HC Deb 17 March 1881 vol 259 cc1230-2
MR. WILLIAMSON

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to decisions given by Mr. Commissioner Prentice during the present month with respect to the last municipal election in Liverpool, and to the wrong doing of the Constitutional Association and of certain leading citizens who, in a circular addressed to 700 Conservative electors possessing duplicate votes, incited them, in the words of the judge, "by a fraudulent device," to break the law by voting in more than one ward; and, whether, as it has been shown that by such means eight Conservative Aldermen were elected contrary to the voice of the ratepayers, adequate punishment can be made to follow, and a remedy for the wrong committed, can be found under the existing Law?

VISCOUNT SANDON

begged also to ask Mr. Attorney General some Questions, of which he had given him Notice that day, as the Question just asked by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's was one which gravely reflected on the conduct of the Constitutional Association, and certain leading citizens of Liverpool. 1. Whether he is aware that the action of the Constitutional Association was taken under the advice of emi- nent counsel? 2. Whether he is aware that a circular was issued in 1879 by the then treasurer of the Liberal Nine Hundred of Liverpool stating that electors enrolled in more wards than one are entitled to vote at municipal elections in all the wards in which they are enrolled; and that another circular was issued in 1880, bearing the signature of the secretary of the Liverpool Liberal Association, giving his opinion to the same effect? 3. Whether it is not the fact that a considerable number of Town Councillors and leading members of the Liberal party in Liverpool, as well as many other well-known Liberal voters, did vote in more than one ward at the last municipal election; and whether, considering the assertions which have been made by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's as to the wrong committed in the recent election of eight aldermen, he would call for a nominal Return of all the duplicate voters at the last municipal election for Liverpool, and lay the same upon the Table of the House, so as to show whether the statement is correct? 4. Whether, considering that there are two Petitions still pending at Liverpool, when the question of duplicate voting which affects every city and borough in the country will again be raised he will consider himself justified in giving any opinion upon the important legal question at issue respecting winch the action of both political parties in Liverpool has been practically identical in the recent municipal elections?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

My attention has been called to the decision of Mr. Commissioner Prentice, sitting under the Municipal Corrupt Practices Act. I have read the Report; but as there are still two more Petitions to be tried on which the same question has to be determined, I think that I ought not now to do more than say that I see no reason to express any opinion different from the decision of Mr. Prentice—that no elector having voted in one ward has any right to vote in a second. I am not aware that any counsel has given such an opinion as that referred to, and I should be very much surprised if such an opinion had been given, especially as the learned Commissioner, in giving judgment, said he could not find that counsel had given any opinion that persons who had several qualifications were entitled to vote in more than one ward. I think, therefore, there must be some misapprehension on that point. As to what has been said in regard to the issue of circulars, I have no knowledge of the fact stated; but I am aware that after the Constitutional Association had issued a circular asking persons to vote in more wards than one, a Member of the Liberal Party issued a similar circular, and that Liberal electors, stated by a local paper to have numbered 275, did so record their votes. Under these circumstances, I do not think it necessary to move for any Return of the duplicate voters, nor do I think it advisable that any legal proceedings should be taken in the matter. Publicity will, probably, prevent such occurrences in the future; and I would certainly suggest to all concerned never to do the like again.