HC Deb 06 April 1883 vol 277 cc1723-33

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [19th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, this Bill was one of very considerable importance, inasmuch as it proposed a great Constitutional change in the country. That the right hon. Gentleman should bring it forward in so empty a House, and with an almost empty Treasury Bench, was really reducing the matter to a burlesque. His own position with regard to the Ballot was one which be desired to bring before the House at a time when it had not been previously exhausted by a long debate. But, as it was, he could not contend against the force of the Government; he could only protest against this Motion for the honour of Parliamentary Procedure, assuring the right hon. Gentleman at the same time that he should renew his opposition at the next stage.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, it was of very little use his rising at that particular time to protest against the second reading of the Bill. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade laughed at that statement; but he would remind him that the Bill had never yet been discussed upon its merits. The great question, and he thought it was one which the House should carefully consider, was this—had not the Ballot given rise to more bribery and corruption in this country than had ever taken place before? He ventured to say that, under it, more promises had been broken and more deception practised with regard to elections than under the old system of voting, a fact which he did not think even the President of the Board of Trade would venture to deny. Was it not true that under the Ballot the promises made had caused many candidates to expect that they would be returned for the constituencies they sought to represent, and that when the poll was taken the result was entirely different, owing to those promises having been broken? Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, especially the Radical section, appeared, to think it nothing for a man to say he would vote for a candidate, and then, very likely getting something more from the other side, vote in opposition to the promise he had given. In former times that could not take place; a man then wrote down his name in broad daylight, and it was seen and known bow he voted. He ventured to say that this was a far more proper and far more honest way of proceeding. But there was another point to which he asked the attention of hon. Members. It was proposed by this Bill to enact that any constituency might alter the hour of polling, and this was to apply to that constituency alone, that was to say, the hour fixed upon would not be general throughout the country. This question was one which deserved the most serious attention of the House, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to explain the grounds on which this provision was sought to be enacted. He had always systematically and conscientiously been opposed to the Ballot, because he believed it to be neither in the interest of the British Constitution nor in the interest of the British people. No reason had ever presented itself to him for changing his views; and, although he should not now vote in opposition to the Motion before the House, be, nevertheless, protested against the second reading of the Bill.

MR. WARTON

said, nothing had astonished him more than the assumption put forward at various times from the Treasury Bench, that all parties in the country were now agreed as to the principle of the Ballot. He begged leave to say, on behalf of himself and many others, that this was by no means a correct description of the facts of the case. The Ballot Act, after all, was not the law of the land, except provisionally. The Act was originally only intended to remain in force until the year 1880, after which it had to be renewed annually; and he thought it was not too late even now to bring back the sense of the House and the country to the good old-fashioned mode of voting, under which an elector could speak out his mind freely without as at present, sneaking up to the ballot-box to give in his vote. He thought that those who as- pired to be politicians, and still more those who called themselves statesmen, I ought to watch with great interest what was called the current of public feeling throughout the country. It was most useful and interesting to observe in what way persons of different classes, different creeds, and, in a certain sense, persons of different nationalities exercised the franchise; but under the Ballot it was absolutely impossible to form any idea of the feeling of the various classes he had alluded to. Let the House consider the examples furnished by some recent elections. They knew that the late Attorney General for Ireland was triumphantly returned for his constituency only two years ago, against the Home Rule candidate, and it was said at the time that he was supported not only by Liberals, but by Conservatives. But another election for the same borough had taken place a short time age, and on that occasion there was a very large majority for the Home Rule candidate. If it were not for the Ballot, they would know the classes of persons who voted at the two elections for that borough; that was to say, those persons could get the information who took pains to consider what was going on in the world. The same might be said of the Liverpool Election, at which, by some means or other, the Liberal candidate came in by a majority of between 200 and 300, and of others with regard to which it was a matter of pure speculation how the various classes of the constituency voted. Under the old practice, those who wished could take the polling books and see for themselves in what direction the current of public opinion was running. But this could not be done under the Ballot Act. Those who liked to legislate in the dark did not care for such things; they preferred to remain in ignorance of what was going on in the country, and only wanted to set up an idol to be worshipped in ignorance. He maintained the truth of the proposition that those who liked the Ballot liked bribery, because under the Ballot a man might take money from both sides for his vote without being discovered. The observations of Mr. Justice Manisty and other Judges were generally that corruption at elections was worse than it was before. The Government had throughout discouraged discussion of the Bill, and he should, for the reasons stated, feel it his duty to oppose on all occasions its passage through the House. He hoped to see the day on which another revolution of public feeling would bring back the old English institution of open voting, amongst other reasons, as a means of putting a stop to Radical meanness. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, he rose to second the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport. He objected to the Ballot altogether, for reasons which he could not enter into on the present question, but which had already been stated to the House. One reason why he supported the adjournment of the debate was that they were about to have brought before them a very important Bill to deal with corrupt and illegal practices at elections, and he believed that had this become law a few years ago, the Ballot Act would never have passed through the House—that was to say, the stringent measures which it was proposed to take against bribery and corruption would have rendered the Ballot Bill unnecessary. The Bill he referred to would be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days, and he believed it to be the unanimous wish of the House that it should pass into law, and that it should have a fair trial, so that the country might see how far it was likely to put down corrupt practices at elections. That being so, and until some effect had been given to the measure, he hoped the Ballot Bill would not be passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Warton.)

