§ Bill again considered in Committee.
THE CHAIRMANThe next two Amendments are in the name of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). But it seems to me that they apply generally to the cost and sale of articles, and to matters of trade during an election, and that they do not properly refer to any corrupt practices; nor do they even state that the expenditure is incurred by the candidate. Therefore it does not seem to me that these expenses in any way come under the purview of the Bill. Certainly the first Amendment does not, and the second, which relates to the expenditure incurred in making provision for ballot boxes, would be more properly introduced into the Ballot Act. I should not, therefore, consider that it would be in Order to put either of the hon. Member's Amendments from the Chair.
§ MR. BIGGARwished to submit that the first Amendment was in Order.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he did. He contended that the first Amendment was in Order in this way. [Cries of "Order!"]
THE CHAIRMANI have already ruled that the Amendment is irregular, and cannot be put. If the hon. Member has any point of Order to raise I am ready to hear him; but I cannot hear him in support of the Amendment.
§ MR. BIGGARwished to remark, on the point of Order, that one of the most common forms of corruption consisted in paying excessive prices for things that might be legally required, and he thought the object he had in view in bringing forward the Amendment was perfectly within the scope of the present measure. It must be well known that one of the most direct means of corruption was the practice of paying extravagant prices for goods and services which might not be of an illegal nature in themselves. He, therefore, submitted that the first Amendment was not irregular in providing for the insertion of the following Sub-section—
No payment shall be recoverable for any work done, services rendered, or goods supplied during the progress of any election contest at any higher rate than the usual charges for similar work, services, or goods in ordinary 1897 times; in all cases when a claim is made or an account furnished at twice what is fair no costs shall be allowed to the plaintiff, and the Court may order the costs of the defendant to be deducted from the amount decided by the Court to be due; in all cases when three times or upwards of a fair price is asked no payment whatever shall be recoverable, and in case proceedings are taken the plaintiff will be liable for the costs of the defendant.In regard to the second Amendment, he proposed in the same clause to insert another sub-section to provide that—When ballot boxes and other apparatus have been paid for by candidates for county elections, they shall be lodged in the custody of the sub.sheriff for the time being, and shall be supplied for the use of future elections without charge to the candidates, except for necessary repairs; and, notwithstanding the maximum limit for fitting up polling booths, furniture, hire of rooms, &c., it will not he competent for any returning officer to pay more than is reasonable or fair for such necessaries, or be able to recover more than is reasonable or fair for same.Perhaps the Amendment might more reasonably come under the Ballet Bill, if that Bill came before a Committee during the present Session. But, certainly, in regard to the first proposal he respectfully submitted that it very properly raised an important question in regard to a most common form of corruption, and was not, therefore, irregular. [Cries of "Order!"]
THE, CHAIRMANThe Amendment does not seem to me to be one which I can put; and, in my opinion, it is clearly out of Order.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he wished to move an Amendment which was not upon the Paper. He proposed to make a slight change in the first paragraph of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar); and he would move—
That any payment for any work done, or services rendered, or goods supplied during the progress of an election contest at any higher rate than similar work would be done for, at any other time, shall be deemed to be an illegal and corrupt practice.
THE CHAIRMANI am unable to put that Question. It seems to me to resemble almost in actual words the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), which I have already ruled to be out of Order.
§ MR. LEWIS,in the absence of the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), wished to move an Amendment of which the right 1898 hon. Gentleman had given Notice—namely, in line 30, to insert the word "knowingly." The clause would then read—
Subject to such exception as may be allowed in pursuance of this Act, if any payment or contract for payment is knowingly made in contravention of this section either before or after an election," &c.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 30, after "is," insert "knowingly."—(Mr. Lewis.)
§ Question proposed, "That that word be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he accepted the Amendment, and he intended further on to submit a clause to relieve innocent persons from penalties which they might have incurred inadvertently; or, rather, he intended to extend the clause already in the Bill in regard to other illegal practices. he made this statement now in order to show that in this direction, and also in regard to other matters, he wished to do all he could to prevent any serious consequences falling upon an innocent person.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
MR. JOSEPH COWENmoved, in line 31, after the word "before," to insert the words "the issuing of the Writ." he was not quite sure that the clause as it had now been altered did not accomplish what he desired. The point which he wished to raise by the Amendment had reference to the expenditure which might have been going on for weeks or months previous to the election. For instance, he wanted to provide that the extensive preparing of canvassing books or other expenditure in that direction should be deemed an illegal expenditure if it took place before the issue of the Writ. But probably the Attorney General might say that the insertion of the word "knowingly" embraced all he had in view. He would, however, propose the Amendment, in order to afford an opportunity to the Attorney General for explanation.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 21, after "before," insert "the issuing of the Writ."—(Mr. Joseph Cowen.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not quite 1899 apprehend what the hon. Gentleman meant by saying "before the issuing of the Writ." An Amendment to that effect might apply to the very day before the issuing of the Writ. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.
MR. GORSTsaid, the Amendment was really the same in effect as that which was moved at au early stage of the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes)—namely, to fix the particular time at which the election might be said to have begun. In the case of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Committee came to a decision that it was impossible to fix a time.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he thought the Amendment they had already agreed to did accomplish what he desired, and he would, therefore, not press the Amendment.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he presumed the word "knowingly" would be held to apply to anything that might occur after an election?
§ MR. CALLANsaid, if that were really so, the clause would be most objectionable, and would leave a loophole open for corruption. He thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) was a very fair one. If they proposed to convict a person of illegal practices, they ought to show that the acts which constituted the illegal practices were committed knowingly. He did not think the onus of proving that the act could have been known to the candidate should be thrown upon the person prosecuting.
§ SIR JOSEPH PEASEasked if the hon. Member was in Order in discussing a question which had already been decided?
