§ Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed.
§ MR. AYRTON moved the insertion of a fresh clause (Applications to the Court respecting trials.)
§ Clause (Applications to the Court respecting trials,)—(Mr. Ayrton)—brought up, and read the first and second time.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the first part of the clause enabled the Judge to reserve any difficult point of law and to take the opinion of the full Court before giving a final decision, and the object of the second part of the clause was in certain cases to give one of the parties a light of moving for a new trial. The House, however, had evinced a desire that these decisions should be arrived at as speedily as possible, and that when arrived at they should be final. The first part of the clause be should certainly recommend to the House if the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to strike out the second part.
§ MR. AYRTONconsented to the course proposed.
§ Clause amended, and added.
§ MR. NEATEproposed a clause (As to corrupt practices committed by voters), making the hiring or inducing any persons or person to disturb any meeting at which any candidate shall attend, or be expected to attend, a corrupt practice within the meaning of the 17th section of the Act.
§ Clause (Hiring persons to disturb meeting a corrupt practice,)—(Mr. Neate,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ MR. DISRAELItrusted that the House would not consent to constituting mere noise a corrupt practice. [Mr. NEATE: The hiring.] The hiring would have to be proved.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEE, in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate), moved the following clause:— 1676
Whenever any person or persons shall have been reported by the Judges to have been guilty of corrupt practices, the Attorney General shall institute against such persons or person such proceedings as the Law will allow.
§ Clause (Attorney General to prosecute persons reported guilty of corrupt practices,)—(Mr. Neate,)—brought up, and read the first time.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALpresumed the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) had not moved the clause because he had discovered it was unnecessary. It would be observed that the Law Officers should be compelled to prosecute in every case, where perhaps the evidence was only that of a person bribed, and where no jury would convict.
§ MR. J. STUART MILLthought it very important that some official person should be charged with the duty of considering whether a prosecution was necessary or not.
§ MR. BOUVERIEthought it better that the House should be left to decide what action should be taken on the report of the Judge.
§ CAPTAIN ARCHDALLexpressed his apprehension that the provisions of the measure would not be sufficiently stringent to prevent violence and intimidation in Ireland. The House would remember the successful opposition got up the other day to the proposal of his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland to increase the number of polling-places, and they would also bear in mind the endeavours made a short time ago to pass a Bill which would have deprived the Government of the power of employing the military at the elections in Ireland. What the object in both cases was he would leave the House to judge. It was clear that if the polling-places were not increased, and the Government could not employ the military at elections, mob rule would prevail, and a free election would be in many cases impossible. Thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, there would be an unusual amount of party heat at the forthcoming elections in Ireland. It was too late now for a private Member to do anything to improve this Bill; but if he could he would make clerical interferences at elections in Ireland a misdemeanour, except in the case of the election in Trinity College. Further, he would make it compulsory on a Committee to unseat any Member at whose election, 1677 there had been violence, intimidation, or clerical interference, because some recent decisions of Election Committees had created an impression in Ireland that those practices were not only sanctioned but approved by the House of Commons.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN moved, in Clause 23, line 30, after "deputy," to insert "and in Ireland a shorthand writer to be named by the Court." He said there were many competent shorthand writers in Ireland, and to send over members of Gurney's staff would be like sending coals to Newcastle.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, that as in these cases so much would depend upon accuracy, and as uniformity in the manner in which the Reports were to be presented to the House would be very desirable, he thought the Amendment ought not to be adopted.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid he would not press the Amendment, as the Bill was only a temporary one.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
§ MR. J. LOWTHER moved to add to Clause 43 words providing that any canvasser or agent who had been convicted by a competent tribunal of corrupt practices should, in the event of his procuring an engagement in a like capacity at any future Election, be held to be guilty of a misdemeanour, and be punishable accordingly.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 36, after the word "void," to add the words "and such canvasser or agent shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, while disclaiming all sympathy with the class against whom the Amendment was directed, pointed out the inexpediency of punishing in too harsh a manner offences committed under the Bill. According to the Amendment, canvassers or agents who had been declared guilty of and been punished for corrupt practices would, if engaged again within a period of seven years, be liable to two years' imprisonment. Surely so severe a punishment was neither more nor less than injustice.
