§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 28 (Application of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125 to this Act.)
§ MR. CHARLEYmoved, in page 18, line 24, after "in," insert "section 3 of," in order to direct attention to the Interpretation Clause, where it was stated what "corrupt practices" should mean.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Election Offences.
§ Clause 29 (Offences with respect to voting).
§ MR. CHARLEYmoved, in line 31, after "or," insert—
3. Falsely and deceitfully personates or applies for a ballot paper, or assumes to vote in the name of any other person whose name appears upon the register of electors, whether such other person shall then be living or dead, or the name of such other person be the name of a fictitious person.The hon. and learned Gentleman said, a highly penal code was being drawn up, and it was important to be careful in wording this clause, which should be separated into two parts—one relating to felonies, the other to misdemeanours. Personation and forgery were intimately associated, and were made felonies by 792 many statutes. The Vice President had said it would be too severe to visit personation with the same punishment as forgery; but a reference to Russell on Crimes would show that personation had always been regarded as an offence of the deepest dye. At an election personation was very serious, because one vote might decide the election of a Member, whose vote in that House might change the direction of legislation. Against unscrupulous persons who would resort to personation the Committee ought to protect themselves by inflicting a severe penalty.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the reason why the clause was drawn as it stood in the Bill was because the Government, while admitting that personation was a great offence, did not think it right to impose a severe punishment, for that would only result in the discouragement of prosecutions. To interfere in this case would be to raise again very wide questions with respect to election offences.
§ MR. CHARLEYsaid, he was quite willing to insert a provision limiting the punishment to penal servitude for seven years if that would meet the view of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the whole question of offences was a very important one, and he could see no reason for departing from the scale of punishments which existed in the present law. The difficulty of procuring detection ought neither to increase nor diminish the penalty.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. CHARLEYmoved, in line 33, after "ballot paper," insert—
Shall be guilty of felony, and be liable at the discretion of the Court to be kept in penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than five years, or to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the former decision should govern this question.
§ MR. CHARLEYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. GOLDNEYmoved, in page 18, line 34, leave out sub-sections 4 and 5, which provided penalties for the offence of endeavouring to secure the identification of voters. He considered the loss of the vote quite sufficient penalty for 793 the publicity; and the voter should be encouraged to vote rather than frightened from the poll by an accumulation of penalties.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSobserved, that now that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to omit Clause 30 an elector would escape without punishment if he committed an offence for which a non-elector would be liable to two years' imprisonment.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that if the Bill passed that year, as they hoped it would, they could reduce the penalties if the experience of the municipal elections warranted their doing so.
§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEYobjected to offenders under these sub-sections being classed with forgers.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sub-sections omitted.
§ MR. COLLINSmoved the insertion of the word "fraudulently," so as to make it necessary before punishing a man for voting twice that he should have done so wilfully.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERwas of opinion that voting twice was and ought to be an offence, and he did not see how it could be put a stop to without a punishment being attached to it. Besides, as they all knew, a discretion in the administration of the punishment was vested in the tribunal.
§ MR. GOLDNEYquestioned whether the mere application for a ballot paper a second time should constitute an offence, because he heard of cases from which it seemed to be commonly believed that it was not improper to vote first for A and then for B.
§ MR. COLLINSconfirmed this as far as the North was concerned.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was desirable the attempt should be an offence in accordance with the ordinary practice in common law, and thought it might be left to the Judges to be lenient in cases of extreme ignorance.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. GREENEobjected to the words in sub-section 8, which proposed to make a voter who "offers to vote" falsely liable to the same penalty (two years' imprisonment) as the voter who actually accomplished the offence. He moved, therefore, the omission of the words "offers to vote."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 7, to leave out the words "or offers to vote."—(Mr. Greene.)
§ MR. CANDLISHsympathized with the motive which prompted, this Amendment.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that their object was to prevent the accomplishment of the crime, and in order to do that effectually the attempt to commit it must also be strictly prohibited. It would be dangerous legislation to enable a man, without fear of punishment, to take all the preliminary steps towards recording a false vote.
§ Question put, "That the words 'or offers to vote' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 37: Majority 95.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsuggested that Section 9 (making liable to the penalty of two years' imprisonment anyone guilty of depositing in the ballot-box any paper other than the ballot paper given to him as an elector by the presiding officer) was too severe, and might well be modified. He moved the omission of the section.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERpointed out that the term of two years' imprisonment was the maximum penalty for extreme cases—not one to be imposed in every case for all the offences mentioned in the clause.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 30 (Minor offences at poll).
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved to omit the clause.
§ MR. CHARLEYdesired to retain sub-section 6, which provided—
That any one refusing to disobey the lawful commands of the presiding officer given in execution of his duty as such, should be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he should be glad to see at least the 1st section retained, which provided that if any person failed to vote (after being provided with a voting paper), and did not return the paper to the returning officer, he should be liable to the penalty of £10. He thought that unless this provision was retained the "Tasmanian dodge" would soon be introduced into our English elections.
