HC Deb 19 July 1871 vol 207 cc1952-64

(Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Collins, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Rathbone.)

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Interpretation) amended and agreed to.

Clause 2 (Dates of qualification).

MR. COLLINS moved, in page 2, line 18, to leave out "ten months to the last day of May," and insert "twelve months to the twenty-fourth day of June;" also, in line 21, to leave out "four months to the last day of May," and insert "six months to the said day of June." The object of the Amendment was to leave the law as it now stood—that of 12 months for qualification.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE moved to add to the end of the clatise— The qualification of a person at the date of qualification in any year shall so far as regards the matters referred to in this section be conclusive for all purposes as to his right to be registered in such year.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Registrar of voters).

SIR CHARLES WINGFLELD moved, in page 2, line 32, after "provided," leave out to end of clause, and insert "the Poor Law Board shall appoint a registrar for all boroughs for the purposes of this Act." The present system was most unsatisfactory, and with a view to its amendment, he desired that the person to be appointed to act as registrar should be free from all political bias, and that object would, in his opinion, be best attained by vesting the appointment with the Poor Law Board.

MR. H. R. BRAND

said, he must oppose the Amendment. The objection on the score of political bias might be urged against any person whatever who might be appointed, and the weight, of evidence was entirely in favour of the appointment of the clerks to the assessment committee to act as registrars. Not only that, but the bulk of the information on the subject was entirely in the hands of those gentlemen, and he did not see why any objection should be taken to those authorities.

MR. COLLINS

said, he thought there was a strong objection to the Amendment, as it would appoint an officer for a special purpose. In appointing the clerk of the assessment committee, the object had been to get rid of such an appointment for a special purpose, because then they would be more likely to get an impartial man, whose political functions would be made merely one small part of his ordinary duties.

MR. BRUCE

said, he also objected to the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke). It was quite a ground-less fear to suppose that there would be any tampering with the registration of voters in order to serve a political purpose. The functions of the assessment committee were so important that it was their object, in finding a clerk, to select the man who was generally best fitted for the work, whatever his politics might be. Even supposing that the clerk were a man of strong party views, chosen by his own party, all he did would be under the view and control of the members of the assessment committee, the minority of which being of adverse politics to him would be very vigilant to see that the public interests were not sacrificed. Then there was this further security—that it was in the power of the Poor Law Board to remove any of these officers on sufficient objection being made.

MR. CANDLISH

said, he would point out that the officer would be more of a political officer if he were appointed under that Amendment, than if he were to be, as proposed by the Bill, the clerk to the assessment committee.

MR. MELLOR

said, that in many of the northern boroughs there were no clerks to the assessment authorities, their work being done by the clerks to the Poor Law Board.

SIR CHARLES WINGFIELD

said, that as the Amendment did not seem to meet with much support, he would withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, That the Clause be agreed to, and added to the Bill,

MR. MUNTZ

said, he saw no reason why the overseers should not continue to discharge that duty. They were, as a rule, highly respectable men, appointed by the magistrates without reference to party bias, and he had never heard any complaints as to the manner in which it had been performed by them in the past, except at the last General Election, and they had then to grapple with the difficulties of a new Act of Parliament. There was the further consideration, that if the Bill passed, the appointment of a registrar in every borough would create a new local burden. He would move the omission of the clause.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, as Chairman of the Committee which sat upon that question, he hoped the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) would not persist in his Motion, for that clause contained the whole principle of the Bill, inasmuch as the object of the measure was to obtain, if possible, in every borough, a single permanent authority whose business would be to superintend the whole work of registration, and study the law relating thereto. In the borough which he represented there were 20 parishes with 20 overseers, who had to make out 20 different lists. That was found to be very inconvenient, and in order to correct the inconvenience complained of, it contemplated in this measure to appoint a single registrar to oversee the work of the whole, a great part of the practical work still being done by the overseers.

MR. MELLOR

said, he was in favour of the omission of the clause, because he was of opinion that there existed at present a sufficient staff of paid officials for the purpose.

