HC Deb 10 August 1883 vol 283 cc109-36
MR. EVANS WILLIAMS

said, he had an Amendment to propose to the 2nd sub-section of the Schedule, Part I.—namely, in page 39. line 7, to substitute the words "for every two thousand electors" for the words "to act within each polling district." This Amendment, which was not moved in Committee, but deferred to the present stage of the Bill, owing to the somewhat hasty manner in which the Schedule had been passed through, was intended to limit the large number of sub-agents which the candidates, in the case of some counties, would be allowed to employ. He bad not heard from the hon. and learned Attorney General how far he was disposed to go in the direction of this proposal; but he hoped he would see his way to imposing some restriction upon the number of sub-agents which the Bill proposed to allow. It was the 21st clause of the Bill which let in sub-agents for the first time. The clause provided that the election agent of a candidate by himself or by his sub-agents should appoint polling agents, clerks, and messengers for payment on behalf of a candidate at an election, and hire committee rooms on behalf of the candidate. He would remind the House that this matter of sub-agents was an entirely now importation since the Bill of last year was introduced, in which Bill only one agent was allowed in counties, as in boroughs; whereas the sub-section he now proposed to amend affected counties only. He had no doubt that with regard to counties, or, at any rate, some of them, a certain number of sub-agents were necessary, and it was, therefore, quite right that they should be employed; but this sub-section would allow one sub-agent for every polling district in the county, and that, he submitted, was altogether in excess of the requirements of the case. Now, there were many counties in Wales, and he believed in Scotland also, which, although they had, comparatively speaking, a very large number of polling stations, had, notwithstanding, a small number of electors in proportion thereto. Again, he apprehended that by this Bill the number of polling stations would be largely increased, which would, therefore, probably increase the number of sub-agents. He voted in one county that, with but a small number of electors, had 15 polling stations, and the effect of the Bill, in its present form, would be to allow to each candidate for election that number of sub-agents. He confessed to some astonishment that such a provision should have found its way into the Bill since last year; because although it had, undoubtedly, been the habit of some candidates to employ as many agents as possible, yet he believed that no one had ever thought of employing so large a number as that which he had just mentioned. He observed that his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) bad an Amendment which went in the same direction, with this difference—that instead of substituting, as he proposed to do, the words "for every two thousand electors," his hon. Friend would simply strike out the words of the sub-section which allowed one sub-agent for each polling district, the effect of which would be that only one sub-agent would be allowed. He (Mr. Evans Williams) went on the basis of the number of electors in each constituency; and he contended that if it was necessary to restrict the number of sub-agents at all, that principle ought to be the guide as to the number of sub-agents which candidates for counties might be expected to employ. Unless, therefore, that principle was embodied in the Bill, he thought it would be better that the provision as to sub-agents should be left out of it altogether. In proposing this Amendment he was a ware that he should be met by two arguments, neither of which he considered to be of sufficient weight to remove his objection to the Bill in its present form; and the first was that the appointment of sub-agents was purely optional on the part of the candidate. He very much regretted that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) was not then present, because he had understood the noble Lord to say that it was his intention to move an Amendment practically to the same effect as that on which he was about to take the sense of the House; and when Clause 21, which brought in these sub-agents, was under discussion, the noble Lord protested against it, and said that, although he wished Woodstock to be treated as a county, he was opposed to the employment of so many sub-agents. He (Mr. Evans Williams) thought that the objection to his Amendment, founded upon the fact that the employment of sub-agents was optional, fell to the ground, because the Bill ought to save candidates from undue pressure being put upon them to appoint sub-agents. The second probable objection that would be urged to the Amendment was that the candidate would be restrained from employing too many sub-agents by the maximum of expenditure allowed by the Bill; but, surely, those who used that argument did not suppose that gentlemen could be always referring to the maximum to see that they were not exceeding the prescribed amount. His own fear was that those sub-agents would absorb a great deal more than their proper share of the amount; he believed that the effect of the maximum would be to lead people, who had hitherto carried on elections at a lower expense than that set forth in the Schedule, to bring their expenditure up to the maximum in future; and he thought the Attorney General would find that his anticipation of cutting down election expenses to one-third of their former amount, would be in that way counterbalanced. He trusted the Attorney General would be able to see his way to the adoption of the Amendment, which he now begged to move.

Amendment proposed, In page 39, line 7, to leave out the words "to act within each polling' district," and insert the words "for every two thousand electors,"—(Mr. Evans Williams,)

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

regretted that he was unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for New Radnor. He pointed out that the area of some of the counties was so large that the polling districts were at a considerable distance from the central district, in which cases assistance was necessary to the principal election agent. It seemed to him better not to depart from the principle which had been over and over again acquiesced in; and, therefore, he trusted his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to divide the House upon his Amendment.

