those who were familiar with the London parish system would agree that no serious harm could accrue to the principle of his Amendment being extended to the whole of the Metropolis. He had not raised the larger question as 1483 to the extension of the principle to the country generally; but merely proposed to apply it to the Metropolitan area, of which he had considerable knowledge.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 35, at end of the Clause, to add the words—"The occupation in immediate succession of different premises situate within any part of the Metropolis, as defined by 'The Metropolis Management Act, 1855,' shall, for the purpose of qualifying a person for voting in any Parliamentary borough or division of a Parliamentary borough within the Metropolis, in respect of occupation (otherwise than as a lodger), have the same effect as if all such premises were situate in that borough or division in which the premises occupied by such person at the end of the period of qualification are situate.
Where a person qualified by occupation (otherwise than as a lodger) to be registered as a voter shall, during the period of qualification, have moved, in immediate succession, from one Metropolitan constituency to another, he may claim in succession, provided that, in addition to his claim, he shall deliver to the overseers a declaration showing the nature, description, and period of the qualification in the constituency from which he has moved, such declaration to be certified, after due inquiry into the correctness thereof, by the overseers of the parish in which such qualification was situated, who shall make and publish a list of the persons making such declarations, and in all cases where they are certified as correct the Revising Barrister shall insert the names of such persons in the list for the constituency in which they are resident. It shall be the duty of the overseers on whom the said certified declaration shall be served, immediately on its receipt, to obtain from the certifying overseers a duly certified copy thereof, which copy shall be open for inspection at such hours, and in like manner, as are claims and objections."—(Mr. Firth.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. WARTON rose to Order. The Committee had just passed a clause of the Bill which laid down a general principle with regard to existing occupation in Parliamentary boroughs. Now, the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman was to extend that general principle in the case of the Metropolis; and he therefore asked whether that could be done without indicating that it was done by way of Proviso or exception? It appeared to him that some such words as "Provided that" were required, because the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman in its present form was really contrary to the principle which had been adopted by the Committee.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had considered the point raised by the hon. and 1484 learned Gentleman with reference to the proposed Amendment, and he was of opinion that the Amendment was in Order.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he felt a considerable amount of difficulty with regard to this Amendment, because the general lines on which the Government wished to proceed were very clear, and were not easily applicable to this case. They did not wish to raise any enfranchising or disfranchising questions on this Bill, which provided solely for the redistribution of seats. But in the particular case of the Metropolis, it was difficult for them, as far as he could see, exactly to carry out that general principle. They must, he feared, either enfranchise or disfranchise as regarded the Metropolis. The difficulty was, that London was divided into four boroughs by the Bill, each having one Member. Now, at the present time, if a voter moved from one part of a borough to another he would still be on the Register; in future, if he moved from one part of Kensington, for instance, to another, he would be entitled to vote; but if he moved from any one of the four boroughs to another he would not get on the Register. The Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend would, therefore, enfranchise very largely, because it would allow any person to vote who moved from any part of London to another. For that reason he did not see his way to any middle course, which would, by the application of any provision, meet the views of his hon. and learned Friend, and keep things at the same time in their present position. It had been suggested that the Government might keep the Parliamentary boroughs of the Metropolis for the purpose of successive occupation registration; but as the Bill was not for any purpose of that kind, he thought it would be a very inconvenient course to take, and one which it would be impossible to adopt. He would like to hear the opinion of some of those who were largely interested in the Bill, as to whether this Amendment would not have a large enfranchising effect altogether outside the Bill; and, on the other hand, he would like to hear the opinions of those who objected to the Government being compelled to disfranchise, owing to what appeared to him to be unavoidable circumstances. With regard to the gene- 1485 ral argument of his hon. and learned Colleague, there could be no doubt that his plan, if workable, would be applicable to the whole country; and, therefore, there appeared no reason why it should be limited to the Metropolis alone, if it would work without any risk of fraud. