§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he had heard that the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown had stated the other day, in reply to a Question of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), that it was not the intention of the Government to do anything in respect to rescinding the decision come to on the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), (providing that the expenses of the returning officers for hustings, &c, should be defrayed out of the county or borough rates) without due Notice of such intention being given to the House. He was surprised to see, in the face of that promise, a Notice on the Paper that morning that it was the intention of the Solicitor General to propose the omission of the clause in question. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) would ask the Government whether there was not some mistake made in this matter?
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had stated that it was quite impossible for the Government to come to any decision upon this clause until the Bill was printed and further considered. After the Bill was so printed it was thought important by the Government that the Motion referred to should be made. The moment that decision had been arrived at communications were mode with those hon. Members who were in the confidence of the party opposite; and before the Notice was put upon the Paper it was well known by hon. Members opposite what the intention of the Government was. So far as the practice of the House was concerned, that, he believed, was the course which, under similar difficult circumstances, had always been adopted. He should have been glad to give a longer Notice, but it was impossible.
MR. WHITEsaid, he would suggest that, as the intention of the Government in respect to this clause was only made known to hon. Members on his side of the House at half past eleven o'clock last night, the Solicitor General might postpone his Motion for the omission of the clause until the third reading of the Bill.
§ MR. DISRAELIPerhaps, Sir, the House will permit me to explain the course 1616 which the Government recommend it to take in regard to applying this measure to Ireland and Scotland. Her Majesty's Ministers have considered the subject, and they are advised that, on the whole, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to make this application by the adoption of one or more clauses. First, in regard to Ireland. Those whose advice has guided us on this subject are clearly of opinion that it would be quite impossible, by the simple machinery of the clause suggested, to apply this measure to Ireland. It will be necessary, in making the application of the measure to Ireland, to express that object throughout the whole body of the Bill. With that view we have printed, as a separate Paper, the alterations which we consider necessary. They are mere technical alterations; but, at the same time, if they be opposed it will be obviously impossible to pursue that course which we recommend; because in that case the Bill would have to be gone through again. But if the House, having had an opportunity of seeing those Amendments—which as I have said are all of a mere technical character, applying solely to Ireland—will accept them en bloc, the matter might be arranged in about half-an-hour. It will now be for the House to express an opinion upon this proposition. If there should arise a decided opposition to those Amendments we must in that case give them up as being involved in difficulties which, under existing circumstances, we feel we colud not surmount. In regard to Scotland, it is the opinion of the Lord Advocate that the application of the Bill to that country might be effected in a simpler manner; and he has placed in a separate Paper an additional clause which would effect that object. Those Amendments are now in the hands of the House; and if they assent to the scheme proposed in regard to the application of the Bill to Ireland and Scotland, it is the wish of Her Majesty's Government that the measure should be so applied. I was anxious to make this application in the simplest manner possible, and I wished the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Monsell) to be well-considered and examined, being determined to support it if there were no preferable means of making the Bill applicable to Ireland; but it having been reported to me by those to whose opinions I am bound to defer, that such an Amendment in the Bill would raise serious obstructions to its operation, and would not 1617 really work, we felt that we had no other means of satisfactorily accomplishing the object we desired than by those Amendments which we have placed upon the Paper.
§ MR. MONSELLsaid, that nothing could be more satisfactory than the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; and he concurred with him in thinking that the course he now proposed was much better than the one he (Mr. Monsell) had suggested.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he approved of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. He had gone through the Amendments, and was perfectly satisfied that they were only of a technical character.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, that there was a general feeling on his (the Opposition) side of the House to support the Government in this matter; but he regretted the resolution the right hon. Gentleman had come to, to attempt the reversal of the decision on the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), which had been arrived at in a much fuller House than that they had to-day.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, that the subject, which was decided not in a very full House, but in a thin House, would be dispassionately considered when it came on for discussion.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought that the course proposed by the Government was one which would entail considerable inconvenience. At the last moment, when they had nearly passed the measure through Committee, the Government suddenly proposed a series of clauses which they were asked to accept in globo, as there was no time for considering them in detail. With respect to the application of the measure to Scotland, there were scarcely more than two or three of the representatives of that country now in the House to consider the proposed clauses. The Bill was laid before them at the commencement of the Session, with a clause providing that it should not apply to Ireland and Scotland, and now they were so far to begin again de novo; so that on Wednesday, the 22nd of July, they had to examine this difficult and technical subject, involving matters which it required great legal expertness to decide—and that without the assistance of Members of the Scotch legal profession. He, however, would not object to making the Bill applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom, though he thought that the House 1618 ought to have kept the jurisdiction in this matter in its own hands.
MR. MELLYsaid, he had endeavoured to support the Government in almost every division on the Bill, and he thought that they deserved gratitude for making the Bill applicable to Scotland and Ireland as well as to England, but he regretted the course they proposed to take with regard to the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett). It was said that the clause was adopted in a thin House; but it ought not to be rescinded in a still thinner House. If the decision on that clause should be reversed, and if it should appear that that reversal was mainly due to the influence of the Members of the Government, he was afraid that his feeling of gratitude to the Government would be very much modified.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he approved the proposal to include Scotland and Ireland in the Bill; but he must enter his protest in as strong language as he could use against the unfair proceeding of the Prime Minister in not giving Notice sooner than at midnight yesterday of his intention to reverse the decision on the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett). It was monstrous, that when many Liberal Members had gone to different parts of the country, an attempt should be made to upset a decision deliberately come to; and he entertained so strong a feeling on the point that he would rather see the whole Bill thrown out than lose the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton. He could have no confidence in Gentlemen who professed to wish to put down corrupt practices, when they were going to sanction one of the most corrupt proceedings ever known.