§ ME. SERJEANT GASELEEsupported the Amendment, being of opinion that punishment ought to be inflicted upon 1678 agents who prowled about for the purpose of taking in innocent candidates.
§ MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he hoped the House would divide, as the country would like to see the names of the hon. Members who thought it was too severe a course to punish an agent or canvasser who, having been guilty of corrupt practices in one election, procured similar employment in a subsequent election.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he was not afraid of voting against this proviso notwithstanding the observations of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill). He should have had no objection to persons who had been directly convicted of corrupt practices by a jury being rendered incapable of employment at subsequent elections; but it would be nothing short of injustice to inflict such a penalty on a person who, perhaps, had only incidentally and in a rough and ready kind of way been found guilty by an Election Committee.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he thought the House ought to be extremely cautious in manufacturing new misdemeanours. He should vote against the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 105: Majority 13.
§ MR. FAWCETTrose to move the following new clause:—
§
(Conditions of nomination.)
That it shall not be lawful for any person to be nominated as a candidate at any such Election, unless he or some person on his behalf shall have paid to the returning officer the sum of one hundred pounds to be applied in the following manner (that is to say): where a poll shall take place at any such Election, the returning officer shall apply the monies so paid to him by any such candidate who shall not, at the close of the poll, have received a number of votes equal at least to one-fifth part of the votes received by the successful candidate if only one, or by such one of the successful candidates if there shall be more than one, as shall have received the smallest number of votes, in and towards defraying the lawful expenses of the returning officer relating to such Election; and after any such Election the returning officer shall forthwith repay to any such candidate who shall have been declared elected without a poll, or who, whether declared elected or not, shall have received a number of votes equal at least to such fifth part, the monies so paid by or for him as aforesaid.
The hon. Member said, his object was to prevent unnecessary expense being thrown upon localities by the nomination of candidates who presented themselves to consti-
1679
tuencies for the mere purpose of obtaining notoriety and without any prospect of success. The object of this proviso was to protect the constituencies from being put to unnecessary expense by men of straw being proposed as candidates. He was perfectly willing to accept any alterations in the details of the proviso that might be made by the general wish of the House. If the sum of £100 was thought too small, lie should assent to its being increased, and if it should be thought too large he should be equally willing that it should be reduced. Ho should also be willing that the candidate who was nominated, but did not demand a poll, should not forfeit so much as the candidate who, after demanding a poll, did not go to it. Then, with regard to what was a reasonable amount of support, he had come to the conclusion that it would be sufficient if the candidate obtained one-fifth of the votes that were obtained by the successful candidate who was the lowest upon the poll; but here again he was ready to defer to the opinion of the House, and to increase the proportion to one-quarter or one-third, or reduce it to one-sixth or one-eighth. lie had no objection to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lowther), nor to that of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. W. B. Beaumont.) The proviso of the latter required that no money should be deposited in the first instance; but that if a candidate should not poll a reasonable number of votes he should pay his share of the expenses. lie begged to move that the words of the new clause should be added to Clause 53.
§
Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 35, after the word "Act," to add the words—
It shall not be lawful for any person to be nominated as a candidate at any such Election, unless he or some person on his behalf shall hare paid to the returning officer the sum of one hundred pounds to be applied in the following manner."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he did not think the sum fixed by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) was large enough. He thought that the amount of the deposit required should be increased to £300 in counties and £150 in boroughs.