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that, if the hon. Member who had interrupted him had read the Amendment, and knew anything of law, he would not have been so ready to interrupt. He had no doubt the hon. Member would have been more patient if he (Mr. Callan) had been entering into a disquisition upon railway matters, and had been pointing out 1900 the best and easiest means of grinding down the rights of the public. He thought the President of the Local Government Board would fully appreciate the point he was desirous of raising—namely, whether, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) was withdrawn, the word "knowingly" would apply equally to the time before, during, and after an election. He wished to emphasize the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle, because he thought that by saying it should apply to anything that had occurred long before an election was ridiculous; and it ought to be confined to what occurred during or after an election. Unless the Amendment were adopted, a loophole would be left open for corruption, which he was satisfied the Attorney General did not desire. He did not see what substantial objection the Attorney General could have to the Amendment, and he hoped he would accept it.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. LEWISwished to move an Amendment which had been placed upon the Paper by the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). It was one of several Amendments, which all hung together, and one of which had already been agreed to. The present proposition was to insert, in line 34, after the word "contract," the words "knowing the same to be in contravention of this Act." The section would then read—
Any person receiving such payment, or being a party to any such contract, knowing the same to be in contravention of this Act, shall also be guilty of an illegal act.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 34, after "contract," insert "knowing the same to be in contravention of this Act."—(Mr. Lewis.)
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ On the Motion of Mr. LEWIS (for Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS), Amendment made, in page 3, by leaving out line 35.
§ MR. SHEILmoved, in page 3, to leave out the whole of Sub-section 3, which provided—
That where it is the ordinary practice of an elector to allow for payment the use of any house, land, building, or premises, for the exhibition of bills and advertisements, or it is the 1901 ordinary business of an elector to exhibit for payment bills and advertisements, a payment to or contract with such elector, if made in the ordinary course of business, shall not be deemed to be an illegal practice within the meaning of this section; but such elector shall be deemed to be employed for reward for the purpose of the election, within the meaning of the enactments mentioned in Part Two of the Third Schedule to this Act, and accordingly shall not be entitled to vote, and if he votes his vote shall be void.The hon. Member said, his reason for moving the Amendment was that last Session the House agreed to the principle that, under no circumstances whatever, should an elector who received payment for services, or any act done by him during the election, be allowed to take any part in the election. That seemed to him to be really the main principle of the Bill of last year; and in moving the rejection of this sub.section he was anxious to raise that question at once. He had put down, further on in the Bill, Amendments which would raise the question again; but this was the thin end of the wedge, and if the Committee were of opinion that no elector should receive payment, under any circumstances, during a contested election, then he asked them to support him in this proposition. He knew it would be argued against him that electors in such a position were to be deprived by the Bill of the privilege of' voting; but, on the second reading of the Bill, he had mentioned' to the House that such a provision would have very little practical effect. It had happened in his own case, and he believed it had happened in other cases, that the object of a candidate would be to engage for hire certain voters whom he knew to be against him. That happened to himself when he stood for the borough of Athlone; and it was likely to happen again in many other constituencies, and for that reason he begged to move the omission of the whole of the sub-section.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, leave out Sub-section 3.—(Mr.Sheil.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he thought it would save time if the hon. and learned Attorney General would answer a question he wished to put to him. The sub-section spoke of 1902 payments and contracts with an elector, in the ordinary course of business. He did not quite understand what that meant. How long back did it refer to? How many elections might there have been going on? Suppose it had been done at the last election, would that be sufficient? He was afraid the clause, as it stood, would give rise to no end of litigation. Supposing a person actually occupying particular premises had gone away, and a new person had come in, would the words "ordinary course of business" still apply to the person who succeeded? He did not profess to be a lawyer, or to understand legal terms; and, therefore, he should like to know whether this was an ordinary mode of expression in an Act of Parliament?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the sub-section was intended to cover a case such as that of Willing, the advertising agent, who let hoardings for the exhibition of bills. Several speakers the other day, in discussing an earlier sub-section, pointed out that some such provision must be made, and that was the effect of the debate which occurred last year. The principle of the Bill was that, where an elector was employed, he was employed of necessity, and he was not to vote, and this sub.section forbade him to vote. In answer to the question of the noble Lord as to whether the disability would attach to the premises or to the individual, he took it that it would follow the individual, and not the premises. It would depend upon the business of the individual. In regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil), if he followed the hon. Member's arguments correctly, he understood him to point out that the insertion of this sub-section would be in conflict with the general principle of the Bill.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought not. The Bill of last Session laid it down as a general principle that where an elector was employed and paid he was not to vote, and the adoption of the present sub-section would still prevent an elector, under the same circumstances, from voting. Seeing that there was this restriction in the clause, he did not think it necessary to accept the Amendment. It was not a new subject, but one that had been discussed before, 1903 and a necessity for some such provision had been fully admitted.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that some sub-section of this kind was necessary, and he had given as an illustration the business of Mr. Willing. Now, he (Mr. Ritchie) understood that Willing carried on a business in which he contracted for placing advertisements generally on hoardings. He thought there should be no misunderstanding as to what was prohibited under the clause. He would mention a case, and he would ask if it would come under the sub-section. He knew there were many persons in his own constituency who let the upper part of their houses for the purpose of having them placarded with bills of all kinds; and he wanted to know if the case of such men would come under the clause in the event of notices connected with the election being stuck up during a Parliamentary contest? In many cases the upper part of a house was constantly let for the exhibition of all kinds of advertisements; and would a man be prohibited from using the upper part of his house for a similar purpose during an election time?
§ MR. M'LARENasked what would happen in the case of a man who bad only entered shortly before an election upon premises on which this practice of letting advertisements had been carried on for some time previously? He thought there ought to be something put into the clause to protect individuals who occupied the house as well as the owner of it.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board would be perfectly aware of what was done in the borough of Chelsea and other parts of London. It was not only advertising agents who took hoardings of this kind, but there were a large number of persons in the Metropolis who pursued a business of their own in the house, but whose ordinary practice it was to let the outside of the house for advertising purposes. He saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) in his place, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would bear him out that even in Westminster, where they were now situated, it was the ordinary practice of a very large Humber of persons to put up beards or placards in 1904 front of the house, and to receive some slight payment for doing so. Now, it was very clear that if they left in the words "ordinary business," they would not only include an advertising agent, but would leave the door open to an elector to say—"If you will allow me two, three, or four shillings a-week, or whatever you like, I will exhibit your notices;" and, as they all knew, that was a most insidious mode of bribery. He thought if the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Shell), instead of moving to leave out the entire sub-section, would. Allow the words "the ordinary business," or "the ordinary course of business," to be struck out, he would accomplish all that he desired. He (Mr. Labouchere) was certainly of opinion that some limit ought to be put upon the practice.