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, there was no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) had kept his word by using strong language; but the House was so accustomed to hear such language from him that they paid little attention to it when they heard it. When the hon. and learned Gentleman charged honourable men with something like corrupt motives, he (Mr. Hardy) would only remark that that which from other mouths might make some impression, from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman made none whatever. He (Mr. Hardy) had before expressed an opinion that the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) would not work—that it applied 1619 to a different state of things from that contemplated by the Bill. As, however, the consideration of that clause could not conic on for some time, he hoped that in order to make progress with the Bill, the House would agree to proceed with other clauses upon which there was no difference of opinion. He repudiated the charge that; the Government had sought to take an unfair advantage by the course they proposed. No notice had been given to hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House which was not also given to hon. Members on the other Bide, and in one of the Liberal papers he saw it announced in large type that the Government proposed to rescind the clause which had been referred to.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he wished to mention that he had received Notice of the proposed changes in the Bill for the first time that morning. Having read them over carefully, he approved them as effecting a great improvement in the measure; for he thought you would establish a most unfortunate distinction between the different portions of the United Kingdom if you were to leave Scotland without the benefit of the Corrupt Practices Act. If any law is good for one portion of the United Kingdom, it ought to be good also for another. However, when it came to the question of regulations of the vote for appointing a Judge, he should have something to say on that point, because he thought an improvement might be affected in the provisions of the Bill on that head. There was one point on which they were entitled to some explanation from the Government. Notice had been given by the Solicitor General to leave out the Clause D 53, which had been considered, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton; and yet the 19th paragraph of; the Lord Advocate's clause proposed to extend to Scotland the principle of payment for all those expenses of sheriffs and officers connected with elections included in the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett's) Motion. The Government surely could not mean to throw out a clause already carried in respect to England while, at the same time, they enacted it anew in respect to Scotland. He should certainly vote with the hon. Member for Brighton against rescinding his clause, and with the Lord Advocate's Notice, as it stood on the Votes, in favour' of putting in paragraph 19—the principle of which he understood to be the same as that of the hon. Member for Brighton's Motion.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished also to express his gratification at the proposition to extend the Bill to Scotland.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENadmitted that it was desirable to get on with the Bill; but they were just then discussing, not the merits of the clauses, but the conduct of the Government. The clause of the hon. Member for Brighton was adopted in a House of 200 Members, including pairs, and on Monday the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) asked whether it was true, as rumoured, that the Government intended to propose rescinding the clause? The right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown observed, with great indignation, that the Question was unusual, un-Parliamentary, and inconvenient, and that nothing would be done without due Parliamentary Notice. Now, there was a difference between acting within the letter of a declaration and acting up to its spirit. It was true that Parliamentary Notice had been given; but they all knew that at that period of the Session the Government had enormous power, and it would not be a satisfactory proceeding if the Government now succeeded in reversing by a small majority a decision arrived at by 200 Members. The right hon. Gentleman had conducted the Bill through the House so far with the greatest courtesy, and he had honourably redeemed his pledge with regard to Ireland and Scotland; but he questioned if the Notice given by the Government with reference to this clause would be considered equally satisfactory by the House and the country.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, that the clause carried on two divisions on Saturday last had been on the Paper for more than three months, and therefore there had been ample time for the Government, as well as the House, to consider it; and as three leading Members of the Government argued against the clause on Saturday, it must be inferred that all the objections which could be urged against it were then stated. It was notorious that when the House met on Saturday at this time of the Session the Government had a great advantage, because all the official Members were in town, while the supporters of the clause had not the advantage of any party organization. The clause was, consequently, carried by the independent feeling of the House. The question was not in the least degree a party question, because the majority of 9 by which it was carried included nine of 1621 the most independent Conservatives. He had been written to by several hon. Friends who had left town to let them know if there was the slightest probability of the Government attempting a reversal of the decision of the House. The Answer given by the First Minister of the Crown to a Question on Monday completely throw him off his guard, and he felt that he could not take upon himself to bring Gentlemen up to London who were some 200 or 300 miles away. He came down to the House yesterday at an early hour, because he thought, if the Government intended to propose the reversal of the previous decision, they would then have given public Notice to that effect. It was only accidentally, a one o'clock in the morning, that he found that during his absence from the House Notice had been given at half past eleven that it had been decided an attempt should be mode to reverse the the decision the Committee had arrived at on Saturday, He considered he had been placed under great disadvantage by the course pursued by the Government, and he hoped the House would abide by the decision of the Committee.
§ MAJOR PARKERsaid, he thought the Frst Minister of the Crown was entitled to the thanks of the community for determining to give the House an opportunity of re-considering the decision hastily come to on Saturday. He thought it not a little extraordinary that Gentlemen who were so much in the habit of calling out against any increase in the rates should, when the expenditure immediately affected themselves, be so ready to throw it upon the ratepayers. He hoped the House would not adopt the decision of the Committee.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must remind the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) that the clause adopted on Saturday was not the same with that which had stood on the Paper for three months. Substantially there was a very great difference—great difficulty was found in passing the clause without some qualifying words for the purpose of preventing vexatious contests. Exception had been taken to the words of the proviso, and it was expected that on the Report some new qualification would be proposed. Another difficulty had presented itself. There were no means of carrying out the proposal for charging the rates of any particular division of a county with its share of the election expenses. The Government had given great and anxious 1622 consideration to both these matters, and it was only at the last moment, when the impracticability of the proposal became manifest, that, as the only solution of the difficulty, Notice was given for its reconsideration. The whole proceeding was entirely bonâ fide, and the present state of the House—the attendance on the Opposition side being much larger than on the Ministerial Benches—showed that no unfair advantage had been taken of the shortness of the Notice.
§ MR. W. E. FOSTERsaid, he could not help thinking it would have been much better if, when he asked the Question on Monday, the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown had given him some intimation of the difficulty which was felt by the Government, and had stated that the subject was under serious consideration, because that would have given hon. Members an idea that very possibly the Government would attempt to challenge the decision of Saturday last. He was induced to put his Question in order that hon. Members who were about to leave town should have an opportunity of knowing if it was probable that decision would be re-considered. The impression created by the right hon. Gentleman's Answer at the time was that it was not to be challenged, and that was the view which the Standard, the organ of the Government, put forward in their remarks upon the Question and Answer.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he could assure the House that there was no intention of unfairness on the part of the Government, and he thought that imputation had been made in some quarters a little too often. It had never been justified; there was no colour for it, and never had been. Those who were responsible for the conduct of Public Business wore bound when any proposal was made by independent Members to consider how it should be carried out. Now, he would undertake to show that there were, strong, irresistible grounds for declaring that the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) could not be worked consistently with the existing law. It had been his duty to consider the whole matter, and it appeared to him that there were no means by which it could be reduced to legislation; at this time of the Session. It would almost require an Act of Parliament to enable them to carry out what the hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord the Member for Yorkshire (Viscount Milton) pro- 1623 posed. It would have been a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Government to allow the clause to go forth without pointing out the difficulty that existed in regard to it. At all events, this Session it was impossible to do anything with the clause.
MR. GILPINsaid, he saw no ground for any imputation of unfair motives, and he hoped that hon. Gentlemen round him would consent to do one thing at a time. It would tie impossible to get on with the Bill if they took a clause winch was not at present before them, and discussed over and over again what was not regularly before the House. When the proper time came he should support the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett).
§ MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, the Solicitor General had misunderstood what it was the Opposition considered unfair conduct on the part of the Government. No one dreamt of imputing unfairness to the Government in proposing to re-consider the decision of Saturday last; but what was complained of was that so short a Notice should have been given of their intention to rescind that decision. It was utterly impossible, when it became known long after post hour, to communicate with absent Members in time for them to attend in their places. He thought, after the indignant display of virtue on the part of the right hon. Gontlemen at the Head of the Government, when the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was asked on Monday, they had a right to complain of the unfairness of the Notice given by the Government.
§ MR. ADAMsaid, that he had received notice of the intentions of the Government from the hon. Member for Bridgnorth (Mr. Whitmore) about half past eleven last night, a few minutes after the hon. Member became aware of them. All he could do was to communicate the fact to those of his Friends who were in the House, and send out notice that morning to such as were absent and still remained in town. He thought it rather late to give such a notice; but he acquitted the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whitmore) of any delay in the matter. The hon. Gentleman had treated him quite fairly.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALproposed a new clause; (Removal of disqualification on proof that such disqualification was procured by bribery).
§ Clause added to the Bill.
§ The solicitor General
1624THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would propose the clause which stood in the name of his learned Friend for the application of the Bill to Scotland, leaving out the 19th paragraph of the clause (providing that election expenses should be apportioned to the different parishes, and levied with the poor rates of the year, or, as otherwise provided by the Act 17 and 18 Victoria, chap. 91).
§ Clause (Application of Act to Scotland) brought up, and read the first and second time; considered in Committee, and reported.