§ MR. W. B. BEAUMONTsaid, that the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton tended to infringe the right of every elector 1680 to propose and second any person whom he might deem worthy to represent him. They all must be anxious to prevent "straw candidates" from being proposed at elections at the last moment, which would entail an unnecessary expenditure upon the constituencies, and therefore he proposed that in the case of a candidate not polling a reasonable number of votes he should be liable to pay his share of the election expenses, as was the case at present. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 35, after the word "Act," to add the words—
Provided, every candidate who shall not have polled one-fifth of the total number of Electors voting at any Election for a County or a Borough shall be liable (in the same way as if this Act had not passed) for his share of the expenses lawfully incurred by the returning officers for the provision of hustings, poll clerks, polling booths or rooms, and any other requisites for the conduct of the Election."—(Mr. Beaumont.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. CANDLISHsaid, he thought the proviso of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) would impose an obstacle to free election, and he hoped he would withdraw his Amendment in favour of that proposed by the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. W. B. Beaumont).
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment in deference to what was clearly the general wish of the House.
§ Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.
ME. BERESFORD HOPEsuggested the possibility of a person being nominated in his absence by those who wished to render him liable for these expenses, and proposed to amend the proviso by inserting the words "nominated with his own consent."
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he also wished to guard against persons being put to expense by being nominated without their consent. Unless a candidate polled one-third of the votes of the whole constituency he ought to be required to pay a share of the expenses. He therefore moved to amend the proviso of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. W. B. Beaumont) by substituting "one-third" for "one-fifth." He thought there was very few constituencies in which a man could not obtain a fifth of the votes, and therefore ho thought one-third would be the better proportion to fix.
§ Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the word "fifth," in order to insert the word "third,"—(Mr. James Lowther,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 1 fifth' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYremarked that in the event of the proposition of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lowther) being adopted, if there were more than three candidates in a constituency of 9,000 electors they might all be fined, including those who were successful.
§ VISCOUNT AMBERLEYopposed the Amendment on the ground that it put the proportion too high.
§ MB. FAWCETTpointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Member for York proposed that each candidate, in order to escape paying his share of the expenses, must poll one-third of the whole constituency, whereas his proposition had been that the candidate should only be required to poll one-fifth of the number of votes polled by the successful candidate who stood the lowest on the poll.
§ MR. LOWTHERsaid, he could not see the force of the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary; but he would withdraw his Amendment, in the hope that his so doing would lead the more certainly to the rejection of the original Clause 53.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he hoped that before the House divided some Member who was acquainted with the facts would say whether a man nominated against his will would not be liable to pay under this amended clause, supposing he came within it.
§ MR. W. B. BEAUMONT, in order to meet that objection, proposed to add the words "that the proposer and seconder of a candidate who shall have been nominated without his consent shall be liable to pay such expenses."
§ Amendment to the said proposed Amendment and proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 35, after the word "Act," to add the words—
Provided, That every unsuccessful candidate who shall not have polled one-fifth of the total
1682
number of Electors voting at any Election for a County or a Borough shall be liable (in the same way as if this Act had not passed) for his share of the expenses lawfully incurred by the returning officers for the provision of hustings, poll clerks, polling booths or rooms, and any other requisites for the conduct of the Election, and the proposer and seconder of such candidate (who shall have been nominated without his consent) shall in like manner be liable for such aforesaid share."—(Mr. Beaumont.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added.
§ MR. CRAWFORDinformed the House that on one occasion he had been nominated for the city of London without his consent, when between 3,000 and 4,000 voters polled for him. He declined to pay his share of the expenses of the election; but had only escaped paying them after some difficulty.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, the fact of a man not polling a reasonable number of votes was a tolerably good proof that he ought never to have been a candidate at all, and therefore he ought to pay the expenses to which he had unnecessarily put the constituency.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought the nominator and seconder of a candidate who did not poll a certain number of votes ought to be compelled to pay a share of the expenses of the election. The amount of the deposit required ought to be £300 for counties, and half that amount for boroughs.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that by the clause to which this Amendment related they had thrown the expenses of the polling and the hustings upon the rates; but they were now in this difficulty, that everybody felt they ought to prevent persons coming forward and throwing the expenses on the rates, who in point of fact ought not to stand at all. The object of the Amendment was to prevent men of straw from coming forward; but what security did it afford against such a thing happening? They had no deposit and indeed no security of any kind. He therefore objected to the Amendment, because it afforded no sort of security whatever, and must, in his opinion, be entirely ineffectual.
§ MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, that according to his experience, polling-places constituted a very great and serious expense. He thought it hard that the returning officer should be mulcted for performing his duty, and that the ratepayers should have to pay for the hustings, while it was a monstrous injustice that the suc- 1683 cessful candidate should have to pay because another man wished to make a speech. It would be no consolation to any of these parties to learn that the man who came forward on the hustings and put them to all this expense was liable, if that man were, as he oftentimes might be, merely a man of straw.
§ CAPTAIN HAYTERsaid, the difficulty might be got over by making the mover and seconder as well as the candidate liable for the expenses. There would then be. three instead of only one security.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he objected to the whole proposal, because they had by the clause which was in the Bill, and which they were going to discuss presently, thrown the expense upon the ratepayers. It was contended that these expenses ought not to be thrown upon a candidate, and no doubt a great deal might be said in favour of a proposition which was especially popular with candidates when a General Election was approaching. But then they had this bugbear. If they saved themselves, would not anybody who wished to enjoy a little fun, or, perhaps, from a feeling of strong opposition, spring up and land them in a contest for which there was no sort of reason or sense? Ho had heard it said that they ought, if possible, to prevent any opposition being made unless that opposition had a chance of success; but this doctrine, he contended, was unconstitutional. Indeed, it was the constitutional duty of a minority, if they felt discontented with the opinions of the favoured candidate, to bring forward a candidate of their own, irrespective of all considerations as to the proportion of the constituency that they were likely to poll. The House had no right to limit the choice of candidates as it was now proposed to do, by saying that a man should be fined unless he polled a certain number of votes.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREremarked that the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouvcrie) might be constitutional; but they certainly could not be regarded as practical. It would be a great absurdity to allow a small number of electors to put the candidates and the other electors to great expense. The evident intention of the Solicitor General was to throw as many difficulties as he could in the way, in order to prevent the final acceptance by the House of the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), and which had been carried by two very large majorities. 1684 ["Oh, oh!"] He suggested that any difficulty which really existed might be met by providing that any person demanding a poll should, either by himself or by the person who nominated him, give good security for a certain sum.
§ MR. BONHAM-CARTERsaid, some such proviso as that proposed was absolutely necessary, because it frequently happened, as in the case of an opponent of his on a former election, that a candidate was thrust on the constituency. The candidate was unable to pay the expenses, and after the election was over he left; but he had, however, afterwards to pay on an actual arrest and imprisonment. Had the mover and seconder been liable there would have been a security.
§ VISCOUNT AMBERLEYinstanced the case of a candidate in whose favour three votes were recorded. It was evident that there would be as much security for the hustings expenses from such a candidate under this clause as there was under the present system.
§ MR. REARDENregarded this as an attempt to fine any working men who might come forward as candidates.
§ MR. NEATEreminded the House that the expenses of polling-pooths had been thrown on the candidate by the Act of 1832 as a compromise. Formerly the constituency bore the expense on the principle that the representative performed a public duty, but then the candidate paid heavily for carrying voters to the central I polling-places.
MR. LOCKE KINGsuggested that i words should be introduced requiring all the candidates to guarantee the payment of the expenses, so as to prevent men of) straw from offering themselves as candidates.
§ MR. LEEMANsaid, the object was to prevent the nomination of persons having; no reasonable chance of being returned. ', He therefore moved, in substitution of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northumberland, a proviso requiring that any person demanding a poll should pay, or give security for, to the returning officer£100 in the case of boroughs, and £200 in the case of counties, which should be used towards defraying the expenses of the election if such candidate did not poll one-fifth of the votes registered.
