HC Deb 12 April 1872 vol 210 cc1214-24

Clause 3 (Offences in respect of ballot boxes and papers).

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 41, after the word "or," to insert the words— Wilfully displays his ballot paper in such manner as to show to any person the name of any candidate for whom he has or has not voted, or."—(Mr. Leatham.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out the word 'voted,' and inserting the words "marked his vote on his ballot paper."—(Mr. Solicitor General.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'voted' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

MR. LEATHAM

requested permission to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that he should have an opportunity of re-introducing it again in Clause 4, in an altered form, and with the milder penalty of three months' imprisonment.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

thought the question raised by the Amendment could be better dealt with under Clause 4 than under Clause 3, and in the name of the Solicitor General he begged to withdraw the Amendment which his hon. and learned Friend had proposed in the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Leatham). The Government were of opinion that some security should be taken against any corrupt agreement between the voter and any other person, by which the former should display his vote; but, at the same time, from the severe nature of the penalty contained in it, they could not support the hon. Member's Amendment.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster), last night, to say he accepted the spirit of the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Leatham), because, owing to an inadvertence, a penalty analogous in character, but not so severe in amount as that proposed, slipped out of the Bill of last year as it went up to the other House. Now, he had since refreshed his memory on the matter, and he had found that in the original draft of the Bill of last year there was such a penalty; but it was struck out in that House through no oversight on the part of the Government, but by the deliberate and unanimous decision of the House, He therefore hoped that the Government would not now feel themselves bound to impose so odious and vexatious a penalty for the first time on Englishmen, but would respect the decision of the House last year.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he thought he noble Lord's remarks would be more appropriate on the 4th clause. The question was, whether the present Amendment should be allowed to be withdrawn, on account that the penalty it imposed was too severe. He had never intended to mislead the Committee by representing that the provisions to which the noble Lord referred was passed by the House last year. It was one of those provisions which, with several others, were taken out of the Bill last year at the latter part of their lengthened discussions. He would candidly acknowledge that this particular provision was one of the most important of those which had been omitted, and he always had great doubt whether it ought to have been withdrawn.

MR. HEYGATE

thought that before they allowed the Amendment to be withdrawn, they had a right to know whether the Government intended to go on backing up the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) in punishing a voter heavily for so trifling an offence as displaying his ballot paper in any way, especially as he had always been accustomed to vote openly. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give a less vague explanation.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he could not admit that his statement had been at all vague, but would briefly repeat it. The Government were not prepared to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Leatham), and he hoped leave would be given to withdraw it, there being a general agreement that it should not be inserted in the clause now under consideration. If not withdrawn, the Government would be obliged to negative it; but they were prepared to support the Amendment suggested by his hon. Friend last night in the following clause, for reasons which he need not explain till the Committee came to that clause.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, he was unable to see the general concurrence to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded; but that, on the contrary, he had seldom known a question on which there was so general a divergence, which he explained by thinking it was owing to the fact that too short an interval had elapsed since the last sitting for the eyes of the Committee to have cleared. The hon. Member for Huddersfield had a much better claim to attention on a Ballot question than the Government had, for he advocated the measure at a time when the Treasury Bench were in Egyptian darkness on the subject. Indeed, he had forced it on the Government, and was the real author of the Bill. The Prime Minister stated last year that he was not for a secret Ballot, but was for allowing a man to say how he had voted. This question had now been raised, and if the hon. Member did not stand by his Amendment, it should be negatived. He objected to its withdrawal.

MR. JAMES

, alluding to a quotation made by the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) on a former evening, as to the operation of the Ballot in America, stated that the passage had reference only to the Ballot as conducted in Pennsylvania. Though theoretically secret, it was not really so, tickets provided by each party being used, so that the Returning Officer knew how persons voted.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

, having read the whole of the reports from which he selected the passage in question, said, his observations were founded on a clerical error, and that it was Mr. Brightly, and not Mr. Wade who made the speech the subject of his quotation last evening. He must also assure the Committee that judging from the passage, the Ballot, if secret in any American State was so in Pennsylvania.

MR. D. DALRYMPLE

agreed with the noble Lord that there was bonâ fide secresy in Pennsylvania. He (Mr. Dalrymple) had witnessed an election at Philadelphia, and on his asking an elector with a party ticket in his possession, whether he intended to vote for that "platform," the reply was that he should do so to a certain extent, but should strike out some names to which he objected. The ticket used did not, therefore, show how the vote was given.