§ Paragraph 6 relating to the selection of two Judges from the Court of Session to be placed on the rota for the trial of Election Petitions, read.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he wished to explain the nature of the Amendment he intended to propose on the paragraph relating to the rota. There were two divisions of the Court of Session, with four Judges in each, and five separate Judges called Lords Ordinary holding separate Courts. The effect of the clause was to authorize the appointment of Judges of the Outer House for the trial of Election Petitions, but to leave them no voice in the appointment. It was only the eight Judges of the Inner House who were to have such a voice under this clause—each division of the Inner House consisting of four members to elect one. In case of a difference of opinion the Chief Judge was to have a casting vote, so that virtually the clause gave the appointment of the Judge who was to try Elections to the Chief Judge of the division. Under these circumstances he proposed that alterations should be made to the effect, first, that all the thirteen Judges should have votes in the appointment; secondly, that the giving a casting; vote should not be necessary (it would not be necessary when there was an odd number of votes); and thirdly, he would suggest that Judges of the Outer House should not be selected for the trial of Petitions, but that the Judges should be taken from the Inner House, whose members had sat for five or six years, and by that time had forgotten their connection with politics, if they ever had any.
§ Amendment proposed to leave out Paragraph 6.—(Mr. M'Laren.)
§ Question proposed, "That Paragraph 6 stand part of the Clause."
1625THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had; framed the clause as much as possible on the model of the English Bill. By that Bill there was to be a vote of each Court, and with six Judges there might be an equal division, requiring a casting vote.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he must complain that the Judges of the Outer House, whose status and salaries were equal to those of the Inner House, were excluded from voting, and that no Judge in England was excluded from voting. He would move the omission of the clause.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Clause amended as follows:—
The members of the Court of Session shall, on the first day of the winter Session every year, select by a majority of the votes two Judges of such Court, not being Members of the House of Lords, to be placed on the rota for the trial of Election Petitions during the ensuing year.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had no objection of principle to the Amendments suggested by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, and would consent to amend the clause accordingly.
§ Clause amended.
§ Paragraph 19 relating to the Payment of Election Expenses.
§ Moved to omit the Paragraph.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he strongly objected to the omission of the 19th paragraph, as now intended by Government, after it had been framed and proposed by themselves, the principle of which would, he believed, give immense satisfaction to the people of Scotland. Even if there were some technical objections to the application of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett's) clause to English counties, they had no bearing in the case of Scotland, because the same divisions of counties did not exist; and he therefore moved as an Amendment that the 19th paragraph be added to the clause.
§
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words—
19. At every Election for any county or burgh in Scotland, the expenses lawfully incurred by the sheriff or other returning officer, or the sheriff clerk or town clerk, for the provision of hustings, poll sheriffs, poll clerks, polling booths or rooms, and any other necessary requisites, for the conduct of the Election, shall be ascertained and fixed by the commissioners of supply in counties, and by the magistrates of burghs, as
1626
the case may be; and the said commissioners or magistrates, as the case may be, shall cause the amount of such expenses so ascertained and fixed to be apportioned upon the parishes within such county or burgh respectively according to the yearly rent or value thereof; and the same shall be assessed and levied, along with the assessment for the relief of the poor for the current year within such parishes respectively, or they shall cause such amount, along with such reasonable sum as they may deem necessary to meet the expenses of collection, to be assessed and levied and collected in some other of the modes allowed by the Act seventeenth and eighteenth Victoria, chapter ninety-one: Provided always, That no county or burgh shall be liable under this Act for any expenses heretofore defrayed in exchequer, or which, under the provisions of this Act, may come in lieu of such expenses."—(Mr. M'Laren.)
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he should vote for the rejection of the Amendment. With many on the other side of the House, he entertained a very sincere objection to the proposal to placing that portion of the election expenses hitherto paid by candidates in boroughs and counties upon the rates. He also objected to the deposit of £100 which it was intended to require from every person who was proposed as a candidate at the hustings. That was opposed to the ancient constitutional right of Her Majesty's subjects to propose any person whom they might think fit to represent them in Parliament. It was well known also that gentlemen were occasionally proposed not for the purpose of contesting the election but merely to have the opportunity of making a speech.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the Government was placed in an awkward position by the attempt to raise the question at that moment. It was quite clear with what intention it was done—to get a vote in support of the English clause, though in reality the proposal as regarded Scotland stood on entirely different grounds, as the circumstances of the two countries were different. If the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) intended to persevere with the clause as it stood, it would create a difference between the law of England and the law of Scotland on this head.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought that if the House would agree to the Amendment it would place Scotland in the same position as England.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 83: Majority 12.
§ Clause, as amended, added.
1627§ VISCOUNT MILTONproposed to insert the following clause after Clause D 53:—
In case the county for which the county rate is made shall be divided into two or more parts for Parliamentary representation, then the said expenses shall be charged upon and defrayed by and out of the county rate levied within and for that part of the county for which such Election shall take place; and the clerk of the peace for the county shall apportion such expenses amongst the parishes, townships, and places only in that part of the county in and for which such Election shall have so taken place, as nearly as may be in proportion to the number of persons whose names shall appear on the register of county voters for such parishes, townships, and places respectively; and the clerk of the peace, in issuing his precept for the county rate, shall add thereto the proportion payable in respect of such expenses by each of the last-mentioned parishes, townships, and places, and the same shall be recoverable in like manner and as part of the county rate.
§ Clause (Levying of county rate where county is divided,)—(Viscount Milton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
THE SOLICITOR GENERALwas not surprised that the noble Viscount should have failed in solving the very difficult question he had undertaken to deal with. By the 53rd section of the Bill the expenses of every election for a county were ordered to be defrayed out of the county rate, and for a borough out of money to be raised under the 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 55, which enacted that all expenses incurred by any town clerk or returning officer for a city or borough should be defrayed out of money to be collected for the relief of the poor from all the parishes within such city or borough. The 15 &c 16 Vict., c. 81, which appointed the manner in which the county rate was to be made, empowered the Justices of the county silting in Quarter Sessions to impose a rate to be paid by all parishes in the county; and therefore if the rate were to be made upon a portion of a comity only it would be invalid. Under these circumstances he did not see how they could agree to the first part of the noble Viscount's clause, seeing that there was no "county rate levied within and for that part of the county for which such election shall take place," out of which the expenses were to be defrayed. The second part of the clause said that the clerk of the pence for the county should apportion the expenses among the parishes and places only in the part of the county for which the election was held, but the 1628 clerk of the peace had nothing whatever to do with apportioning the rate. Again, the clerk of the peace did not issue his precept for the county rate, because under the Act that duty was to be performed by the justices. It was evident, therefore, that the noble Viscount's attempt to solve the question had entirely failed, and the difficulty could only be overcome by machinery being established for the purpose of raising the money for defraying the election expenses different from that by which the county rate was raised. To effect that object, however, it would require legislation of too extensive a character to be commenced during the short remainder of the Session. These were the difficulties he had foreseen, and had pointed out as likely to arise if the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton were carried; and even if they could be overcome by legislation, still the injustice of the principle of the clause would remain. The question was one which required the gravest consideration, and therefore the matter should, in his opinion, be postponed. With regard to the boroughs they were in this difficulty—that the parishes sometimes ran into two counties, and sometimes were partly within and partly without a borough; and, therefore, it would be most unjust to levy these expenses upon the whole of such parishes. He did not mean to say that it was not possible to overcome all the difficulties to which he had alluded by legislation, but it was clear that it would be impossible to expect Parliament to enter upon such legislation this Session.
