COMMITTEE. [Progress 6th July.] (Hansard, 7 July 1871)

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
, in rising to move in page 1, line 12, after "every," to leave out "Parliamentary and," said, that with reference to the meeting of Government supporters which had been hold yesterday, he must characterize it as an attempt to transfer the power and authority of that House to a section of its Members, and he thought it was an additional reason tending to prove the necessity of adopting the Amendment before the House. The hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), speaking last year on a similar measure to the present, attributed the change in the opinions of some of the occupants of the Treasury bench on this subject to party exi- 1291 gencies. It certainly did appear that the determination to proceed with the present measure at so late a period of the Session must be attributed also to party exigencies. The measure had been introduced in a form so crude—

§ MR. VERNON HARCOURT
rose to Order. He asked whether, on a clause referring to a particular mode of nomination, it was open to the hon. Member for Whitehaven to discuss the whole question of the Ballot, and the conduct of Her Majesty's Government?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the clause related to nominations, and the Amendment arose especially on the words which related to nomination. He hoped, however, the hon. Member for Whitehaven would strictly confine himself to the question.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
said, he observed that the supporters of the Government had placed on the Paper no less than 106 Amendments, and the Government yesterday called a meeting of their Friends, and the Report of the proceedings appeared so extraordinary that he wished to know whether it was accurate or not?

§ MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCK
rose to Order. He asked, whether it was competent for the Committee to entertain the question of what passed at a meeting held yesterday?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he could not tell yet how the hon. Member for Whitehaven, who had just begun his observations, would connect them with the subject of his Amendment.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
then resumed, and said, that at the meeting alluded to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was reported to have said that— The proceedings of Tuesday were unusual and unprecedented in Parliamentary history and he recommended little speaking, and that the Amendments should be left in the hands of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. And then came the most important statement, alleged to be made by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, which he was sure every hon. Gentleman present would forgive him for alluding to, because it was only fair that the right hon. Gentleman should have an opportunity of explaining himself—the right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said that— 1292 It would be injudicious for the supporters of the Government to withdraw their Amendments, lest they should be seized on by the opponents of the Bill. He was happy to give him an opportunity of denying having recommended resort to such a subterfuge as that would be. He never could believe that the responsible Advisers of the Crown would endeavour to throw the responsibility of carrying that measure through the House on an irresponsible body assembled in a hole-and-corner meeting. Never before in the Parliamentary history of this country had the responsible Advisers of the Crown endeavoured in such a way to control the conduct of hon. Members in that House. The result would be that if the Bill were carried in a mangled form it would not give satisfaction even to its supporters. Was it to be supposed that 106 of his own supporters would be satisfied with the Bill when the Amendments which they deemed necessary to the Bill were withdrawn? As the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) said, there were principles in the Bill more important than the Ballot. The mot d'ordre of what was called the Liberal party appeared in the Liberal papers—"Pass the Bill with all its faults, and amend it next Session." What would be the consequence? Next Session would be wasted in discussions, and the expectant country would be dissatisfied. He (Mr. C. Bentinck) represented a constituency in which the Ballot prevailed in regard to municipal elections, and what he would advise was, that the right hon. Gentleman should adopt the Amendment of which he had given notice. Let him strike out the words "Parliamentary and," and then the Bill would become simply municipal. Let it then be tried at the next municipal election, and if the Ballot was conducted generally in the same mode as in the constituency he had the honour to represent, he did not think there would be found much difference in the result. Before concluding, he would give a humble warning to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), who had told them, in very strong language, that their conduct was unprecedented in the history of Parliaments, accused them of obstructing the Bill, and throw out hints that if the House of Commons was not submissive he would propose to change its whole mode of procedure. The only 1293 parallel he could think of for the right hon. Gentleman was Xerxes. Xerxes was a man of great power; Xerxes had a policy; and Xerxes was at the head of a "mechanical majority." But the mechanical majority was not sufficient to carry into effect the policy which Xerxes projected when the winds and waves rose against him; therefore Xerxes ordered the winds and waves to be put in chains. The right hon. Gentleman called his supporters together in order that he might gag them, and he evidently wished to place the House of Commons in moral chains. But arbitrary power would not go down in this country; and, as respected the House of Commons, though there might be less intellect and independence in that House than in its predecessors, there was the true spirit of English liberty, and if the right hon. Gentleman attempted to trample on their liberties and privileges, he would share the fate of Xerxes, and would meet with disdain, defeat, and discomfiture. The hon. Member concluded by moving in line 12, after "every," to leave out "Parliamentary and."