§
Amendment proposed to the said pro-| posed Amendment, to leave out from the word "every" to the end of the proposed Amendment, in order to insert the words—
1685
Candidate or other person demanding a poll at any Election for any County or Borough shall on demand by the returning officer pay or secure to his satisfaction one hundred pounds in the case of a Borough, and two hundred pounds in the case of a County, which shall be applied by the returning officer in aid towards the expenses of such Election, in case such candidate shall not poll one-fifth of the constituency."—(Mr. Leeman.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
§ MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, it was but a repetition of an Amendment that had been withdrawn.
MR. HEADLAMhoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) would not be pressed, as it was in reality simply the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton repeated. The object of the House was to press forward, and he did not think they could hope for a clearer proposition than the hon. Member for Northumberland's.
§ MR. J. STUART MILLthought the object which the hon. Member for York had in view would be sufficiently attained by the proposal of the hon. Member for Northumberland.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEthought the Amendment of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) a very reasonable proposal, though he did not think that £100 in the case of a borough, or £200 in the case of a county, would be sufficient, as there would be so large a number of polling-places under the new regiéme.
§ MR. LEEMANsaid, he was ready to withdraw his Amendment, though he felt convinced that of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. W. B. Beaumont) would not meet the necessities of the case.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Question put—
That the words 'Provided That every unsuccessful candidate who shall not have polled one-fifth of the total number of Electors voting at any Election for a County or a Borough shall be liable (in the same way as if this Act had not passed) for his share of the expenses lawfully incurred by the returning officers for the provision of hustings, poll clerks, polling booths or rooms, and any other requisites for the conduct of the Election, and the proposer and seconder of such candidate (who shall have been nominated without his consent) shall in like manner be liable for such aforesaid share,' be there added.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 119: Majority 9.
1686§ MR. MONK moved an Amendment to provide that one moiety of such expense shall be defrayed as heretofore by the candidate or candidates. [''No, no!"] He thought it would be a safeguard both to the candidate and to those who had to collect the rates.
§
Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 35, after the word "Act," to add the words—
Provided always, That one moiety of such expenses shall be defrayed as heretofore by the candidate or candidates at such Election."—(Mr. Monk.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. WHITEsaid, the amount of expenses of returning officers in the whole of the counties of England and Wales at the last General Election was £15,655; in Scotland, £939; and in Ireland £2,239, making a total of £18,833. The expenses of the boroughs in England and Wales were £26,375; in Scotland, £1,206; and in Ireland, £1,004, making a total of £28,585. The aggregate total for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was £47,418. These sums represented in England and Wales 6d. per county and 1s. per borough voter, and in Scotland 4½d. per county and 8d. per borough elector. According to the official electoral statistics and Poor Law Returns, the total expenses to be defrayed by the ratepayers would vary in counties from one-sixth to one-twentieth of 1d. in the pound; in boroughs from one-tenth to one-third of 1d. in the pound. In Brighton, if Parliaments were triennial and there were always a contest, the annual charge on the ratepayers would not amount to one-eighth of 1d. in the pound.
§ MR. DISRAELIremarked that this was merely the reproduction of an Amendment which had already been before the House, and in regard to which a decision had been arrived at either in form or in spirit. Now, although it was not desirable to check anything like legitimate discussion, yet he was certainly of opinion that the House ought to refrain from debating matters on which it had recently come to a decision. He should vote against the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman if it were pressed to a division.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1687
§
VISCOUNT MILTON moved the following clause:—
(Levying of county rate where county is divided.)