DR. FARQUHARSON

said, as the hon. Member for New Radnor had stated, it had been his intention to move an Amendment to the 1st Part of the Schedule, to strike out all the words after "sub-agent" down to "district" inclusive; but he should now be satisfied with supporting the Amendment before the House, without taking a Division upon his own. He objected to sub-agents being appointed by the candidate for every polling district in the county on two grounds—first, because sub-agents were altogether unnecessary; and, secondly, because their employment would lead inevitably to increased expenditure at elections. If the Bill remained in its present form, they would have the old state of things re-occurring —namely, that a network of sub-agents would be spread over the country, and produce the demoralization which was inseparable from an arrangement of that kind. It had been said, and he understood the hon. and learned Attorney General to say, that a large county election could not be fought without a correspondingly large number of sub-agents; but that was certainly not the invariable rule, because he himself had fought one of the largest constituencies in Scotland (West Aberdeenshire) with only one agent, and he did not believe the work could have been better done. Further, he believed that the electors themselves very much preferred that mode of doing business to the old system.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 29: Majority 62.—(Div. List, No. 277.)

Amendment proposed, In page 39, line 28, after the word "Aylesbury," to insert the words "and in the case of any district borough within the meaning of 'The Ballot Act, 1872,'"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GORST

said, he proposed to insert words limiting the amount to that fixed by the 38&39 Vict., so that it should be impossible for more to be paid than the Returning Officer had allowed for the candidate's expenditure.

Amendment proposed, in page 39, line 32, after the word "charges," to insert the words "not exceeding the amount authorized by 38 and 39 Vict. c. 84."—(Mr. Gorst.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the result of this Amendment would be that if an agent came to another professional man and said—" I have spent £30 more than the candidate is allowed," the candidate might be unseated, although he repudiated the expenditure. The House had already come to a decision upon this point, and he could not assent to the Amendment.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he hoped the House would adopt the Amendment. It was quite true that there had been a decision on a similar question, but that decision was come to under a misapprehension; and he believed the real sense of the House was in favour of some such proposition as this earlier in the Sitting; and it was only through a misunderstanding as to what Members were discussing that the decision was arrived at. What were they asked to do? The Returning Officer, under the present law, could spend so much money; but they now practically said that that Officer was at liberty to spend more, and trust to the candidate to repay him. If there was one portion of election matters more loose and ill-considered than another it was the expenses entered into by the Returning Officer. If the expenses were paid by the borough, or county, or local authority, instead of by the candidate, a great deal more care would be exercised by the Returning Officer than at present was exercised; and he wondered that the Attorney General, in a Bill which had for its primary object the reducing of expenditure, should refuse to accept such a reasonable Amendment, and one which would have great effect in reducing expenditure in directions in which unnecessary expenditure was made. If the Amendment was adopted, the Returning Officer would have to be very careful to keep himself within the limit of the Schedule of expenses laid down by the law. Those expenses were ample for everything, and some of them were, in fact, excessive; and yet he found that a Returning Officer, being assured that there would be no difficulty in getting the money back from the candidate, would be altogether careless as to the expenditure. In fact, the money paid by the Returning Officer in excess of the scale often went really in the direction of a corrupt influence; for a candidate who would spend any amount of money on the Returning Officer's expenses was very often looked upon with more favour than one who was not inclined to do so. Nothing could be more reasonable than this proposal. The Attorney General almost accepted it that afternoon; and it was only because a number of hon. Members flocked in from another part of the House, and then heard the Government Tellers declare against the Amendment, that it was not adopted by a large majority. He hoped, now that the House had the issue fairly before it, and they really knew what it was, they would accept it. It was reasonable and just; and he had no hesitation in saying that it commended itself to the good sense of every Member.

MR. LEWIS

rose to Order, and asked whether, this matter having been substantially decided that afternoon, it could be re-opened?

MR. EVANS WILLIAMS

pointed out that by the Amendment passed in the afternoon the Returning Officer would be held responsible; but by this Amendment the candidate would be liable.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, he was surprised that the Government refused to accept this Amendment. The whole principle of the Bill was to reduce expenses, and to prevent extravagant and corrupt expenditure; but, while that was carried out with regard to others, the Returning Officer was made an exception. Why should that be so? It was true the Returning Officer could not recover from the candidate anything beyond the amount fixed in the Schedule; but a candidate was free to make a gift. Why should not all other people taking part in an election be as free as the Returning Officer to ask whatever they chose, provided they were not able to recover by law? This was only an excuse for extortion from the candidate, such as had been practised in the past, and which would be practised again, if the opportunity was given, especially after this debate. A proclamation was now made by the House to all Returning Officers that, if they chose, they might ask as much as they chose from the candidate, although, at the same time, they could only legally recover the amount fixed in the Schedule. There would be pressure put upon the candidate to accede to these larger demands; and he would have to accede in the future as he had done in the past. If the principle and object of this Bill was that there should be cheap, and pure, and honest elections, why should this exception be made on behalf of the Returning Officers? It was within the knowledge of many hon. Members that they had had to pay demands largely in excess of the Returning Officer's expenses, and that was still more certain to occur in the future; because, as he took it, this was a plain direction to the Returning Officers that they had free trade, and could exact from candidates just as much as by moral pressure they could be made to pay. It was inconsistent with the scope of the Bill; and he could not understand why the Government refused to accept the Amendment.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he was reluctant to intervene in this discussion, because he knew the House was anxious to get through with the Bill; but he must strongly appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. He could speak with a certain amount of personal knowledge and experience in these matters. Everybody who had had experience of Returning Officers, and Irish Members especially, knew that the Returning Officer was generally a pluralist, and what in Ireland was called a "Shoneen "—a sort of half-landlord—one part of the time getting as much rent as he could, and another part of the time getting as much money as he could out of taxation. Just before an election began this officer would send a polite message to all the candidates, if there was a nice young barrister in the town who had no practice, saying it would be a nice thing if they would allow that young man to be his assistant; and so he got, perhaps, £150—£50 from each of three candidates, while, however, his charge did not amount to £30. What he would impress upon the Government so strongly was this—that as the Bill was in its present shape, and as the elections were conducted in Ireland at the present time, and as they had been conducted for some years past, this Bill, instead of reducing, would increase expenditure. Nothing could be further from the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind than to add 1d. of expenditure to the already large sums that elections cost. The Government should bind down the Returning Officers, who were robbers by profession. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, that was so, for they all regarded the candidates as persons whom everybody had a right to rob. The hon. and learned Gentleman should bind down the Returning Officers in this matter.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he thought they could decide this matter without further discussion at the present moment. It was fully discussed that after- noon, when the Attorney General pointed out it was not a matter about which he had any very strong feeling. His hon. and learned Friend had said that he was quite willing to leave the matter to the decision of the House, and the House had decided against the view of hon. Members opposite. ["No, no!"] There must always be upon Government measures Amendments proposed which were not acceptable, but upon which the Government might have no strong feeling. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS said, he did not accept the Amendment.] He begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon—the Amendment had not been accepted; the Attorney General had declined to accept it, but had stated it was a matter on which he had no strong feeling, and one upon which he was willing to be guided by the opinion of the House. He (the Solicitor General) did not think it right to accept the Amendment; the question was one for the decicion of the House.