MAJOR ARBUTHNOT

said, he wished to know, whether the Government agreed with the Solicitor General that to exhibit a voting paper, whether marked or not, should be a penal offence? So arbitrary a measure would afford capital to Conservative Members when they went back to their constituencies.

Amendment (Mr. Solicitor General) negatived.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that these words had accidentally dropped out of it, showed how imperfectly the measure had been drawn up. This penal provision empowering the infliction of two years' imprisonment upon a British elector for showing how he voted appeared in the Bill of two years ago; but last year the punishment was modified, and a penalty of £10 was proposed to be imposed; but the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) objected to that penalty as being too slight, and forthwith the right hon. Gentleman accepted an Amendment, which was rejected by the House last year. It did not drop out of the Bill by accident, but was withdrawn in consequence of the constitutional opposition of hon. Members of that House; and now the principle of it was again accepted by the Government. He was not surprised that the hon. Member for Huddersfield should have proposed the Amendment, for that hon. Gentleman was a pure and unadulterated Radical, and, therefore, in favour of tyranny and arbitrary power. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) had hitherto relied on the example of the Australian Colonies in regard to the Ballot; but he challenged him to produce an example from those colonies in justification of a clause of this character.

Amendment (Mr. Leatham) negatived.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

moved the omission of the words in Subsection 3—"Without due authority supplies any ballot paper to any person."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he could not consent to the omission of those words.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

moved the omission of Sub-section 4. It was well known that an elector, intending to vote for one candidate, from mere nervousness sometimes voted for another; and so he might put into the ballot box by accident "any paper other than the ballot paper which he is authorized to put in;" yet that man would, by the clause, be guilty of a misdemeanour and liable to imprisonment for two years, with or without hard labour.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 3, to leave out the words "Puts into any ballot box any paper other than the ballot paper which he is authorised by law to put in; or."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the object of the clause was to prevent voting papers being tampered with. They had already decided that the voting was to be by a ballot paper handed to the voter by the presiding officer. Therefore, the putting into the ballot box any other than that paper could only be with intent to deceive.

MR. J. LOWTHER

suggested, that there should be added words rendering it penal to put into the box any substance that would destroy the voting papers.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that he would consider the suggestion.

MR. GREGORY

thought it desirable that the penalty should only attach where the prohibited act was done "knowingly and wilfully."

MR. J. G. TALBOT

pointed out that a man would be liable to prosecution under this sub-section, if he accidentally put a letter or a part of a letter into the ballot box with his voting paper. And when a paper had got into the ballot box, how could it be known who had put it there? Such a provision was unworthy of the House of Commons.

MR. CHARLEY

suggested, that the matter should be dealt with under the next clause, which imposed a lighter penalty. If the sub-section remained where it was, numbers would be deterred from voting for fear of committing mistakes, and they would, therefore, practically be disfranchised.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

did not see how any person could put a paper other than a voting paper into the ballot box without intending to do so.

MR. GREENE

asked, what harm would be done if a man put in any other paper? He could understand the sub-section, if it said a man should not put in explosive matter. The Bill must have been drawn by an old woman. Before the clause was passed the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should see that children were instructed at school in the art of using the Ballot. It was absurd to propose such a penalty for so slight an offence.

MR. CORRANCE

, as no friend of the Ballot, could not help thinking there was some occasion for these sub-sections. We were entering upon an era of unlimited corruption, and the right hon. Gentleman did well to put in as many clauses as he could to prevent it.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

protested against a man who committed the offence here contemplated being placed in the same category as a forger, and prosecuted for misdemeanour, when what he did might be the result of accident.

MR. J. S. HARDY

said, it was of no use prescribing heavy sentences for such slight offences, because juries would not convict if the punishment was to be so disproportionate to the offence.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the object of the sub-section was to prevent a voter putting in false voting papers which might pass as true ones. He could not conceive of a person who had just received a proper voting paper putting anything else into the box without knowing it.

MR. W. H. SMITH

asked, if a voter put any other paper into the ballot box, how was he to be discovered, and by what means was he to be traced?