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSSsupported this. Sub-section 1 makes it penal for a voter to leave the polling-place without putting his paper in the box. If a man brought out a blank polling paper, it could be filled up by an agent and given to another voter, who could go in and put it in the ballot-box, returning his own blank paper to the agent on coming outside, who would be only too glad to give a sum of money for it, and might go on repeating the practice all day.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERknew there were good reasons for retaining the clause, and especially the 1st sub-section; but the Government thought it would be better to try the scheme without too many penal clauses, and the offence aimed at by the 1st section was forbidden by the last clause.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKagreed with the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Clause struck out.
§ Clause 31 (Infringement of secrecy).
MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he had a strong objection to the imposition of additional penalties, and more particularly for the mere attempt to obtain information as to the manner in which a man voted, or even, as the clause provided, for offering an opinion on the subject. He therefore proposed the omission of sub-sections 1 and 2, which provide that if any of the persons employed—
Attempts by any means to obtain or assists any person in obtaining information as to the person for whom any elector votes, or offers any opinion or affords any information to any other person as to the vote which he knows, believes, or suspects any person to have given at an election.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was willing to strike out the words with reference to "offering an opinion" at the beginning of sub-section 2, but could not assent to the rest of the Amendment. If they were to have the Ballot at all, the presiding officer who took the votes, the clerk who assisted him, and the agent who was there to watch the proceedings in the interest of the candidate, ought not to be allowed either to ask the voter how he voted, or, if they found it out, to divulge the information they had obtained.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought it desirable to limit the time within which the offence might be committed.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEobserved that in the United States the attempt to enforce secrecy had been made and had entirely failed. The New York Tribune, of the 11th July last, said—
It is by no means true that men constantly desert their avowed principles under the Ballot. On the contrary, party fealty is, if anything, too strong, and the readiness of the average elector to vote strictly in accordance with his avowed principles encourages conventions to nominate candidates who are personally unworthy, in the confidence that party discipline will secure their election. It is very much to be wished that the desertion of avowed principles, or, to speak more correctly, the scratching of tickets which contain objectionable names, were a great deal more common. It is a mistake to suppose that the Ballot facilitates an improper concealment of one's political faith. In America no man thinks of making a secret of his political principles, or professing the creed of one party and voting for the candidates of the other. Every voter may vote in secret if he chooses; but he is quite ready to tell all about his ballot if you ask him, and the Englishman who believes (as the Liberal opponents of the Ballot do) that the elector ought to face responsibility like a man and take the consequences of his action, would be perfectly satisfied with the operation of the secret vote as we have it in the United States. The truth is that in ordinary cases the Ballot is not secret at all; its value lies in the fact that any individual may make it secret so far as it relate to himself, whenever it suits him to do so.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the Amendment. It was quite impossible that some of the sub-sections could be carried out, for many of the electors might not choose to keep their votes secret for any length of time.
§ MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought the clause ought not be allowed to stand, and that it would be monstrous to subject a man to a term of imprisonment for merely offering an opinion.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had agreed to the omission of those words. He had no objection to introduce in sub-section 1 the words "during the poll," after "attempts."
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEobserved that the parties employed at the election were to be punished not merely for attempting to obtain information, but for affording information which the voter himself might have given.
§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, that if the words "during the poll" 797 were to be applicable to the whole of the clause the objection would in a great measure be done away with.
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he hoped that before the right hon. Gentleman agreed to the insertion of the words in question, he would consider whether they were consistent with the protection which the Bill was meant to secure to the voter.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERproposed at the beginning of the clause, after the word "employed," to insert the words "under this Act at any polling-place."
§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, the alteration proposed by the right hon. Gentleman removed the objection which he entertained to sub section 1, by making the penalty applicable to the divulging any information which he had officially obtained during the poll.
§ Amendment (Mr. Scourfield), by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendments (Mr. W. E. Forster) agreed to.
§ MR. JAMESmoved an Amendment extending the penal effect of the subsection to any attempt to obtain that information between the time of the polling and the declaration of the poll.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. CHARLEYmoved the omission of those words in the 2nd sub-section which rendered it penal for any person to offer an opinion as to the vote given by another.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEmoved an Amendment providing that the penal effect of the 2nd sub-section, which rendered it penal to afford information as to the vote of any elector, should also be governed by the insertion of words which would confine the sub-section to such information as was afforded during the poll, or between the polling and the declaration of the poll. If such an Amendment were not made, no one would be found who would be sufficiently rash and reckless to accept the thankless office of presiding officer and be tonguetied.
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he could not see any objection to the words as they stood. The mouths of Income Tax Commissioners were also stopped in a similar manner, but no inconvenience arose from that.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
798§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEYmoved an Amendment providing that the information to be dealt with by the 2nd subsection should only be such information as was obtained under the 1st subsection.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 32 (Destroying ballot papers or ballot boxes).