MR. HEALY

Who does the hon. and learned Gentleman call the House? Does he mean those who are now in it, or those who will come in presently when summoned by the Bell, and who will vote without having heard a word of the discussion?

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 56: Majority 9.—(Div. List, No. 278.)

MR. CHEETHAM

said, he had intended to move an Amendment to Schedule 1, Part II, line 12—namely, to leave out Section 7. That Amendment, however, had been put upon the Paper under an erroneous impression, for it appeared that its effect would be not, as he desired, to do away with the restriction upon the number of committee rooms in counties, but actually to disallow the expenses of such rooms. He proposed, therefore, leaving the section as it stood, to move a series of Amendments, the effect of which would be to increase the ratio of committee rooms in counties from the proportion of one to every 500 electors to that of one to every 300 electors. He thought that if it was considered proper and necessary to allow one committee room to every 500 electors in boroughs, it could hardly be deemed excessive to allow one committee room to every 300 electors in the scattered constituencies of counties. The constituency he represented, for instance, contained 7,000 electors, in a population of 100,000, scattered over an area of 400 square miles; and it was obvious that a larger proportion of centres for political organization would be required for such a constituency than for a compact borough with the same number of electors crowded upon a few hundred acres. If the counties were deprived, as they would be under the Bill, of the legitimate convenience of authorized committee rooms, those interested in elections would be compelled to congregate for election purposes in public-houses, where they would be exposed to many of the influence sfrom which it was the object of the Bill to protect them. The restriction placed upon the total expenditure was a sufficient safeguard against abuse; and he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would, therefore, see his way to making some concession on this point, which concession, he was sure, would be well appreciated in many constituencies.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he must say "no" to the hon. Member's proposal; the Government had conceded a great deal in the way of increasing committee rooms, clerks, and messengers, and he was afraid he could not go any further.

Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 15, to leave out "5," and insert "3,"—(Mr. Cheetham,)—instead thereof.

Question, "That '5' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

MR. WARTON

said, he wished to move an Amendment to leave out, in page 40, line 31, the words "and III." He trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) would see his way to accepting this Amendment. The effect of it would be to exclude Part III. from the maximum Schedule. That which ought to be an allowance for every extraordinary expenditure—that was to say, any unforeseen or un-looked for outlay—was included in the maximum scale. They had heard of a placard being published through a borough requiring immediate answer, and, consequently, immediate expenditure. Accidents would happen, and they might find unexpected occurrences taking place rendering it absolutely necessary, in justice, to exceed the maximum allowed in the Schedule. It was no use giving the £200 with one hand and taking it away with the other. This matter had seemed to him to be so important that he had taken the liberty of moving the recommittal of the Bill with respect to this section. Part III. was entirely delusive and absurd, and he, therefore, moved the Amendment standing in his name.

Motion proposed, in page 40, line 31, to leave out the words "and III."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'and III.' stand part of the Bill."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, they had agreed to a large increase in the maximum sum; but the hon. and learned Member would now add on £200 to every borough and county expenditure in the country, and that was a proposition he (the Attorney General) could not for a moment accept. It would be entirely departing from the Schedule.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