§ MR. CHARLEY
, in supporting the Amendment, said, it was admitted that the Ballot was only a choice of evils, and therefore they should proceed cautiously. He thought the experiment which had been made in regard to the school board elections was insufficient and not satisfactory. The elections in the Parliamentary boroughs throughout the country were characterized by noise, while that in the City of London, which was open, passed off in complete tranquillity.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he was glad of the opportunity afforded by the reference of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. C. Bentinck) to the meeting yesterday of saying a few words; and before doing so, would state that it was not at all his intention to go into the comparison of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Xerxes, any more than he should institute a parallel between the hon. and learned Gentleman and Leonidas or Miltiades. It was not unusual that meetings of hon. Members who supported the Government should be held; and he might refer to the undoubted fact of such meetings having been very common during the continuance in office 1294 of the Government of which the hon. and learned Gentleman himself was a supporter. He did not, however, think it was very desirable that such meetings should become matters of discussion in that House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made a statement for which, perhaps, there was some colour in the reports which appeared in some of the journals. At the same time, he (Mr. Forster) must be allowed to say the quotations which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made were not characterized by the usual accuracy of reports in the morning journals. He certainly did not say, and never intended to say, what the quotation read by the hon. and learned Gentleman had attributed to him. What he did say, and what he was very glad to have the opportunity of repeating, was that on this measure, as on all important measures of the kind, he should be very glad if any supporter of the Government, desiring to bring forward Amendments, or, indeed, any other hon. Member, favourable to the Bill and anxious to improve it, would communicate with him to see how far the Government could concur in any Amendment proposed. He thought it certainly was not desirable that the Amendments which appeared on the Paper should be withdrawn until reference had been made to him, as having charge of the Bill, to see how far they could be accepted; but, he repeated, he never meant to say and he did not believe he had said, that the Amendments should be kept on the Paper in order to mislead hon. Members opposite. That, however, was not the only mistake in the report, for he found a little lower down it was stated that he had said—"he wished hon. Members would seethe necessity of talking little, or, if they did, of talking very briefly." What he said was that he was afraid he should be obliged to talk often; but, as he should talk often, he would be as short as possible. With regard to the Amendment, he had serious doubts whether the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to press it, for the chief object of the Bill was the amendment of procedure at Parliamentary elections, though it was also thought desirable to include within its provisions municipal elections; and he could conceive nothing more ridiculous than the position they would occupy in the country when it was heard that they intended to confine 1295 themselves to municipal elections. There was a division the previous evening on the principle of the clause, which was the abolition of open nominations. Now, there were no open nominations in municipal elections, and they would thus, in adopting the Amendment, contradict the vote of last night. He could not sit down without expressing his delight that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been partially converted to the Ballot, and he had no doubt that, having got as far as municipalities, he would go still farther.

§ MR. LIDDELL
said, that if we were to try the Ballot it would be better to do so in the smaller area first. There was nothing at all absurd in the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend, and he would give it his support.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council ought to be very much obliged to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. C. Bentinck) for giving him the opportunity of correcting the report which had appeared in the columns of one of the papers usually supporting Her Majesty's Government. He had thus been enabled to put himself right with reference to a statement which, it could not be denied, would, if uncorrected, have left him in a very unfavourable light; and he would not have occupied that position in the public mind which his conduct in the House had hitherto amply justified. With reference to the meeting, the subject of the report, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government not many years since protested against such meetings when held by the Conservative party, although no such abnormal Resolutions had been come to as were reported to have been arrived at on the present occasion. With regard to the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend, he thought it a very fair and proper one to restrict voting by Ballot to municipal elections, which were held every year within a much smaller area than Parliamentary elections, and where it was supposed the system of voting by Ballot would prevent bribery.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
said, he should support the Amendment unless he had an assurance that the municipal boroughs were to be tarred with the same brush as the Parliamentary boroughs, and therefore he was anxious that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of 1296 the Council should proclaim what he meant to do.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the clause related solely to nominations, and to strike out the word "Parliamentary" would stultify the division of last night on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dorset (Mr. Floyer). He thought they must discuss the clauses of the Bill as they would those of any other Bill, and consider the question actually before them. There was this great difference between Parliamentary and municipal elections at present, that in municipal elections only was there no open and public nomination, and, consequently, the argument of last night did not apply to municipal elections.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, he considered the conversation which had taken place a justification for the reference made to what passed in another place yesterday. These speeches had been invested with not merely a public, but absolutely a formal character, and he was disappointed, after the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had repudiated any attempt to gag hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, to find that they went on keeping silence when this very important measure was in progress. He saw nothing trivial in the Amendment, for our municipalities must not be treated as contemptible institutions. Why should the Government object to cutting down this Bill, after treating another measure in the same manner a short time ago? The whole question of the Ballot was tentative.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he must remind the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge that the clause related to nominations, and did not involve the Ballot.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, he would submit to the ruling of the Chairman, and argued that the whole of the proposed system of elections and nominations was tentative. It was first tried by the school boards last year, and it was proper that they should proceed with it step by step. If they were to consider the Amendment in its spirit and not in the letter, he was sure the Chairman would see accorded to them a generous latitude. The Amendment was the first of a series dealing with all the provisions of the Bill; and unless they were allowed some latitude the matter would 1297 be put in a false issue. Parliamentary and municipal elections must be treated on distinct grounds; and therefore while he had voted with the majority last night he could consistently support this Amendment.