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend with regard to the community of interest in the Metropolis; but there was no common authority which could efficiently represent the affairs of each particular person in the four quarters of the Metropolis. There was greater risk of fraud in London than in other boroughs of the country. If a man moved from Hammersmith to Poplar, for instance, he would be as much lost sight of for registering purposes as if he were to move from St. Andrew's to Poplar. The case of Wesleyan ministers, which had been referred to, was especially hard; they were moved every three years, and the result was that they hardly got on the Register until they were about to leave the place in which they had resided for that period. But that was due to the length of residence which the present law required. They had in this country an extraordinarily prolonged period of actual residence required for qualification—nominally one year's residence, but practically a residence of two or two and a half years. That being so, it was a question whether in any future reform proposed there should not be a provision for bringing the period of residence required for registration more closely into connection with the date at which the resident came into the place. He thought that shortening the period of residence was a matter which ought to be considered. As regarded the particular Bill before the Committee, he feared there would be no general consent in all parts of the House to the introduction of such a general enfranchisement as the Amendment of his hon. and learned Colleague would cover, and without that he did not think the Government could entertain the Amendment.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, if there were no other reasons, the observation of the right hon. Baronet would be a strong reason against the acceptance of this clause, because it was very obvious that a number of questions would be opened up by it, which ought to be 1486 discussed and dealt with, and which could not be conveniently dealt with in a Bill of this character, which was for the purpose of a redistribution of seats. He thought, under the particular circumstances in which they were placed, having regard to the history of the Bill, that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be entirely outside the object they had in view and the spirit of the agreement entered into, if they were to introduce into the Bill matter which did not properly belong to the redistribution of electoral areas, but appertained to questions of franchise or registration. Therefore he hoped the Government would decline to accept the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member had proposed. He thought it perfectly clear that such an Amendment would be to a very large degree adverse to the spirit of the principle of the Bill—he referred to the one-Member districts—and the endeavour to concentrate as much as possible the electorate which each Member was to look to. Their object had been, in this arrangement, to make the electorate as reasonably small as they could, and by that means to bring candidates into closer relation with the electors. But if they were to introduce a principle of this kind, and in such a way as would admit of the principle being carried out all over the country, they would in part destroy that which it was their desire to maintain—namely, the close connection between the Member and the electorate; because by this Amendment was given almost unlimited power of increasing the electorate, and making it what he might call an artificial electorate. Under the working of the hon. and learned Member's clause, it would be competent, for instance, for the hon. and learned Member, if he were inclined, for the purpose of obtaining a larger majority in his own borough—it would be competent for him or his agents to sweep up a number of supporters and bring them from the Tower Hamlets or Greenwich to vote in his borough, with which they had had no previous connection. That would be to destroy what he might call the domestic character of the measure, and it would be at variance with the principle of continuous occupation in the existing boroughs. The boroughs were recognized as the home of the voters who voted there according to occupation. They said to the voter— 1487
If you remove from one street to another street you shall not lose your qualification, because you will still belong to the same constituency as before;" but if they adopted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman they would be bringing in strangers from a considerable distance, who would not have the same moral right to vote which long residence conferred. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made allusion to the position of Wesleyan ministers. He said they were generally appointed to their several cures for periods of three years, and that before they were well on the Register they had to be taken off, because they had to go away. But that was the case with them, not only in the Metropolis, but throughout the country. A Wesleyan minister might be moved from Exeter to Plymouth or anywhere else, and it would be very difficult to meet such cases. If they were to meet the claim of the Metropolis in this respect, they would find it difficult to refuse to do so with regard to the boroughs throughout the country, and the result would be to bring forward that which the Bill did not encourage. They would be tending towards bringing into the constituencies the whole of England so to speak, instead of giving and maintaining to them a domestic character. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that the clause could not properly be brought into the Bill, and that, under the circumstances, the Committee would not have to discuss it any further.