§ MR. LEWISwished to put a question on a point of Order. The proposal before the Committee was to leave out the whole of the sub-section; but he (Mr. Lewis) had an Amendment later on to leave out only part of it.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Question he had put was, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), said, that, undoubtedly, if the practice of letting out promises for electioneering notices and advertisements during a contest was resorted to on a large scale, it would come under the head of bribery.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he had never seen so plainly the advantage of living in London or Chelsea or the City of Westminster as he did now. He found in the Bill of the President of the Local Government Board 11 lines constituting this sub-section, inserted for the legalization of certain practices in London, Chelsea, and Westminster, which were corrupt practices in the ordinary acceptation of the term. They were told that this Bill was a Bill to reduce the expenditure incurred at elections, and yet these 11 lines were inserted so as to leave a loophole for extravagant expenditure in certain constituencies. No matter what inconvenience an elector might be put to, it had been made illegal to hire a carriage for the convey- 1905 once of any voter to the poll; and if he happened to be old or infirm, he might be required to walk five, six, or seven miles, or from any more remote distance, to the polling place. That was done on the ground of saving expense. And yet they proposed to make no exception in the case of advertisements. The Government had prepared most carefully a most elaborate provision by which to offer a loophole for corrupt practices in London, Chelsea, and Westminster. He thought the Committee ought not to be called upon to waste their time upon any proposal which virtually amounted to one for providing exceptional treatment for London, Chelsea, and Westminster.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he concurred in the view expressed by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). he could not help thinking that there would be some difficulty if they retained the latter part of the clause as it stood; and, instead of saying "the ordinary course of business," he would suggest the propriety of making the clause read, "when in the ordinary course of the business of an elector."
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsuggested that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil) should withdraw his Amendment, and that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board should be taken strictly at his word, when he said that this sub-section was solely inserted to meet the case of an advertising agent such as Willing. If that was the intention of the clause, and if it was the desire of the Government to put down with rigour anything like the practice of displaying electioneering bills in windows, shops, or public-houses in return for payment, which was a most fruitful source of corruption, particularly in the Metropolis, he thought that the Committee ought to set their face against it. In order to cover the parties whom the clause was intended to protect, he would move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "elector," and to insert the words "advertising agent." He thought that would exactly, according to the President of the Local Government Board, cover all whom the Government desired to protect.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not agree with the noble Lord. He did not think 1906 that the President of the Local Government Board had said that that was the sole object of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman had only given Willing as an illustration. It would be unfair and ridiculous for the Committee to take up the position suggested by the noble Lord, and to impose a penalty upon all persons who were in the habit of making a considerable sum of money annually from letting their houses, and depriving them for ever hereafter from letting them for advertising purposes. [Mr. GORST: During an election.] An election was the very time when the practice became most remunerative. [Laughter.] He had no doubt the noble Lord who laughed at that would see it was self-evident that on such an occasion as an election the possession of an advertising station was most valuable, and it might be let without the slightest trace of corruption in the matter. His understanding of the way in which these places were let was this—the proprietor contracted with some advertising agent to put up beards on his walls—either Mr. Willing, or some other person—and in return he received an annual sum for the use of the walls. He thought it would be a monstrous thing to deprive such persons of the opportunity of doing that; and it would be equally monstrous, when an advertising agent had hired the walls, to deprive him of the right of exhibiting electioneering notices at an election time. If the clause were only drawn to meet cases such as that of Willing, he thought there was considerable risk of committing an injustice towards other persons, who might be deprived of the right of letting their houses for advertising purposes, and also to an advertising agent, who might be deprived of a good opportunity for exhibiting bills.
§ MR. FIRTHsaid, he thought that the words suggested—"in the ordinary course of business"—would meet the case. It was an ordinary practice for a publican to lot the whole of his house during an election time, and to get paid for it. With respect to other cases where beards were put up outside houses, he presumed that the protection would only apply to places where that practice was carried on as an ordinary course of business. There were hundreds of boroughs where the advertisements only appeared at an election time, and, in such cases, it 1907 could not be held to be the ordinary course of business.
MR. GORSTsaid, he thought the best course for the Attorney General to take would be to induce the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and the other Metropolitan Members to leave the House, and then the rest of the House would be able to deal with these corrupt practices. The hon. Member who had just spoken asserted that it was the practice in the borough of Chelsea for an elector to let the whole of his house; and, if he did so, then he lost his vote, which, no doubt, he would have given to the Tory side. He thought the clause, as it stood, would open the door to an enormous amount of profligate corruption; and, unless the Attorney General would accept the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), or one similar to it, he could not vote for the clause. He would ask the Committee to look carefully at the clause as it stood. Anything might be done by a non-elector, from exhibiting bills to the sending out of any number of cabs he liked; and it was just possible that another way of profitably utilizing cabs would be discovered in employing them for the exhibition of placards. Besides that, every elector made it his ordinary business to allow his house to be used for the exhibition of bills, or to allow it to be hired for such purposes, on the occasion of an election. The President of the Local Government Board said that if an elector did that he would lose his vote; but everybody knew that that part of the Ballot Act was really a dead letter. The electors did receive payment for their services; and they wont and voted all the same, although, no doubt, they might be struck out on a scrutiny; but that was not done in one case out of a thousand, and the consequence was that all persons who received payment went and voted, and would continue to receive payment and go and vote after this clause was passed.