§ COLONEL BERESFORD
said, he was at a loss to understand how the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, after his vote of last night, could support the Amendment. He considered that by last night's division they had got a bad bargain, and that they had nothing to do but to make the best of it to facilitate the passing of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) had always evinced such a kind and considerate spirit as entitled him to be met in the same manner; and for that reason he should vote for the clause.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. C. Bentinck) was perfectly consistent with the order of the debate, because it struck at the principle of the Bill, which was throughout secrecy at elections. Tie must express the gratification he felt at seeing that the Press would not lend itself to the privacy of a meeting which was intended to control the legitimate action of the House and to support the declaration of Ministers that they would seek an alteration of the forms of the House in order to control its proceedings. It was to be regretted that the Ministry, after assenting to the appointment of a Committee on the forms of the House, should have deferred for weeks the consideration of the Report of that Committee, and then have deferred the consideration by the House of the Resolutions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had placed on the Notice Paper. As allusion had been made to yesterday's meeting, he wished to make a few remarks on the subject. To himself personally the announcements in the newspapers with respect to the proceedings at that meeting were extremely gratifying. When he rose last evening to make his Motion almost all the supporters of the Government left the House, and but for the explanation which the newspapers had since given he might have supposed that that was a reflection upon himself. The strange phenomenon was now explained. It appeared that the First Minister of the Crown, in conjunction with another Minister of the Crown, had called a 1298 meeting of hon. Members for the purpose of controlling that House, and, if necessary, altering its procedure, in order to meet the convenience of the Ministers of the Crown. The subject was so large and so grave that he did not intend to allude to it further on the present occasion; but he could not refrain from remarking that the meeting of yesterday would be an evil precedent, that it was condemned by the whole history of Parliament, and that if the conduct of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House in preserving an unnatural silence and withdrawing their Amendments at the dictation of the Ministers of the Crown were persevered in, it would be the duty of some hon. Member to call the attention of the House generally to what appeared to him to be a conspiracy.

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, that having been honoured with an invitation to the meeting, he thought it only fair to the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister to state that there had not been the slightest attempt at coercion or dictation on his part. The right hon. Gentleman made some admirable suggestions, and gave some excellent advice, which might be advantageously followed by hon. Members on the other side of the House. It was to the effect that at this late period of the Session it would be advisable to curtail speeches as much as possible, and also that Amendments which were unnecessary should not be pressed. Many Members of that House would like to advise that unnecessary Amendments should not be proceeded with, and he saw nothing of dictation in what had occurred, for other Prime Ministers had frequently thought proper to call the Members of their party together.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
said, as he had not been honoured with an invitation to the meeting referred to by the last speaker (Mr. Muntz), he would confine his observations to the Amendment before the Committee. He disliked the principle of secret voting, and hoped the House would proceed tentatively in this matter. If they applied this system to Parliamentary elections, it would follow as a logical consequence that this Parliament would stand self-condemned. For if it was impossible to conduct an election freely with open voting, then this present Parliament had not been freely elected, and they ought to have an immediate dis- 1299 solution. That, he was sure, was not desired, and he thought it would be unwise to shake the confidence of the country in the present House of Commons. Therefore, he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council should make that a tentative measure, and then, if the system was found to be successful in municipal elections, it could toward the close of the term of the existing Parliament he applied entirely.