proposed to insert, after "charges," in Part IV., line 32, "and the expenses of advertising." He said that "advertising" was not a corrupt expenditure, and it was admitted to be very desirable in the interest of candidates. Advertising was not an electoral abuse; yet the effect of the Bill would be that it would be quite impossible for a candidate in future to spend much money in advertising. He was particularly interested in this matter, because the constituency he represented was a large and populous one, and advertising necessarily led to considerable expenditure. Probably, the hon. and learned Attorney General only inserted his election address in some local paper. He (Mr. E. N. Fowler) and his Colleagues in the representation of the City of London, had, however, to advertise in The Times, and all the other morning papers, and likewise in the evening papers. If the Bill passed in its present form, they would have very small means, indeed, of bringing their views before the public. The amount allowed for advertising in the Bill was exceedingly small; but his advertising expenses were much larger than those of hon. Gentlemen representing smaller constituencies. Moreover, he was required to pay a considerable sum for committee rooms, and in future committee rooms would be more difficult to obtain, because candidates would not be allowed to take public-houses for committee purposes. He maintained that advertising was not a corrupt expenditure, and therefore he urged the Attorney General to assent to this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 32, after the word "charges," to insert the words "and the expenses of advertising."—(Mr. R. N. Fowler.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, it was true that advertising was not a corrupt expenditure; but it was, nevertheless, a most objectionable expenditure. It was unnecessary and very capable of being overcharged. He did not believe it ever did anyone any good; and of this he was certain—that if what the hon. Gentleman said was true—namely, that advertising was a very large item in his electoral expenses—he ought to be very grateful for the relief this Bill would give him. He would be able in future, if he chose, to devote to any charitable purpose what hitherto he had been obliged to expend on advertising.

MR. CALLAN

said, he was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had made such material alterations in the Bill as compared with the measure brought in last year. He agreed with the Attorney General that, although advertising was not a corrupt expenditure, it was a most demoralizing expenditure in the case of many patriotic newspapers which he knew. In the Bill of last year it was very wisely provided that the expenditure for advertising should only amount to a certain proportion of the maximum expenditure. As the Bill now stood, a candidate, if he chose, could spend the whole of the maximum upon advertising. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that advertising was a most objectionable form of expenditure; and, therefore, he appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman to revert to the plan which he proposed in the Bill of last year. Under last year's Bill, if a candidate were allowed to spend £350, he was also allowed to spend on advertising and printing, and the like, £100.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. LEWIS

proposed, in page 40, line 35, to leave out after the word "be," to "2,000," and insert the words—

"Does not exceed £500 200
"Does not exceed 1,000 325
"Does not exceed 1,500 375
"Does not exceed 2,000 400,

and an additional £40 for every 1,000 electors above 2,000."

He said, the object he had in view in dealing with the item of expenditure, was to draw the attention of the House to the arrangements which were proposed to be made in the event of a single election taking place in a constituency which returned two Members. He desired to accentuate this point, in order that, before they parted with this Bill, they might have some Amendment carried with regard to a difficulty which presented itself to many minds. The reason why he proposed to increase the scale relating to boroughs was that no provision was made for a single election in a double constituency. He maintained that the present scale was altogether insufficient. As the Bill now stood, a single candidate for a double constituency of 20,000 electors could spend £820, and no more. If the Amendment of which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had given Notice was not carried, two candidates standing in the same interest could spend £1,640. If the Amendment were carried, those candidates could, however, spend £ 1,230. As an example, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) and his Colleague (Mr. Thompson) in the representation of the City of Durham could, at the next General Election, if the Attorney General's Amendment were carried, only spend three-fourths of what they would be able to spend if they stood separately. He asked the House, as a matter of experience, what was the difference between a single election and a double election? There would be a little more advertising and placarding; but, taking it as a whole, the same ground would be covered, the same work done, and the same number of electors would have to be communicated with. In fact, the same amount of electoral labour would have to be gone through in the one case as in the other. This difficulty had never been attempted to be met by the Government. In fact, there were only two ways of meet- ing it—namely, either by increasing the amount which each candidate could spend, or by adopting such an Amendment as that which he now submitted to the House. Personally, he was not interested in the matter; but it was a practical question of the greatest possible importance. It was far graver than many hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. At half-past 1 o'clock in the morning it would be perfectly idle for him to attempt to elaborate his case. He was content to say that, while he thought the scale was too liberal with regard to the smaller boroughs, it was not largo enough in the case of the larger boroughs. It was for the purpose of placing before the House, in a definite form, an alternative proposition, which he hoped the Government might see their way to adopt, and to provide against a great anomaly which presented itself in the case of a single election, that he put his Amendment before the House. That anomaly could only be met in one or two ways—namely, by increasing the expenditure, or by providing that where there was a single election in a double constituency the one candidate might spend so much plus the ordinary expenditure of a single candidate.

Amendment proposed,

In page 40, line 35, to leave out after the word "be," to "2,000," and insert the words—

"Does not exceed 500 £200
"Does not exceed 1,000 325
"Does not exceed 1,500 375
"Does not exceed 2,000 400,

and an additional £40 for every 1,000 electors above 2,000."—(Mr. Lewis.)

