§ Order for Consideration read.
§
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [22nd July]—
That the Clause, ('That it shall not be lawful for the collector of rates and taxes of any borough, county, or city, or his partner or agent, to act as agent, clerk, or canvasser for, or to be employed on behalf of, any candidate fur such borough, county, or city; and any such person who shall so offend shall, for his said offence, be liable to forfeit the sum of fifty pounds to any person who shall sue for the same, together with full costs of suit,') be now read a second time.
§ Question again proposed.
§ Debate resumed.
§ MR. BASSsaid, he wished for an opportunity of more deliberately considering this subject, and hoped that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, would be satisfied with a mere continuance Bill during the present Session. He believed that the provisions of this Bill would either be found unworkable or would lead to corruption.
§ MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he thought that nothing could be more objectionable than the practice of a tax collector, with his rate-book in his hand, walking into a voter's house to solicit his vote in aid of any particular candidate. He hoped the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Vansittart) would press his Motion.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the proposition was entirely new. It was that, for the first time, the collector of rates should not act as agent for a candidate. Hitherto the Legislature had left the candidates to select whom they pleased as their agents; and if once they began to say that certain persons should not be allowed to be agents he did not know where they should stop. They must go much further certainly than this clause went. He did not think that the clause had any bearing upon the points sought to be remedied by this Bill, but that it would raise question after question as to who is entitled to be an agent. He was quite prepared to consider this clause at a future time, in connection with the general subject of election law.
SIR FREDERICK SMITHobserved, that the clause would be a mere trap to the honest candidate. How could he know who was the partner of a rate collector?
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he did not think much advantage would be gained by the clause. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the 2022 Home Department that this was not the time for a general revision of the electoral law. But that argument applied to the Bill altogether. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with a mere continuance Bill, and would not attempt to carry out this patchwork piece of legislation.
§ MR. WARRENsaid, he could not support the clause in its entirety. He would suggest the omission of the words "partner or agent." If that alteration were made he should then be inclined to support it.
§ MR. GREERhoped the hon. Gentleman would persevere with the clause. Collectors of rates and taxes had a great influence in reference to the registration of voters; and in Belfast that influence had been exercised in a most extraordinary degree. In any district the collectors of taxes might abstain from calling upon voters for their taxes until after the time when they should be paid to enable them to vote, and thus persons really solvent, and willing to pay their rates when asked for them, found themselves disfranchised when the revising barrister came round.
§ MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, the clause either went too far or not far enough. It singled out one particular class of persons, but tax collectors were not the only persons who had an undue influence over electors. Let them take, for example, the steward of a nobleman who had a large estate, and who could knock 10 or 15 per cent off the rent if it would in any way suit his employer's purpose. The tax collector was a public servant, and any candidate might avail himself of his services. The tax collector could not remit taxes, and it was not to his interest to remit them, but the steward of an estate could remit any amount his employer might choose to allow. The clause aimed at one particular class of individuals, while they knew that there were hundreds of others who were equally open to objection. He objected to legislation of this piecemeal kind being introduced into the Bill, which he considered should be merely a continuance Bill. If it were necessary to legislate on the ground of intimidation, it should be done fairly and honestly.
§ MR. M'CANNsaid, if they could not get a large measure of Reform they must be content to take it piecemeal. There was something more than intimidation in the action of a tax-gatherer. That functionary had a power which a landlord or a steward did not possess, and it was 2023 quite right, therefore, that he should be excluded from acting as an agent in contested elections.
§ MR. BAINESsaid, that the best thing in the face of so many difficulties would be to snake the Bill a mere Continuance Bill of the Act of last Session. He felt favourable to the principle of the clause, which was directed to check illegitimate influence of a very well defined kind. He did not think it was a reason for doing nothing that they could not prevent the exertion of all kinds of illegitimate influence. The words "partner or agent" ought, however, to be omitted, and the clause ought to be amended so as to make it apply to the collector of poor rates of any parish situated in a borough. At present it only applied to a collector of the borough, city, or county rates.
§ MR. BONHAM-CARTERsaid, he thought they ought to avoid partial legislation on the large subject of election law. He could not understand why they should single out municipal officers not recognized by the Act. It was opening the door to a course in which they might find it difficult to stop.
§ MR. BYNGsaid, he considered that the clause contained a very sound principle, and he should vote for it, subject to the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines).
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he did not think the Home Secretary was justly open to the charge of attempting to wake the Bill more than a mere continuance measure. He had only sought to clear up some doubts which had arisen in the working of the existing Act. For himself, he did not like homœpathic doses of reform, and he should, therefore, oppose the clause.
§ MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he thought it unreasonable that a Bill of this kind should have been introduced at this late period of the Session, and that they were wasting time in discussing it. He should vote against the clause, because he desired that the Bill should be merely a continuance Bill. He wished they would take an example from Scotland, where there was no such absurd regulation that a man should pay his taxes before he was qualified to vote. He objected to the clause for another reason, that they ought not in such a case to pick out one class of society rather than another. If they excluded tax collectors, they should exclude solicitors and 2024 members of the legal profession from being agents, for he held that they were a much more dangerous class in this respect than tax collectors. He said that in his capacity of a member of the legal profession himself.
§ MR. W. VANSITTARTsaid, he should be happy to adopt the Amendments suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr.Warren), and the right hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines).
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 66: Majority 13.
§ MR. NICOLLrose to move the following clause:—
Every candidate at any election for any county, city, or borough, shall be required to make and sign the following statutory declaration, and present, or cause to be presented, a copy of such declaration to the election auditor on or before the day appointed for the audit of bills, charges, or claims:—'I [A. B.], a candidate at the election of a [] to Represent the [] in Parliament, do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare that I have not knowingly made, authorised, or sanctioned, and that I will not knowingly make, authorise, or sanction any payment, or make any gift of money or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, by way of private gratuity to any solicitor, agent, or canvasser, acting for me on account of the said election, otherwise than is described by the bills, charges, and claims rendered to the election auditors, save as excepted and allowed by the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1851.' And every candidate who shall neglect to make and send in to the election auditor a copy of the declaration as aforesaid on or before the day appointed by the election auditor, shall be liable to the penalty of £20, and to a further penalty of £10 for every subsequent week of wilful default or neglect in making or sending in such declaration, to be recovered by any person who will sue for the same, together with full cost of suit. Provided always, that in 'case any such candidate shall be absent from the United Kingdom at the time of such election, he shall send in to the election auditor a copy of the declaration as aforesaid within one month after his return to the United Kingdom, which shall be of the same force and effect as if the same had been sent in as herein provided.
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, that he individually, had no objection to a declaration being made by the candidate either at the polling booth or the table of the House to the effect contained in the clause. On the contrary, he thought it might become one of the most effective modes of obtaining the end they had in view; but this was one of those clauses which in the discussion which took place when the existing Act was introduced some years ago, had 2025 elicted more controversy than almost any other. It was necessary to confine the operation of the Bill to the cases contained in its provisions. Other cases might come under consideration in a permanent measure which could not be delayed beyond the next Session of Parliament. The House had signified its approval of the course he had taken of making this as nearly as possible a continuance Bill, merely being so far declaratory as to render the measure more intelligible. The course he had taken had nothing at all unusual in it. He hoped the House would dispose of the proposed Amendments. If any of the clauses provoked opposition, let the elimination of the clauses objected to be distinctly proposed. If the feeling of the House were declared against him he was ready to make this merely a continuance Bill, otherwise it would be a dereliction of duty in him to desist.
§ MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he did not think the clause would meet the evil complained of.
§ MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that he could not assent to the clause. Unless they could trust to the honour of Members of that House not to deal in corruption, no declaration that could be framed would prevent hon. Members evading the law. The clause only imposed upon a Member a declaration that he had not paid other money than that returned to the election auditor, but hundreds of thousands of pounds might have been paid on his behalf by others.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEremarked, that it would be impossible to get through the Bill as it stood. If it were not made a mere continuance Bill he would move the omission of all the new clauses.
§ MR. WALPOLErepeated, that if a majority of the House were against him, he would make the Bill a continuance Bill the next day. That question might be tried on the first clause.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he should support the clause, although he admitted it would not meet all the evil. He did not believe the House wanted to put down bribery, because he had noticed that, whenever an effective measure was brought forward it was sure to be opposed on both sides.
§ Motion made and Question put—"That 2026 the said clause be now put a second time."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 83; Majority 31.
§ The clause was therefore lost.