§ MR. LEEMANsaid, the Solicitor General had endeavoured to combat the proposition of the noble Viscount on mere technical grounds, and had contended that the proposition of the noble Viscount could be carried into effect. He (Mr. Leeman) hoped that the House would not listen to the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The difficulties could be got rid of by the insertion of words in the clause. When the precept for the rate was sent out, a calculation was made respecting the portion payable by each parish, and no difficulty could arise on that point. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that what was proposed by the noble Viscount could not be done by law. Why, this clause was proposed to enable it to be done by law. The country rate for the North and West Hiding was levied respectively on each of these divisions, and where was the difficulty in apportioning on each parish in 1629 each division the rate payable by it? If they could deal with this question in the future, as was admitted by the hon. and learned Gentleman, why not now? The clause was only a repetition for counties of what had already been done for boroughs by the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett)." Where there was a will there was a way.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would be glad to know the exact mode in which the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Leeman) proposed to carry out the clause. He could not see how it was to work. How was the money to be provided, and on whose authority were the precepts to be sent out? The magistrates assessed the county rate on certain estimates of the money required for roads, bridges, police, and other county expenses. Were they to make a new and prospective estimate for the possible expenses of a Parliamentary Election, and a limitation of the rate to the particular parishes which were situated in the division in which the election might take place? If not, in what manner was the money to be provided supposing the expenditure for other purposes to come up to the full amount of the estimates. Did the hon. Member propose that the clerk of the peace should be able, of his own motion, to increase the county rate sufficiently to cover such election expenses.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he wished to point out as a question of Order that it would be better if the clause of the noble Viscount were postponed until after the new clause of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had been discussed, as then hon. Members would know what they were doing.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, if the House desired to do so, they could permit the present clause to be postponed and brought up again as an Amendment upon the clause to be proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he felt himself placed in some difficulty upon this question, because, if the Government succeeded in striking out his clause, everything would fall into confusion. He thought it would be better to discuss the proviso first, on the understanding that his clause was in its entirety in the Bill, and that, if the clause fell through, the proviso would fall with it.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought it undesirable to discuss bit by bit the 1630 Amendment which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett). If the noble Viscount the Member for the West Riding (Viscount Milton) would withdraw his clause for the present he could move it as an Amendment before the question was put on the Motion of the Solicitor General to omit Clause D. 53.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that, in spite of all that had been said by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Leeman) he believed the clause to be perfectly unworkable. It would be impossible to collect a rate from the owners of tenements when that rate would frequently amount to a fraction of a penny, or the fraction even of a farthing. The principle was no doubt a just one, but if it were put into practice at all it would be much more simple to allow the clerk of the peace to pay the amount out of the gross rate of the riding.
§ SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, that if the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) were rejected this question would not arise. It would, therefore, be better to discuss the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton first.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT MILTONgave Notice that he would move it as an Amendment on Clause D53.
§ MR. BERKELEYsaid, he rose to move the insertion of a new clause with a view to the better prevention of personation at elections. The clause provided that at the annual registration the Revising Barrister should fix the parish in which non-resident freemen shall record their votes, and that they should vote on one qualification only. He could conceive no objection that could be offered to the clause, which, if it did no good, could certainly do no harm.
§ Clause (For the better prevention of personation at Elections.)—(Mr. Berkeley,)—brought up, and read the first time.
MR. HEYGATEsaid, he believed the first part of the clause was quite unnecessary, inasmuch as it was now competent for the returning officer in any borough to assign one or more polling booths specially for non-resident freemen to vote at, and such had always been the practice at Leicester and other boroughs in many parts of England, while the second part, in which the hon. Member desired to prevent au elector from claiming to vote in respect 1631 to more than one qualification, was unjust, and directly contrary to the spirit of the practice which had always hitherto been sanctioned, because an elector who selected what he regarded as his best qualification would find, if his claim on that ground were rejected, that he had lost all right of voting whatever.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that while he was as anxious as the hon. Member to prevent personation, he did not think the method proposed in the clause was the best one. To the second part of the clause he had the strongest objection, on principle, for it had always been the rule that persons should have the right of voting on different qualifications. If the House thought it desirable, the first part of the clause might perhaps be reduced into a practical shape; but for his own part he was of the opinion that no good could result from the attempt to prevent in this way the practice of personation. It would be better at some future time if they found personation to be very frequent to seek some more effective mode of dealing with the evil.
§ MR. NEATEsaid, he believed that the most effectual way of putting an end to personation at elections would be for the Law Officers of the Crown to do their duty and prosecute the offenders, where such a course was rendered advisable by the gravity of the offence.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he rose to move the insertion of a clause, the effect of which would be to prohibit the payment of expenses for conveying voters to the poll in counties and in those boroughs; which were treated last year as counties. Last year the prohibition was carried as regarded boroughs, but was not extended to counties. One objection that had been raised was that it would require so great an increase in the number of polling-places that the expense would be as great as that of conveying voters to the poll. He did not think that would be so; at any rate the objection was removed by the clause that was carried on Saturday (Mr. Fawcett's clause), and which he hoped would be retained. Another objection was that the new polling-places would be appointed by magistrates out of political motives. To remedy that he had another clause to propose, which would take the initiative 1632 out of the hands of magistrates, but would oblige them to appoint polling booths whenever and wherever they were called upon to do so by a certain number of electors. He held that the practice of conveying voters to the poll was in itself corrupt, and that it led to further corruption. At present the price of county elections was estimated at the rate of something like £1 per elector. The county constituencies having been largely increased by the recent Reform Bill, the costs would also be largely increased, unless they did away with the practice of conveying persons to the poll. He hoped, therefore, the House would support the clause.
§ Clause (Payment of expenses for conveying voters in counties and certain boroughs illegal,)—(Mr. Labouchere,)—brought up, and read the first time.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he would appeal to the House not to enter into a discussion of this question, for the matter was fully debated last year, and as a compromise to meet all the different views expressed at the time, the present clauses in the Reform Bill were introduced, confining the operation of such a provision to boroughs. If they entered into a discussion of this proposal, several hours might be taken up, which at this late period of the Session would be to put a stop to the further progress of the Bill.
§ MR. W. B. BEAUMONTsaid, the appeal which had just fallen from the Solicitor General was the most extraordinary he had heard for a long time. They were asked not to disturb an arrangement that had been come to last year, and yet they were told they would be asked to disturb an arrangement that had been come to only on Saturday last, and which was affirmed by two successive majorities. He trusted that the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Labouchere) would not withdraw his clause—unless, at all events, the Government withdrew their opposition to the clause which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton.
