HC Deb 24 April 1873 vol 215 cc959-62

(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Hibbert.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 21st April.]

Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 5 (Clause A.—Registration of lodgers.)

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

moved to add, in page 3, at end, as a fresh paragraph— Lodgings occupied by a person in any two successive years shall not be deemed to be different lodgings by reason only that in either of such years he has in addition to such lodgings also occupied some other room or place.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that he had no objection to the words being added.

Amendment agreed to.

On Motion, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"

MR. C. E. LEWIS

moved to leave out the clause altogether, on the ground that it was important that the lodger clause should be guarded against abuse. In small boroughs fraud could not so well be committed by the putting forward of false claims with success; but in such boroughs as Westminster a man who was upon the list for next year had only to make a claim in the form prescribed in the Schedule to the Act in respect of lodgings, and he would be entitled to go upon the list just as if he had given evidence in support of the claim, whether it were well-founded or not. The sole protection against fraud was that the party making the claim should appear in person; but as the clause stood there was no possible chance of a thorough sifting of the register.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that the clause placed the lodger franchise in the same position as other franchises. If a lodger made a claim and it was unobjected to, he obtained his vote. If it was objected to, the objection would be heard and decided on its merits; should it fail, the party making it would have to pay the costs; should it succeed, the lodger lost his vote.

MR. COLLINS

observed that at present every claimant had to prove his claim in order to get on the register, and that duty should still be imposed on him, though he might be absolved from proof year after year. Every possible precaution ought to be taken to keep the register pure.

MR. JAMES

supported the clause as a step in the right direction towards doing justice to lodgers by relieving them from the onus of making their claims year by year. If the clause were rejected a large number of voters would be practically disfranchised.

MR. CHARLEY

thought the clause, if retained, would lead to the manufacture of rotten votes.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Arrangement of register of electors.)

MR. HIBBERT

moved an Amendment, providing that the registration should be performed by the town clerk of the borough in which the nomination took place.

MR. LOCKE

asked how boroughs in which there was no town clerk would be affected by the Amendment?

MR. HIBBERT

said, that the existing Registration Acts, which were incorporated in this Bill, provided that in Southwark and Westminster the duty should be performed by the high bailiff, and in other boroughs where there was no town clerk by the person who performed the town clerk's duties.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Double qualifications.)

MR. BRAND

moved, in page 7, at end to add— Where a person is entitled to be registered as a voter for a county in respect of distinct qualifications in two or more polling districts of the same county, he shall be entitled to be registered and to vote in respect of such one of the qualifications as he may select, but not in respect of more than one; and it shall be the duty of every revising barrister in revising the lists of voters for any county to erase (subject to the right of selection above mentioned) from the lists for every polling district in the same county except one, the name of every person who appears to him to be entered in more than one of such lists.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

objected to the Amendment, because he did not see why a voter was to be put to an election where he was to be registered, and because it would be unworkable, or disfranchise people unfairly.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, that great inconvenience would be caused if the Amendment were adopted.

MR. WYKEHAM MARTIN

opposed the Amendment, which, he said, might possibly secure a very trifling improvement, at the risk of a great injustice.

MR. CAWLEY

said, that as the clause stood there would be a great risk of men being disfranchised.

MR. COLLINS

recommended that the clause should be brought up in an amended form on the Report.

MR. JAMES

said, that if a man's name was allowed to appear on the register for four or five different places there would be great room for personation, and if it was necessary to guard against this in boroughs it would be still more so in counties.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

denied that there was any proof of personation being carried on in counties because a person's name appeared on the register for different qualifications.

MR. GOLDSMID

objected to the proposed addition to the clause.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the clause related simply to boroughs, and he did not think it open to much objection, but there might be some difficulty in its practical working, and he thought the Amendment might be adopted in a modified form.

MR. BRAND

said, he was quite satisfied with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Attorney General, and he would withdraw the Amendment for the present, in order that it might be brought up again in an altered form.

MR. HUNT

moved that the Chairman be directed to report Progress, and then the Amendment could be brought up when the Committee was resumed.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.