§ MR. G. B. GREGORY
said, he objected so strongly to the principle of the Ballot that he could not support the Amendment, which would recognize the principle in respect of municipal elections. That Bill did not touch the real evils of the municipal election system, which arose in a great degree from the yearly contests.

§ MR. J. FIELDEN
thought the right hon. Gentleman should at once inform the Committee whether he intended to give way on the question of municipal elections.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
said, he valued tranquillity at elections, and he therefore could not vote for the Amendment.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
said, he must protest against the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, that the adoption of the Amendment would stultify the Committee after the division of last night. Although the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dorset (Mr. Floyer) was rejected, the clause stood exactly as it was in the first instance; and it was quite competent to any hon. Member to propose an Amendment.

§ MR. JAMES
, on rising to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, explained that it would in no way affect the application of the Ballot to municipal voting. There had been no complaint against the Act of 1859, under which municipal nominations were at present carried on, and if this Bill were made to apply to them they would have as many as 160 persons attending as nominators, instead of one person for each candidate sending in a written paper. It was simply on the ground of the greater quiet which attended the present mode that he proposed to leave out in 1300 page 1, line 12, the words "and municipal." He trusted the Government would accept the Amendment; and if not, that the Committee would give its opinion upon it.

§ Mr. GOLDNEY
said, he thought the Parliamentary and municipal elections should stand on a similar footing, and he hoped Government would maintain the position they had taken up in the Bill, which seemed to be exceedingly well received.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the law, as it now stood, worked very satisfactorily, as compared with the previous state of things. When the matter was under discussion in 1859 there was no one who opposed nomination by a written paper more than the right hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), on the ground that it was secret nomination, and he was supported by the right hon. Gentlemen around him. The only complaint that had been made against the present Act was, that it had worked so easily that a great many persons were nominated almost in joke, and a large number of contests ensued. He hoped the Government would adhere to the Bill as it stood, for it would prevent vexatious nominations; and though he was the author of the Bill of 1859, he should have no objection to see it improved by the Government measure.

§ SIR THOMAS BAZLEY
, who had also given Notice of an Amendment in the same terms as those of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James), said, he hoped that Government would concede the very moderate Amendment which had been proposed.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he thought it would be advisable to adopt the Amendment. What he had heard from different parts of the country convinced him that the balance of argument was in favour of leaving municipal nominations where they were, at least for the present. It might be desirable to take greater precautions against sham nominations; but the rules they were laying down for Parliamentary nominations would be too stringent for municipal. To require ten nominators in the case of municipal elections would be more than was necessary. There might be an advantage in having two kinds of written nominations side by side, and if it were found hereafter that the balance of ad- 1301 vantage was on the side of Parliamentary nomination it might be extended to municipal. He was quite ready to acknowledge that he was anxious in passing this Bill not to do more than was necessary. He considered it necessary to alter the nomination in Parliamentary elections; but he did not consider there was any urgency at present to alter the mode of municipal elections.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council appeared to be of a very alarming character. According to the right hon. Gentleman, the existing system of municipal nominations might remain as it was, at any rate for the present. What were they to gather from that but that this Bill was not to be a settlement of the question, so far as municipal elections were concerned, and that it would be open to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the question next year or the year after? There might be some weight in the argument that the nominators would be too many; but the time to remedy that inconvenience was when they should come to the sub-section of the clause, and then it would be competent for the right hon. Gentleman to move that the number be reduced from 10 to 5. He regretted that the Government had not thought fit to stand by the Bill as originally introduced, instead of so hastily assenting to the Amendment now proposed.

§ MR. HERMON
said, he was also sorry that Government had assented to the Amendment. When the nomination was left to one a person was entirely at his mercy; but when five or ten people were required to assent to a nomination, no one was exposed to inconvenience or annoyance.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, that if the Amendment was passed, alterations would be rendered necessary throughout the whole of the Bill.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
, with reluctance, said, he felt bound to object to the omission of any word contained in this Bill. The concession, if he might so term it, now made, justified them in asserting that this measure had not been fully discussed, and that it was an ill-considered scheme framed for the purpose of carrying out preconceived crotchets, and one in no way suited to the spirit of the times.

