§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."—(Mr. W. E. Forster.)
§ MR. LIDDELLsaid, he did not on the present occasion propose to enter at large upon the principle of the Bill, as there was an understanding that the discussion on the principle should be postponed until the Motion for going into Committee. In deference to that understanding he would not refer to it further than to describe it shortly as a measure completely revolutionizing the entire representative system. But he must venture, with all submission, to complain of the course which was about to be taken. When he considered the great scope and probable results of the legislation now proposed, he could not but think that the course about to be taken in respect to the Bill was highly objectionable, and would establish a very bad precedent; and it was liable to misconstruction in the country, for the very fact of reading the Bill a second time nemine contradicente was calculated to give it an artificial advantage to which it was not entitled, and of which he feared it had no need. He, therefore, expressed his earnest hope that those who were the traditional opponents by principle and feeling of such a Bill as the present would not, by allowing the second reading to pass at the present moment without comment, be held to be 1051 supine or ready to waive at any stage, when the principle of the Bill should be discussed, their stern and unswerving opposition to it. He regretted that they should have been brought into the position in which they now found themselves in consequence of the Prime Minister having fixed the second reading of the Bill for a night when a large number of Members were necessarily absent on important and unavoidable business—namely, the Quarter Sessions. The only option given to the House if they choose not to accept this arrangement was to sit through Passion Week for the purpose of proceeding with the measure. That was a proposition which the House would naturally decline, and therefore they found themselves now passing the second reading sub silentio. He could quite understand that the Prime Minister, earnest and sincere as he believed him to be in endeavouring to advance the legislation required by the country, and backed by a powerful majority, might feel chafed and irritated at the slow progress of Public Business; but he would, with great deference, ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the present indisposition of the House to share in his zeal for the advance of legislation was not significant that the supply of legislation was somewhat in excess of the wants of the country? He would take this very Bill upon which to found an argument. The Bill had reference to the dissolution of Parliament and the conduct of a General Election. That was an event for which the Government were not likely to have any great desire, nor was it likely to occur very shortly; therefore he ventured to think public interest would not suffer one iota if this Bill gave place to more pressing legislation for some time to come. The list of measures on to-day's Paper would afford ample occupation for a whole Session; indeed, some of them were of such magnitude and involved such large interests that one Session would hardly suffice to carry them into law. He, therefore, repeated there was an overplus of legislation, and if that were diminished the whole of the difficulties in which they found themselves would disappear, and they would no longer hear of the Leaders of the House in high places making propositions and suggesting schemes entirely at variance with the feelings and habits of Englishmen. That was not the time; but the 1052 time would come for discussing those schemes which were rendered necessary only by the extra amount of legislation which was laid on the Table. He would not detain the House further. But in behalf of those—and there were many—who were passive but rather unwilling parties to the arrangement to-night, he claimed the fairest and fullest opportunity of stating their objections to the principles of this Bill, which he could only describe as antagonistic alike to their principles, feelings, and traditions.
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he was one of those who had all along consistently opposed the Ballot, and would continue to do so. He should like to have heard from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who for a vast number of years had also consistently opposed it, the reasons they had for turning round and supporting this most objectionable Bill. They had a most able speech from the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill (Mr. W. E. Forster), and who had been a consistent supporter of the Ballot; but there were those sitting around him who had not always been so; and though he was quite willing to admit that every man had a right to change his opinion, he thought they had a right to expect from these hon. Gentlemen some stronger reasons than had yet been adduced why so great a change had occurred in their sentiments with regard to legislation on this subject. He adhered to what he stated the other evening, that it would have been a gracious and courteous act on the part of the Prime Minister if, knowing the feeling of the large majority on that side of the House in relation to this Bill, he had postponed the second reading till after Easter. The right hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, the best judge of how to conduct the Business of the House; but if he thought that by forcing on the second reading of this measure he would advance it one iota towards a satisfactory conclusion he was certainly very much mistaken. If it had been put down for after Easter they could then have fairly discussed the measure upon its merits, instead of being obliged to pursue the very objectionable course of having to discuss it upon going into Committee. Did hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who always headed their election addresses "To the free and independent electors," 1053 think their constituents were now less free and independent than they were before the late Reform Bill, and could they not now be trusted to give their votes freely and independently like Englishmen? He should have been ashamed to bring in a Bill of this kind, which had so often been rejected by large majorities in that House. Now, they had got an increased constituency, requiring most careful handling to see that there was no personation or bribery, which generally followed personation; he said this was no time to bring in a Bill of this kind. He was one of those who trusted his fellow-countrymen to give their votes, as a sacred and honourable thing ought to be given, in the face of day. He would, therefore, on every occasion, consistently and persistently oppose this Bill.
§ MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, there was one remark made by the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) which ought not to pass unnoticed, and from which he totally dissented. The hon. Member said because a dissolution was not impending there was no reason for pressing forward this Bill. Now he, on the other hand, regretted very much that this Bill did not pass last year, and he should very much regret if it did not pass this year; for it was of the utmost importance that the constituencies should get thoroughly acquainted with the machinery of the Bill in the bye elections which might take place before a General Election occurred. It was perfectly impossible to adopt a perfect measure at first, and therefore the sooner this Bill was passed the more perfect they would be able to make it before a General Election.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Barttelot) would not consider the arguments he had brought forward against this Bill as irresistible because he did not now attempt to answer them. In consequence of the arrangement which had been come to the House did not expect that they should go into a full debate to-night, and where there was not a full debate a partial debate was often very inconvenient. Consequently, it was from no disrespect to the hon. and gallant Member that he took no notice of the—to him—somewhat novel argument addressed to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. With respect to the reason 1054 why they had consented to the arrangement to take the discussion on the principle of this Bill upon going into Committee was, that it suited the convenience of hon. Members to do so; had the discussion been taken to-night many of those who took interest in the matter would not have been present. And as to the demands on the House for legislation, however anxious the Government might be to consult the convenience of Members, if the business of the country was to be transacted, they must proceed with the Bills very much in the order in which they had been brought forward. The hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) had given the answer to his own objection when he said that there was a great demand at present upon the House for legislation. The country really expected legislation in many important matters, and it would be impossible to do their duty in that respect unless they pressed forward measures with all convenient speed. There were two questions coming on this evening which would tax the energies of the House—the subject of local taxation and the licensing system—neither of which could well be postponed, and it was not the opinion of hon. Members on his side the House, nor of a vast number of persons in the country, that the present Bill was one that could be put off. He could assure hon. Members that it was the desire and the expectation of the Government that there should be a full debate on the merits of the Bill on the Motion to go into Committee; but this was not a Bill as to which it was desirable that there should be two debates on the principle, and there would not be any real inconvenience in taking the debate after Easter on the later stage. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Liddell) need not be alarmed at the idea that he would be supposed to have given up his opposition to the Ballot, for he could negative that supposition on the adjourned debate; and, for himself, he should be glad to avail himself of the opportunity of defending the principle of the Ballot; for though he was not sanguine enough to hope he should be able to adduce arguments which would convince the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), it was possible that the arguments which had convinced right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench, who had not advocated the 1055 Ballot so long as he had done, might have the effect of convincing other hon. Members. He quite concurred with his hon. Friend (Mr. Locke King) that there was a special advantage in taking the Bill this year, because, with the utmost endeavours on the part of the Government and of the House, it was not likely that at first they could make the machinery of the Bill perfect, and it would, therefore, be advisable that it should be tried by special election before it was tried by a General Election. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Liddell) seemed to suppose that the passing of a Ballot Bill would necessitate a dissolution. But that could only happen in one of two ways—a General Election could be necessitated first by the defeat of the Government on an important measure, or by the passing of a measure effecting a complete revolution in our electoral system; but the Ballot Bill, important though it was, did not affect either the person voting or the person voted for; it merely affected the machinery of voting, and he was at a loss to see why a Bill which merely affected the machinery of voting should necessitate a dissolution. He would propose to-morrow to commit the Bill pro formâ, for the purpose of certain amendments, which, however, were not matters of great importance. One of them was the introduction of a line that a person who was engaged in taking votes should not be allowed to state who had not voted during the time that voting was going on. It was thought by persons of experience that that prevention would do much towards checking attempts at personation, because the danger of personation would be increased if the would-be offender did not know whether the voter whom he wished to personate had voted or not. He should also wish to introduce clauses to meet the special circumstances of Scotland. The Bill, as amended, would be circulated immediately on the re-assembling of Members after the Easter Recess.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had failed to apprehend the point of the hon. Member's observations. Granting the courtesy of the Government, and that this stage of the Bill was being taken without debate by agreement between both sides of the House, he, as an independent Member, must back what had been said, and urge 1056 that it was setting a dangerous precedent to slur over the stage of the second reading of any Bill of importance, inasmuch as to do so was to sacrifice one of the safeguards provided by the forms of the House for a fair and complete examination of every measure. The forms of the House permitted discussion and division on the second reading, and also on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, because there might have been miscarriage or surprise in the first division, or because circumstances might have arisen subsequently, such as to render it desirable that the opinion of the House should be taken a second time. It was inconsistent with the principle which underlay the forms of the House to forego discussion on the second reading of a Bill of importance, because a number of hon. Members might be absent, attending Quarter Sessions, and to take the main division on the Motion to go into Committee. Such capriciousness destroyed confidence in the forms of the House, and therefore he protested against it. Hon. Members on both sides were to blame in this instance; but, as the agreement had been made, he acquiesced in it, though not silently. It was formerly a time-saving practice to take a division on the introduction of a private Member's Bill, but that custom was nearly obsolete, and he supposed we should end in passing measures through both Houses without debate, and throwing them at the foot of the Throne in the hope that they would receive the Royal Assent. Perhaps this was an extreme supposition; but, at all events, he protested against the proceeding of to-night. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that the Bill affected merely the machinery of voting; but the alteration of the machinery of voting all over the country was a matter that was of gigantic importance.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope) would have a long life if he lived until the House passed measures sub silentio, for the tendency of the House was rather to multiply occasions for discussions, and to protract debates upon matters which formerly would have been disposed of in a few minutes. The hon. Member seemed to be unreasonable, for he assented to the agreement, which he admitted had been made for the convenience of both sides of the House and for the despatch of Business; and if the 1057 Opposition were determined to discuss the principle of the Bill at this stage, there would be no alternative but to yield and to proceed with the discussion. But hon. Members did not move the rejection of the Bill; in fact, while protesting they still agreed, and they were therefore out of Court, and had no right to complain that the second reading was to be taken as proposed.