§ MR. CORRANCESir, I must agree with what has fallen from the hon. Member that no fair occasion has been afforded us of discussing this question in a manner either commensurate with its importance, or in connection with circumstances of no small or insignificant nature which should exercise an influence over our votes. Many of them have occurred since its introduction into the House. In proportion as I 1633 agree with that hon. Member, so do I emphatically disagree with the appeal to shelve such a question which has been made from the Treasury Bench. This question, as it now comes before us, has never been discussed. It is a very few days since I had reason to complain that, as far as the counties were concerned, no attempt has been made to decrease or limit county expense, and the same question re-occurs in this case. Now I am not going to vote with the hon. Member who has proposed this. The question has been rendered very complicated by the conduct of hon. Members on that side of: the House. It cannot be permitted to ex- tend to out-county voters, because you would not sanction the use of voting papers on their behalf, and I will not consent to disfranchisement, which, under the proposed clause, would take place. Nor can it extend to Ireland in consequence of the bad vote you gave the other night, in forbidding the clause concerning polling-places to pass. Some Amendments will be necessary to meet this. But as regards the voters within the limits of counties, I shall, if so amended, offer no opposition myself. In this instance, what we have to consider is this—Will our present provision for additional polling-places meet this case? Locality will have much to do with this; for instance, in my own county, where there are many small market towns, I think that no voter need live more than four or five miles from a polling-place. But this may not always be the case, and I must say that I shall defer my judgment until I hear what other Members have to say to this. This Bill should lead to disfranchisement of no sort. I agree with the hon. Member who has said that no party tricks should be played about this Bill at least. Our one object should be the free exercise of the vote, and the generous usage of a generous gift. No doubt there is the question of expense, and a very grave question, depend upon it, it will be to many of us. But to this we must be careful, at least not to sacrifice the right of the elector to the exercise of his vote. For that reason I shall vote against this clause.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, they were then discussing the principle of the clause, and they could discuss modifications in it afterwards. He, too, saw no force in the appeal of the Solicitor General; but he admitted the question was not a large one. The reasons for and against lay in a nut- 1634 shell, and the House, therefore, might come to an immediate decision upon it.
§ VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he had not the slightest personal interest in the question one way or the other; but he must hold that the matter had been fully discussed, and he believed that all the difficulties of the case would be met by the appointment of a sufficient number of polling-places. He thought it would be better not to re-open the question, and for that reason he should vote against the clause.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the real question was whether hon. Gentlemen wished to pass the Bill this Session or not. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had said there was not much to discuss with regard to this clause. His own experience was entirely opposed to this. A Bill had been brought in on the subject some time ago by the ex-Solicitor General, and had been largely discussed. He himself could speak for hours on the question, and he was certain it could not be disposed of without very considerable debate. If all the questions that were settled last year were now to be re-opened again, the House might as well make up its mind at once to put the Bill aside for the present Session.
§ MR. OSBORNEsaid, he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that those questions were settled last year; on the contrary, they were entirely unsettled. At the same time he thought that if they were now to go into all the clauses they would peril the Bill, and he would give the Government his support in carrying the Bill, even though he perilled these clauses. The Government deserved great credit for having pressed this Bill forward, and therefore he would support them in carrying it.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, the Government had answered their own question as to giving facilities to the passing of the Bill when they gave Notice that they intended to reverse the decision which the House came to on this clause on Saturday. Did they think they would facilitate the passing of the Bill by trying to rescind a decision already made? If the Government claimed consideration from private Members, then private Members had some right to claim consideration from the Government.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, he could assure the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) that no decision had been arrived at by the Government inconsistent with a sincere desire to pass the Bill this Session. 1635 Without entering into the question referred to, as it was not before the House, he assured hon. Gentlemen opposite that, however uncharitably they might view his conduct respecting it, he had acted with mature deliberation, and in the belief that if he had not taken the course he had, the safety of the Bill would be imperilled. At the proper time they would undoubtedly exonerate him from any suspicion of surprise. He regretted that this Bill, which had dealt with a distinct and difficult subject, should be hampered by a number of irrelevant propositions, of great importance no doubt in themselves, but which, joined to the measure, were calculated to render its passage most hazardous. He therefore trusted the House, without allowing its votes to be construed into a rejection of the principle of the clauses that might be offered for its consideration, would vote against them simply as an expression of its determination to carry a Bill for the prevention of corrupt practices.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he would suggest that if the pairing off of voters could be accepted as a legal practice, the clause would be a most desirable one, because it would end in the outlying voters pairing to a great extent with each other.
§ SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, the clause would practically prevent a large number of Irish voters from polling. He knew of an instance in which electors would have to travel some twenty or thirty miles over a mountain to register their Votes.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 124: Majority 42.
§ MR. W. B. BEAUMONTsaid, that after the decision which had just been come to, he believed he should best consult the convenience of the House if he withdrew the Notice he had placed on the Paper to move a clause prohibiting the conveyance of voters in the same county. It was clear the House did not desire to decide the question of the conveyance of voters in this Bill; but he understood no opinion to have been expressed on the merits of the ease.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, in the absence of Sir Thomas Lloyd, he would move the adoption of a clause prohibiting the use, for election purposes, of premises licenced for the sale of drinks.
§ Clause (Prohibiting the use for election purposes of premises licensed for sale of drinks,)—(Sir Thomas Lloyd,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, that the House had declined to endorse the principle of the clause after a long discussion last year, when the hon. Baronet (Sir Thomas Lloyd) himself introduced the subject. The same objection applied to re-opening it which applied to the last clause; and he did not think the proposal would be a very popular one in the present state of the atmosphere.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE, in supporting the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, observed that he had himself placed a clause on the Paper identical with it, except in limiting the prohibition to cities and boroughs. He had done this from having observed that his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiganshire had left London, and not being aware that he had entrusted his clause to the hon. Member. He had made the alteration in the hope of more readily inducing the House to adopt the proposal; as the risk of ill results in counties was certainly less, while the inconvenience, if any, might be greater. For his own part, he would be glad to see the clause pass in either form. The Prime Minister had appealed to the decision of the Committee, having been adverse to the suggestion on the preceding year. But he had forgotten that, upon the hon. Baronet the Member for Cardiganshire first bringing it forward, it was virtually adopted by general consent in a Committee which had fully canvassed it. But unluckily the debate dragged on, and it was finally rejected later in the evening by the Members who came down about ten o'clock, who had heard nothing and cared as little for the question. The objections to the plan were summed up in the material inconvenience which it might at first occasion. No one denied that some inconvenience might result; but this was as nothing compared with the benefits which would accrue. Parliament was on its trial at the bar of public opinion; and unless some such drastic remedy as this were applied to the disease of electoral corruption, the verdict of guilty would be recorded. Every one who had had to do with a borough election, and who did not palter with his own conscience, must confess to the utter corruption connected with committees held at public-houses. There were committees of electors and commit- 1637 tees of non-electors; and he could testify from experience that sometimes the committees of the rival candidates sat on the right hand and the left of the same public-house. It was absurd to talk of business being transacted at these places. Their object was to bribe the publican by the beer which he sold, and the electors by the beer which they drank, and to give the non-electors pot-Valour to terrorize the constituencies. It was bribery of a worse kind than money payments, for those, at least, might help in the support of the voter's wife and children, while bribery by beer only turned him into a profligate sot.
§ MR. CLAYsaid, that though there were objections to the use of public-houses, he must vote against the clause. If it were passed, it would prevent him from addressing the electors of Hull from the window of one of the principal hotels in the market-place. He feared the clause would deprive many a candidate of power to use the only assembly-room in his borough. He had been in the habit of using the same hotel at his elections for thirty years, where he was to be seen every day; and if he left it his friends would scarcely believe that he was a candidate.
§ SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYsaid, there was no difficulty either in counties or boroughs in obtaining suitable rooms in private houses and he hoped Parliament would put down this great source of expense and corruption.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was in favour of reducing the expenses of elections, and therefore he should vote against the clause, because his experience was that the candidate could very often obtain rooms cheaper in a public-house than elsewhere. Why was it to be supposed that when rooms were engaged in such a place it was merely intended to bribe the landlord or his customers? Some hon. Members seemed to think that licenced victuallers were worse than any other class of electors; against that assumption he begged to protest.