In case the county for which the county rate is made is or shall be divided into two or more parts for Parliamentary representation, the same 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 an Election shall take place; and the justices or 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 an Election shall have taken place, and in issuing the 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 leviable and recoverable in like manner and as part of the county rate.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he did not suppose that the noble Lord could understand the argument which he adduced on this subject the other day. ["Oh, oh !"] He merely meant that the noble Lord could hardly be expected to follow the bearings of an argument founded on the obsure and intricate clauses of a rating Act of Parliament. Without repeating that argument, he would merely remark that in his judgment the clause would not work, and was inconsistent with the existing machinery of the county rates. The Act under which alone the county rate could be levied said that it must be an equal rate—assessed equally upon every parish, and upon all the property in each parish of the county.
MR. HEADLAMbelieved that there would not be the slightest difficulty in working a clause of this kind.
§ MR. NEATEthought the Solicitor General ought not to have interposed petty technical difficulties. He wished to say a few words founded on common sense and justice—though he did not expect that the hon. and learned Gentleman would understand his argument, as it dealt with a matter of principle and not of detail. If the county magistrates could not assess the rate proposed, they had less administrative power than he gave them credit for.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was quite sure there would be no difficulty in working the clause as note amended, though that was altogether a separate question from the proposed Amendment. On the whole, lie thought the fairest way would be for each division to pay its own expenses, and he saw no practical difficulty in it. The 1688 Under Sheriff would bring in his Bill, which would go in the usual way to the Finance Committee, by whom it would be audited.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, the Solicitor General had told him the same thing on former Amendments—that they were not workable—but there was no real difficulty.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he had now to move to omit Clause 53. The House must feel that they had exhausted the question, and that the opinion of every man was already made up, and therefore he would simply make the Motion.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 53, as amended.—(Mr. Solicitor General.)
§ MR. LABOUCHERErose to Order. The Bill as it now stood provided that the cost of the hustings, &c, should be borne by the whole of the ratepayers, and the Solicitor General's Amendment to omit the clause would throw the burden on a certain limited number of persons. He submitted that the Amendment altering as it did the incidence of taxation, could not now be proposed.
§ MR. SPEAKERdecided that it was quite competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman to propose the rejection of the clause, as the omission of the clause would have the effect of relieving the ratepayers of a charge which it was proposed to place upon them.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, in moving the rejection of the clause, said, he understood that the clause was supported on the general ground that the position of a Member of Parliament was one which it was a duty and not a privilege to occupy, and that therefore the ratepayers ought to pay the expenses as being a public charge. But he could not understand how a man, after going with his cap in his hand to an elector and saying, "If you vote for me, you will confer on me the greatest possible favour," could ask that man to pay his share of the expenses. If this clause were sanctioned, candidates would come forward merely for the purpose of creating expense—knowing that they would not be liable to pay anything themselves, but that all the expense would be thrown on the ratepayers. After all the fruitless efforts which had been made that morning to frame a proviso which would render the clause acceptable, he thought he was justified in moving its omission.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, the question really involved was one of far more importance than the acceptance or rejection of any clause in a Bill, and involved the position of independent Members of that House. Why did the Prime Minister say he would move the rejection of this clause? The Solicitor General thought he had a majority behind him, and he hardly deigned to offer a single argument; a division would be hurried on, and discussion, if possible, would be burked. If it had not been for the large attendance of Members who were waiting for another Bill to come on that evening (the Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market Bill), he believed he should, for a third lime, have beaten the Government. After his clause was carried, he I had consented to withdraw the proviso at the end, in reference to the deposit of expenses, in order to meet the wishes of, Members and the convenience of the House; and he hoped that those who recollected 'the circumstances would not be deterred from voting with him. The clause was objected to on the ground that it would impose a heavy burden on the constituencies; but the fact was that a rate of half a farthing in boroughs and a quarter of a farthing in counties would far more than discharge those expenses, and a General Election occurred only about once in four years. By retaining this clause, they would interest the constituencies so much in economy that the necessary expenses would not be more than half