§ MR. SPENCER WALPOLE
said, he could not perceive a single reason for drawing a distinction between municipal and Parliamentary elections.

§ COLONEL BERESFORD
proposed in page 1, line 16, sub-section 1, after "election," to insert— And shall send to every elector on the register a notice in print, either on a card or other form apprising the elector of his number on the register and of the polling station where he is to record his vote at least two clear days before the poll takes place. He thought that the issuing of such cards by candidates to electors would be of great service, and get rid of a good deal of expense to candidates.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
said, he trusted that the Government would oppose this Amendment. He presumed that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southwark wished these expenses to be thrown upon the rates. But every man should stand upon his own bottom, and not ask others to pay his necessary expenses, because the effect of such a proposal could only be to lead to a multiplication of candidates, many of whom would have no connection by business or anything else with the constituency they desired to represent.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
, without presuming to advise hon. Gentlemen how they should stand, said, there was a doubt whether the cards would not get into the wrong hands, and increase the danger of personation, and what was the most conclusive objection was, that considerable power was given to the returning officer and other officials of sending to some and not sending to others. On that account he could not accept the Amendment.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
proposed to insert in page 1, line 16, the addition of the words, "and of the day on which a poll will be taken in case the election is contested," and said, the effect of the Amendment would be to require the returning officer to give notice of the day of the poll in the case of a contested election.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
objected to the first part of the Amendment, but would accept the second.

§ MR. CHARLEY
proposed, in page 2, line 8, after "seconder," to leave out the words, "and by eight other duly qualified electors as assenting to the nomination of the candidate," and to insert the words "and countersigned by the candidate." His object was to prevent its being known how these persons would vote, and also the nomination of a candidate without his own consent.

MR. HEYGATE
thought the latter portion of the Amendment useful, as it would secure a bonâ fide candidateship; but he could not agree to the omission from the clause of the words requiring eight duly-qualified persons to be present at the place of election as assenting parties to the nomination.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment; the clause, as it stood, giving some security against sham candidates.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would adhere to the words of the Bill. The candidate might be abroad at the time of his nomination, and it would be impossible for him to countersign it.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
hoped the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) would not press his Amendment, and on the ground stated by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Barttelot).

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
said, that persons signing the nomination paper was no proof that they intended to vote for the candidate. They might afterwards vote against him without being detected.

§ COLONEL BERESFORD
said, he thought there should be a written authority to nominate a candidate.

§ MR. CHARLEY
said, he would withdraw the first part of the Amendment; but he understood a wish had been expressed that the opinion of the Committee should be taken on the second portion of it.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
said, before the second portion was reached, he had an Amendment on the Paper to "leave out sub-sections 5 to 10, inclusive." He had no intention of dividing the Committee upon it.

§ MR. VERNON HARCOURT
said, he had no desire again to raise a discussion on the question of open nominations. Open nominations were objected to on the ground that the show of hands led to corrupt practices; but he hoped, notwithstanding the division last night and the large majority who voted for the abolition of nominations, the Government would consider whether some provision might not be introduced for giving a public opportunity to the electors of seeing and hearing the candidates who sought their suffrages. He quite admitted the objection to nominations and the show of hands so far as they professed to be what they were not—namely, elections; but a good deal of disappointment would be felt in constituencies if all opportunity of seeing their candidates were taken away from them. He would press on the attention of the Government the desirability of keeping what was good in the present system, and of getting rid of the bad, by keeping the public nomination, but forbidding the show of hands. The constituencies had been so long in the habit of seeing and hearing the candidates on the day of nomination that they might carry paper elections too far, and become what Mr. Shandy condemned as "too hobby-horsical" on this question. He admitted that physical inconveniences occurred at elections; but public men were accustomed to the rough air of the hustings in this country. The constituencies liked to see the horses trotted out and witness the preliminary canter of the race, and form an opinion of the horses themselves. He should be sorry to see such elections as those which took place in the Vatican, when the Conclave met to elect the Pope. There were 2,000,000 of voters and 3,000,000 of non-voters, and the only opportunity the latter had of taking part in an election was on the day of nomination. The candidates might 1305 have private meetings, it is true, but they would not adequately supply the place of public nomination. He hoped the Government would fully consider the matter.

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
said, he entirely concurred in the views expressed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford. The knowledge that there was to be a nomination day would tend to keep candidates in check while they were holding their private meetings prior to the election, and he might add that they had heard much better speaking on the hustings than at those hole-and-corner assemblies.