§ MR. POWELLsaid, there were many towns—and the town he represented was one of them—where, if this clause were carried, it would be impossible to address the electors except in the open air, as there was no room in the town—with the exception of the Town Hall—where a meeting could be hold, except in public-houses.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he was surprised that Liberal Members should 1638 advocate the use of beer-houses and beer-shops. There must be something behind which he could not understand. It was not only that they paid for the room, but for the treatment of people who came there—it was a complete system of bribery and corruption.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALasked, whether it was seriously intended that a candidate who innocently hired a room in an hotel was to have his election made void, and that he was to be disqualified from sitting in Parliament for seven years? An agent might, without the knowledge of the candidate, rent a room in a public-house.
MR. MELLYsaid, that as he had been in a manner appealed to by the hon. Member for Cambridge University, he might be allowed to say a few words. In a certain election in 1865 the advertised election expenditure of the two candidates amounted to £2,469 1s. 3d. ["Where?"] Now, was that fair? At any rate, let them I wait to the end. He and his opponent polled on that occasion about 93 per cent of the constituency. At a subsequent election, in consequence of an understanding that he and his opponent came to on the subject of public-houses, the advertised election expenses of both candidates came to £109, and they polled only 1 per cent less of the constituency than they did before. They lived at hotels, but they did not use them as committee rooms. He therefore supported this clause, and he hoped the House would pass it unanimously, as that would have a great moral effect upon the country.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as this clause was worded, if a candidate stayed at an hotel, and his agent visited him at breakfast and wrote a letter in his room on election business, the candidate would be guilty of corrupt practices.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that all the House was required to do was to vote on the principle of the clause; it could be easily amended afterwards so as to meet the objections of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he would recommend the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Melly) to repeat the arrangement he had described, and be independent of the clause. It seemed as if hon. Gentlemen wished to be saved the trouble of exercising moral courage, and, indeed, wanted to be made moral by Act of Par- 1639 liament. He (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) did not believe in such a process.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 130: Majority 60.
MR. BERBSFORD HOPEsaid, that after the division which had taken place he should not move his clause prohibiting the use for election purposes in cities and boroughs of premises licensed for the sale of drinks.
§
MR. J. STUART MILL moved the following clause:—
At the trial of an Election Petition under this Act the judge shall have power to receive evidence of corrupt practices which any elector who shall have voted at the Parliamentary Election to which the Petition refers may have committed at any Municipal Election within the same county or borough within two years before the presentation of the Petition, with the object of proving that the voter was corruptly influenced in voting at the said Parliamentary Election; and any special Commission appointed to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices shall have power to inquire into corrupt practices at Municipal Elections to the same extent and in the same manner as into corrupt practices at Parliamentary Elections.
§ As he had expressed his sentiments on the subject of the clause on a former occasion he would not again trouble the House with any observations upon it.
§ Clause (Corrupt practices at previous Municipal Elections may be inquired into,)—(Mr. Mill,)—brought up, and read the first time.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he must oppose the clause for the same reason ns he opposed it the other day—that this was not the time nor the occasion for dealing with the corruption at municipal Elections. If a voter was bribed at a municipal Election, on the understanding that that bribe should secure his vote at the next Parliamentary Election also, that was sufficient to constitute bribery at the Parliamentary Election; and by this Bill the Judge would have power to inquire into it without the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), But if the bribery at the municipal Election was independent bribery, which did not lead up to the Parliamentary Election, then it was a separate matter, and should be dealt with by a separate Bill.
§ Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
1640§ MR. J. STUART MILLSir, I rise to move a clause declaring illegal the employment of paid canvassers, or paid agents other than the one appointed under the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act. The clause is directed against the greatest of all the sources of undue expense at elections, especially in counties and large towns. It is well-known that when a candidate presents himself to a large constituency, determined to carry all before him by dint of money, a great part of his outlay consists in hiring canvassers, and they are hired by hundreds, very often without any real intention that they should canvass, and many of them never do canvass. Up to last year, under pretence of payment for canvassing, any number of electors might, without any breach of law, be paid for their votes. A clause, however, in the Reform Act, which the country is indebted to an hon. Member near me for proposing, and to the Government for accepting, has struck a blow at this mode of bribery, by enacting that no one in the actual pay of a candidate shall be allowed to vote. Hereafter, therefore, a man can no longer be paid in this manner for his own vote. But he can still be paid for the vote of his father, or his brother, or his wife's father or brother; and, besides, there is such a thing as collective bribery—bribery of a whole constituency, by spending money freely in the place. Every petty tradesman in the town is virtually bribed by a man who flings money about lavishly on all sides, most of which comes back almost immediately to be spent at their shops. All expenditure by which electors profit is a kind of bribery; and, though it may not be feasible to put a stop to all forms of it, still, if there be a form which answers no useful purpose whatever—unless confining the representation to millionaires be a useful purpose—this at least ought surely to be put a stop to. Now, what useful purpose, at this time of day, is promoted by personal canvassing? A seat in this House ought no more to be obtained by private solicitation than by money payment. The use of canvassing, when there was a use, was to make the candidate and his pretensions known to the constituency; but this is now done by addressing them in a body, through the Press or at public meetings. It is from the candidate's public addresses, or from the newspapers, that the electors even now learn all that they; ever do learn about the candidate; they do not want canvassers to tell them. If 1641 there is to be canvassing, it ought to be done by volunteers. Everybody who has any business to be a candidate has a sufficient number of zealous supporters to do all the canvassing that can be needful. Acquaintances may talk to acquaintances, and neighbours to neighbours, and win them over by persuasion and moral influence; but what moral influence has a man who is paid for his persuasiveness? And what would the electors lose if they could only be talked to by somebody who believes what he says, and cares enough about it to say it gratis?
§
Clause—
(Employment of paid canvassers or of paid agents other than the one appointed under the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act to be illegal.)
It shall not be lawful for any candidate, or for anyone in his behalf, to pay any money or equivalent for money in consideration of services rendered or to be rendered in canvassing the electors or in soliciting votes at any Election, or to employ any barrister, solicitor or attorney, agent or sub-agent, clerk, or other person who may be paid, or to be paid, by or in behalf of the candidate for other purposes connected with the Election, in canvassing electors or soliciting votes; and any candidate or other person making payment for canvassing electors or soliciting votes, or employing for such purposes any person paid or to be paid by or in behalf of the candidate for other purposes connected with the Election shall be guilty of bribery within the meaning of the second Clause of 'The Corrupt Practices Act, 1854;' and any person receiving payment for such purposes, and any person paid or to be paid for other purposes connected with the Election, who shall canvass electors or solicit votes, shall be guilty of bribery within the meaning of the third Clause of the said Act."—(Mr. Mill,)—brought up, and read the first time.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the colourable employment of persons as canvassers who were not intended to canvass was bribery according to the existing law. This clause was therefore not necessary to prevent the abuse of canvassing. But did the hon. Member think it would be right to prohibit the payment of a man as canvasser who, not being an elector, gave up his time for the candidate? A subsequent branch of the hon. Member's proposal referred to the appointment of barristers, but he should hope that barristers did not act as canvassers. The clause would be unduly and unjustly severe in its operation, for if any paid canvassers were employed on behalf of a candidate at an election, even if they were not electors, that would void the candidate's election, and render him incapable of sitting in 1642 Parliament for seven years. This was a proposal to declare that what was really innocent should be considered a guilty act. The House ought not to make corruption of what was not corruption.
MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, he had done as much canvassing as any Member of the House, and he believed the whole system of canvassing was one of the worst that ever existed, as it was intended by this result, that the man who chose to sacrifice his time or money to this mode of making himself known to a constituency had a chance which on other grounds he might have no title to whatever. The hon. Member for Westminster had told them that the proper mode of canvassing now was through public meetings or the public Press, and that mode had this plain advantage in favour of honesty, that under it a man could not talk double. Anyone who was at all acquainted with a large constituency knew what opportunities were afforded at every corner, under the canvassing system, for a candidate to suit his sentiments to the colour of the man he was talking to, and thus to acquire popularity under false pretences. He thought the penalties under the clause were disproportionate to the offence, and he hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would agree to amend that part of the clause which related to the penalty. He did not think that the imposition of high penalties was the surest mode of putting a stop to the evil. He should very gladly vote for the clause of his hon. Friend.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken seemed to be under the impression that the proposal before the House was to make speeches serve the purpose at present served by canvassing. But that was not so. The clause only sought to prevent the employment of paid canvassers. Any candidate would be allowed to canvass for himself; but the question was whether he should or should not be prevented from employing for money other people to canvass for him. He believed that the real evil to be aimed at was the employment of solicitors in the borough or county, who were mixed up with the affairs of a large number of voters, and who consequently exercised an influence over these voters, thereby indirectly producing all the evil results of bribery. If it were possible so to frame the clause 1643 as to aim distinctly at that evil he should be happy to support the proposal, but as the clause stood at present it aimed at a totally distinct matter, and he saw considerable difficulty in giving it his support.
§ MR. OSBORNEsaid, he had supported the Government in their efforts to pass this Bill, and should continue to do so; but he must give his support to this clause. He did not think the hon. Member, who represented the small borough of Pontefract (Mr. Childers), had had much experience in the matter. He (Mr. Osborne) had had the fortune to canvass very large boroughs, but he had never employed a paid canvasser in his life, although he had been opposed to wealthy pigeons who had been considerably plucked by that item in their accounts. If the House wished to strike at the root of corrupt practices they must support the clause of the hon. Member for Westminster. He knew of an instance in which an opponent of his employed 150 paid canvassers at 5s. each a day. He believed that the total of the bill for those canvassers amounted to exactly the sum for which he himself was returned at the election to which he referred. In Ireland barristers were paid for speaking at elections—not Q.C.'s, but aspiring barristers, and he believed that even on this side of the Channel rising barristers of seven years' standing would willingly give their services at elections without any sense of that virtuous innocence displayed by the Solicitor General. If they desired to strike at bribery altogether they must strike at paid canvassing.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he would support the second reading of the clause, but he thought it would require to be amended by making the penalty less severe.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 116: Majority 30.
§ MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, it would be useless, after the division which had just been taken, for him to move the next clause of which he had given Notice, which was a supplement to the one just rejected.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesex (Mr. Labouchere) not to take up the time of the House by moving the clause of which he had given 1644 Notice, for providing additional polling, places in counties.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that as the Ministry had an official majority in the House by which they could overthrow any clause they opposed, he should not move his clause.
§
MR. AYRTON moved the insertion of the following clause, providing for the appointment of attornies of the House of Commons:—
The Speaker f the House of Commons shall from time to time appoint such number of attornies of the Court of Common Pleas as he may judge necessary to the office of attorney of the House of Commons, at the pleasure of the Speaker.
The present Bill proposed to repeal a very important statute, which directed that if any Election Petition should be improperly compromised and withdrawn, and a Committee should be appointed to pursue an investigation into the circumstances of that Election, then Mr. Speaker should be at liberty to appoint an agent to prosecute the matter before a Committee of the House, and the expense incurred by the act of Mr. Speaker should be re-imbursed to him out of the Consolidated Fund. That Act had not been very often acted upon; but having regard to the manner in which election cases were in future to be tried, he thought the power of appointing attornies of the House of Commons might in some instances prove exceedingly useful. When the Divorce Court was first established, grave doubts were expressed as to whether petitioners and respondents would not be able to compromise actions and to carry out ulterior designs of their own without the knowledge of the Court, and it soon came to light that that was so, and that petitioners and respondents in total violation of all the provisions of the Act, did obtain divorces to which they could have no possible right; and it was then found that the only effectual mode of preventing that was to give power to a solicitor, who should be at liberty to ascertain all that might be suggested from without, to investigate suggestions, to watch the trials in Court, and if he found any disposition to suppress important matters, to bring them before the Court, in order that the Judge might pronounce justly upon the whole matter. In that way many abuses were prevented. In the present Bill they were endeavouring to prevent the improper withdrawal and compromising of Election Petitions; but he did
1645
not think it would be effective as it stood, for it would be imposssible to detect the contrivances that might be resorted to by the Petitioner and the sitting Member to compromise the Petition at almost every stage of the proceedings. There was only one war of preventing such things, and that was by following the example set by the Divorce Court. They should appoint an officer who could receive unofficial communications, and on whom would be cast the responsibility of verifying the truth of such communications, and taking them up if he thought proper, as instructions to appear in the case. They had a right to assume that such an officer would discharge his duties properly, and not intervene, unless he had adequate ground for believing it was necessary he should do so. Such an officer would be appointed as under the old statute by the Speaker; but instead of being merely an agent he would be an attorney, though not, as stated in the Notice, of the Queen's Bench, but of the Common Pleas.
§ Clause—
§
(Appointment of attornies of the House of Commons.)
The Speaker of the House of Commons shall from time to time appoint such number of attornies of the Court of Common Pleas as he may judge necessary to the office of attorney of the House of Commons, at the pleasure of the Speaker."—(Mr. Ayrton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he could not think that the hon. Member gave a correct account of the present Bill when he said that it would be ineffective in preventing the improper withdrawal or compromise of Election Petitions. An endeavour at all events had been already made to secure the object which the hon. Member aimed at. The 34th clause provided that no Petition should be withdrawn without leave of the Court and without Notice of the intended withdrawal being given in the county or borough to which the Petition referred. In the event of the Judge coming to the conclusion that the Petition was about to be improperly compromised, he could order a new Petition to be substituted for one originally named, and at the same time the security given by the latter would remain as security for costs incurred by the substituted Petitioner. Then at the trial, if the Judge thought facts were being withheld, he could, independently of the parties in the 1646 Petition, call any witness he pleased and examine him. This clause had been introduced into the Bill for the express purpose of preventing collusion. The only objection he had to the clause now proposed was that the Petitioners and the respondents would be frequently put to great and needless expense in the event of the attorney of the House of Commons intervening between them. They might have to stand by while that officer, his inclination and duty prompting him, was endeavouring to prove corrupt practices, in which endeavour he might fail. On the whole, he thought it would be better to try the Bill as it stood, for if experience showed it did not work well, a short Bill could be easily passed to amend it in a way similar to that now suggested by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets.
§ MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, that the only fault which he found with the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was, that it did not go far enough. His (Mr. Stuart Mill's) opinion was, that if they desired to put an end to corrupt practices they must provide a public prosecutor, and not rely upon the private interest of candidates and their supporters for proceeding against suspected individuals. They would never get rid of corrupt practices, unless they made it the duty of some particular person to inquire, not into compromises only, but into all matters connected with corrupt practices, and to institute prosecutions where evidences of corruption were found to exist. The proposed clause, however, was a good one as far as it went, and he should therefore give it his support. He hoped the Government would accept the clause.