§ MR. GREERthen moved the following clause:
And whereas it is expedient to provide for increasing the number of polling places, and for altering polling districts in Ireland, Be it therefore enacted, That it shall be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, by and with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland, from time to time hereafter, on Petition from the Justices of any county or riding in Ireland, in quarter sessions assembled, or from one or more of the Representatives in Parliament for the said county or riding, or from at least one hundred of the registered electors for the said county or riding, representing that the number of polling places for such county or riding is insufficient, and praying that the place or places mentioned in the said Petition, may be a polling place or polling places for the county or riding within which such place or places is or are situate, and that a district or districts in said Petition mentioned and described by the barony or baronies, half barony or half baronies, or by the parish or parishes, and townlands contained therein respectively, may constitute a district or districts for polling at such polling place or polling places respectively, or praying that any polling district or polling districts may be altered, and that any barony or half barony, parish or parishes, or townlands, may be detached from any such polling district, and be annexed to any other polling district, as the case may be, to declare that any place or places mentioned in the said Petition, shall be a polling place or polling places for that county or riding, and that the district or districts in such Petition mentioned, or with such alterations thereof as may be deemed suitable and convenient, shall constitute a district or districts for polling at such polling place or polling places respectively; and that the other polling districts of the said county or riding shall be altered accordingly; and every such Declaration or Order for creating additional polling places, and the polling districts for the same, or for altering any polling district or districts, shall be certified under the hand of the Clerk of the said Privy Council, and when so certified shall be published in the Dublin Gazette, and shall be of the same force and effect as if the same had been made by the authority of Parliament: Provided always, That if the said Petition be from registered Electors or from a Representative or Representatives of the said county or riding, proof must be given of the publication of the said Petition in two newspapers, circulating within the said county or riding, at least ten days before such declaration or order shall be made.And at the next Registration of Voters for the said county or riding, after such declaration or order shall have been made, separate alphabetical lists shall be made of the Electors entitled to vote in each polling place, according to the baronies Or to the parishes, or portions of parishes, constituting the said polling districts respectively,
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
LORD NAASobjected that as this clause had nothing to do with corrupt practices, it did not come within the scope of this Bill. More than this, no practical inconveniences arose from the existing state of the law. At present the registered electors on consultation with the magistrates at quarter sessions could apply for additional polling places, and he had never known a case in which such joint application had been refused. There could not, in his opinion, be any fairer arrangement.
MR. WHITEsaid, he rose to support the Amendment, and would frankly avow that he did so in order to protract the debate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had on a former occasion told the House that a combination of twenty Members would any time, by availing themselves of the forms of the House, upset the British constitution. He (Mr. White) did not accept the right hon. Gentleman as a very great constitutional authority, but taking his dictum for as much as it was worth—he would then announce his determination to oppose this Bill in every stage; and would fain hope, that some score of other Members at least, would co-operate with him, and, if possible, prevent this pernicious Bill, as now presented to the House, becoming the law of the land. Moreover, he would assert that the Government, in introducing the declaratory clause (the payment of voter's expenses) had wholly misread or perverted a great constitutional principle. By the clause in question they went on the palpably unconstitutional assumption that an elector, in voting, was not performing a public duty, but was conferring a private favour on a candidate. On the introduction of the Bill be had opposed it, and then declared his invincible repugnance to the clauses foisted therein, and, whilst he was not then inclined, and never had been, to give a factious opposition to the Government, still he (Mr. White) would persevere in his opposition to this Bill unless it was reduced to its proper proportions—namely, as a simple continuance Bill, as it ought to have been and none other, at this fagend of the Session. He would add no more, but reiterate what he had said on a former occasion, to wit, that the title of this Bill was a misnomer, and that, instead of being called a "Corrupt Practices Prevention Act," it was neither more nor 2028 less than a Corrupt Practices Protection Act.
§ MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he concurred with the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas) that this clause was unnecessary, and would, if adopted, only tend to increase expenses.
§ MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he thought the arguments advanced by the noble Lord against the clause perfectly satisfactory, and indeed unanswerable. He hoped the hon. Member for Londonderry would withdraw it. Ample power was already possessed for the end aimed at. The Privy Council in Ireland had considered whether the power so constantly granted should not be exercised more sparingly.
§ MR. COXsaid, he should support the clause. He looked upon the Bill as one to legalize bribery and increase the expenses of candidates. That being so, he thought that they should provide that the candidates' funds should be spared as fat as possible, and he should therefore move that the expense of providing polling places should be paid by the county or borough.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member could not move the Amendment at that stage. The Bill must be recommitted for the purpose.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that if the first clause of the Bill were retained, he would move the recommittal of the Bill.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the said clause be now read a second time." The House divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 112: Majority 86.
§ MR. GRIFFITHthen moved the following clause:—
The admission and payment, on behalf of any candidate at an election, of any claim or demand in respect to such election, by the election auditor, in accordance with the provisions of the 17 & 18 Vict., c. 102, shall be sufficient protection to such candidate against any action or suit at law in respect to the legality of any such payment; and it shall be the duty of the election auditor to refuse to pay any claim or demand on behalf of such candidate which is not in accordance with the provisions of the above-mentioned Act of the 17 & 18 Vict., c. 102.The adoption of this clause would make the election auditor a real check upon corrupt expenditure, instead of, as he was, a trap and a sham.
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that if they agreed to this clause, they would at each election 2029 have 350 courts of law. He thought that was sufficient argument against the clause.