MR. HENLEY
said, he thought the consideration of this clause showed how inconvenient the course pursued by the Committee might probably be. He represented a county which returned three Members to Parliament. Suppose, then, that six candidates stood for the three seats; 10 electors would accompany each candidate to the meeting, and that would make 60. Then there was the returning officer and all his crew. Each candidate would have the right to introduce one person, and as many more might be admitted as the returning officer thought fit. It would be a pleasant tiling for the returning officer to say how many he would let in and how many he would keep out, and it would require a nice convenient room to hold 70 or 80 persons, especially if they were lively. There would be something very like a public meeting after all. Somebody must be there to back up the proposers and seconders, and he could not help thinking it would be a great advantage to have everything public, for he believed no inconvenience would result if it were enacted that there should be no show of hands, which, after all, was the cause of all the rows.

§ MR. WALTER
said, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) who had revived this question seemed to have forgotten that the nomination was merely the old constitutional mode of ascertaining the opinion of the electors. The sheriff in a county, and some other official in a borough, convened a meeting for the purpose of returning a Member to Parliament, and that was what they called the nomination. Candidates were nominated, and after they had addressed the constituency a show of hands was taken. Such was the old constitutional mode of 1306 deciding an election, and unless a show of hands were taken, which, after the introduction of secret voting, would be an absurdity, there could be no object in the nomination at all. The whole object would be gone, and he could not see why the candidates should be brought together at great inconvenience, especially in large counties, where they could address only a limited number of their constituents, for the purpose of making speeches which could lead to no result whatever. He thought they were giving up a great deal in giving up public nominations. Undoubtedly they were entering upon a new course, of which they did not see the end; but if hon. Members were prepared to adopt the Ballot in this wholesale manner they must take the consequences. They could not give up the advantages of public voting, and at the same time retain the advantages of public speaking at nominations. It was impossible to retain the old-fashioned open nomination in conjunction with secret voting.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that the question was whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. R. N. Fowler) should or should not be negatived. He (Mr. Forster) did not think in framing a short Act for the purpose that it would be at all easy to recognize the right of public meetings without also recognizing the practice of a show of hands. He would be glad to receive any suggestion on the subject before the Report was brought up, but he thought it would not be easy, if the meeting were public, to prevent a show of hands being taken, as somebody would be almost sure to insist that that should be done. The clause would not fairly bear the interpretation put upon it by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), that it would produce a public meeting after all.

§ MR. LIDDELL
said, the returning officer might, if he chose, let everybody in the county or borough attend the meeting, a course quite inconsistent with tranquillity and order. Besides, this was a great responsibility to put on a single individual, and as such he objected to it, and when the time came should move the omission of the words from the clause giving that officer such a discretion.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
said, he thought what the Committee did last evening would 1307 give great dissatisfaction to the country. The people, if appealed to, would emphatically pronounce against the abolition of nominations. The large majority last evening did not represent the public opinion of the country, but their individual sentiments, as to the inconvenience of public nominations. It was not surprising that the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill for establishing secret voting should have felt it incumbent upon him to have a hole-and-corner meeting for the nomination. The two things went hand in hand. He believed that the public would soon feel extremely sorry at the introduction of the Ballot into their electoral system.

§ MR. BEACH
said, he was of opinion that the nomination of candidates produced riots and disturbances at elections, and therefore he was in favour of abolishing the practice.

§ SIR LAWRENCE PALK
said, he believed the doing away with nominations would be most unpopular, and that was the reason why he gave it his support, because the Ballot would thereby be brought into disrepute.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
said, if he thought that by the abolition of public nomination the candidatures would be made secret he should be the last to support it; but his experience had led him to a different conclusion. Nominations were simply occasions for public riots and disturbances. Candidates had the best opportunity of showing themselves when they were engaged in their preliminary canvass. However much he disliked the Bill, he should support the principle of doing away with the practice of nominations.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he supported the Amendment, on the ground that if public nominations were done away with candidates would be liable to be entrapped at private meetings, where a disturbance would assume a much more serious character. He had witnessed many nominations at which there were no riots or disturbances whatever. All the disturbances he had ever witnessed had occurred at meetings held previous to the nominations. It was his firm conviction that they would not be able to satisfy the people without allowing them to see the candidates.