MR. STAVELEY HILLexpressed a hope that whatever the Committee did they would keep this clause as strictly as they possibly could. He would support anything that could be done to put down the present extravagant waste of money. Who on earth was over induced to vote for a particular candidate 1908 simply because he saw the name of the candidate posted up on a beard? No man was ever induced to vote because he was told to do so by a large placard, except, perhaps, those who were paid for posting the placards.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he entirely shared the views of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). The Bill of last year made it an offence to pay anybody for exhibiting advertisements. That, he thought, was going a little too far; and, therefore, he had altered the clause, and had limited it to a prohibition against the electors themselves. There was nothing to prohibit a non.elector from doing these things; but what the Bill did was to provide that where any payment was made to an elector it should act as a disqualification in regard to such elector's vote. They did not say it should not be done; but they provided that if it were done then the elector should be disqualified from voting, even if it were done in. the ordinary course of business. The noble Lord suggested that the words "ordinary course of business of an elector" should be inserted, so as to make the matter quite clear. That was the intention of the clause, and he was quite willing to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. His hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren) asked what would be the case if a man took a house which had been let shortly before for that purpose. He thought the clause would sufficiently provide for that case if it said "in the ordinary course of the business of an elector." Whether a house was taken for the purpose of posting advertisements during an election or not the purposes for which it was let were to be such as to constitute it an ordinary course of business. He advised the Committee to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill).
THE CHAIRMANI wish to point out to the Committee that unless the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil) is withdrawn it is impossible to put another.
§ MR. SHEILsaid, he would, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw the Amendment, if by that means he could facilitate a decision being arrived at upon the matter. At the same time he 1909 did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board altogether met the difficulty which he (Mr. Sheil) had pointed out, and which he regarded as a very important one—namely, that voters might be employed to disqualify them. The Attorney General seemed to be surprised that such a thing could occur; but it certainly had happened to him (Mr. Sheil) and to others. As far as he was personally concerned, he had lost an election in consequence of acts of that kind, and he was afraid it might happen again.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, that, before the Amendment was withdrawn, he should like to have the matter perfectly clear. He would take the case of a cheese-monger in a Metropolitan borough. The cheesemonger had a shop in a prominent position, and he let the upper part of his premises to Willing. Upon the part of the premises so let there were boards upon which all kinds of advertisements were put. At a time of election would Mr. Willing be able to exhibit the bills of a candidate? That was what he wanted to know.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that would not be the case of the cheesemonger at all, but the case of Mr. Willing.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, the premises would be those of the cheesemonger.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)remarked, that the person to whom the money would be paid would not be the cheesemonger, but the advertising agent.
§ MR. RITCHIEpointed out that the cheesemonger would get payment from Mr. Willing. The cheesemonger was an elector, and the premises were his; and would he be under any penalty for letting the premises to the advertising agent?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would be at liberty to let his premises to the advertising agent.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, that under those circumstances he would withdraw his objection.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that if that were so then the clause would be highly objectionable.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that in order to avoid confusion he thought it was only right that the Attorney Ge- 1910 neral should consider this point. He had heard a good deal—and, indeed, a good advertisement it had been for one particular advertising agent in the Metropolis—about the practice now pursued at an election time; but, before the Amendment was withdrawn, he wished to call attention to the case, not of an individual or to a limited class of electors, but to a large class of individuals, known as the sandwich boardmen. That might appear to some Members to be a very small matter; but they would be aware that a practice very largely prevailed in some constituencies of employing the electors or the relatives of the electors in carrying around sandwich beards, and in otherwise becoming the medium of advertisements for the purposes of an election. In the clause as it stood the employment of a person in that capacity was prohibited, provided that he was an elector, or unless it was in the ordinary practice of his business or trade. The clause prohibited the use of any house, land, or building for advertising purposes; and he wished to ask the Attorney General whether a man would be allowed to make use of his own person for the purpose of advertising? It might be said that this was an infinitesimal point; but he wished to point out to the Government that in their desire to take cognizance of the interests of the constituents of the President of the Local Government Board they had entirely overlooked one of the most fruitful forms in which electoral corruption was promoted. He would, therefore, direct the attention of the Attorney General, not by way of jest, but seriously, to the case of those electors who engaged to constitute themselves advertising mediums, and to promote the objects of the election, with the view of considering whether that ought to be a disqualification or not. One of the Members for Chelsea had already candidly admitted the employment of electors for advertising purposes, with the avowed object of obtaining their vote.
§ MR. FIRTHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was labouring under a positive misapprehension. He (Mr. Firth) had said nothing of the kind.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was glad to find that the hon. Member had been the unconscious cause of drawing the attention of the Committee 1911 to a serious evil, and of putting the Committee on their guard against it. He (Mr. J. Lowther) had intended to propose an Amendment in the clause; but it was not necessary to do so, because it might be moved in a subsequent paragraph. He would suggest to the Attorney General that in re-casting the clause he should consider the propriety of introducing some words to meet the objection which he (Mr. J. Lowther) had urged.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he had now an Amendment to propose. It was not at all clear, since the explanation given by the Attorney General to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), whether the Amendment accepted by the Attorney General would meet the object which he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had in view. He would propose, therefore, to leave out all the words after the word "where," in line 36, down to the word "it," in line 38. The words he proposed to strike out were—
Where it is the ordinary practice of an elector to allow for payment the use of any house, land, building, or premises for the exhibition of bills or advertisements, or.The clause would then read—Provided, that where it is the ordinary business of an elector to exhibit for payment bills and advertisements, a payment to or contract with such elector, if made in the ordinary course of business, shall not be deemed to be an illegal practice within the meaning of this section.The object of the Amendment was to prohibit payment in all cases where the business was not the ordinary business of the elector, because he saw, in the first lines of the sub-section, a loophole for electoral corruption. He did not think it necessary, if it was only intended to protect the advertising agent, to retain the first part of the sub-section at all. What he wished to point out to the Attorney General was this. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was right in what he had stated to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) that payment to Mr. Willing—who was only taken as a type of the class who advertised the addresses of the candidates—would be legal, no matter how the promises were taken, or what price Mr. Willing paid for them for that pur- 1912 pose, it was quite evident that they were converting Mr. Willing into a tremendous corrupting agent. Of course, as he had stated, he only took Mr. Willing as a typo of the class. If this course were taken it would be very easy to pay a largo sum of money to an advertising agent, and to say to him—"There are So-and-so, and So-and-so, and So-and-so, whom I wish to advertise my bills; and you must pay them so much for the use of their premises." In that way the candidate might give an advertising agent a large sum of money for the purpose of posting advertisements; and the advertising agent would be able, under cover of such an operation, to purchase, for a considerable sum, the premises of persons whom it might be considered desirable to assist pecuniarily. The Committee were drawing the law very strict, and they were inviting all kinds of evasion in regard to it; and he could see a most obvious evasion of this clause if they were able to make use of the advertising agent as a briber. He wanted to stop the practice of hiring beards and shop windows for advertising. If they permitted the proposal of the Attorney General, the local advertising agent would be converted into the man in the moon.