LORD HENLEY

said, he also could see no great advantage to be gained from the appointment of a registrar, while it would cast additional expense upon the boroughs.

MR. BOWRING

said, he also approved of the clause, and would vote for it as it stood.

MR. CANDLISH

, on the contrary, said, he approved the clause on the ground that, as the registrars would superintend a more extended area than the overseers, it would put an end to the insertion of duplicate entries on the register.

Motion negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Preparation of the borough list).

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE moved in page 3, line 32, leave out all after "accordingly," to end of clause, and insert— 4. The borough list shall be arranged by districts as hereinafter in this Act provided, and within each district by streets in the alphabetical order of the names of all streets which, or any parts of which are situate in the district, and in respect of each side of every such street or part of a street according to the consecutive order of the premises situate therein, and in respect of any such premises according to the strict alphabetical order of the surnames and first Christian names of all the persons qualified in respect of such premises; and in each district the names of any persons qualified in respect of premises not included in any street shall be placed in a separate appendix or list in the like alphabetical order; where the same person is qualified in respect of different premises he shall be included for one only of such premises, a qualification in respect of the place of his residence being preferred.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that however good that proposal might be for the arrangements of canvassing, he thought it would lead to great inconvenience and confusion at the polling-booth, as it would be much less easy to ascertain that any particular voter was entitled to vote.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, the matter had been carefully considered by the Committee which sat upon the subject, and they had adopted the Scotch system, which was found to be very perfect.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, that street lists were not the general practice in Scotland. It was confined to Edinburgh.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. COLLINS moved in page 4, at end, add— In the case of a borough containing according to the last census for the time being a population not exceeding twenty thousand, the authority having power to divide the borough into polling districts may, if they think fit, from time to time direct that the borough list shall within all or any of the districts of the borough be arranged alphabetically and not by streets, and may revoke any such order.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Objections to the borough lists).

MR. COLLINS

proposed in page 5, line 15, after "Act," to insert— And paying to the registrar the sum of two shillings and sixpence in respect of a notice of objection against any person which is so withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Examination of claims and objections by the registrar).

MR. JAMES

said, he thought that some words must be added to provide that the person against whose vote there was to be an appeal should have notice of such appeal.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, on consideration, he thought it would be an improvement to the clause, and he would on the Report bring up an Amendment to effect that object.

MR. WHARTON

said, he would suggest that the word "correct" should be substituted for the words "allow" or "disallow."

MR. STAPLETON

said, he thought it an oversight in the Bill that the registrar had no power to award costs in the case of unfounded or vexatious objections.

MR. REED

said, he hoped that what was done in relation to that measure would not be considered a precedent when they came to alter the law in respect to county voters.

MR. JAMES

said, he thought that one of the most beneficial enactments in the Bill. It gave power to the registrar to correct the list where a party was dead, or where a wrong Christian name of a voter or misdescription of qualification had been placed on the register, thus obviating the necessity of working men losing time in attending before the revising barrister to remove mere formal objections.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he most strongly objected to the power proposed to be given to the registrar of altering the list of voters in his private office on the mere representation of parties. Such a power should only be exercised in open Court, and in presence of both parties.

MR. BRUCE

said, he was of opinion that that clause would confer a very great boon upon the voters generally, and especially upon the working classes; and it was framed with the unanimous recommendation of the Committee, who had thoroughly investigated the subject.

MR. BIRLEY

said, he thought that that remedy might be given through a better authority than that of the registrar.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, he entirely concurred in what had fallen from his hon and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. James), and would state that the clause gave no new power to the registrar, but simply enabled him to correct any errors or mistakes arising from inadvertency; in fact, the registrar would not possess any greater power than was possessed at that moment by the overseer.

MR. COLLINS

said, he heartily approved of the clause, for there was no power taken away from the elector, who could still appeal to the revising barrister if he pleased.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 74: Noes 47: Majority 27.

Clause 8 amended, and agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 13 (Appointment and powers of revising barristers).

MR. COLLINS

said, he must express a hope that the Treasury would see the inexpediency of paying so large an amount as £200 a-year to the revising barristers, especially as their duties would be much reduced by that Bill.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE

said, he thought the extra payments to revising barristers ought also to be considered, with a view to retrenchment in that direction.