§ MR. BRYCEpointed out that whatever might be the force of the argument of the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition, that the principle of the Amendment proposed would be applicable to the country at large, the Committee were then only engaged in discussing its applicability to the Metropolis. Unless the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend were adopted, this would be a heavily-disfranchising Bill so far as the Metropolis was concerned. The constituency which here presented (Tower Hamlets) was, according to the Bill, to be divided into no less than five different boroughs; and the clause, as it stood, must necessarily disfranchise the large number of persons who had recently moved from one part of the district to another. He understood the argument against his hon. and learned 1488 Friend's proposal to rest on the ground that persons would be placed on the Register who were unacquainted with the localities. But those who knew the people in the localities of the Metropolis knew that their migrations were mostly within narrow limits. They migrated, for instance, in the part of London which he represented, for the most part, within the range of a mile or two. In the East of London many removals took place from Poplar to Limehouse, from Limehouse to St. George's-in-the-East, and from St. Georgo's-in-the-East to Whitechapel, while hardly any took place from Poplar to Chelsea or Kensington, because the habits and occupations of the people did not lead them to migrations of that kind. Therefore, he said that the argument of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) hardly applied to the Amendment before the Committee; and he hoped that, if it was to be made a question as between disfranchisement and enfranchisement, the more liberal interpretation would be adopted, according to the well-known maxim of the civilians. It was better, in his opinion, if the Bill could not be kept from effecting enfranchisement, that it should be prevented from disfranchising a large number of the people in the Metropolis.
§ MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that the proposal was that a man should have a vote if he came into the borough at anytime before the 31st of July, even the day before, which was absurd. He thought there ought, at least, to be a Proviso that the individual had been resident in some part of the Metropolis. But even with that Proviso the proposal would be wholly unacceptable, as it would give the inhabitants of the Metropolis a qualification differing widely from the qualification now possessed by the nation at large.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 138: Majority 119.—(Div. List, No. 58.)
§ MR. LEWISsaid, that one reason for looking carefully into the clause was that, under the new Act, it would be possible to manipulate votes in such a way as would allow of 300 or 400 votes to be transferred from one constituency to another just before the end of the qualifying period. It was not difficult 1489 to do that where the occupation related to houses, and it would be very much easier where one room would qualify. In cases where a constituency was closely divided this might be effected by Party combination easily.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 11 (Returning officers in new boroughs).
§ MR. HICKSsaid, the Amendment standing in his name having been put down before the Bill was reprinted, it was no longer applicable, and he should not move it.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, before the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Carbutt) moved his Amendment, he would suggest that it would be more conveniently moved at the end of the clause.
§ MR. CARBUTTsaid, the object of the Amendment he was about to move was that the Writ of Election for the Monmouthshire District Boroughs should be directed to the Mayor of the borough which had the largest population. Monmouth had hitherto been the polling place for the boroughs; but the population of Newport had, since that arrangement was made, largely and rapidly increased. It had now 46,000 inhabitants, whereas the population of Monmouth was only 6,000. The Committee would, therefore, see that there was some reason for his Amendment. But, in addition to what he had stated, the rateable value of property in Newport was eight times that of Monmouth. The arrangement he proposed would lessen both time and expense, so far as the officers were concerned who had to count the votes.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 21, at end of Sub-section (3),insert—"Provided, That, with respect to the Monmouthshire District Boroughs (notwithstanding that it may have been otherwise determined), the Writ of Election shall he directed to the Mayor of that one of the municipal boroughs which has the largest population, according to the last Census for the time being."—(Mr. Carbutt.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had personally no objection to the words of the Amendment; but he pointed out that they raised a question which applied to other groups of boroughs, not 1490 only in Wales, but throughout the country. The Writ of Election had been sent to the borough of Monmouth by immemorial custom, and the hon. Member wanted it to be transferred to Newport. Newport was a very much larger place than Monmouth now, and he had no objection, if the feeling of the Committee was that the alteration should take place, to the Proviso being added; but he thought, if there was likely to be any discussion upon it or waste of time, the question was hardly worth the trouble that would be spent upon it.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, it was all very well for civilities to pass between the right hon. Baronet and one of his supporters with regard to this Amendment; but he thought the right hon. Baronet himself must have a conviction in his own mind that it would not be allowed to pass without comment, and without other similar proposals being made. There ought to be some understanding how far the principle was to be applied, or the door would probably be opened to a very wide discussion on other cases.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he hoped the Committee would pause before accepting this Amendment, the adoption of which would lead to all sorts of difficulties. On the other hand, he thought it was important that the Writ should be made returnable at the place having the largest population, although the principle must not be carried too far, or many difficulties would arise. He did not wish to prevent a regulation being framed with that object, provided it did not appear in the form of a piece of special legislation, in which case some Court or authority would be required to prevent the principle thus admitted being made applicable to the innumerable county districts which might set up rival claims to be made the place where the Writ was returnable. He thought all the questions of the kind that would arise would be extremely inconvenient; and therefore he considered that the principle of the Amendment was one against the admission of which the Bill ought to be carefully guarded.
§ MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he did not think that any inconvenience could arise if the proposal of the hon. Member for Monmouth were adopted. Newport had not only the largest population, but it was the most convenient centre. If 1491 the right hon. Baronet thought it necessary to apply the principle to the other Welsh boroughs, he did not think there would be any difficulty in the way of that being done, because, although it would make a slightly different arrangement in Pembrokeshire and Glamorganshire, it would produce no change in the boroughs of Carnarvonshire, Denbighshire, Montgomeryshire, or Flintshire. Therefore, he thought there was no difficulty in the way of the Amendment.
§ MR. HICKSsaid, he did not wish to express any opinion as to the desirability of removing the Writ from Monmouth to Newport; but he thought the clause of the hon. Member, in its present shape, would open the door to a very great deal of inconvenience in future by the creation of these movable centres. He thought that if they were to have any change in the present case, it ought to be made in the Bill by simply substituting Newport for Monmouth. If they were to do the same thing with regard to the other groups, the question might be raised on each group as to whether the Writ should be sent to the largest town. He was in favour of a steady and uniform system being established.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, the interruptions by some hon. Members opposite were most disorderly, and he must claim the protection of the Chair. One hon. Member had indulged himself by interrupting every Member who had risen to speak on the Amendment from that side of the Committee. If the hon. Member did not want to take part in the deliberations of the Committee he could be spared. With regard to the Amendment, the hon. Member who moved it had not stated to the Committee what the Monmouth Mayor thought of his proposal. He did not understand from the hon. Member that it had received the assent of the Mayor of Monmouth; and, therefore, he thought there might be some complaints if the Committee were to take one side or the other in this particular case. Under the circumstances, he thought that the proposal should be made in some more definite form, and that it should be taken after full Notice on Report, otherwise its adoption might come as a surprise upon the Mayor of Monmouth.
COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that if there really was an earnest desire, as there seemed to be, to make progress with the Bill, it was as well that the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) should be accepted. The adoption of that suggestion would in no way prejudice the Amendment; but it would give an opportunity of notice being attracted to the question. It might be possible that on Report the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would see his way to deal with the matter.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Carbutt) would adopt the very sensible suggestion which had been made—namely, to withdraw the Amendment now, and allow the question to be discussed on Report.
§ MR. CARBUTTsaid, he would be glad to accept the advice of the Government.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 12 (As to boroughs divided into divisions).
§ Clause 13 (Registration of freemen in divided boroughs).
§ Clause 14 (Adaptation of 46 and 47 Vic. c. 51, to divided borough).
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he had Amendments to this clause to propose which he had not had an opportunity of handing in. The first Amendment was a very small one; but he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would see the wisdom of accepting it. He proposed to move the omission of the word "and," in line 39, and to substitute the word "or." It was quite clear that if they meant to deal with "election agent, sub-agent, polling agent, clerk, messenger," their meaning would be better expressed by the use of the word "or" than "and" It might be that some person would discharge the functions of "clerk or messenger." Surely it was intended that the clause should, apply to election agent or sub-agent, a polling agent, or clerk or messenger? He was supported in this by line 42, where it stated "agent, clerk, or messenger."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 39, to leave out the word "and," and insert the word "or,"—(Mr. Warton,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Clause."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought the word "and" was correctly used. It was desired to apply the provisions of the Schedule to all persons named. It was not at all necessary to say "or"
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that if the word "and" was retained, the words election agent, sub-agent, &c. should be put in the plural.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that the word "any" meant "every."
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that if they had regard to the word "any" the clause was a disjunctive one. If the word "or" were used, the substantives ought to be made plural.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that in line 42 the matter was properly expressed. If it was right to say "and" here, why did not the Attorney General insert "and" for "or" in line 42? He should persist in his Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 13: Majority 62.—(Div. List, No. 59.)