Question proposed, "That 'Does not exceed 2,000 … £350' stand part of the Bill."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that the object of the hon. Gentleman was simply to increase the expenditure on elections, and therefore he would not follow the observations of the hon. Gentleman. He (the Attorney General) wished to adhere to the maximum expenditure in the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HEALY

proposed, in page 40, line 30, after "£350, "to insert the words in England and Scotland, and £150 in Ireland." He pointed out that by the Bill the cost of elections in Ireland would be very largely increased. He desired to give the hon. and leared Attorney General every credit for a wish to cheapen electoral expenses; but this would "be the second Bill which had increased election expenses in Ireland. A clause was put in the Act of 1875, at a late hour in the morning, in spite of the protests of the Irish Members, which had increased election expenses in Irish constituencies. The circumstances of this country were altogether different from those of Ireland. Here there was household suffrage; but in Ireland there was a £4 franchise, and there were only three boroughs—namely, Belfast, Dublin, and Cork—which had more than 2,000 electors. All the Irish constituencies had, on the average, about 600 electors. Why, therefore, should this enormous maximum be thrust upon Irish constituencies? As a matter of fact, candidates in Ireland were not required to expend £30 on an election, as a rule, so that by his Amendment he allowed an ample margin. If, as the Bill provided, they allowed a candidate to spend £100 on personal expenses, £100 for the Sheriff, and an additional £350, it was clear that in Ireland most of the money could only be spent in corruption. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General did not profess to know anything about electoral circumstances in Ireland, and the whole of this Bill was directed against a state of things which did not exist in Ireland. He would not argue the question over again; but he could not help pointing out that this was one of the evils of dealing with Ireland as if the state of circumstances there was the same as in England. To treat Ireland in this matter as they would treat England was just the same as putting a little boy into his father's clothes. In Ireland they had not the franchise which obtained in England, and, that being so, there were not the same number of voters to take to the poll. Even if they had the same number of voters, there were hundreds of willing and loyal volunteers only too anxious to work in the popular cause. He would give the House his experiences of three elections which had recently come under his notice. He had no desire to be egotistical; but he wished to say that his first election did not cost £20. The recent election, in Wexford, would not have cost £50, and the expenses of the three weeks' contest in Monagham, including the Sheriff's expenses, would not have cost the national candidate £350. Now, what would this Bill allow to be spent in Monaghan? Why, £350, £100 personal expenses and £100 for the Sheriff—in all, £550, or, in other words, £300 too much. In whose favour was this Schedule brought in? Why, in favour of such Gentlemen as the hon. Member who sat for Portarlington (Mr. French-Brewster), where every vote cost as much as £15. Portarlington was one of those rotten constituencies which ought to be swept off the face of the earth. He appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman to take the proposal into his consideration. So far as the part taken by Irish Members in the discussions on the Bill was concerned, he did not think that a single unnecessary objection had been raised, although they considered the measure, in the case of Ireland, to be uncalled for, irritating, and costly. There were, of course, one or two points to which they had felt it their duty to call attention. For these reasons, he trusted the Attorney General would meet them in the matter, and that he would not impose upon them an increased expenditure of the kind he was now objecting to.

Amendment proposed, In page 40, line 36, after "£350," to insert the words "in England and Scotland, and £150 in Ireland."—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, there had been full opportunity, when the Bill was in Committee, of considering and moving Amendments to this part of the measure; but he would point out that not a single objection had been raised to the maximum sum fixed in the Schedule. Moreover, no Notice had been given of this Amendment, and the great bulk of the Members for Ireland were then absent from the House. What would be said by Gentlemen opposite if an Amendment proposed that night for the first time, and upon which they had not had an opportunity of voting, were agreed to in their absence? Under the circumstances, he must decline to accept the Amendment. He pointed out to the hon. Member for Monaghan that, at any rate, the opponent of the poor candidate would not be able to spend more than he had spent before; and, therefore, he did not think that they were fairly open to the accusation of the hon. Member that they were increasing expenditure by this Bill.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, it was clear to him that, by the refusal of the Attorney General to adopt a reasonable and proper Amendment like this, Irish Members on those Benches were being-made to suffer for their own virtues. Not only had they maintained an extreme reserve with regard to the Bill; but, having made their protest against its application to Ireland at the very beginning of these discussions, they had since adopted towards it a course of almost absolute silence. He had, from the first, entertained the idea that the Bill would increase expenditure. He would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that one of the arguments which Irish Members most strongly urged, and which appeared in their speeches on the Motion for going into Committee, was that the scale would increase electoral expenditure in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the sum fixed by the Schedule was the maximum, and that candidates need not go in for the maximum unless they liked to do so. But how could they guard against the misuse of money by wealthy candidates against poor candidates? The hon. and learned Gentleman had more electoral experience than he possessed; but he would ask him, with his knowledge of the circumstances of electoral matters, whether it was not a fact that a rich candidate coming down to fight a poor one would not spend in the contest every farthing that the law allowed him to spend? He had in his own constituency an opponent who, in his opinion, did not contest that constituency on the ground of right; and as there were always persons who thought they must get money by some means or other, what would that candidate probably do? He would adopt the most expensive mode of proceeding, insert as many advertisements in the papers as possible, and, in short, do everything that would bring to the minds of the electors the knowledge that he was a man with money, and that his opponent was a man without it. With regard to the Amendment, the Government was, of course, bound by its own measures; but the House had perfect liberty of action in this and in all other matters, and it was only a few minutes ago that it took up a position antagonistic to the Government, who he did not think regretted that their judgment had been overruled. The House had got into the habit of overruling the Government lately; and he trusted that if they were convinced by the argument of his hon. Friend that this Bill would increase the expenditure on electoral contests in Ireland, they would not be deterred by the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General from voting for the proposed Amendment. He hoped no weight would be attached to the argument that a number of Irish Members were absent. The only safe principle they could go upon in such cases was that each Member of the House was supposed to be in his place whenever questions relating to his constituency were brought forward. They should have little regard for the political views of hon. Members, who were so fond of their beds that they could not remain at the House to pass important measures.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he thought the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite should be met by the Attorney General, because they had shown that the conditions in Ireland were altogether different from those which existed in England. He would not enter into that question, farther than to say that, in his opinion, the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had made out a case. Now, the hon. and learned Attorney General had not treated the Amendment before the House as a matter of principle; and, therefore, he thought the best thing for the Government to do would be to consider what were the wishes of Irish Members. Moreover, it would be a graceful thing for English and Scotch Members to yield to those wishes. The argument that the maximum sum need not be spent had no force; because if any sum were mentioned, say, £200 or £300, that amount would always be uppermost in the minds of those who were able to spend the money. Moreover, it tended to weaken the morals of volunteers, who would say—" So much money is to be spent; I may as well have some of it." Seeing that the volunteer system obtained in Ireland, he believed that this Schedule would tend to weaken the sound and healthy feeling which existed. He believed that if English and Scotch Members yielded, in this instance, to the wishes of Irish Representatives, their action would not be blamed, because it would be seen that its effect would be to keep down expenses at Irish elections; and he thought the Government should give way, on the principle that the Representatives of Ireland knew best what concerned the Irish people.