On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, Clauses 13 to 15, inclusive, were postponed.

Clause 16 (Persons other than clerks to assessment authorities may be appointed registrars for boroughs).

MR. WHARTON

said, he objected to the whole of the clause, because, after it had been arranged that a specific officer should transact the business of the Bill—namely, the clerk to the assessment authority—that clause would enable other public bodies to appoint officers in lieu of that gentleman. It was known how much Town Councils were influenced by political considerations in such matters, and that provision might lead to unlimited jobbery. The proposition was a new one, and had not been recommended by the Committee, and he thought it would be dangerous to adopt it.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he placed far more confidence in the Town Councils elected by the ratepayers than he did in the assessment committees, and therefore approved the proposal contained in the clause.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, he must oppose the clause, and hoped that hon. Members would go to a division upon it. By Clause 3 the registrar was declared to be the assessment authority, and by the present clause—the 16th—it appeared that anybody else could be chosen. These two clauses could not both be retained, and he objected to Clause 16 on the ground, that the power it conferred might be made use of for political purposes.

MR. RATHBONE

said, he thought the reason of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. V. Harcourt) was hardly correct; he kept free from any bias in the matter, but he hoped the Committee would sustain the clause, as the power might be safety entrusted to the Town Council. For his own part, he had never heard that town clerks were necessarily appointed for a political object. At Liverpool, the present town clerk, a Liberal, was appointed by the Conservatives, his predecessor, a Conservative, having been elected at a time when the majority of the Council were Liberals. He hoped the clause would be carried.

MR. COLLINS

said, he trusted the decision arrived at by the Select Committee would not be upset. If they passed that clause, they would practically repeal the previous clauses of the Bill.

LORD HENLEY

said, he was of opinion that the Committee had better be content with the simplicity of Clause 3.

DR. LUSH

said, he hoped the Committee would allow the clause to pass.

MR. WHEELHOUSE

said, he most strenuously objected to the clause, because it was in direct opposition to Clause 3, and because it was in no respect a recommendation of the Committee; and also because it placed in the hands of the Town Council a power which would be used for political ends. It was all very well to say that the Town Councils were not political bodies; but everyone who knew the North of England knew that they were political bodies. He knew a borough where it had been declared that there should be no more Conservative mayors and no more Conservative aldermen as long as the borough lasted.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he trusted the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham (Mr. Wharton) would not press the Amendment. What knowledge had an assessment committee to enable them to prepare a municipal register? Whatever the Committee did, municipal boroughs ought to be brought within the operation of that clause. He trusted the Committee would not, therefore, strike out that part of the clause at least.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE

said, he wished to learn from the hon. Gentleman who last spoke (Mr. Hibbert), whether he would advocate the passing of that clause if it repealed Clause 3? No one, in his (Mr. Neville-Grenville's) opinion, had answered the question, that if Clause 16 was carried, Clause 3 would be virtually repealed.

MR. JAMES

said, in answer to the hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Neville-Grenville), that there would be no repeal of Clause 3 by allowing Clause 16 to stand part of the Bill Many who voted for the former clause only did so on a pledge of the promoters of the Bill that they would retain Clause 16. The 3rd clause simply proposed that in the first instance, and primá facie, the clerk to the assessment authority should be the registrar; but if, for any reason, the Town Council chose to interfere and put a veto upon that appointment, then they gave them power by the clause now before the Committee to elect whom they pleased. It was for the Town Council to judge whether they should exercise that power. He strongly objected to Parliament appointing absolutely in all cases the clerk to the assessment authority as registrar. The clerk to the assessment authority might have no local knowledge; he might be unfit to perform the duties of the office, or he might live 50 miles away from the borough. The registrar might thus be a person who was incapable of doing the work imposed upon him by the Bill; and, to meet such a case as that, they should certainly give the constituencies, through their own local governing bodies, power to appoint a registrar.