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he deprecated the adjournment of the debate at so early an hour. The Bill before the House was the same in principle as that which passed the second reading last Session. In contained some alterations in respect of matters of detail which would have to be fully debated when it went into Committee; but as to the principle of the Bill, which had received the sanction of the leading Members of the Conservative Party, it was simply a renewal. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport had stated that the Government were wrong in assuming that all parties in the country were agreed upon the principle of the Ballot. The hon. and learned Member spoke in the name of himself and certain other Members; but it would be in the recollection of the House that the leading Members on the opposite Benches had expressed their approval of the Bill. The lion, and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer), however, had the other night moved the adjournment of the debate on the second reading; and they had now the extraordinary spectacle of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and, indeed, every Member opposite who had spoken on the Motion for the second reading, condemning the principle of the Bill. That was certainly a new departure for the Party opposite to take, and one by which he thought they were not likely to benefit. He could not think the Conservative Party were wise in adopting a course which tended to prevent legislation on which the country had set its heart.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

remarked, that in saying that this was in principle the same Bill as that which was read last year, the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to state the circumstances in which that second reading took place. They were these. The Bill last year was on the Order Paper for second reading on the day following the adjournment of the House after the assassination of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke; it came on contrary to the general expectation of the House, and was met by an almost unanimous protest from Members on those Benches, in which he believed the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) joined. The principle of the Bill, had, therefore, not been discussed. Personally, he was not in favour of the Ballot; but he did not think his objection would, extend to the present proposal, if it were brought on at a time when adequate discussion could take place. The Bill contained some provisions which, to his knowledge, had never before been presented to the House.

MR. SPEAKER

I would point out to the noble Lord that he must not discuss the Bill on a Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he would defer to the ruling of the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had, however, preceded him in this matter. Unless his hearing was at fault, the right hon. Gentleman had addressed an admonition to the Conservative Party to the effect that, if they proceeded to oppose the Ballot Act as it was proposed to be continued in this Bill, they would find that such a course would not meet with the approbation of the country. That certainly appeared to be irrelevant to the Motion before the House. But his object in rising was to point out that the Bill had not been discussed, and that if it were pressed forward then, it would meet with the strongest opposition.

MR. ONSLOW

said, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary to cast in the teeth of the Opposition the fact that the Bill was not opposed last year, in view of the circumstances under which the second reading was then taken. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman could not be accepted by Members on those Benches. On the occasion referred to the House was taken completely by surprise, hon. Members on that side having no idea that a Government Bill would be brought on at such a period; and that was the reason why, after a unanimous protest on their part, the second reading was taken. He cordially supported the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport for the adjournment of the debate. They felt it was perfectly useless to oppose voting by Ballot; but, although they objected to it, he and his hon. Friends had no intention of obstructing the Bill. There were clauses in the Bill which were of serious importance to the country. He had put down Notice of opposition to the Bill because it proposed to extend the hours of polling. That was a matter for very serious consideration. ["Question!"] He was giving his reasons why he should vote for the adjournment of the debate, and therefore he was perfectly in Order. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had not, either in the last or in this Session, given, the House the reason why he proposed an extension of the hours of polling, and it was certainly due to the House and to the country, before they were asked to vote the second reading of this measure, that the right hon. Gentleman should say why he proposed this great change, As to the other parts of the Bill, there was very little to which they could object. As that part of the Bill which referred to the hours of polling would affect nearly every borough in England, with the exception of those in the Metropolis, the House had a right to ask the Government to give them an opportunity of explaining their views, and of ascertaining the views of the Government upon the subject. This measure affected great as well as small constituencies, and altogether it was such as ought not to be hurried through the House at 1 o'clock in the morning. It might be said that in a very short time small constituencies would be done away with. That might be the case; but, whether it was so or not, the constituencies would in future possess just the same power of voting. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to allow the debate to be adjourned, and to give the House, at some future time, the reason why he had imported the provision respecting the hours of polling into his Bill. He should vote with the right hon. Gentleman as to the other parts of the Bill. On the present occasion he cordially supported the Motion for Adjournment.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Onslow) urged as a reason for the adjournment of the debate that the Bill contained a clause providing for an extension of the hours of polling. The hon. Gentleman himself had given Notice of an Amendment which would raise the whole question; and when the Amendment was moved the Government would be quite prepared to discuss it. The Government had always felt that the question of the hours of polling was one for discussion in Committee, and not on the second reading of the Bill; but, at the same time, they would be prepared to meet as a question of principle the Amendment of which the hon. Gentleman had given Notice. As, however, the hon. Gentleman had not chosen to bring forward his Amendment to-night, he ought not to ask that this stage of the Bill should be postponed. The noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) made a statement which he (Mr. Chamberlain) had endeavoured to verify, but had been unable to do so. The noble Lord said that last year the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) joined in the protest against the proposal of the Government to take the second reading of the Bill. Now, the Leader of the Opposition did not appear, from the examination of his remarks that he (Mr. Chamberlain) had made, to have done anything of the kind. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) was reported to have said— I agree with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) that the division on the proposal to adjourn the debate might be taken as a division upon the merits of the Bill; and as I do not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill I shall not vote for the adjournment. And then the right hon. Baronet went on to say— I think, therefore, we have a right to ask the Government that they will put the stage of Committee at such another time as will enable the House to discuss it."—(3 Hansard, [269] 365–6.) It would be seen that the right hon. Baronet did not object to take the second reading of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman saw plainly that if the Opposition supported the adjournment it might be construed in the country that they were committed to an opposition of the Bill; and he himself, according to his own statement, was not opposed to the principle of the Bill.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), instead of reading the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), were to read the speech he himself made when the second reading of the Bill was taken, last year, because he would then find that he gave a most distinct pledge to the House that there should be a full and fair opportunity for discussing the Bill.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; he could not give any such pledge.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman would only read his own speech he would see what he really did say. As the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had been good enough to refer to him, he desired to say he objected the other day to proceeding with the Bill, as he objected now, on account of the late hour at which the second reading was brought on. A quarter past 12 was not an hour of the night when any measure of great importance could be properly discussed. It was idle to bring the charge of Obstruction against any hon. Member who objected to proceeding with the Bill at that hour. It was about that time the other night when the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) said they could not discuss certain financial matters then raised on account of the lateness of the hour. It now, however, suited the purpose of the Government to proceed with the Ballot Bill, so that no objection was made as to the hour. He hoped the adjournment would be agreed to.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, that he voted with the Government 10 or 12 years ago upon the Ballot Bill, and wished to state the reasons why he now repented that vote. He could not conveniently do so at that hour, and he did not think it was right that they should be called upon to discuss the second reading of the Continuation Bill at 10 minutes to 1 o'clock in the morning. He should, therefore, cordially support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

