HC Deb 13 July 1883 vol 281 cc1415-25

MR. LABOUCHERE moved, after "charges," to insert— Within the limits of the Parliamentary Election Returning Officers' Act, 38 & 39 Victoria, chapter 84. The object of the Amendment was this—the Returning Officer was a very powerful gentleman, and he occasionally charged a good deal above the Schedule. He desired by this Amendment to prevent the possibility of such an occurrence, and in the hope that the Attorney General would accept it he would move it without further comment.

Amendment proposed, In page 43, line 29, after the word "charges," insert "within the limits of the Parliamentary Election Returning Officers' Act, 38 & 39 Victoria, chapter 84."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that the effect of this would be that if any election agent, being told by the Returning Officer that he had paid out of his own pocket more than the expenses allowed by the Statute, repaid such excess to the Returning Officer, the candidate would lose his seat. He (the Attorney General) had had no Notice of this Amendment; and, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman persisted in it now, he must oppose it. It would be well, perhaps, if the matter were left for consideration on Report.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, there were some cases where it would be impossible for the Returning Officer to bring his charges within the Parliamentary limits. He had been told by a Sheriff of a county that his necessary expenses amounted to nearly twice the sum he could legally charge the candidates, and that he was really dependent upon the goodwill of the candidates as to whether he was recouped for the payments he had to make over and above those allowed by law. The Committee ought to know in what position a Sheriff would stand under such circumstances. Could he legally obtain payment from the candidate, or would the candidate be liable to penalties if he paid the Returning Officer a sum beyond that allowed?

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he knew that in some cases a Returning Officer charged a good deal more than he ought to do; and on Report he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) meant to bring up a clause to prevent such a state of things. Of course, it was necessary that the candidate should pay the Returning Officer's expenses; but he did not think he ought to be required to pay in so substantial a way as he was now required to do. A great many things might be done more cheaply, and he thought that if the charges were defrayed out of the rates, the ratepayers would take care that they were very much less than at present. If the Attorney General would say that on Report he would look into the matter, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would be quite content to leave it as at present.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), or the Attorney General, would bring up an Amendment on Report he would withdraw this Amendment. His sole object in moving it had been to prevent collusive arrangements being made between Returning Officers and candidates.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he knew nothing about Returning Officers, for he never spoke to one in his life. He was, however, certain that Returning Officers did impose more expenses on candidates than they ought to do.

MR. WARTON

said, he did not know whether the Attorney General had read the account of the expenses of the Returning Officer at the Liverpool Election; but certainly it was most interesting reading. He was glad the Attorney General had rejected this clause, and would remind him of what occurred at the Liverpool Election. The Returning Officer there found he was absolutely obliged to enter expenses beyond the amount allowed by law; and, therefore, part of his expenses were thrown on the borough. It was very difficult to get his polling stations at the price allowed. On the other hand, however, there were a great many places which could be obtained for a nominal sum; but the Returning Officer was not allowed to lump them together. He (Mr. Warton) was certainly of opinion that, supposing one station to cost ten guineas, and another two, and another one guinea, and so forth, it would be better to lump them all together. The candidates at Liverpool had to pay a large sum of money, amounting to hundreds of pounds; but even this did not satisfy the Returning Officer, who had a very just grievance in respect of the charges he was allowed to make for polling stations. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General brought up a fresh clause on Report, he (Mr. Warton) hoped he would take this matter into consideration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS, Amendment made, in line 32, after the word "publishing," by inserting "issuing and distributing."

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, the Amendment he had now to propose was a consequential one. The Committee would remember that there was a great deal of discussion as to the number of committee rooms that should be allowed, and they passed a clause in which it was held that it was an illegal or corrupt practice—he forgot which—to engage a greater number of committee rooms than stated in the Bill. At that time the Attorney General told them that they had better take the discussion upon this sub-section. Therefore, without making a long discussion of it, he would explain, in one or two words, what the object of his Amendment was. According to the statement of the At- torney General, there should be a committee room for every complete 500 electors. Now, in some boroughs persons resided in houses outside the borough, and in such cases it was very necessary to have a committee room for even fewer than 500 electors. What was wanted was to bring the electors together, and the committee room was a central point for which they made, and from which it was customary for them to go to the poll in a body. By this clause they allowed a vast number of committee rooms in large places, such as Liverpool. He believed that in Liverpool there could be as many as 130 committee rooms. The Attorney General had said that it was not likely that the different parties in Liverpool would incur the expense of having the maximum number of committee rooms. But the Attorney General ought to bear in mind that there was always a tendency to have a committee room at every point, and that there would always be some persons urging a candidate to have a committee room hero and a committee room there. He had no doubt that men would be found engaging more committee rooms than were necessary. In his original Bill last year the Attorney General divided all the expenditure under various heads—under printing, stationery, and the like. This was the last relic, and he did not think it was necessary it should remain in the Bill. It would be necessary on Report to strike out the clause specifying the number of committee rooms which might be engaged; but that, however, was an exceedingly easy matter. He now begged to move that the words "in a borough" be struck out.

Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 35, leave out "in a borough."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, they had admitted the words in the first part of the Schedule itself; and, therefore, they ought to reject the proposed Amendment. It was very necessary that they must lay down a limit to committee rooms in some way or form.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, it would be quite easy to strike out the form of words on Report, and he would engage to make a Motion to that effect if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would support him.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he did not think such a Motion would be in Order now. The Report stage was the proper time at which an Amendment of this kind, which necessitated an alteration in a portion of the Schedule already passed, should be brought up.

MR. DODDS

Hear, hear!

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) was always very ready to cry "Hear, hear!" Whenever a Minister rose and talked sense or nonsense, "Hear, hear!" came from the hon. Gentleman, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would very soon get his reward. The Attorney General had told him (Mr. Labouchere) that he was not in Order. The Chairman, however, thought he was in Order; therefore, let them have a Division on this matter at once.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he did not quite understand in what position this Amendment would leave the matter. He did not think that the experience of most Members of the House would lead them to coincide with the view of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). His (Mr. Tomlinson's) idea of the proper number of committee rooms was one for each polling place, and that was rather a different quota to what was suggested in this clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. RAIKES

proposed to leave out from "committee room," in line 36, to the end of Sub-section (6), and insert "for every polling district in the borough, and one central committee room." The sub-section would then read— In a borough the expenses of the number of committee rooms for every polling district in the borough, and one central committee room. It seemed to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had conceived rather a mistaken idea as to the most convenient unit with regard to fixing the number of committee rooms. All hon. Members who had practical acquaintance with such matters know that boroughs were mapped out for the purposes of elections. He was not now speaking of boroughs of under 15,000 inhabitants, but of the larger boroughs of the country. These boroughs were mapped out into a certain number of polling districts, and the contending parties had their machinery for each of the polling districts. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had only represented a small borough; but it had been his (Mr. Raikes's) lot to be associated with large constituencies; he, therefore, might lay claim to know more about this matter than the hon. and learned Gentleman. Certainly, he had always found what he now stated to be the case. He believed that if they were going to have an arbitrary unit, such as that of 500 electors, they would have nothing but confusion. A polling district in one of the Northern towns would probably contain as many electors as some of the Somerset boroughs. In Oldham, the borough represented by the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Hibbert), there were several thousand electors in a polling district; but it might happen that one district was so peculiarly situated that a committee room would be required for even less than 500 electors. He certainly was of opinion that they ought to have a committee room in each polling district, and he trusted that the Attorney General would assent to his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 43, line 36, leave out from "committee room" to end of Sub-section (6), and insert "for every polling district in the borough, and one central committee room."—(Mr. Raikes.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

remarked, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) was entirely under a misapprehension. His (the Attorney General's) experience was, as a matter of fact, quite as extended as that to which the right hon. Gentleman had laid claim. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that many large boroughs had no polling districts at all; indeed, it was at the option of the local authority whether or not a borough was divided into polling districts. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) had just told him that in his constituency (Durham) there was a population of 18,000, yet there was no polling district. He (the Attorney General) believed that Oxford had no polling district; indeed, it would be found that half the boroughs of England had no polling districts at all. It would thus be seen that in such boroughs more committee rooms would be allowed under this Schedule, as it now stood, than would be allowed if it were amended as was now suggested.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ARTHUR PEEL

, in moving to insert after "every," line 36, "polling district or for," said, that this Amendment was simply consequential on the concession which the Attorney General had been good enough to make.

Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 36, after "every," insert "polling district or for."—(Mr. Arthur Peel.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, that he was in the unfortunate position of having 999 electors; and, therefore, he should prefer the Committee to adopt at the end of the section the words agreed to by the Government in the previous case—namely, that if there were a number of electors over and above any complete 500, a committee room should be allowed for such number of them not amounting to a complete 500.

Amendment proposed, In line 39, after "borough," insert, "and if there is a number of electors over and above any complete 500 then one committee room for such number of them not amounting to a complete 500 shall be allowed."—(Sir Henry Holland.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

proposed to insert, after the word "expenses," in line 1, page 44, the words "of one central committee room, and in addition." The object of the Amendment was not to add to the committee rooms, but simply in counties to allow a central committee room, which the Committee must see it was very necessary to have.

Amendment proposed, in page 44, line 1, after "expenses," insert "of one central committee room, and in addition,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. SALT