MR. LEWIS

remarked, that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had expressed a hope that Her Majesty's Government would consider the opinions of Irish Members; but he would point out that not more than about one-third of those Members were then present in the House, and that until that evening no Notice of this Amendment had been placed upon the Paper. He believed that the House would not, for one moment, think of taking advantage of the absence of more than two-thirds of those interested in this most important question; and he could not conceive that the Government should not use the utmost influence in their power in order to prevent the proposed alteration being made at that hour, without Notice, to the vast majority of persons interested in the Bill. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had been Member for a very small constituency (Wexford), and he (Mr. Lewis) was ready to admit that £350 was too large a sum to be spent in that borough, and it was for that reason he had placed an Amendment on the Paper to limit the expenditure at elections in the case of small boroughs. But this Amendment proposed that in a constituency of 2,000 electors, or, in other words, of 30,000 inhabitants, there should only be an expenditure of £150, with regard to which he would say that anyone who suggested it as a practical proceeding could know nothing of the facts of electoral life. He did not believe there were 30 Members in the House when this most serious Amendment was proposed; and having regard to that fact, and the lateness of the hour, it appeared that the only way I in which he could protect his Colleagues in the representation of Ireland who were absent was by moving the adjournment of the House. If he did take that course, it would be because he felt most strongly, when an important question like this was brought forward under the circumstances described, that, in accordance with the ordinary courtesies of legislation, it should not be pressed to a Division.

MR. DAWSON

said, the hon. Member who had just spoken had himself a Notice on the Paper similar to that to which he then objected. Whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was on the Paper or not, was not the point. They had to consider what was right to be done—whether the Amendment was one which the House should pass or reject. So far as the placing of an Amendment on the Paper was concerned, he was under the impression that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had that evening proposed one that was not on the Paper. Why, then, had not the Attorney General and the hon. Member for Londonderry put in their objection to that à fortiori, because its principle had been refuted in a former debate in the House? The hon. Member was inconsistent in his objection, because his own Amendment was placed on the Paper in the same way as that of the hon. Member for Monaghan. His hon. Friend said that some of the boroughs in Ireland should be treated differently to English and Scotch boroughs on account of the small number of electors which they contained, and it appeared to him that that was a most reasonable proposal. He (Mr. Dawson) represented the borough of Carlow, which had 8,000 inhabitants and only 300 electors; the number of electors was so small that to require him to expend in contesting the constituency the same amount as would be spent on an English borough of 2,000 electors was out of all proportion to the necessities of the case. The amount spent on the Carlow Election ought not to exceed £50; and yet, as the hon. Member for Monaghan had pointed out, a rich candidate could go there and spend the maximum sum allowed by the Bill—namely, £350. He trusted the hon. and learned Attorney General would withdraw his objection to the Amendment of his hon. Friend, who had simply asked the House to do what was just in fixing the amount of expenditure in the case of Irish boroughs at £150.

DR. LYONS

was understood to say there was some force in the argument of he hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), that two-thirds of the Irish Members were absent, and that, in those circumstances, the Amendment ought not to be pressed. There had been ample opportunities of raising this question before, which had not been availed of. He suggested that £'200 should be substituted for £150.

MR. HEALY

consented to this alteration.

MR. ONSLOW

said, that, before a Division was taken, the House ought to have the opinion of the Irish Attorney General on this purely Irish question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had had a large experience, not only in regard to his own election, but in other elections; and the House had been told by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) that in the borough he previously represented the cost was £500, and in his present seat it was only £350. The Attorney General for England said he knew nothing about the matter, and he had had no time to consult anybody; but surely he had had time to consult the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland. There had been no opinion given by the responsible officials, and he thought that before a Division was taken that opinion ought to be given.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the Government could not accept the Amendment. They did not believe the effect of the clause would be to increase expenses; and what they desired was not to produce uniformity, but to fix a maximum for future expenses.

