§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ MR. ERNEST NOELsaid, the Amendment which he had to move was one in the opposite direction of that which had been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey). The hon. and learned Member had moved to include Christ-church among the boroughs which were to be put in the position of counties; and his object was to exclude district boroughs within the meaning of the Ballot Act from having the provisions of each part of this Schedule applied to them as if such boroughs were in reality counties. He was quite sure that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would accept the Amendment, because all those who were interested in the matter were consenting parties to it. Those who were connected with district boroughs considered that they were quite as able to conduct their elections as any other borough; and, therefore, they did not wish to have any unnecessary privilege. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 24, leave out after "Aylesbury" to "1872," in line 25.—(Mr. Ernest Noel.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, this Amendment 1409 raised the question whether certain boroughs in Wales and Scotland should be treated as counties, or as boroughs. As far as he could learn, both from the Welsh and Scotch Members, they wished to place these boroughs upon the lower scale of election expenses, and they ought to be at liberty to do so. Other boroughs, such as Christchurch and Leominster, desired to increase the expenditure by being treated as counties; but he found, from communications which had made to him in regard to the Welsh and Scotch boroughs, that they wished to be treated as if they were English boroughs, and not to be inserted in this Schedule. He could not see why they should not have their desire carried out.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the speech they had just heard from the Attorney General was very different from the one they had heard from him in the Morning Sitting. They were told in the morning that the boroughs treated as counties were historical boroughs.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)remarked that in that case the expenditure was increased.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Attorney General had told them that the list ought not to be changed under any circumstances; but he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was bound to say that if he consented to the omission of these words, he would not preserve the historical list which he had been so desirous of maintaining in the case of Christ-church and Leominster. Hon. Members on that side of the House had thought that the Attorney General meant to abide by the list; but if once he opened the flood-gates upon this particular question, he would warn the hon. and learned Gentleman that he would be overwhelmed with applications on the Report from all boroughs who thought they ought to come in on the other side.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)But they do not wish to come in.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he believed that the hon. and learned Gentleman would find not only Christchureh and Leominster, but many other boroughs, claiming to be included in the list, and that he would have a large number of applications pressed upon him when they came to the Report. In 1410 the morning the Attorney General had taken a clear and definite ground, and he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had felt inclined to support him—namely, that they ought not to change the historical list of boroughs, which had always been treated in old Acts of Parliament as counties. He regretted to see that they were now departing from that arrangement.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)Not in the slightest degree.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman should say he was not departing from that arrangement. He was going to strike out one of the historical list. It made no difference whether the result would be to increase or decrease the expenditure. It was, at any rate, a borough which was included in the list, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had distinctly declared that he would not disturb that old list, which had been handed down from Act of Parliament to Act of Parliament. If the hon. and learned Gentleman did, he gave him fair warning that every one of these boroughs who thought they ought to be regarded as counties would press its claim upon him.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had afforded him very generous support during the time the Bill had been in Committee—a support which he should never forget—but he thought the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood the object of this Amendment. There were certain boroughs which asked for an increased scale, and preferred to be regarded as counties. That was the historical list he had referred to; but, on the other hand, there were certain district boroughs which asked to be treated as boroughs, and not as counties. Those district boroughs did not want to incur increased expenditure, and why should the Committee compel them to expend more money than they wished? He was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman did not properly appreciate the question. These boroughs were on a different principle altogether.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the real question was, whether or not elections could be properly conducted in certain 1411 groups of boroughs upon the scale of borough elections, or whether they ought not to be regarded as counties?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)They have all agreed to be included in the lower scale.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, his evidence was exactly to the contrary effect. He had made inquiries, and he understood these district boroughs were anxious to be placed on the higher
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had communicated with the Representatives of these boroughs, and they were all of them desirous of being included in the lower.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was afraid that if the hon. and learned Gentleman hastily accepted this Amendment he might find himself involved in some difficulty, and that he would run a risk of establishing a bad precedent hereafter. As far as he (Mr. E. Stanhope) had evidence before him, he believed that many of those boroughs desired to be included in the same scale as counties, and not in that which applied to boroughs. He would not profess, however, to put his opinion against that of the Attorney General.
§ MR. ERNEST NOELsaid, he hoped he might be allowed to say a word in answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope). He had taken the trouble, before bringing forward his Amendment, to make inquiries of all the Members who sat for district boroughs; and, surely, they ought to understand their own interests, and how they could best conduct their own elections, better than the hon. Member, who had never had anything to do with any one of these boroughs. Hon. Members who were really interested in the question had fully studied it, and they knew what they required, and they had come to the unanimous conclusion that they could conduct their elections on the lower scale of expenditure. He believed there was only one solitary Member who thought the larger scale might, perhaps, be better; but even that hon. Member allowed that it would be perfectly easy to conduct the elections on the lower scale of expenditure. If that were the case, it seemed to him to be somewhat strange that those who knew nothing about the question, and had no interest 1412 in the mutter, should decide that the boroughs which were concerned should be subjected to exceptional legislation.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not wish to prolong the discussion. He found that he had been labouring under a misapprehension. He had been under the impression that the Amendment was to strike out the borough of Aylesbury.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)remarked, that the Amendment simply struck out the words from "Aylesbury," so as to exclude district boroughs.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought it was not desirable to carry the objection further; but if the facts had been as he supposed his objection would have had great force. He had no desire that either Aylesbury or any other borough should incur more expense than was necessary; but he entirely agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) that the evidence they had was to the contrary. He would not, however, put his opinion against that of the hon. and learned Attorney General; and, under the circumstances, he would not further oppose the Amendment.