§ MR. G. BENTINCKagreed that this was not the proper time to discuss the merits of the Bill; but he must say that hon. Members on his side of the House had a right to express their objections to the arrangement, because in coming into it they had acted under compulsion. As to the suggestion that the passing of this Bill would necessitate a dissolution, there was no instance on record of a self-condemned House of Commons continuing to legislate for the country, and you could not pass a more sweeping condemnation upon the House than by condemning the mode in which it had been elected. Therefore, if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen flattered themselves that they were to sit on and not to see the operation of the Ballot for two or three years after the Bill passed, he apprehended that they were very much mistaken. He believed that the course to be taken now was at variance with the practice and with the courtesy of the House, for the practice was not to read such measures a second time without discussion, and the courtesy was not to turn a deaf ear to appeals made from both sides of the House when hon. Members were compelled to absent themselves from the House by business over which they had no control. We had heard of a factious opposition; but there might be such a thing as a factious Government, and, after the course to be taken to-night, the Government would have no right to complain if hon. Members availed themselves of the forms of the House in opposing this measure.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) who represented the Government with respect to the measure, had urged upon the House the demand, which he represented as being made by the country for legislation on the subject. He admitted that there was a great demand for legislation, but it was a demand for the revision of the licensing system, and a loud demand for an alteration of the incidence 1058 of local taxation. In the course of the last two years they had had abundant evidence of demand from the country for those measures; but he denied that there was any eager demand for an alteration in the system of voting. Of that they had had no evidence whatever, since the great changes that had been made in the electoral law by the recent Reform Act. It was his firm conviction that the country believed that the House of Commons had acted honestly with the view to suppressing corruption and bribery. In fact, the severity of the recent Statutes had, in great measure, astonished the constituencies; but before the repressive effect had been fully ascertained, they were asked again to go back to this old nostrum. He admitted that it had been brought forward in former years by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Government side of the House, and by some on the Ministerial Bench in consequence of agitation, but that agitation had died out—of its vitality they had now no evidence. They had heard nothing of it, indeed, since the great change effected in the electoral laws by the House through the late Reform Act, and the Act against corrupt practices. He repeated that they had heard nothing of this demand since the passing of those measures, and therefore he thought the excuse for taking the measure in Passion Week feeble, especially since they had on the Order Paper two other measures, for each of which there was and had been an active agitation going on in the country for some time. He must be allowed to observe also, that whatever might be the excuse which the right hon. Gentleman offered in support of reading the Bill pro formâ, they could not forget that the whole tendency of the measure, that the whole tendency of secret voting was to evade public opinion. He held that this country had been hitherto safely governed, because at every election a Return had been made, not according to the individual preferences of the electors, but by the public opinion of the electors of the locality; and it was for that reason, because he considered that to be a measure, the purpose of which was to evade the action of public opinion, that he felt so intense an objection to it. He objected also to the course taken by the Government, on account of the unseasonable period. They knew that the House was 1059 at present weak in the attendance of its Members, and they proposed the second reading of this Bill. He gave full credit to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) that there had been of late a disposition to carry discussions in that House to excess; still, if he remembered rightly, in the Select Committee on Public Business it was alleged, and truly, that the tendency might be abridged if the ancient practice of the House were adhered to, according to which the principle of every measure was discussed on the second reading, thereby clearing the subject for the consideration of its details in Committee. That was a sound opinion, and he heard it expressed but the other day in the Committee on Public Business. He deprecated taking the second reading of the measure now for many reasons, among others for this—the Bill had been spoken of as effecting a small change in the machinery at elections; but never yet had such arbitrary powers—nay, such dangerous powers, been entrusted by the Legislature to the returning officers, as would be conferred upon these officials by the Bill. He held that the right hon. Gentlemen who occupied the position of leaders of the Opposition did wrong in consenting to the second reading of the measure being taken in Passion Week. If there was a systematic agreement between those who fill the position of leaders of the Opposition and the Members of the Government to evade discussion of the principles of great measures, the action of the House would virtually be defeated. That action, by which the balance of opinion had hitherto been fairly elicited, would be lost. He stated that afternoon that the House was at present incapacitated by the necessary absence of many of its Members from deciding on the principle of the measure. He would not take a Division now, because it would be unfair; but he objected emphatically to the action of the Government, and to the consent of the leaders of the Opposition who, by urging the second reading of the measure, deprived the House of its legitimate opportunity for contesting the principle of the measure—a principle which he held to be most dangerous.