§ SIR HARRY VERNEY
thought that those nominations led frequently to the 1308 correction of political misunderstandings. He trusted that that opportunity for publicity would never be done away with.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
suggested the omission of the words from the clause, "And no other person except with the sanction of the returning officer." The clause would then provide against the contingency of hole-and-corner meetings.

§ SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEY
, speaking from his own experience, said, nominations were always carried on in dumb show. He could not see that they were of any use whatever.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, that if public nominations were abolished, there might be some danger of riotous meetings being held on the very day they wished to keep most quiet, the day of polling, as the electors would probably insist on seeing their candidates nominated in some way or other. If the promoters of the Bill should put an end to the practice of public speaking on the day of nomination, public meetings would probably be held on the same day in reference to the election, at which disturbances would occur.

§ SIR FREDERICK HEYGATE
held that a great proportion of the abuses which made nominations objectionable might be cured with proper care.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
said, he wished to know whether the representatives of the Press were to be present at the nomination meetings. In his opinion the candidates ought to have the opportunity of speaking in the presence of those gentlemen. As the clause stood at present, it seemed as though the returning officers could exclude or admit the representatives of the Press at their pleasure.

§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSON
said, he thought that great evil was likely to arise from these sub-sections in their present form. There were, no doubt, evils attendant upon public nominations, but there would be greater evils in doing away with them. At public nominations candidates with straightforward views, who said what they meant, and meant what they said, always acquired an advantage over those who had no particular views, or who could not enunciate their views if they had any. In his opinion there was, as a rule, greater rioting at the declaration of the poll than at 1309 the nomination of the candidates. Under the proposed sub-sections the expenses of elections were to be thrown upon the ratepayers, and no questions could be publicly asked of the candidates. These things would tend to increase the number of the candidates, because persons would be put to no expense by becoming candidates. The secret system opened the way to great abuses. If a certain limited number of people were to sit for two hours in a room together, what was to prevent a third candidate, a mere man of straw, from being put in nomination in the meantime, and the two boná fide candidates from retiring to a corner and agreeing among themselves that they would give the man a sum of money to withdraw? A great encouragement would be given to sham candidates by the adoption of this sub-section, and therefore he should vote against the abolition of public nominations.

§ MR. W. N. HODGSON
said, he had opposed the Ballot since he entered the House, and would pursue the same course as long as he retained a seat in it. He could not but express his astonishment that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who professed to be returned by the voice of the people, should be parties to the introduction of secret voting. As to the evils of nomination days, he had seldom observed more riot and confusion at the hustings than he observed the previous night in that House. He approved of the old English system of catechising candidates openly, and he would oppose the abolition of public nominations as he would oppose everything that was secret.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
explained that in the division which had just been taken he voted with the "Ayes" by mistake. It was his opinion that nomination days ought to be maintained.

§ MR. JAMES
said, he thought the best course would be to postpone the question until the Report came up, when the opinion of the House might again be taken on the point whether the subject of municipal elections ought not to be excluded from the Bill.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, he preferred the provision in the Bill to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross).

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he would accept the Amendment on the present occasion, with the understanding that the Government should be at liberty, on the Report, to support, if they so thought fit, the proposal to exclude municipal corporations from the Bill.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he must oppose the Amendment, on the ground that there might be, as there had been, cases in which it was impossible to communicate with a gentleman who was a desirable candidate.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) would press that Amendment, as a similar provision worked well in the colony of Victoria.

§ MR. G. B. GREGORY
proposed to omit the word "ten," being the number of subscribing electors to each nomination paper.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
urged that this part of the clause should be omitted, because it was certain that, in order to insure there being the required number of signatures of qualified electors, more than the exact number would sign. It might also happen that one candidate would be nominated by several sets of 1311 electors. It would be better that the proceedings should be held in a room to which the public had access, and to require that the returning officer should read, as he received each nomination paper, the names of those who had signed it. The public ought to receive the earliest possible intimation as to the persons who were nominated.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
thought that if more than ten signed a nomination paper, and all who signed could claim to be admitted before the returning officer, there might arise a worse turmoil than had occurred under the existing system. All the amenities of the good old system—rioting and the breaking of heads—would be retained at the nomination of candidates.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
pointed out that if any man was refused admission to the returning officer's room, he had only to get the signatures of nine others to a nomination paper, and then he could claim under the statute a right to be admitted. It would also be extremely inconvenient to have a number of people going to a nomination in a small room, unless power were given to the returning officer to enable him to adjourn the nomination to an open place if necessary.