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 36, after the word "where," to leave out all the words down to "it," in line 38.—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was really at one with the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Staffordshire in the wish to stop the exhibition of bills in windows. The Bill had been drawn with one object; and the question was how far they should go in making it elastic, so as to allow legitimate ordinary business to go on. What they were now discussing was a very small matter, hardly worth occupying time, whether they accepted the noble Lord's Amendment or not. If they struck out "practice" and inserted "course of business" they would provide all that was necessary; and he hoped the noble Lord would accept that as carrying out all that he wished to effect. The clause dealt with two different things—the ex- 1913 hibition of bills, and exhibition of bills for payment. If they decided not to allow any payment to an elector, that would be going further than the Bill went; but he thought the Committee might accept the noble Lord's first Amendment. With regard to the President of the Local Government Board, the right hon. Gentleman had never paid any sum for the exhibition of bills.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had referred just now to the case of a humble class of men whose mode of life had apparently escaped the notice of the framers of this Bill. If one of the large contractors employed a number of electors in the capacity he had indicated, would they become responsible? For instance, a large number of persons might be employed in order to prevent their giving their votes. Was the elector who accepted service during the election, not as a principle, but as a subordinate of another elector who was a contractor, or of a contractor who was not an elector, to be disqualified from voting?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, this was an important portion of the Bill, and it was to prevent the difficulty pointed out that he had inserted a maximum in the Schedule. There was the great safeguard. It was impossible to trace employment to any contract so as to prevent the carrying on of an occupation, because, if that were done, a person who received weekly wages in a printing office would be subject to disqualification. That could only be met by indirect means in the Schedule.
§ MR. MONKwished to know what was the object of legalizing the placarding of a vacant house with the address of a candidate? It was, of course, satisfactory to know that the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had done nothing of that kind; and he did not see why, if that practice was not required for Chelsea, it should be required for any other borough. When an election was coming on, great pressure was put upon a candidate or his agent to allow a vacant house to be placarded all over with the candidate's address, which had already been sent to every elector. That opened the door to corruption, whether the owner of the house was an elector or not, and he was sure they could not do better than prevent 1914 that practice for the future. It was all very well to say there was a Schedule; but before that Schedule was done with, the amount to be allowed for the ordinary expenses of an election would be largely increased. He hoped the Attorney General would accept the noble Lord's Amendment, and prevent this practice in the future.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he also hoped the Amendment would be accepted; but he would go further than the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk.) It was very desirable to put a stop to this practice altogether; and he would ask the Attorney General to agree to strike out this section altogether on Report.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the more this matter was discussed, and the more the Government departed from their own provision, the more the Government put themselves into an illogical position in which it was impossible to give effect to any part of their proposals. It was more and more the case that they got over all difficulties by falling back on the maximum. There were many cases in which the maximum was not spent; and he joined in the appeal to the Attorney General to revert to the original intention in regard to the present clause.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, this was simply a question of the difference between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. The Attorney General had made a very reasonable offer; and the hon. Member for Gloucester had shown how easily a man might be misled in talking about matters he was not practically acquainted with. Everybody acquainted with the business of advertising knew that whenever there was a vacant house it was seized upon by bill stickers. He was disposed to think that the proposal of the Attorney General met the question. He agreed that everything ought to be done to repress this practice; but he thought the Bill fairly accomplished that.
MR. GORSTsaid, he was very sorry to have said anything offensive to the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke); but what he had said was in joke. He should like to join in the suggestion whether the Attorney General had not better go back to the Bill of last year, and prohibit placarding altogether. It was of no use, for every elector received the can- 1915 didate's address by post, or read it in the newspapers, and nobody was likely to stand in the street to read a poster upon a house. Nobody's vote was influenced by those placards, and this practice could only be used for the purpose of corruption.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, he thought the observation of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) very unreasonable. What was the whole section but tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee? The maximum scale provided for all these minute details, and pernicious practices upon which long debates took place. The more they attempted to deal with all these details the more they were surrounding the candidate with pitfalls.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, this was no matter of mere detail; but if the Committee would accept the noble Lord's Amendment, the Government would also be ready to do so.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. LEWISmoved, in page 3, line 42, to omit all the words from the word "section." He wished to know why a man should be disqualified because lie was employed, not provisionally for the purposes of an election, but in the ordinary course of his business, to print the address of a candidate, such a person, he thought, ought to fall within the category of a bricklayer, or a stationer.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 42, to leave out from "section" to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Lewis.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the clause had been very much altered by the omission of the words dealt with by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and the Committee had now greatly limited the number of persons who would be liable under the Bill. He, therefore, was disposed to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, disqualification would only apply to the chief person who accepted a contract, and not to those employed by him; but in the particular business dealt with by this 1916 clause there were peculiar facilities for employing a large number of electors provisionally. An advertising agent did not require skilled hands, but could get any number of men for his purpose at a moment's notice. Did the Attorney General still adhere to the view that electors might be employed to any number without forfeiting their votes?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought he had answered that point very distinctly. That question did not at all arise on this section, which only dealt with a voter and contractor, and not with the persons employed.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought it was high time to consider this question. The Attorney General, when he said this Bill could be revised, and then submitted to Parliament, took no cognizance of this important point. There was no provision in this Bill for dealing with a matter which he thought might become a fertile source of corruption. An elector might be engaged to exhibit a bill or a sandwich board, in order to prevent his being able to vote; and if it was to be laid down that a voter who was engaged for hire should not be allowed to vote in any case, that ought to be provided for in the Bill. He saw no reason why a principal contractor should be debarred from voting; and he should certainly press the omission of these words, unless the Government gave an assurance that they would deal with the matter later on.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the Attorney General was right in assenting to this Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to raise the point, he could do so upon the question of illegal payments.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERcould not agree with his right hon. Friend that the present was not a proper time for dealing with the subject; but, at the same time, he thought it would be better to raise the point again upon a later section.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
1917§ Clause 7 (Expenses in excess of maximum to be illegal practice).