§ MR. THOMAS HUGHESsaid, he also hoped the Ministry would not reject the clause. Judging from the brief statement of the Solicitor General, the Government seemed to be perfectly at one with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) with regard to the desirability of accomplishing the object desired by the hon. Member. He trusted therefore that the Government would show its sincerity by accepting the proposal. Everyone conversant with the practice of our Courts knew that, without some such officer as was proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, it would be impossible for the Court to form any opinion as to whether there had been a collusive arrangement or not.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 110: Majority 8.
§ MR. BONHAM-CARTERthen moved the following clause:—
(Declaration by candidates.)The returning officer shall, in case of a contested Election for any county, city, or borough, require, at the time of nomination, every candidate to make, immediately after the nomination of the candidates, the following declaration:—I solemnly and sincerely declare that I will not, directly or indirectly, by myself or others, knowingly commit, sanction, or permit on my behalf at the ensuing Election any act of bribery, treating, or undue influence, or other breach of the Corrupt Practices Act (17 and 18 Vic. c. 102), and that I will not pay or otherwise discharge, except in the manner and through the persons provided by the said Act, any expenses of or connected with such Election, and that I will use my utmost endeavours to promote the observance of all the provisions of the said Act.
§ Clause (Declaration by candidates,)—(Mr. Bonham-Carter,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, that when the House was in Committee upon the Bill it had considered the subject of personal declarations, and had decided against adopting them. The declaration now proposed did not essentially differ from the one which the House pronounced against on a former occasion; and, in his opinion, it would be a mere waste of valuable time to re-open the controversy.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
§ MR. POWELL moved a new clause—
§
(Treatment of Petition after presentation.)
On presentation of the Petition the prescribed officer shall send a copy thereof to the returning officer of the county or borough to which the Petition relates, who shall forthwith publish the same in the county or borough as the case may be.
§ Clause added.
§ MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he rose to move the following clause:—
§
(Provision for expenses of trials and inquiries.)
The expenses of all trials or inquiries held under the present Act, except such expenses as are hereinbefore provided for, and except such part as the court or judge shall impose by way of penalty upon cither the Petitioner or the Respondent, shall be defrayed in the case of any county from the county rate, and in the case of any borough, out of the monies, and in the manner and proportions mentioned in the Act of the sixth
1648
year of the reign of Victoria, chapter eight, section fifty-five, with respect to the expenses of carrying into effect the provisions of that Act; and the account of such expenses shall be made, allowed, and paid in the manner provided in the said Act, unless the court or judge shall certify that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices do not generally or extensively prevail in the constituency, in which case the said expenses shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund.
He desired to carry into effect what he considered was a true and sound principle—namely, to throw the expenses of all inquiries into corrupt practices upon the community who were implicated. He left to the tribunal to determine what portion of these expenses should in any case be laid, to the relief of the ratepayers, upon the persons who had been proved to be guilty of corrupt practices, or upon those who were shown to have brought frivolous and improper accusations.
§ Clause (Provision for expenses of trials and inquiries,)—(Mr. Mill,)—brought up, and read the first time.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would oppose this clause, having opposed one founded upon precisely the same principles which had been moved by the hon. Member at a previous stage. The proposal of the hon. Member was not a fair one, and he hoped the House would not adopt it. The ratepayers ought not to be called upon to pay the costs of a trial to which they were not parties. The costs should fall on the defeated party, as in the case of a law suit. The constituency might be entirely innocent, and therefore it would he unjust to put the expenses of these inquiries on them.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he hoped that the Attorney General, who had, he thought, somewhat misunderstood the object of the clause, would re-consider his determination, and allow the clause to pass. He (Mr. Roebuck) thought it a curious fallacy to compare this, which was a public matter, with a private law suit. It was the interest of the constituency that the proper man should be returned.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Westminster would divide the House on his clause.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he had great objection to the clause in a practical point of view, because it would allow Petitioners to dip their hands into the public purse. That was a principle which it would be dangerous to sanction. If the clause passed, Petitions would inevitably be pre- 1649 sented from every borough in England, Ireland, and Scotland.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he altogether differed from the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). An inquiry of this kind was always a different thing from a private law suit, and the expenses of it ought, in his opinion, to be defrayed by the public. According to this clause the ratepayers might have to pay the expenses, and he thought the ratepayers would never get up a Petition simply in order that they might have the pleasure of paying the expenses of it. He might remark that when a constituency happened to get a good Member they ought to be proud of him, and do all they could to keep him.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 146: Majority 97.
§ MR. POWELLsaid, he should not move the clause of which he had given Notice (This Act to apply to municipal Elections), but he hoped the question to which it referred would be dealt with before long.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, be rose to move that no new Judge be appointed under the Bill until the number of Election Petitions presented to the Court of Common Pleas be ascertained. The chief ground on which he moved this clause was, that if these new Judges were at once appointed, they would draw salaries four or five months before their services were required under the Bill.
§ Clause (That no new judge be appointed under the said Bill until the number of Election Petitions presented to the Court of Common Pleas be ascertained,)—(Mr. Serjeant Gaselee,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, the clause was precisely similar to one which had been moved by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), and respecting which he (Mr. Disraeli) pointed out at the time that it struck at the root of the Bill, and the Committee unanimously rejected it.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
§ MR. SCHREIBERsaid, he rose to move a clause providing that municipal 1650 Elections appointed by law to take place in November, should be postponed for one month in order that the intention of the House might not be frustrated. He feared that if the municipal Elections were allowed to be held before the Elections for Members of Parliament, bribery would be rife in connection with the former, as it was well known the municipal often decided the Parliamentary Election. Without his clause the Bill would be futile, because while the briber would abstain from bribery punishable under the Act, he would be most industrious in connection with the municipal Elections, where bribery might be practised with impunity.
§ Clause (Postponement of Election of municipal and local officers for the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty eight,)—(Mr. Schreiber,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he could not accede to the proposition. While admitting that there was much force in what was said as to municipal corruption, he did not think it would be fair or reasonable to stop all municipal Elections in November on the ground that in some boroughs they might lead to bribery at the General Election. If the clause was agreed to the mayors throughout England would have to alter all the arrangements they had made for the municipal elections in November.
§ MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he could conceive nothing more stultifying than for the House, after having passed stringent measures for putting down corruption at Parliamentary elections, to allow perfect freedom of corruption in the case of municipal Elections. There could be no greater facility given to bribery at the Parliamentary Elections than to have the municipal Elections taking place just before them.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 100: Majority 25.
§ MR. DISRAELISir, as it is now time to postpone the consideration of the Report, I propose that we have a Morning Sitting to-morrow, at two, for the purpose of proceeding with this Bill. Considering what was on the Paper we could hardly have flattered ourselves that we should dispose of the Report to-day, and I am bound to express my thanks to both sides of the 1651 House for the diligent manner in which hon. Gentlemen have pressed on with the Business. I am still further reconciled to an adjournment because it will remove any misunderstanding about the absence of Notice of the Solicitor General's Motion. In case we do not exhaust the Morning Sitting by considering the Bill some measures promoted by the Board of Trade will be taken, and at nine o'clock we propose to take the Cattle Bill.
§ Further Consideration deferred till Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.