§ MR. J. S. HARDY
said, if it were wanted to limit the number of persons to be present at the nomination, the best thing to do would be to make it unlawful for any one to make a speech there.

§ MR. SPENCER WALPOLE
asked the Vice President to express an opinion with regard to the point that had been raised?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
did not think it would be possible, at any rate in their first legislation on the subject, to frame such a clause as to leave it impossible to find a flaw in it. If there were a determination on the part of any district to get something approaching to a public meeting at the nomination, a small public meeting might be the result; but, at all events, the system of nominations would be considerably altered by the clause.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, the question raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) was a very serious one. If the number of persons were to be limited to ten—or rather if that number were to be absolutely prescribed—one of the ten might turn out to be not 1312 properly qualified as an elector, and the nomination might thus be vitiated. On the other hand, if more than ten were to be allowed to sign, each candidate would get as many signatures as he possibly could in order to show how well he was supported, and to induce some other candidate to withdraw.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
admitted that there might be some difficulty in the matter, and said he would endeavour to devise words which should confine the subscribing electors to the proposer and seconders and eight assentors duly qualified.

§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID
suggested that the attendance at the meeting should be restricted to ten electors on the register.

§ DR. BALL
said, that there should be an express provision that only one nomination of any one person should be received, or else in small constituencies where there were perhaps not more than 100 electors, the signatures of all the electors might be obtained to different papers nominating the same candidate. There should be a restriction, or the whole object of the Bill in such cases would be defeated.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
, in order to prevent the nomination of persons who were not seriously intended to go to the poll, suggested that each person nominated should be made to deposit a certain sum of money, which should be forfeited if he did not afterwards obtain a certain number of votes. Of course, where a person was nominated without his own consent, the fine should be made to fall on those who had proposed him.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, it was evident that safeguards should be required under sub-section 5, and they would be supplied in supplementary provisions in Clause 8. He was informed that the legal interpretation of sub-section 5 was that only ten signatures would be considered legal signatures.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, it was a constant occurrence at municipal elections that one person received several nominations, and when nominations gave an advantage in the shape of a right to enter the room, it would be found that the same person would be nominated by different sets of men. They were only on the threshold of the difficulties that would attend secrecy. There ought to be nothing to prevent any elector from pro- 1313 posing a candidate for Parliament, irrespective of what any other elector might propose.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, power was given by the Bill to allow of the withdrawal of a nomination within a limited time. The effect of this proposal of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball) would be that a bonâ fide candidate might be nominated by those who were adverse to him, in order to prevent any other persons from nominating him; and then, at the last moment, his name might be triumphantly withdrawn.

§ MR. BRISTOWE
said, he would prefer to vest the nomination in "registered" rather than in "duly qualified" electors, as the latter words were of doubtful meaning.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
hoped the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir George Grey) to omit the clause would be acted upon, and that the manner of receiving nominations would be left to the discretion of returning officers.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
suggested that the persons to be present at the nomination should be a certain number—say four—to be chosen by each candidate. At present any candidate who was nominated was liable to contribute towards the erection of the hustings; but under that Bill anyone might get himself nominated without having to pay anything at all. A dozen candidates might be nominated at once, and the whole thing brought down to the level of a farce.

SIR JOHN HAY
said, that where there was a very large constituency, say of 10,000, they would require 1,000 places for groups of 10 to assemble to nominate a candidate, which would be a serious matter, and, indeed, the difficulty could scarcely be coped with in metropolitan constituencies.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
suggested that the matter should stand over until Government considered the question. The nomination of Members would be used by the electors as advertisements, and that was a feature quite worthy of attention.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
thought they ought to consider when the electors were got together what they were to do. The 8th and 9th clauses gave a most objectionable power of withdrawal within two hours after nomina- 1314 tion during which the candidate might retire in secret.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
candidly acknowledged that a difficulty had started up, which he did not exactly see at present how to meet. The best way was to act on the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Sclater-Booth) opposite, even with the certainty of losing ten minutes. He would therefore suggest that the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. G. B. Gregory) should withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. GOLDSMID
pointed out that a candidate might be nominated by political opponents for the purpose of withdrawing him when it was too late for his friends to re-nominate him.