MR. GLADSTONEUndoubtedly an agreement between Gentlemen who sit on the Opposition side and those who 1060 occupy the Treasury Bench is not of a nature either to bind the free discretion of the House itself, nor must it be of necessity a right arrangement. I am bound, however, in the name of the freedom of the House, to protest against the doctrine laid down by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) that no important measure ought ever to be discussed in Passion Week. These abbreviations of our powers of action, by cutting off beyond what usage prescribes the first and last days of each of the short terms into which a Session is broken up, are matters which require to be watched. The hon. Gentleman cannot prove from the records of this House the existence of the canon he lays down, that important measures must not be discussed in Passion Week. The hon. Gentleman likewise objected to the Bill being proceeded with on the ground of the absence of many hon. Gentlemen at Quarter Sessions. Now, it is not possible for the Parliament of England to regulate its proceedings with reference to local arrangements of this nature. We regret exceedingly any collision between the duties of hon. Gentlemen here and elsewhere, and no Minister would be justified in disregarding circumstances of that kind if he could take them into account without any sacrifice of public convenience; but it is quite another thing to say that because a certain number of Quarter Sessions are to be held—not to-day, I believe, but to-morrow—the Government are precluded from going forward with an important Bill like this. The day, I may remark, is not of our choice. Circumstances beyond our control have deprived us of several preceding days on which we should have desired to bring the measure forward, and, looking to the rest of the business, we deemed it inconsistent with our duty to postpone it till after Easter. Undoubtedly it is part of the duty of the Government, with respect to the measures in their hands, to arrange the order in which they are to be taken, and if the Government did not arrange them they failed in their duty. It was our firm conviction that we ought to bring forward this Bill, as one of the heavier and bulkier measures of the Session, directly after the Army Regulation Bill. I need not refer to the challenge of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Barttelot), which requires argu- 1061 ments that may be more suitably adduced at another period; but in this conversation one point has been raised to which I must refer. My hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck) has laid down what he appears to regard as an unquestioned principle—namely, that if it should please the House to adopt the measure, the change thus introduced must be necessarily followed by dissolution. The hon. Gentleman endeavoured to sustain this theory by history and precedent. He always professes to be guided by history and precedent; but, on the contrary, he has departed from history and precedent altogether, for neither sanction this doctrine. It might be all very well to suspend this sword by a thread over their heads, and as his business is to find out everything which might dispose the mind of Parliament to reject the Bill, he conjures up this phantom of dissolution. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that again and again improvements of various kinds have been made in the methods of election, and that they have not disturbed in the slightest degree the comfort and satisfaction of the Members of this House. I suppose, therefore, the hon. Gentleman made use of that argument merely as a ruse of debate. It may be, however, that the hon. Gentleman is sincere, and actuated by a very deep and profound conviction, and that he himself, with his recent experience of elections, looks forward with dread to a very early return to his constituents. If so, I entreat him to tranquillize his own mind and to dismiss from it whatever conceptions of that kind may have disturbed it. I may say on behalf of the Government, and I believe I also speak the sentiments of Members on both sides of the House, that none of us entertain the foolish and wicked intention of cutting short the existence of the Parliament. I trust, then, we may be allowed to consider this Bill on its merits, and that we shall not be perplexed by idle and imaginative fears concocted and created by the sensitive mind of the hon. Gentleman.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that though he had not enjoyed so extensive an experience as the right hon. Gentleman, he had not been an inconsiderate spectator of what had transpired in this country for many years, and it was his deliberate opinion that the House would stand self-condemned if it passed 1062 this measure, for the reason that the Bill was brought forward for the purpose of showing the country and the constituencies that they had elected the present Parliament in error, and that so soon as they had the so-called protection of the Ballot it would be their duty to send representatives of a highly different complexion. He represented a large constituency which despised the Ballot—looked upon it as a sneaking measure against which Englishmen should set their faces, and which was only practised in countries inhabited by slaves. In America, so little did the inhabitants value the protection of the Ballot that they went to the voting places proclaiming for whom they intended to vote. Their great object was to pride themselves on the purity of the Ballot, and to vote early and often. He represented a constituency of 12,000 voters, and not one of them had ever said one word to him about the Ballot. At the election he had never heard of the Ballot, and he had never heard of the Ballot since. Under these circumstances, not only should he oppose the measure to the best of his ability, but he should avail himself of every form of the House to defeat it.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.