MR. GORSTsaid, he thought the definition of expenses in this clause was very vague; and he, therefore, proposed to amend the words so as to make the clause read—
When the payment is a payment on account of, or in respect to the conduct or management of an election.A great deal was to be left to the Judges; but he thought this Amendment would make the definition more distinct than it was at present.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 8, after "respect," to insert "of the conduct or management."—(Mr. Gorst.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought the proposal a valuable one, and he should be happy to accept the Amendment.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 8, to omit the words "or incidental to."—(Mr. Gorst.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwished to know, before these words were omitted, what would be the effect of the omission? The clause ran—"Shall be incurred by a candidate at an election." If a canvass was carried on in view of an election some months afterwards, would any such expenditure be included in the maximum, or excluded? It seemed to him that such expenditure would be incidental to, if not at, an election.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was difficult to define exactly what the expenses were; but the hon. Member's words referred, he thought, to an election itself. Canvassing a borough months in advance was a process of which, he believed, the borough would be glad to be relieved; and this clause would limit that very much.
§ Question put, and negatived.
1918§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the Amendment he now wished to propose raised the same question as that last discussed to a certain extent. The clause had been improved by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst); but he proposed to insert "as hereinafter defined." This clause proposed to declare that any expenditure in excess of a certain sum allowed in the Schedule was illegal, and that any candidate incurring such expenditure would be disqualified for life from representing the same constituency. That was a tremendous penalty; but in the largest constituencies the risk would be increased, because it would be impossible for a candidate to keep such an absolute control over the operations in a large area as in a small area. As to what was meant by an election if an election always took place at exactly the same time, there might be good reason for saying a man must not exceed a certain amount; but suppose an election was unduly postponed, a candidate was forced to incur expenditure in consequence of that prolongation, and then he would be unseated. He would assume that some Peer died, and his eldest son being a Member of the House of Commons, succeeded him in the House of Lords. Upon that, a candidate, knowing that a vacancy must occur, went down to contest the constituency; but if the new Peer delayed proving his title the candidate must carry on the canvass, and so he might incur expense beyond the sum allowed by the Bill, and for that he might be unseated after all. Was that right? He proposed his Amendment in order to get some idea from the Attorney General as to what was an election, and when election expenditure was to commence?
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 9, after "election," insert "as hereinafter defined."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKwished to remind the Committee of what occurred in 1868. Parliament was dissolved in November; but at the Prorogation in August it was known that that Parliament would not meet again, and the consequence was that there was an election campaign extending over two or three months. That might easily 1919 occur again, and, therefore, he supported the Amendment.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)observed that, although the noble Lord proposed his Amendment, he shirked all responsibility of saying what an election was. He presumed the noble Lord felt the difficulty of defining an election, and what was it that he asked? He supposed the noble Lord asked that some limit of time should be fixed. If they fixed the limit at one month that would allow expenditure for any length of time outside that month. A candidate might go down and for a month make a house-to-house canvass, and employ as many agents as he pleased, and then say he had not done that within the mouth as fixed by the Bill. An arbitrary fixing of time would only enable a man to evade the law. He remembered the case of the Election of 1868, and he thought that was an example that Lad better be avoided; for he did not think the prolongation of a canvass for six or eight months was advantageous either to a candidate or a constituency. He could not give an absolute definition, but he thought there was some rule of construction which might guide them. If a candidate only made periodical visits to a constituency, merely to place his views before them, he did not think that would be au electioneering campaign. No machinery would be required for that; there would be none but simple expenses, and there would be no difficulty in the Judge seeing whether there had been a continuation of action, or whether it was only general. Under these circumstances, lie did not think they could meet the practical difficulty by a limit of time. They had fixed the amount of election expenses, and they could find out by common sense what expense belonged to the election and what did not. He was willing to reconsider that question when they came to Sub-section B, and he hoped that in view of that pledge the noble Lord would not insist upon his Amendment. He should be glad of the assistance of the noble Lord in respect to expenses; but he could not accept this Amendment.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the observations of the Attorney General showed how extremely difficult it was to define anything in the Bill. Whenever they 1920 came to a point at which the intentions of the candidate had to be considered, they were driven back on the Judge. The Attorney General said the Judge would have to consider this, that, and the other; but nothing could be worse than to leave it to the Judge to determine whether a man's intentions and acts were fair and proper. He knew there was great difficulty in practice at the present time in regard to election expenses. Many Members and candidates made up their returns so as to include all the expenses they had incurred up to the last farthing, and that was the intention of Parliament; but in many cases only the amount spent after the issue of the Writ was returned. That was an evasion of the Act; but he thought the observations of the Attorney General showed the difficulty they were now in. A man might, in order to recommend himself to a constituency, go down, take great interest in their local affairs, and spend a great deal of money; but, according to the Attorney General, if he did not appear in the character of a candidate he would not come within the limits of this section, and he could practically carry on a canvass which could not be so treated. Such facilities for evasion were traps, and were exceedingly injurious to a constituency, and to the morality of Parliamentary life. He did not see how the difficulty was to be got over; but it seemed to him that these provisions tended rather to the creation of offences and of dishonest men, who would make use of the strict terms of the Act in order to attain their own ends. He hoped some means might be found for defining the period at which an election might be said to commence fairly and honourably between all parties, and that he hoped in the interest not only of individual Members, but of purity of election and of the rights of the constituencies themselves. But any attempt at a definition only seemed to create fresh pitfalls; and, therefore, he should wait for some further explanation from the Attorney General before he would attempt to say what course he should take.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he agreed with the general principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith), who saw the immense difficulty of defining the date of the 1921 commencement of an election. The date of issuing the Writ had been mentioned; but there might have been expenses before that time, which clearly were election expenses. For example, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke), in preparation for the Election of 1868, issued his address in June, 1867, and therefore he was before his present constituency as a candidate from Juno, 1867, to November, 1868; and so were his former Colleague, Sir Henry Hoare, and the two candidates of the opposite Party. They wore all candidates from that time, and they returned their expenses from June, 1867. On the other hand, he knew cases in which persons had appeared before constituencies and had incurred no expense at all—they had merely made themselves known in the simplest way. His own case, however, would show how far back the expense might go, and how unwise it would be to draw a fast line.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was afraid that candidates might be led into some trap owing to the connection of this section with the Interpretation Clause. If hon. Gentlemen would look at Clause 60 they would see there was a definition of who was a candidate. A man might spend money and not regard himself as a candidate. It was possible that, when he absolutely became a candidate, he would find he had incurred expense under Clause 7 in excess of the maximum. The Committee ought to take great care, therefore, that they did not lay a trap for honest people, who might honestly believe that they were doing what was perfectly right, and yet, when they came to investigate the matter, they might find they had trusted to the Interpretation Clause, and they had spent money before they became candidates within the meaning of that clause. When they came to make a return of their expenses they would find they bad been mistaken in the view they had taken, and that they had dropped into a pit-fall. He hoped the Attorney General would take a note of the point he had raised.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)was understood to say he would guard against such a case occurring.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that, according to the statement of the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), a candidature might 1922 continue, within the meaning of this Act, for 18 months. If that were really so, were the personal expenses of a candidate under the Act to be limited? Was there no limitation on the personal expenses of a candidate?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there was no limitation upon the sum that a candidate might expend for his legal personal expenses. A candidate might spend what he liked, if he would only return the sums he spent.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, a maximum which was fair for an election which went on for three weeks could not possibly be fair for an election which went on for 18 months. He hoped the Government would find some means of relieving them from a dependence upon Judge-made law.
§ MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he thought there should be as short a time as possible between a Dissolution and the constituents going to the poll. When General Elections arose, they could not be in the least certain what would be the influence bearing upon a Prime Minister in deciding how long the election might last. At the time of an Election, what the different Parties were mostly concerned in was which Party was likely to win. Candidates might have very indiscreet supporters, who, in their excitement, incurred expenses and laid traps for candidates which, if they fell into, would lead to unpleasant consequences. He (Mr. James) was inclined to think that the clause would find good work for the lawyers in the shape of Election Petitions. He could see the difficulty and objection there was in defining the commencement of an election; but he was afraid, with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), that the Bill would very likely be a hard one for honest men, and an easy one for unscrupulous men. There were knaves and fools, and he feared that, as this clause was drawn, there would be found knaves ready to take advantage of it.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he considered the question raised by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) was one of immense importance, and that it was in no way met by the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James). They were not there merely to pass the Bill, but to make it a workable measure. It seemed 1923 perfectly absurd that when an objection was raised they should be met with the answer on the part of the Government that either it would be considered later on, or they should suggest some means of getting the Government out of the difficulty they had created. His right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) gave the Committee his experience in regard to the Election of 1868. He (Baron Henry De Worms) also was a candidate in 1868. he issued his address in the month of August; but he did not think of returning his expenses until after the election really began He should like to know whether, in the memorable case of the Prime Minister's canvass in Mid Lothian, the expenses of the special trains which were used in conveying the right hon. Gentleman to different parts of his constituency were returned as legitimate expenses connected with the election? There occurred in the Bill the words "before, during, or after an election." He would like to know from the Attorney General what the word "before" was to be understood to mean. At what period was an election supposed to commence? Because, after all, that was really and truly the gist of the whole question. He was desirous of knowing what the expenses wore which should be considered election expenses, and when those expenses legitimately commenced. His hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had raised an important point—namely, that as to the difference between personal and election expenses. It was very necessary the Committee should know whether a subscription given to a charity would be reasonably considered as part of the expenses in connection with an election. He took it to be the fact that as soon as one election was over the next one virtually began. Whenever a difficulty of this kind arose, and a matter was not defined and not capable of being explained by the Attorney General, the hon. and learned Gentleman invariably fell back upon the decision of the Judges. They had to deal with the Bill on its merits, and if it was so obscure and so complicated that it could not be construed by ordinary common-sense individuals, the Government had better throw it up altogether. He might remind the Attorney General that the 1924 Judges had denied that they had any jurisdiction in matters of equity; one Judge had said they had; but the majority of Judges had maintained that they had not. He hoped that before the clause was disposed of the Attorney General would give the Committee some definition, and not trust to Members on the Opposition side of the House helping him out of the difficulty he had got into.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir PARKER HERSCHELL)thought that if there was one thing that Members on all sides were agreed upon it was the expediency of putting a stop to extravagant expenditure at elections by fixing a maximum of expense. ["No!"] Well, that was a matter upon which the majority of Members was agreed; indeed, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had picked that out as the one bright spot in the Bill—[Mr. LEWIS: The one workable.]—the one workable part of the Bill. But, according to the hon. Member who had just sat down, they must give up the Maximum Schedule altogether, because of the difficulty of defining when any election began.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he did not say so. What he did say was that all they had to do was to find when the actual expenses of an election commenced.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)maintained that if they fixed any time they must give up their Schedule of maximum expense, because whatever time they fixed they would have unlimited expense previously. It was absolutely impossible to fix a date without at once providing for the evasion of the maximum expenditure. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms) said they did not want a matter of this sort to be decided by Judges; but they wanted common sense to decide it. He (the Solicitor General) thought this was just one of those matters that common sense could decide. He was certain that if a man honestly endeavoured to carry out the provisions of this part of the Bill he would be subjected to no danger. The hon. Member said also that they talked of the Judges dealing equitably in the matter; but the Judges themselves had said they had no equity power. But it was proposed to give Judges the fullest equity power, and 1925 if they did that, was not a candidate perfectly safe—["No!"]—as safe as it was possible to make him? He could not conceive the slightest danger or risk to any person who honestly meant to carry out this clause. It was said whatever maximum they fixed would be an improper maximum if the candidature was an exceptionally long one. A person might make himself known to a constituency for a very limited amount; he might address meetings and otherwise make known his views at very small cost, and when he knew that the total amount he had to spend was only so much, whether his candidature was short or long he could "cut his coat according to his cloth." If he honestly endeavoured to do that the promoters of the Bill had taken care that any accidental miscalculation or mistake could not hurt him. He (the Solicitor General) submitted to the Committee that in doing that they had done all they could practically do. If any hon. Gentleman could improve upon that they were quite ready to listen to him with the utmost satisfaction.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, the further they proceeded with the Bill the more clearly they saw how absurd and ridiculous its provisions were. Early in the discussion he proposed that an election should be supposed to commence 28 days before the polling day. There was a definition at once, and he put it to the common sense of the Committee—a faculty to which Ministers were always appealing, but which they never used—ho put it to the common sense of the Committee whether 28 days before an election would not be a better time than the 17 months' candidature of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), or the four or five months' election which was inevitable in 1868? It was all very well for the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) to say—"Oh, I don't approve of the length of time given in 1868;" but it was possible this Parliament might expire under somewhat similar circumstances. It was possible that at the end of next Session, or the Session after, some Bill might pass for altering the electorate—perhaps the extravagant ideas of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) might be adopted. [Question!"]