proposed to add the following sub-section to Part IL, page 44:— (8.) A sum not exceeding five hundred pounds in counties, or two hundred pounds in boroughs, under the head of special expenditure arising from unforeseen circumstances, and not in respect of any matter constituting an offence under this Act. He reminded the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General and the Committee that the expenditure was restricted to the very smallest limit. Probably most hon. Members who had taken an interest in the Bill had calculated for themselves how far they could safely and properly keep their own expenditure within the limits provided by the Bill. He certainly had made his own calculations. He had always been very careful with regard to election expenses, and he was able to give the Bill the credit of saying he believed he could work his election comfortably enough within the limits of expenditure prescribed. But, at the same time, in order to do that, in order to keep within the limits that the Bill laid down in this Schedule, it would be absolutely necessary for any candidate to bring his expenses very considerably within the limits of the Bill. In the midst of the excitement and turmoil of an election it was very difficult to keep a hold upon everybody and upon every expense; and it was only reasonable to calculate that every expense in an election, however legitimate it might be—every expense for printing, advertising, messengers, and all other such matters—must of necessity exceed the estimate formed at the beginning of the election. They, therefore, could not start to contest an election without making their calculations, so as to bring their expenses considerably within the amount laid down by this hard-and-fast line. Something perfectly unforeseen might happen to make it necessary, quite suddenly, to send throughout a county or a borough a large number of circulars at a very great cost. It was quite possible, and not improbable, that an opponent might issue some circular which, of necessity, must be contradicted at once by means of a circular or placard. Such a thing would be quite unexpected, but no one would dispute that such cases had happened; the contradiction of some foul aspersion or false rumour might very possibly carry the total expenditure for the election very considerably beyond the amount named. Now, under those circumstances, the proposal which he had to make was that, beyond the expenditure laid down in the Schedule of the Bill, there should be allowed a special sum for special expenditure; but that sum should be limited to £500 in counties, and £200 in boroughs. Of course, he suggested that any expenditure of this kind should be confined to circumstances that were not opposed to the principle and object of the Bill. He could not help thinking that, on the whole, that was a reasonable proposal. They wanted to limit expenditure in elections as much as possible; but, if this Act was to have the effect it was supposed it would have, it was absolutely necessary that it should be dealt with in a businesslike and reasonable manner. To his mind the provisions were much too stringent. He believed the Bill would really lose its force by the absurdly stringent character of its penalties and restrictions. If they were to put all these various rigid rules into an Act of Parliament they should allow some safety-valve by which hon. Members—and he had no doubt all hon. Members would wish to do so—who wished to keep within the lines of the Bill might do so with some possibility of carrying on their business in a convenient manner. With these words, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the sub-section would not come in at this point.

MR. SALT

said, he should be very sorry if he had spoken all this to no purpose.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he thought the hon. Member was quite right in moving the sub-section here.

Amendment proposed, In page 44, add the following sub-section:—" (8.) A sum not exceeding five hundred pounds in counties, or two hundred pounds in boroughs, under the head of special expenditure arising from unforeseen circumstances, and not in respect of any matter constituting an offence under this Act."—(Mr. Salt.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he could not accept the Amendment, as it would put an end to the Maximum Schedule. The hon. Member could hardly expect him to accept it; but as he was anxious to meet the hon. Member's views he would agree to strike out the words— Not exceeding the maximum amount of ten pounds for every one thousand electors in the county or borough, and not exceeding in the whole the maximum amount of one hundred pounds. That would leave at large the amount which might be spent upon miscellaneous matters, so long as the maximum was not exceeded. If these words were left out, a candidate would not be confined to £10 or £100, and his agent would have to consider what miscellaneous matters were most urgent. By the Amendment he proposed, he (the Attorney General) should be meeting the hon. Member more than half way.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, the question was a difficult one, and he rather agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General with regard to it. The hon. and learned Member said he would leave out the words imposing a limit. Well, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was not in favour of that, because the expenditure might then be of any amount for these miscellaneous subjects.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

No. The maximum of total expenditure cannot be exceeded.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he was aware of that; but it would be difficult to restrain and keep within bounds this miscellaneous expenditure if no limit were fixed. The sum of £200 should be the limit for both counties and boroughs. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept that limit they would have a specified sum beyond which they would not be able to go. That would be far better than the hon. and learned Member's proposal.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he considered it would be a most dangerous thing to throw out the limit of £100 and £10 for every 1,000 electors, as there would then be a tendency for the amount to increase, and it might be from £100 to £620 in his case. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: No, no!] That was so, for whenever they had a general maximum the tendency was to work up to it. Their endeavour ought to be rather to keep down the maximum than to increase it. The hon. Member who had moved the Amendment admitted he could comfortably manage his election within the limits of the Bill; but that was his experience of the past, and hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House thought that his experience in the future ought to be a great deal better. They wished him to manage his election in the future more economically than he had done in the past; and, with that view, they considered the maximum in the Bill was already too high, and ought to be lowered. He objected to any extension of the maximum.

MR. SALT

said, he would adopt the hon. and gallant Baronet's (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) suggestion, and propose that the maximum should be £200 both for the counties and boroughs. Probably the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would accept that. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: No, no!] He (Mr. Salt) wished to point out that, however anxious a candidate might be to keep within the maximum expenditure, he might find it impossible to do so, owing to suddenly arising and unexpected circumstances. This might not be the case in more than one election out of 50; but, certainly, here and there, it might be found impossible to avoid exceeding the maximum in consequence of unforeseen difficulties. It was only reasonable that there should be some way of meeting difficulties of this kind; and he would, therefore, suggest that the limit in counties and boroughs should be fixed at £200.

Question put, and negatived.

Back to
Forward to