MR. ONSLOW

said, that, in reply to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), he desired to say that the only reason why he had not brought on his Amendment was that he did not think the House was in a fit state to receive it, and because the hour was so late.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 74: Majority 33.—(Div. List, No. 53.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. ONSLOW

said, he thought he should be perfectly justified in moving as he now did, that the House do now adjourn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Onslow.)

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not persevere with that Motion. They had made their protest, and the Treasury Bench opposite must see that a division at that hour of the night, with no preparation to resist the phalanx of the Government, and with only an indiscriminate remnant of the Opposition present, would not represent the fair and just opinion of the House of Commons in regard to the Bill. They had made a protest against the Bill being taken at an hour of the night when debate was impossible, and when nothing but shouting seemed to be left to the other side of the House. He must compliment hon. Gentlemen opposite upon their power of lungs. He thought his hon. Friends had better let the Bill go through, for, happily, this was not its last stage.

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT

said, he did not entirely endorse all that had fallen from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Beresford Hope); but, at the same time, he would support his suggestion that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) should withdraw his Motion. He failed to see that anything was to be gained by it; and he would propose that, as the Members of the Government present did not seem inclined to go to bed, instead of insisting on the Motion for Adjournment, they should properly discuss the Bill. The Opposition had made their protest—he did not speak as "an indiscriminate remnant," and he failed to see how that remark was justified—because he considered there had been considerable unanimity of opinion exhibited on the Opposition side of the House in the last division. They could only now let their protest be published. The right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill had been singularly unfortunate in all the Bills he had had charge of, having had to bring them on at a late hour. The Opposition had protested against being asked to consider the Ballot Act Continuance Bill at that late hour, and they could do no more.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he found there was a practical agreement on both sides of the House that as there was an important principle contained in Clause 6 of the Bill there should be a further opportunity of discussing it. The House had not had an opportunity of debating it either last year or this year; therefore he would propose that the Motion for Adjournment should be withdrawn, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister should undertake to bring on the Committee stage at a reasonable hour—["Oh, oh!"]—well, a "reasonable hour," he knew, was not a proposal to which an unreasonable man would assent; but his suggestion was that there should be an undertaking to bring on the Committee stage at a reasonable hour, so that the hon. Member for Guildford might have an opportunity of raising the point he desired to have discussed. At present, having made their protest, they ought, he thought, to allow the second reading to take place.

MR. GLADSTONE

No doubt the next stage of the Bill will be taken at a reasonable hour. That, I think, is the assurance the noble Lord desires.

MR. ONSLOW

asked leave to withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

Shall we go on with the Bill on Monday?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Only if it is reached at an early hour.

MR R. N. FOWLER

Before 10 o'clock?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Yes; not unless it is reached before 10 o'clock.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.