what they were at present. If the constituencies had to pay for the hustings, they would either have the nomination in a public room or substantial hustings would be erected once for all, and the expense would not exceed £5, instead of probably being £150. It was said that the clause would be favourable to vexatious contests; but he utterly denied this. At present these were got up by a class of publicans and solicitors who had an interest in them from what they made by them; but under this clause the candidate would be brought face to face with public opinion, and would have no interest in resisting it. The working of the clause therefore would decidedly diminish the tendency to contests. The Solicitor General's representation of the position of a candidate was degrading to public men, and most humiliating. He should receive some compensation even if defeated, because this renewed discussion would tell the country in an unmistakable way what were the doctrines which in- 1690 duced the Government to seek to reverse the decision of the House. ["Divide!"] There was no expression of public opinion against the clause, and he could produce resolutions passed at twenty public meetings declaring in favour of the principle. If they reversed the decision already come to, it would more and more show that that House was becoming the rich man's House and not the poor man's. ["Oh, oh !"] If the House was properly to represent the country, each class in the country should be represented in it. He wished to see capital and labour represented there; and no one could effectually represent labour except a person who had been for some time himself a working man. He appealed to Members to remember what had occurred, and how he had carried this clause on two divisions. The Government did everything they could up to Tuesday night, at half-past eleven o'clock—he would not say intentionally—to induce the House to think that they would not seek to reverse the decision come to on Saturday last. Even a Member of the Government had given Notice of his intention—though he did not persevere in it—to introduce a similar clause with respect to Scotland. Therefore, he asked Members to support the clause, and in doing so to support the privileges of independent Members.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he did not often agree with the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawereett); but on this occasion he thought he was right, and therefore he should give him his vote. The Reform Bill would, no doubt, much increase the expense of elections. Though the expenses of the returning officer might not be larger, yet, in order to affirm the principle that Membership of that House imposed a public duty, he should vote with the hon. Member for Brighton; but he thought some addition ought to be made to the clause, to prevent men of straw being set up as candidates. He deeply regretted that the Amendment of the hon. Member for York had been withdrawn.
§ MR. P. A. TAYLORsupported the clause, and protested against the idea of the Solicitor General that independent Members went hat in hand to their constituents seeking their support, instead of offering their services when great public duties had to be performed. The constituents, entirely recognizing this fact, were ready to have the necessary expenses of elections thrown on their shoulders.
§ MR. J. STUART MILLIf the Government were aware of the profound feeling of satisfaction that went forth through the country on learning that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton was carried, they would, instead of imposing any technical objection in the way of the passing of the clause, introduce a Bill, if necessary, for the purpose of giving it effect, and pass it through both Houses, as they could easily do, within a week. The representative of an extensive constituency remarked to me that the adoption of the clause marked the commencement of a purer era, and would bring forward: more eligible candidates.
§ COLONEL B. KNOXprotested against being rated for the purpose of saving the pocket of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. J. Stuart Mill).
MR. MELLYreminded the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel B. Knox) that no legislation could affect the expenses incurred at the election of the hon. Member for Westminster, inasmuch as the hon. Gentleman had been returned, and would be again, at the expense of his friends and supporters.
§ Question put, "That Clause 53, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 115: Majority 18.
§ MR. NEATE moved the adjournment of the debate. His hon. Friends on the Liberal side of the House were as guilty of connivance at corrupt practices as those on the other side. [" Oh, oh !"] He did not wish to include all the Liberal party in that denunciation. His object in moving the adjournment of the debate was that those who wished to introduce purity and economy at Parliamentary Elections might have an opportunity of doing so.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned till Monday next."—(Mr. Neate.)
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member did not include him in his denunciation. He trusted his hon. and learned Friend would not persevere in his Motion. At the same time, he would say that the hon. and learned Member could scarcely himself attach more importance than he (Mr. Gladstone) did to the subject on which they had just divided; and no person could more cordially feel with him than he did. If the hon. Member 1692 for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) chose to try the question again, he could do so; and the question was, whether they should lose time in pressing forward a Bill which they must all feel was necessary.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
§ House adjourned at a quarter after Nine o'clock.