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he had another Amendment to this clause to propose. He desired to move the omission of the words "the whole of a county at large or of" in line 40; and, of course, if the Amendment were adopted, it would be necessary to propose subsequently several consequential Amendments. Up to the present it had been loudly asserted—it had been asserted that night by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in charge of the Bill—that county constituencies were separate constituencies, and that borough constituencies were not so separate. Union was kept up for certain purposes in borough constituencies; but county constituencies were held to be essentially different. Each division of a county was a county in itself, so to speak. That was a principle laid down so late as that very day by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and that was a distinction which was particularly emphasized in 1494 Clause 9. It was very proper to put down corruption; but it seemed to him to be perfectly absurd that a man who happened to be employed in one division of a county as a polling agent, for instance, should not be allowed to vote, if he had a qualification, in another division of the county possibly 80 or 90 miles distant. The effect of the Amendment he had the honour to bring before the Committee was to omit all the words which related to counties, and to restrict the clause to Parliamentary boroughs so-called. The county of York was divided into 10 or 11 different divisions; surely a man who was employed and paid as an agent or clerk or messenger in one division of the county should not be debarred from voting in any other division of the county in which he might have a vote.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 40, to leave out the words "the whole of a county at large or of."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was quite true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) had said, that for the purposes of voting divisions of counties were regarded as different constituencies. But this was a question of corrupt practices, and when they saw what might be done and the evils they had to meet he doubted the wisdom of accepting the Amendment. Some of the divisions of counties were very populous, and great organizations would be found to exist in them. Of course some divisions adjoined, and the result would be that as the elections did not necessarily take place on the same day the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act would be defeated if they made an arrangement by which a person should be employed in one county division and vote in another. If the arrangement made in the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act was right in the first instance, surely it was well now to insist that persons who were paid should not evade the provisions of the arrangement by being employed in one division and voting in another. On the whole, he wished to adhere to the principle the House endeavoured to carry into effect upon the Parliamentary Elec- 1495 tions (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, that paid persons should not vote.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, it had always been understood that paid persons should not vote in the county in which they were paid. Why they should not vote for persons with whose candidature they had nothing to do he really could not imagine. His own county (Tyrone) was to be divided into four divisions. If he happened to be a candidate for the Southern Division it was very possible he might employ a man who had a vote for another division. The candidates might not even belong to his (Mr. Macartney's) Party, but one might be a Nationalist and the other a Liberal. Was the man he employed to be deprived of his right to vote for one or other of these candidates because he (Mr. Maoartney) employed him in a distant part of the county? All along the Government had asserted that they did not wish to disfranchise anybody; but it seemed to him that the object of this Bill was to disfranchise as many people as possible.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the real effect of the clause could only be gathered by considering what the effect of the retention of the words his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton) proposed to omit would be upon the different counties. He could not think for a moment that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General meant to include in this provision the whole of the county of York, for instance; the hon. and learned Gentleman could not possibly mean to prevent a man who was entitled to vote in the North Riding from voting in that division simply because he happened to be employed as an election agent in the South of the county. It was as well that before this Amendment was pushed to a division the Committee should know whether this provision was a vital part of the Bill agreed upon between the two Front Benches. ["No !"] That being so, he thought he was right in saying that this was far too wide a provision to be inserted in the Bill. He could understand the Government arguing that the proposed alteration was too narrow; but in the belief that some alteration was desirable he intended to support the Amendment.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought this was not quite so easy a 1496 matter as it at first sight appeared, and at present he was rather disposed to vote with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton). If this provision was to be maintained, paid agents in county A ought to be restrained from voting in county B. What was the distinction between a division of a county and the next county? Why should a paid agent in the Lymington Division be restrained from voting in the Northern Division of the county of Hampshire, and not be restrained from voting in the county of Dorset? No doubt it would be argued that without such a provision as this there would be a colourable employment as agents in one division of electors in a neighbouring division; and if anything could be introduced which would prevent colourable employment he quite agreed it was proper it should be introduced. To say, however, that gentlemen who were employed as principal agents of candidates, and who were, as a rule, gentlemen of real political opinion and influence, should not be allowed to vote in any other constituency in which they might be qualified was monstrous. Very much the same effect would be produced by restraining an agent from voting in a distant part of the county to that in which he was employed. It seemed very hard indeed that a man who had strong political opinions should not, simply because he was his (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) agent, vote in a distant part of the county with which he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had nothing whatever to do. This was a matter which required some consideration, and he would advise his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) to bring it up again on Report.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the great distinction between two counties as compared with two divisions of a county was that in the two divisions of a county the organization would be the same, while that would seldom be the case in two counties. Perhaps if the question were considered of much importance it could be brought up on Report.