MR. FINDLATER

said, nobody was more desirous than he was to reduce expenditure in elections. He had to pay a great deal for his own election; but he did not see his way to fixing £200 as a sufficient amount for a candidate's expenses.

MR. HEALY

said, his Amendment only referred to boroughs.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, the purport and object of this Bill was to reduce the expenditure at elections, and, unquestionably, it would have that effect in England; but there was good reason to believe that it would have the contrary effect in Ireland, and this was just another proof of the truth of the statement that had often been made, that mere identity of legislation for the two countries would not act equally, but unfairly. In this matter, as also in the matter of taxation, the even disposition of burdens on the two countries would act disproportionately and unequally. It was unconstitutional to enter into the question of how many Members there were in the House if there were a quorum; and a quorum was sufficient to legislate. There was now a sufficient House, and he appealed to the House to consent to what was a clear act of justice. This clause would act unequally; it would give relief to England, but not to Ireland; but in Ireland it would increase the burden in this particular matter. He therefore appealed to the House, and to its sense of fair play, if this was likely to be the result, to give Ireland the benefit of the Bill, not by imposing on Ireland the same terms as on England, but by giving it the principle and purpose of the Bill, which was to reduce the expense of elections, and contribute to their purity. It seemed to him that the case for the Amendment was unanswerable, and he hoped the Government would so regard it.

MR. BLENNERHASSETT

said, he intended to vote for the Amendment which was suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons), and, as he understood, was accepted by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). It was, he thought, quite desirable that the House should hear the opinion of the Attorney General for Ireland.

MR. HEALY

said, he was willing to substitute £200 for £250.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would willingly accept any suggestion for consideration.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, the only opposition to this Amendment from Irish Members came from the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis); and it would be in the recollection of the House that the hon. Member had been that evening very loud in his protestations of the purity of his borough. He stated that he was not afraid of the result of the Bill, and twitted other hon. Members insultingly. The speech of the hon. Member, he thought, made it clear that the hon. Member, at all events, could not be affected by the Amendment; and, considering that no opposition to it came from any other Irish Members, he thought the Attorney Ge- neral was not justified in maintaining his opposition.

MR. WARTON

wished to point out that the difficulty the House was now in arose entirely from the coarse and clumsy way in which this scale had been drawn. The idea of drawing a line at £2,000 and making no gradations was perfectly absurd and ridiculous. If there had been a graduated scale, there would have been something like common sense in the Schedule.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 40, line 36, after "£350," to insert the words "in England and Scotland, and £200 in Ireland."—(Mr. Healy.)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 72: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 279.)

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the ground taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman had been against altering the Schedule, therefore he would not touch Ireland at all. The maximum would be £600 in England and Scotland, and in Ireland £500.

Amendment proposed, In page 41, line 6, after the word "he," to insert the words "£650 in England or Scotland, and in Ireland."—(Sir S. Assheton Cross.)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 40: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 280.)

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, his next Motion would, be to amend the Bill, so as to bring up the scale as nearly as possible to what it was when the Bill was first introduced, a quarter having been taken off by the Attorney General's proposal.

Amendment proposed, in page 41, line 8, to leave out "£540," and insert "£710."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 41, line 8, after "2,000," to insert the words "in England, Scotland, and in Ireland."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. BUCHANAN

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) said he did not wish to increase expenditure. Well, there was no county in Scotland which returned two Members, all the county constituencies returning only one Member; therefore this Amendment would very largely increase the expenditure in every county in Scotland. They had heard what the Irish Members wanted—namely, a diminution of these expenses; but there was not a single Scotch county Member who desired this Amendment. If they were to be expected to vote on this proposal without hearing a word of explanation from the Attorney General, he thought they would have a very good reason to complain.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that if hon. Gentlemen knew the difficulty there was in meeting the views of all Members, they would be more prepared to make allowances for the Government. He could not make a concession in the case of a two candidate constituency, unless he did it also in that of a one candidate constituency. The county Members had thought the amount somewhat small; but there would be, even with that, far less expenditure than had occurred in nearly every county election. He thought the hon. Member had mentioned one case where the expenditure was less than it would be under the Bill; but as he was familiar with the opinions of Scotch Members, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) whether he would put Scotland in the same position as Ireland? If any hon. Member would rise to move that, no doubt the House would consider it. It was mentioned in Committee that the Government were prepared to accept this Amendment; and he, for one, would vote with the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he was present when that arrangement was made, and he had understood that 25 per cent was to be taken off when two Members stood together. The expenses of the two, if each candidate stood singly, might amount to £1,000; but where they stood together they would only be allowed to spend £750. As far as his understanding went, it certainly was not intended that when a man stood alone he might spend 50 per cent more than was put down in the Schedule. He did not know whether the feeling was shared by hon. Members around him; but he certainly felt that they had a right to complain that, without Notice, such a large percentage had been put upon the possible expenditure of a single candidate. He must say that this proposal was quite new to him. He understood the argument as to hon. Members standing together; and, as far as he recollected, there was an understanding at that time as to the Schedule.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, a proposal was put upon the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman opposite to increase the expenditure to £500; and when the right hon. Gentleman brought it forward, he stated that he did so in consequence of a proposal that he had made, or was about to make, relating to the case of the election of one candidate. It was in connection with this that increase took place, and some discussion had occurred with regard to it, the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) stating that he was prepared to accept that increase. No Division was, therefore, taken upon it. Later on the Amendment was withdrawn, and the Attorney General was asked by the right hon. Gentleman if he was prepared to stand by what he had said, and he had replied that he was. It was impossible to depart from the line taken in Committee.