MR. C. S. READ

said, there could be no doubt whatever if the party proposed by the clause was elected by the Town Council he would be a strong partizan, because he had been elected for a political purpose. ["No, no!] He held it would be so; the Town Council would elect a man who was a partisan. He was in favour of bestowing the office on the clerk to the assessment committee.

SIR CHARLES DILKE

said, he thought that no body was so competent to appoint the registrar as the Town Council.

MR. D. DALRYMPLE

said, that unless the clerk to the Municipal Council was appointed, the class of freemen ran the risk of being overlooked in those boroughs where they existed. Though by no means enamoured of the Bill, he would support the clause, on the ground that a subsequent clause rendered it absolutely necessary that it should be passed intact.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 114; Noes 51: Majority 63.

Clauses 17 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 21 (Registrars not to interfere in elections).

SIR CHARLES WINGFIELD

proposed, in page 14, line 23, after "clerk," to insert "or by any relative or servant." He thought that the registrars should not only be placed under the restrictions of the clause already in existence, but should not be allowed the privilege of voting by any relative or servant.

MR. RAIKES

said, it would be necessary to have a definition of the word "relative." Was a brother-in-law a relative.

MR. BOWRING

said, the clause enacted that neither the registrar nor his partner or clerk should be allowed to interfere or vote in the election. He suggested that the words disqualifying these persons to vote should be omitted.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, the object was to prevent the partner or clerk from being election agents.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

then proposed an Amendment, in the shape of a proviso, to the effect that the registrar, or his partner or agent, or servant, might vote, though the restrictions as to their canvassing, or otherwise interfering in the elections, would be maintained.

Amendment agreed to.

On Question? That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,

MR. HERMON

said, he must point out that the phrase "any other person," was most indefinite, and might have a too extensive signification.

MR. WEST

suggested that the clause should be withdrawn, in order that it might be prepared more carefully.

MR. COLLINS

said, he thought that the clause had better be left out altogether, because to say that a man should vote and not interfere with the election was ridiculous, seeing that voting was the most material act of interference.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, he must point out that Town Clerks had a power of voting at present, and they were the registrar of the freemen; but there was a great difference between a man merely voting and becoming an electioneering agent. However, he would propose to make the words "any other person in this section mentioned," which he thought would make that part of the clause definite enough.

COLONEL SYKES

said, the Committee, in his opinion, had much better reject the clause, for it was a thing nobody could understand, and let something intelligible be brought up on the Report.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, he fully coincided in the opinion expressed by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes).

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 22 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 28 (As to levy of costs and fines).

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

proposed at the end of clause to insert a proviso, to the effect that when an objection was made against the decision of the registrar, and not sanctioned by the revising barrister, the latter should give costs amounting to 10s.

MR. WHEELHOUSE

said, he did not think the sum sufficient. He had known an instance of a man being kept waiting for two or three days, merely to prove that his claim was a just one, the objector thinking that he would not appear.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, he had no objection to increasing the penalty to £1.

MR. BRUCE

said, he would suggest that the penalty should not be less than 5s. nor more than £1.

MR. D. DALRYMPLE

said, he thought it desirable also to give costs.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, he was willing to act on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

MR. COLLINS

proposed to substitute £2 for £1.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, he did not object to the proposition.

MR. RAIKES

proposed to substitute £5 for £2.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

said, he must object to the proposal. The registrar might be of opinion that the question before him was one which ought to be submitted to the decision of the revising barrister, and if the revising barrister did not think the objection frivolous the penalty ought not to be imposed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 29 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 41 (Commencement of Act).

MR. COLLINS

said, he supposed it was clearly understood that the Bill was not intended to apply to the registration this year.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

assented.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

proposed that the amount of fine a revising barrister should be empowered to impose upon an assessor for neglect of duty should not exceed £20.

Amendment moved, to omit £20, and insert £10.

Amendment agreed to.

On Consideration of the postponed clauses,

Clause 13 (Appointment and powers of revising barristers).

Amendment moved, to omit "fifty," and insert "ten," in page 9, line 42.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Bill reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 256]; re-committed for Tuesday next.

House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.