§ MR. TOMLINSONremarked, that in Lancashire the different divisions had complete organizations of their own. It was quite clear, for instance, that there must necessarily be a different organization in South-West Lancashire to that in the Northern Division of the county.
MR. MACARTNEYobserved, that there were organizations which took cognizance of what went on throughout the country. There were in London a Conservative organization and a Liberal organization, and they controlled what was done by the Parties in the country generally. It seemed to him that if a man was prevented from voting according to his opinions in one division of Middlesex because he happened to be employed as agent in another division of the same county, he ought also to be prevented from voting in the Orkneys.
§ MR. MONTAGU SCOTTsaid, it appeared to him that this Bill was intended to disfranchise all political agents. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had suggested that the organization for different divisions of counties was the same. Now, the county of Sussex was divided into East and West. He (Mr. Scott) had the honour to represent East Sussex; but he had nothing whatever to do with West Sussex, nor had the people in the East of the county anything to do with those in the West. Was his (Mr. Scott's) political agent, who might have very considerable property in West Sussex, to be deprived of his vote in the Western Division? It seemed to him that to this matter "distance lends enchantment." He supposed that if an agent in East Sussex had property in Yorkshire he would be allowed to vote in Yorkshire? Suppose that a man employed as an agent had a vote in Sussex and another in Surrey. Was he not to be able to vote in Surrey because Surrey and Sussex adjoined? [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): We allow that.] He (Mr. Scott) had understood that the different divisions of a county practically formed different counties. Now, in Sussex, there was to be a division of Rye and a division of Chichester, and these divisions were 40 miles distant. Was a man employed in one division as an agent to be deprived of his right to vote in the other division? A proposition more unjust—he was almost inclined to say tyrannical—was never made. If his hon. and learned Friend divided the Committee, he (Mr. Scott) would certainly vote for the Amendment.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, it was all very well for the Attorney General to pooh-pooh this matter; it was much more 1498 important than the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imagine. He (Mr. Warton) was extremely obliged to his right hon. Friend the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) for assisting him on the present occasion, and in support of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman he begged to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that now there could only be one paid agent; the number could not be multiplied, as it was fixed by the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act. He thought the Attorney General desired to draw the line very strong. An agent was to be permitted to vote at a borough election in the county; but he was not to be allowed to vote in another division of the county, which might possibly be 80 or 90 miles from the one in which he was employed.
SIR STAFFORD NOETHCOTEsaid, that this seemed to be something like a discussion as to the prohibitive degrees of marriage—how far they might go, and how close the intimacy was. He did not understand that anybody had the least intention of casting a reflection upon the characters and fitness to vote of those excellent persons who did good service as election agents. It was, however, quite reasonable and proper that a man should be precluded from voting in the particular division in which he was employed as agent; but it would be very hard that, because a man was agent in one district, he should be precluded from voting in another district which his agency did not affect. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) thought it would be desirable to accept the Amendment which had been proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), though he was not anxious to press anything on the Government that they did not see the reason of in that respect. As he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was willing to consider the matter on Report, he was not at all sure it would not be well to adopt the Amendment at once.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he should feel disposed to accept the view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) if it were pressed. It was a very small matter; but if the hon. and learned Member thought it 1499 would be better to strike out the words he would assent to the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, a consequential Amendment, in line 41, was that they should omit the words "county or."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 6, lines 41 and 42, to leave out the words "county or."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. HICKSsaid, he wished to say a word on that question. The Amendment he had put on the Paper went further than that of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), his feeling being that it was unjust to agents in one part of a borough to be deprived of the right of voting in another part for men who had not employed them. Seeing, however, that the Government had accepted the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, he would not press his proposal any further.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 15 (As to place of election).
