§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 9 (Double qualifications).
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEmoved, in page 7, line 19, to insert—
It shall not be necessary for a candidate for the office of common councilman of the City of London to be on such list for any particular borough to qualify him for the office of common councilman.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. C. E. LEWISmoved, at end of clause, to add—
Provided, That in no case shall the revising barrister erase any such name until he has been satisfied by evidence on oath that the name of the person to be erased is that of a person entered on more than one of such lists.He explained that his object was simply that the barrister should not be led by mere observations in court to strike names out of the list.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, he hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed. The Act of 1867 made it the duty of the Revising Barrister to strike out a name if it should appear in more than one polling district, without receiving evidence upon oath.
§ MR. C. E. LEWISremarked that it frequently happened that in large boroughs the same name appeared several 1691 times upon the Parliamentary list, and if somebody in court said that the name referred to one person only when in fact it was not so, the barrister might strike names out of the list and unwittingly disfranchise persons.
§ MR. R. SHAWsaid, he hoped that the Amendment would be persevered in.
§ MR. LOCKEalso expressed the same opinion. He knew an instance where the Revising Barrister was told that a man was dead, and was just about striking out the name when the roan walked into the room. There should be evidence on oath in such cases.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, he hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed, and upon Report he would bring up a clause upon the subject.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 10 (Grounds of objection to be specified in notice. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18. Sec. 28 & 29 Vict. c. 36, s. 6).
§ MR. RATHBONEmoved, in page 7, line 39, after "objected to," to insert as a fresh paragraph—
It shall be the duty of the overseers, in the interval between the publication of the lists of objections and claims in a parliamentary or municipal borough and the revision of the lists, to inquire, so far as may be, into the matter of the several claims or objections.
§ MR. COLLINSsaid, he had no objection to an inquiry into claims; but he thought it very undesirable that they should have an inquiry into the matter of objections.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment. They ought not to impose upon the overseers any duties of this kind.
§ MR. C. REEDalso thought it would be putting a very invidious duty upon the overseers.
§ MR. GOLDNEYwished to know what the overseer was to do after he had made this inquiry. If he were to report to the Revising Barrister, then what ought to be done? He thought this was a fatal objection to the Amendment.
§ MR. RATHBONEsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CHARLEYmoved, in page 8, line 2, at end, to add—"This section shall not apply to lodgers." He said it was very difficult to ascertain whether a person was entitled to the lodger fran- 1692 chise or not, and the present Bill originally contained no reference whatever to lodgers.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought this Amendment would do away with the effect of the 5th clause by a side wind.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 11 agreed to.
§ Clause 12 (Costs of objection).
§ MR. C. E. LEWISmoved, in page 8, line 17, to leave out—"or to any person claiming to be on such list of voters."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. C. E. LEWIScomplained that under this clause they narrowed the discretion given by the present law to the Revising Barristers to award costs.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 13 (Proceedings on objection made to voters).
§ MR. C. E. LEWISsaid, the clause required a Revising Barrister, previously to hearing any objection, to institute a preliminary inquiry on oath as to the bona fides of the objector. He moved, in page 8, line 29, to leave out all after "require," down to and including "satisfaction," in line 29, and insert—
The objector to state the ground of his objection against such person, and unless the revising barrister shall be satisfied that such objection has been made bonâ fide, and that there exists primâ facie some ground for putting the person objected to to the proof of his qualification.
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSSobjected to throwing the duty of preparing the lists of voters on the overseers, who were by the clause required to discharge such duty without additional pay. They all knew that the overseers' lists, if not revised periodically, would become gradually defective and corrupt.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was unable to accept the Amendment. The object of the clause was to prevent frivolous objections.
§ MR. C. E. LEWISsaid, it would be impossible to carry on a proper system of registration, especially in counties, under the clause.
§ MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, the difficulty arose from the clause being made to apply both to the attendance and non-attendance of the voter to support his vote.
§ MR. COLLINSthought that the objector ought to be able to state his belief without giving actual personal proof, which in some cases was almost impossible.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, the Liberal party in Liverpool intended by means of this Bill largely to recruit their strength by putting 1,000 or 2,000 fictitious voters on the register, trusting to the deterrent effect of the 40s. penalty to prevent their being objected to.
§ MR. RATHBONEsaid, the intentions of the Liberal party in Liverpool were to have as pure and as good a register as possible. The monstrous assertion of the hon. Gentleman formed part of a delusion.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHhoped no difficulty would be thrown in the way of a just and fair objection.
§ Question put, "That the words 'primâ facie proof to be given to his satisfaction' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 103: Majority 66.
§ Clause added to the Bill.
§ Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
§ Clause 16 (Successive occupation).
§ MR. COLLINSmoved to omit the clause, on the ground that its tendency would be to invite objections. If a man resided only for two or three days at one house his name could be put upon the register, though he might reside elsewhere for the remainder of the twelve months, the present law requiring that he should occupy the same premises for a year to entitle him to a vote. The clause would give great power to the overseer, and throw upon the public a burden of objections.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 66: Majority 61.
§ Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
§ Clause 19 (Expenses and receipts of town clerks. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 15, s. 55.)
§ MR. CAWLEYmoved, in lines 12 and 13, the omission of the words "or overseers," on the ground that overseers were in the habit of making charges against town clerks for the work they did, not as part of their regular duties as "overseers," but as an extra fee altogether for work done in the capacity of 1694 individuals. If the words he objected to were allowed to remain, overseers would make one charge against the borough for preparing lists, and also another charge at their own will and pleasure, and as there was no audit in respect of such latter payments there was no control over them.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman in his objection. This clause made no alteration in the existing law. It merely extended the operation of the law to the expenses, whatever they might be, incurred by the overseers in the performance of the duties imposed upon them by the Act.
§ MR. CAWLEYrepeated that the charge was made, not as overseers, but as individuals.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,on the suggestion of the hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Mr. Cross), agreed to consider the point before Report.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALmoved, after Clause 8, to insert the following clause (Power to arrange lists by streets).
§ Clause agreed to.
§ MR. GREGORY(for Mr. LOPES) moved, after Clause 16, to insert the following clause (Suitable places to be procured for revising barristers' courts).
§ Clause amended and agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ MR. RATHBONE(for Mr. JAMES) moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following clause (Evening sittings of revision court).
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
MR. H. R. BRANDmoved, after Clause 24, to insert the following clause (List of persons disqualified by parochial relief).
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ MR. CHARLEYmoved the following clause (Power to alter number of revising barristers to be appointed under 6 and 7 Vic. c. 18, s. 28).
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ MR. COLLINSmoved the following clause (Repeal of part of forty-fourth Clause of 5 and 6 Will. 4, c. 76).
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
1695§ MR. C. E. LEWISmoved the following clause (Town clerk not to act as agent).
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ On Motion that the first Schedule stand part of the Bill,
§ MR. C. E. LEWIScalled attention to the particular dates in the Bill, at which various operations under it were to be effected or carried out as being impossible or impracticable for effecting the objects proposed.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Government had decided to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), and instead of the 24th of June being the qualifying period, the date would be the 31st of May. The advantage of that would be to give more time for all the earlier steps in the preparation of the register. The earlier dates would all be put back just two months, beginning with the 5th of January, which date would be altered to the 1st of November. He thought these alterations would be a great improvement. During the present year everything would go on as it was now with respect to the present law as to the lists. There would be no alteration. They would have to provide for postponing the operation of the register only until next January.
§ Schedule amended, and agreed to.
§ Second Schedule.
§ MR. GREGORYmoved, in page 17, Form A, column 3, to leave out "shed," and insert "building."
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday 16th May, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]