§ MR. LEWIS FRYwished to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), when they were discussing the question of sub-agents, had expressed a desire to treat Woodstock as a county, and not as a borough. By this Amendment, Woodstock would continue to be treated as a borough. Was he to understand that the Amendment referred to the question of sub-agents?
§ MR. LEWIS FRYsaid, he had gathered that it was only in respect of the sub-agents that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had desired the borough of Woodstock to be treated as a county.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he was well acquainted with the Principality of Wales, and he was glad to hear that the Members for district boroughs in the Principality were of opinion that they would be able to conduct the elections within a smaller scale than that scheduled in the Bill, because he believed that if they referred to the Returns of the election 1413 expenses connected with the last General Election they would find a marked discrepancy, as far as some of the Welsh boroughs were concerned, between the scale fixed in the Schedule and the amounts actually expended. As far as he remembered, speaking from memory, at the last contested Election for the Flint Boroughs, the hon. Member who represented that district spent four or five times the amount of money the Schedule would allow him to spend; and although he could well understand that there would be a desire upon the part of the hon. Member under these circumstances to curtail his expenditure, he was very much inclined to think that the facts of the case were against the Schedule. He thought the Committee ought to look at the circumstances of the case, and not merely to the wishes of the Scotch and Welsh Members, who were obviously and naturally anxious—as, indeed, every Member of Parliament was—to spend as little as possible upon his election. He had the honour of being a voter in a district borough which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Richard Grosvenor) knew very well, and in which the contributory towns were at a considerable distance from each other. Probably there would be a distance of 30 miles from one place to another. The central agent could only reside in one borough, and it was necessary, therefore, to have sub-agents of considerable responsibility in various other districts. He, therefore, thought the amounts allowed on the lower scale would not be sufficient to cover the expense of elections in such districts. It was altogether impossible, in a constituency numbering 2,000 or 3,000 voters, spread over a considerable distance, to conduct the election with the small machinery and expense as if the borough was all together. Anybody who had had anything to do with such districts must be aware that the candidates had to expend money at the same rate as if they were conducting a county election, owing to the remoteness of one polling station from the other. Quite apart from any Party question in the matter, he was afraid that the Attorney General would find that he had made a mistake in accepting this Amendment, and that it would not, in every case, be either possible or practicable to conduct an election in district boroughs on the same 1414 terms and at the same expense as in an ordinary borough election.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, they were promised a new Reform Bill soon, and he presumed that when they came to deal with that new plan of representation two or three boroughs were likely to be grouped together. He, therefore, warned the Committee against the danger of adopting this Amendment in hot haste, without due reflection or consideration. It might be found, after the new Reform Bill had been passed, that some of these grouped boroughs would be oven larger than the district boroughs which now existed.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he rose not to prolong the discussion, but to express a hope that the Committee would not divide. It was obvious that it would be quite useless to take up the time of the Committee by dividing upon this Amendment; but, at the same time, he was anxious to warn the Attorney General that, although he had no doubt the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ernest Noel) had acted in perfectly good faith in the matter, there was no evidence from either side of the House that the facts were as they had been stated. As far as he had been able to gather, the opinion generally was in opposition to that which had been put forward by the Attorney General. He would not, however, oppose the omission of these words; but he was afraid that it might be necessary to raise the question again.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had a verbal Amendment to move to the Schedule. He desired, in line 5 of Schedule I., to leave out "each part," and insert "Parts II., III, and IV."
§ Question, "That the words 'each part' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
§ Question, "That the words 'Parts II, III., and IV.' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that before they left this part of the Schedule altogether, he wished to put a question in regard to the action of the election agent. He dared say the Attorney General would know that there were a great many counties in which the practice 1415 was for the election agent not to take charge of any polling district; but there was no provision of that kind in the Bill.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he would propose an Amendment for the purpose of raising the question.
THE CHAIRMANI may point out to the hon. Member that some time ago he raised a discussion upon a particular point without proposing an Amendment, and considerable confusion was created in consequence. For that reason I wish to know if the hon. Member proposes to move an Amendment now?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would appeal to the hon. Member (Mr. E. Stanhope) to raise the question he desired to call attention to on Report.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he would do so.