DR. FARQUHARSON

said, that this increasing expenditure in counties would be very unpopular in Scotland in at least three counties, of which Linlithgowshire was one. It would very largely increase expenditure, and would increase his own expenditure, for instance, by at least £140 at the next election if this Amendment were carried.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

I move to alter the proposed Amendment by the omission of the words "and Scotland."

Amendment proposed to amend the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out the words "and Scotland."—(Mr. Dick-Peddie.)

MR. SPEAKER

That Amendment will not apply, as moved by the hon. Member. To carry out the hon. Member's intention the folio wing should be the Motion:—To amend the said proposed Amendment by inserting, before "Scotland," the word "in,"

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he should be happy to adopt the suggestion of Mr. Speaker.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, before the word "Scotland," to insert the word "in."—(Mr. Dick-Peddie.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'in' be there inserted."

MR. EVANS WILLIAMS

said, he thought the Amendment was an extremely objectionable one. It seemed to him that the same objection applied to this Amendment as to the Amendment that had been moved just now by the Irish Members. Many hon. Members had loft the House knowing that this proposal was to be made, and that this concession was to be granted. The Attorney General had said that he did not know of any county in Scotland which spent less money than this maximum. Well; but the hon. and learned Gentleman knew a county in England where the expenditure was only £500. True, this figure did not include the cost of conveyances; but these were not to be paid for under this Bill. The fact was that the House was taken by surprise in the Division which had just been taken. He himself attached no importance to the fact that a conversation had taken place in Committee across the Table between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) and the Attorney General. He had heard all that had been said with regard to the Sehedules in Committee; and he was quite sure that the House would not endorse this proposal of raising the scale in counties. As he protested against the measure being converted into one for the promotion of corrupt practices, instead of one for their prevention, he begged to move to add to the proposed Amendment "and in Wales," the greater number of Welsh counties being in the position described by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, there was a great distinction to be drawn between Irish and English constituencies. That which was in the Bill had been adhered to with regard to Ireland.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 58: Majority 13.—(Div. List, No. 281.)

Words inserted.

MR. HEALY

said, it was an extremely unsatisfactory state of things that the House of Commons, at that hour of the morning (2.50), should be engaged in the consideration of such an important Bill as this. He thought it would be wise if the Bill were re-committed in respect of the Schedule, so that it might be discussed reasonably. The Scotch Members were not satisfied, the Welsh Members were not satisfied, and certainly the Irish Members were not satisfied.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

proposed, in page 45, line 15, at end of Schedule, to insert as a fresh sub-section— For the purposes of this Schedule the number of electors shall he taken according to the enumeration of the electors in the register of electors.

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

proposed, in page 41, line 15, at end of Schedule, to add— Where there are two or more joint candidates at an election the maximum amount of expenses mentioned in Parts Three or Four of this Schedule shall, for each of such joint candidates, he reduced by one-fourth, or, if there are more than two joint candidates, by one-third. Where the same election agent is appointed by or on behalf of two or more candidates at an election, or where two or more candidates by themselves or any agent or agents, hire or use the same committee rooms for such election, or employ or use the services of the same sub-agents, clerks, messengers, or polling agents, at such election, or publish a joint address or joint circular or notice at such election, those candidates shall be deemed for the purposes of this enactment to be joint candidates at such election. Provided that—

  1. (a.) The employment and use of the same committee room, sub-agent, clerk, messenger, or polling agent, if accidental or casual, or of a trivial and unimportant character, shall not be deemed of itself to constitute persons joint candidates.
  2. (b.) Nothing in this enactment shall prevent candidates from ceasing to be joint candidates,
  3. (c.) Where any excess of expenses above the maximum allowed for one of two or more joint candidates has arisen owing to his having ceased to he a joint candidate, or to his having become a joint candidate after having begun his election as a 136 separate candidate, and such ceasing or beginning was in good faith, and such excess is not more than under the circumstances is reasonable, and the total expenses of such candidate do not exceed the maximum amount allowed for a separate candidate, such excess shall be deemed to have arisen from a reasonable cause within the meaning of the enactments respecting the allowance by the High Court or election court of an exception from the provisions of this Act which would otherwise make an act an illegal practice, and the candidate and his election agent may be relieved accordingly from the consequences of having incurred such excess of expenses."

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. WHITLEY

said, he was satisfied it would have been much better if the Schedule had been left as it originally stood. He was satisfied that the Maximum Schedule was not more than would be required in the case of his own city. The new proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney General was to decrease the amount one-fourth for a double candidature. Now, the effect of that would be different from what the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed—there would not be any joint candidatures. He did not, at that time of the morning, mean to divide the House upon this matter, but would simply content himself by protesting against the proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney General. As a matter of fact, he (Mr. Whitley) believed that the expenses of elections in boroughs would be greatly increased, as every candidate would fight separately, in order to get the higher scale.

Amendment agreed to.

Back to