§ MR. CHARLEYmoved, in page 20, line 19, leave out "or," and insert—
And shall be guilty of felony, and shall be liable at the discretion of the Court to be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years nor less than three years, or to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that if such a thing was already a larceny, it would still remain so under this Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 33 (Breach of duty by returning officer. See 2 & 3 Will. 4. c. 45. s. 76. 2 & 3 Will. 4. c. 65. s. 38).
§ MR. CHARLEYmoved an Amendment, providing that the penalty should be increased from £100 to £500.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERpointed out that this clause only provided a penalty for such breaches of duty as were not already dealt with under the other clauses. The other and larger penalties imposed by the Bill would also be in force.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 34 (Public notice by returning officer).
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 35 to 37, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 38 (Disqualifications of returning officers).
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought there would be some difficulty with regard to the sheriffs in those cities which were counties of themselves, the sheriffs therein being the returning officers.
§ Clause agreed to.
799§ Clauses 39 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 43 (Definition of returning officer).
§ MR. DIXONmoved, in sub-section b, line 36, leave out from "but acting with the assessors" to the end of the subsection, and insert in lieu thereof—
And that section forty-three of the Municipal Corporation Act, fifth and sixth of William the Fourth, chapter seventy-six, which provides for the election of ward assessors shall be and is hereby repealed, and so much of the said Act as requires Municipal Elections to be holden before assessors or their deputies shall not extend to Municipal Elections holden after the passing of this Act.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the words of the Amendment would go further than was necessary, and undertook to prepare a proper repealing section.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. GOLDNEYcalled attention to the phraseology of the clause, with the view of preventing both the sheriff and the mayor from acting as returning officer.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would have some conversation with his hon. Friend (Mr. Goldney) on the subject of the clause.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he would leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 44 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clauses 48 to 51, inclusive, withdrawn.
§ Clauses 52 to 54, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 55 (Application of Act to Ireland).
§ MR. PIMsaid, he had an Amendment, which proposed to insert the words, in page 30, line 21—
And also any place the boundaries of which have been fixed and ascertained under the provisions of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, or by any private local Act, and in which a register of voters is kept, and is revised every year.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he had to propose an Amendment similar in effect, but more technical in form, on the clause, the object being to extend the Act to towns under Town Commissioners in Ireland. The Bill, as originally 800 framed, did not include towns under Commissioners in Ireland, but was confined to municipal boroughs. Strong remonstrances had been made to him and to other Members of the Government against the exclusion of those towns from the operation of the Bill, inasmuch as towns similarly circumstanced in Scotland were included in the Bill. In Scotland the Police Act might be applied to towns with 700 inhabitants; but in Ireland the Act could not be applied to a town of less than 1,500 inhabitants, and it appeared to him and his right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill that those towns under Town Commissioners should be brought within its scope. The hon. and learned Gentleman then read the words of the Amendment which he proposed, and which were not on the Paper.
§ MR. BRUENsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but merely to say that if the words had been on the Notice Paper the Irish Members would have had an opportunity of considering them in order to see whether they required any alteration.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, that the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) had precisely the same Amendment, and the non. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) had also a similar Amendment for three weeks on the Paper. His own Amendment differed from theirs in only being framed more technically, and it was practically their Amendment.
§ MR. BRUENrepeated that the Amendment was not on the Paper, and the Committee could not therefore judge of it.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, that if the Government intervened and accepted the Amendments that were proposed by hon. Members, they should either give notice of their intention to do so, or they should bring up the subject in the shape of a new clause on the Report. He thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Bruen) had great cause to complain of the conduct of the Government.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he would not have departed from the usual course but for the fact that he did not propose to make any addition whatever to the Amendments that had appeared on the Paper. He had a fancy that the form 801 of his Amendment was the better one; but, practically, it was the same thing.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, that hon. Members who had not legal knowledge or acquaintance with technicalities could only deal as plain men with the circumstances as they came before the Committee, and endeavour to understand them. The hon. and learned Gentleman's statement might be quite correct; but he had pursued a most unusual course. If the Government intended to adopt the Amendments of hon. Members, notice should have been given, and the Committee ought not to be hurried into this course.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that it was quite a usual practice when an Amendment, especially of detail, was accepted by the Government to alter the wording so as to adapt it better to the object in view.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 56 (This Act, as far as consistent, to be construed with enactments now in force).
§ MR. CHARLEYmoved, in page 31, line 16, to insert after "thereat" "so far as the same Laws, statutes, and usages are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act."
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he saw no ground for making the proposed change.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 57 (Repeal of Acts).
§ MR. HERMONsaid, as this was the last clause of the Bill, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) whether he was satisfied with the result of his labours, and whether now on mature reflection he did not think that several of the Amendments proposed by Members on the Opposition side of the House, and which the right hon. Gentleman had contested, ought to have been accepted?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he was satisfied with the Bill, and that he had accepted all the Amendments from the other side which he thought would improve the Bill.
§ MR. HERMONsaid, he was pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied with the measure. He confessed that he was not satisfied with 802 it; and it was a relief to his mind tha the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied with his labours.