§ MR. SMALLsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had the following Amendment on the Paper:—
Page 7, line 10, after 'Election,' insert 'but in Ireland, if the returning officer, on or before the day he receives the writ, shall receive from any person intending bona fide to be a candidate for any county Division, or his authorized agent, a notice in writing requiring the Election and the counting of the votes to take place in a town within such Division, then such returning officer, on pain of a fine of five hundred pounds, shall hold such Election and counting of the votes in some central town within such Division, and such returning officer may require from such candidate or his agent a deposit, not exceeding twenty pounds, of his Election expenses.He (Mr. Small) did not intend to move this Amendment, although he, at the same time, considered the proposal a very fair one, and held that the clause, as it stood, put a very unfortunate power into the hands of the Local Authorities. He did not see why Local Authorities should fix the place for the counting of the votes.
THE CHAIRMANI must point out that the hon. Member is not in Order in 1500 discussing the Amendment if he does not intend to move it.
§ MR. SMALLsaid, he intended to move an Amendment in line 4, to insert, after the word "said," the words "Division of the."
§ MR. SMALLsaid, that that, then, was what he proposed to move. He did not know how the clause, as it stood, would work in England; but in Ireland he had no hesitation in saying that it would work very badly indeed. The Local Authority in that country would be the Grand Jury, which was a body that, to his mind, should not be intrusted with any powers of this kind, and which was not likely to give satisfaction to the large majority of the electors or those concerned in elections. In the case of a small county, it would not, perhaps, so much matter; but in a county like Cork or Donegal—in large counties of that description—the plan would be found to work very inconveniently. His proposal, therefore, was to compel Local Authorities to fix the place for the counting of the votes inside a division of the county. If this proposal were not accepted, it might be that a place might be fixed for the counting of the votes 100 miles away from where they had been recorded.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 4, to insert, after the word "said," the words "Division of the."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he believed there were one or two cases in Ireland where the divisions which had been marked out in the Bill did not contain any towns. The clause was in-tended to apply to those cases, and it was not intended that it should have general application. If hon. Members opposite were of opinion that the words as they stood in the Bill were not guarded enough to show that they were not of general application, he should be glad to consider the matter, and, if necessary, to bring up an Amendment on Report. Probably the Irish Members, who were interested in this question, would favour him with their views, and assist him in the matter.
§ MR. SMALLsaid, he was very happy to hear that announcement from the right hon. Baronet; and he had no doubt that either he (Mr. Small) or some of his hon. Friends would be able, on Report, to show that the words were not sufficiently guarded.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 16 (Saving of rights of voters on change of Parliamentary area if otherwise qualified), agreed to.
§ Clause 17 (Detached parts of parishes).
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he desired to make certain with regard to the details of this clause when considered in connection with the Divided Parishes Act. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) whether certain parts of a county could be taken from certain parishes and united to another county? If that was so, what was the reason for it? How could it be done?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Government had power in the Local Government Board, under the Divided Parishes Act, to issue Orders for the purpose of throwing divided parishes into other parishes; but their Orders at the present moment would have no power to change the voters from one county division to another. In his opinion, it was doubtful whether Parliament would like to give the power in the case of detached places of changing voters from one county to another.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he was under the impression that the Local Government Board had already issued Orders beyond the 42nd section of the Divided Parishes Act. They had issued Orders, he believed, that for all purposes certain parts of a county should be taken from certain parishes and united to others. The doubtful point of law that was raised would not affect this clause. There had been great doubt as to what Parliament meant at the time of the passing of the Divided Parishes Act. The fact was that Parliament had forgotten the question—it had local boundaries in its head, and did not provide for Imperial matters. It did not consider what should be done in the case of Parliamentary boroughs. The words in the clause would not have given the power to transfer Parliamentary voters, 1502 if that power was not already conferred by the existing law.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 18 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.