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to understand that much of the opposition offered to this sub-section was the excessive punishment for so venial an offence.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

, in reply to the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), said, that if an offence were charged it must be proved by evidence, and the only evidence would be that of persons who saw the wrong paper put into the box. Then, the prescribed punishment was the maximum which a Judge could inflict, but he had a discretion to pass any sentence less severe.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

called attention to the curious answer just given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, because it was understood that this Bill was to secure absolute secresy in the giving of the vote, and that that secresy was to be inviolable. According to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, somebody was to be always looking over the voter's shoulder, with the ob- ject not of seeing that he voted properly, but of bringing him before a Judge and getting him sentenced to two years' imprisonment. He thought the remarks just made were inconsistent with the spirit in which the Bill had been argued, and that it required further explanation.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, that if this provision of the Bill could not be carried into effect without outraging public opinion, we should be placed in a position of great difficulty. As he understood it, a person might be subjected to two years' imprisonment for putting a piece of blank paper into the ballot box. If such an enactment were made, the whole of our legislative system would be brought into contempt.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he could not conceive that anyone would ever be prosecuted and punished for dropping a piece of blank paper into the box. Those who had read the evidence before the Committee would recollect the account of the "Tasmanian Dodge," by which a paper was taken out of the polling booth and imitated, while another paper marked under exterior influence was inserted in the ballot box. The 2nd clause of the Bill provided that each voting paper should bear an official mark, and the main object of the present provision was to prevent anyone from putting in a paper which did not bear such mark. As to the argument that the offence was one which could not be easily discovered, he would only remark that that was no reason why it should not be punished when it happened to be detected.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, it appeared to him that useless legislation was almost as bad as tyrannical legislation. If a paper without the official mark were allowed to be put into the box, the Returning Officer would alone be to blame. Did the Government mean that if it were necessary to search for one particular paper, all the other papers in the box might be inspected? If so, a fraud would be committed on the public.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

admitted that, if the 2nd clause were always precisely and exactly carried out, the present provision would be unnecessary; but it was possible the eyes of the Returning Officer might be off the box for a short time, so that it was desirable to insert this provision in order to prevent fraud.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

thought that many persons might unknowingly violate some of the quaint and newfangled devices contained in the Bill. For example, a nervous man might put his hand in his pocket, and, taking out some other paper than the voting paper, might quite innocently drop it into the box. He protested against persons being harassed and impeded in the course of exercising their privilege in the manner proposed by the sub-section.

MR. HEYGATE

recommended his hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven to withdraw his opposition to the clause, on the ground that, if the principle of secret voting were to be carried into effect, there must be some provisions to prevent tampering with the Ballot. In his opinion, however, the proposed penalties were out of all proportion to the mild offences described in this subsection.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

expressed his willingness to hold out the hand of friendship to his right hon. Friend, if he would substitute the penalty of a fine of £10 for the punishment of two years' imprisonment.

MR. W. ORMSBY GORE

thought the proposed punishment was excessive, and said that in the event of the Amendment being negatived, he should move to substitute the words "two months'" for "two years'" imprisonment.

MR. BAINES

said, the arguments adduced on the other side were well deserving of consideration, as, under the sub-section, a piece of wanton mischief might be punished as though it were a deliberate fraud. He would, therefore, recommend the introduction of the words— Puts into any ballot box any paper purporting to be a ballot paper other than that which is authorized by the Bill.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the present provision was part of the Ballot Bill of last year, and the same penalties were proposed. He could not conceive that any punishment would apply to the putting into the box a piece of paper not connected with the election; and he had no objection to insert words making it clear that the punishment should be confined to persons putting into the boxes documents "purporting to be ballot papers."

MR. MAGNIAC

said, it would be impossible to trace the paper, as, after it was put into the box, it could not be identified.

MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

suggested that the punishment should be inflicted upon persons who showed to the presiding officer any paper which was not a ballot paper with the intention of placing it in the ballot box.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

thought care should be taken so to word the clause that persons who innocently put into the box papers which were not ballot papers should not be liable to punishment. He would suggest that the persons to be punished should only be those who fraudulently placed improper papers in the boxes, in order, if possible, to have corrupt votes recorded.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he had no objection to make an alteration in the sub-section as proposed after the question before the Committee had been disposed of.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 102: Majority 40.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that he found he was precluded by the forms of the House from introducing in the clause at once any Amendment carrying out the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Simon); but he would take care that an Amendment for the purpose should be brought up on the Report.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

regarded the admission of the right hon. Gentleman, coming as it did after the division which had just been taken, as very different to what it would have been if it had been made earlier. He had no desire to impugn the honour or honesty of the right hon. Gentleman; but he certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Amendment should be introduced at once; and its introduction on the Report was a very different thing to its proposal in Committee, when it could receive a full discussion.

MR. BAINES

said, he had certainly understood his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) to promise the introduction of the word "fraudulently" on the Report.

MR. F. S. POWELL

believed that a consultation with the Government draughtsman would enable the right hon. Gentleman to introduce the Amendment at the present stage of the Bill. It could easily be done by way of Proviso, and he believed that even the Solicitor General might be able to manage it.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.