MOTION FOR LEAVE. (Hansard, 9 February 1882)

§ MR. CALLAN
said, the burdens upon the ratepayers were already sufficiently heavy, and he considered it wrong that further expenses should be imposed upon them. Besides, the latter part of the leave asked for covered a new imposition or condition which had not been explained—and which, if it was, as he anticipated, an importation of the French rule of an absolute majority of the entire constituency—would be a most objectionable innovation. He thought the House was entitled to more complete information as to the object of the Bill before it consented to its introduction.

MR. ASHTON DILKE
pointed out that there were good reasons in support of the proposal to provide the payment of the necessary election expenses out of the rates. With regard to providing for a second election in some cases, that followed as a necessary corollary to the first proposition. He thought that no 332 candidate ought to be elected unless he obtained a clear majority of votes at the first election.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he was not disposed to assent to the conclusions of the hon. Member, nor to the unconsidered introduction of Bills upon important subjects, especially such as sought to impose new and unprecedented conditions. The imposition of fresh burdens upon the ratepayers, and the requirement of an absolute majority by a candidate on his first election, were altogether proposals of so large a character, that he did not think the House should grant facilities for them, particularly as they emanated from a Gentleman of so adventurous a school of politics as the hon. Member belonged to who asked leave to introduce this Bill, and who was a leading Representative of what was known as the Caucus system. He confessed that he regarded with the greatest suspicion any proposal coming from that school, and purporting to deal with the question of Parliamentary Electoral Reform. He knew that in France this system of insisting upon an absolute majority, when backed up by a powerful organization, was partly made use of in opposition to the wishes of the majority at elections. There was, indeed, in France a very near approach to the Caucus system as introduced into this country by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain). He should wish to have, with regard to the Bill proposed to be introduced by the hon. Member opposite, a much more full and complete explanation than had been forthcoming; and as he regarded the Caucus simply as an importation of the New York Tammany Hall system, he should go upon the well-grounded principle of "reasonable suspicion"—which, he believed, was the only principle left to Her Majesty's Government—in opposing any facilities being given to this Bill, and, if necessary, in taking a division against it.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
said, he could not assent to the position taken up by the hon. Member who sought leave to introduce this Bill, that no candidate ought to be elected unless he polled an absolute majority of votes at the first election. In the constituency which he had the honour to represent his Colleague polled 10,326 votes out of a total of 22,000 voters. By these figures the 333 House would see that his hon. Friend, who was returned by a large majority, was, according to the view of the hon. Gentleman opposite, improperly elected. He, therefore, entirely demurred to the principle put forward in the Notice of Motion; and he begged to assure hon. Members that as long as he had the honour of a seat in that House he should feel it his duty to offer the strongest opposition to any Bill of that character. As a general rule, it was, no doubt, convenient to allow Bills to be introduced and read a first time, and then fully discussed on the second reading; but the present measure, after the explanation of the hon. Member in charge of it, appeared to him, and to those sitting on that side of the House, of so objectionable a character that, acting on the principle laid down by the First Minister of the Crown some 12 years ago— That when the principle of a Bill is obviously objectionable, it is not well to permit its introduction, he felt justified in opposing the Motion, and in supporting the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) in dividing against it.