§ Motion made, and Question "That the said clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
§ MR. STAPLETONsaid, he then rose to move that the words "within such voter's county or borough, and seven miles from the boundary thereof," should be inserted in Clause 1, line 17, after the word "voter." His object was to limit the expenditure for bringing voters to the poll by merely allowing the word candidate to bring to the poll those who lived within a restricted district. He could not conceive any principle on which the House could sanction the bringing of voters from remote parts of the kingdom.
§ MR. JOHN LOCKEexpressed his intention to support the Amendment. The conveyance of voters to the poll was carried to a ridiculous extent, and the expenses incurred fell heavily upon the candidate.
§ MR. M'CANNsaid, he should support the clause, as he thought the system of bringing voters from great distances entirely wrong
§ MR. ROEBUCKexpressed himself strongly against the present system, the result of which was that entire constituencies had to be brought to the poll in cabs. His intention was to move the rejection of the entire clause, but to provide against all contingencies, he would in the meantime support this Amendment, which would at any rate improve the clause. A more mischievous clause was never introduced into any Bill.
§ MR. GARNETTsaid, he would support the Amendment, but some provision would be necessary to meet the case of the Universities.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he should vote for the Amendment. He thought in the case of the Universities the voting might be conducted by letter.
§ MR. GREERsaid, the words "county" and "borough" were those used in the Amendment, which would not include the case of the Universities.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, that he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwick a very proper one, and should therefore give it his support. However, in his opinion, the only efficient way to prevent bribery at elections would be to introduce the system of vote by ballot.
MR. CRAWFURDsaid, he thought they ought to restrict these expenses, which were often very extravagant.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 78: Majority 3.
§ MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he would move an Amendment, with the view of preventing the provision of conveyances for any other purpose than that of bringing voters to the poll.
§ MR. WALPOLEassented to the Amendment, which was agreed to.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he rose to oppose the introduction of the clause into the Bill before the House. The Home Secretary said that this was simply a continuance Bill, with the exception of removing a doubt with respect to the payment of travelling expenses. But a doubt might be removed by settling the law. To render the payment of travelling expenses legal, was in truth to render it imperative; for every voter would think himself treated with contempt if he was not conveyed to the poll. It could not be said that a borough voter would be disfranchised if this clause was not agreed to, for he could walk to the poll; and in the case of counties it would favour the rich candidate at the expense of the poor one. He regretted that the proposition embodied in the clause had come from his own side of the House. He believed that its author had done more to render corruption effective than any other man who had ever attempted to legislate on the subject.
§ Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. BRADYopposed the clause, and commented strongly upon the unusual silence of the author of the clause in its present shape (Mr. Ayrton) throughout the debate. He could only ascribe that unusual circumstance to the consciousness that he had done wrong.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he would again suggest that this should be a mere continuance Bill. If the Home Secretary had originally assented to this, he might have saved himself great inconvenience, and he must have observed that there was a diminishing majority on each occasion. This Bill seemed to involve two things—that they believed that the voters of this country disregarded their right of voting, and the other, that none but a rich man should become a candidate.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, that this Act of Parliament having always been a temporary Act, he thought that the time had come for a permanent measure. He in- 2031 tended to redeem his pledge to introduce such a measure in the next Session of Parliament. This measure had been discussed at three morning sittings, and on every occasion when this clause had been discussed it had been supported by considerable majorities. That was a sufficient justification for the course which he had taken in introducing a clause to settle the law on the subject. This clause was not introduced to purify elections. He believed that the Act would have that tendency, but the purpose of this clause was to settle the law. If the clause was struck out, gentlemen would just as before pay the expense of providing conveyances for bringing voters to the poll. And if there was no corrupting influence on the mind of the voter, a candidate, who provided conveyances for bringing him to the poll, was simply enabling him in a fair manner to exercise his constitutional privileges. If, this clause was not passed, neither the candidates nor the Committees up stairs would know what was the state of the law on this subject. Was that a state of things which should be allowed to continue? They might, it is true, forbid the payment of travelling expenses altogether, but he did not believe that public opinion would go along with them in such an enactment.
§ GENERAL THOMPSONsaid, be wished to know, if hon. candidates paid for bringing voters to the poll, and the said voters voted against them, did the Bill provide proper means of recovering the cabhire. All flesh was not the same flesh; and so of bribery—there were different kinds. The provision for the conveyance of electors was gross bribery, neither more nor less.
§ MR. WARRENsaid, he thought the clause should be allowed to stand.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that the object of the Bill was merely to legalize bribery and thus give the Conservatives the advantage of bribery as they had never done before at the general election, which was expected to take place next year. He complained of the introduction of new matter in what had been declared to be a mere continuance Bill. A society had been established called the Conservative Land Society, by which more votes had been manufactured than by the whole Liberal party. The members of that society might have votes in five or six counties, and under the Bill as it stood they might be carried about in any manner they most preferred.
2032 And it being ten minutes before four of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the debate till this day.