THE CHAIRMANI must call upon the hon. and learned Gentleman to deal with the Amendment before the Committee.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he was trying to do so, and he did not think it would have been suggested to the Chairman's mind that he was not addressing himself to the Question if it had not been for the howl on the other side of the House. He maintained he was sticking closely to the Question when he said that the Attorney General was wrong in saying that they could not have again what happened in 1868. He was saying that an alteration might take place in the constituencies of the country, some Reform Bill might be carried, and it might be the avowed policy of the Government to dissolve Parliament a short time after. Parliament might expire in August—it might be in the interest of the Government, probably for some reason of their own, not to have the election until November. He asked if it was fair to have a period of three months during which election expenses might go on, and compel men to narrow their expenses within the paltry limits of this Bill? Twenty-eight days would be a good time to fix, because when a vacancy occurred an election was generally held within that time. He did not want to make imputations, but the only class of men this clause would help would be the candidates who held cheap meetings all over the country, lecturing to Radical constituencies, making at a cheap rate political promises that could never be kept, and promising things that could never be given, acts to which decent men, who desired the expenses of the election contest to be honestly carried out, could not and would not resort to. That, he contended, was the worst sort of political corruption, of which there was a monopoly on the other side of the House. There were such terms in the Bill that he was sure it would operate unjustly if carried into law.
§ MR. BRYCEdesired to make a few observations of a strictly practical nature. It had been said that the longer an election lasted the greater, necessarily, was the expense. His own experience was rather the other way. No one who knew anything of electioneering could suppose that if an election lasted for 12 months they must, necessarily, spend even twice as much money as if it 1927 only lasted one month. Long elections, as a matter of fact, were often cheaper than those hastily conducted, because the greatest expense was generally incurred in the hurry and confusion of the last few days of an election taken suddenly. At the last General Election he came before the constituency of the Tower Hamlets, which numbered 44,000 electors, 16 months before the election actually occurred, and during those 16 months he did not spend more than £50 or £60. The consequence was that when the election came on, such was their state of preparation that his Party were able to conduct the election at a much smaller expense than would be allowed under the Maximum Schedule of the Bill. It was during the last few days of hasty and excited elections that great expense was usually incurred; and he, therefore, hoped the Attorney General would adhere to the clause in its present shape.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, it seemed to him that if the Government were in earnest in desiring to put down corrupt practices, it would be logical for them to omit entirely the words "whether during, before, or after an election," because then the clause would be confined to election expenses of all kinds incidental to the election. He wished also to offer this suggestion as a practical way of mooting the need for a definition—namely, that the election should be taken to commence at the time when the candidate issued his election address, because that was the moment at which his decision was irrevocably taken to become a candidate. The Attorney General had said that a man might never issue an address; but, unless the candidate wished to advertise his desire to evade the provisions of the Bill, it stood to reason that he must issue an address at some time or other, when he resolved to become a candidate, and, in his (Mr. Stuart-Wortley's) opinion, it would be monstrous to hold a candidate responsible under this Act for the expense incurred in making his views known to the electors, perhaps, two or three years before an election.
MR. GORSTsaid, he desired to remind the Committee that they were now debating a point which was debated and decided by the Committee some three weeks ago. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had reminded the Com- 1928 mittee of that fact by making over again the speech he (Mr. Gorst) well remembered the hon. and learned Gentleman made on that occasion. Upon the clause relating to treating the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) proposed that corrupt practices could only be committed three months before, or during, or after an election. The Committee thoroughly considered the Amendment, and it was ultimately decided, by the Gentlemen who sat on the Front Benches, that it was impossible to define the commencement of an election; as a matter of fact, if they defined the commencement of an election by any means whatever, corrupt expenditure would be incurred before the day fixed arrived. They were now only repeating what they had already done; they were now trying to determine the precise date on which an election was to commence. They could not do it; no one could propose such a definition, no one had done it, and no one was able to do it. Certainly, the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) had ventured to do it; but it was simply wasting the time of the Committee to go on endeavouring to find that which it would be a very good thing if it could be found, but which the collective wisdom of the whole Committee had, as yet, been unable to find.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he was much amazed at the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, who put himself before the Committee as a practical man having a practical suggestion to offer. That suggestion was that an election should be held to commence when a candidate issued his address. He (Mr. Callan) issued no address; he never addressed the electors, but they elected him on trust, and he hoped he was fulfilling that trust. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had also spoken about electioneering expenses as a practical man; he had said that the longer the period of preparation the cheaper was the election. He (Mr. Callan) did not know whether there was any Member of the Committee who would agree with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets in this; but he (Mr. Callan) was certainly of opinion that if, during 16 months, the hon. Gentleman only spent £50 or £60, his position was a most enviable 1929 one. He trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) would resist all limitations whatever; certainly if he attempted to fix any limit of time, outside which an expenditure in a constituency would be illegal, the hon. and learned Gentleman might as well abandon the Bill altogether.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he should not have taken part in this discussion but for the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) just now referred to an Amendment which he (Mr. Raikes) proposed upon the very first day the Bill was in Committee. The question raised by that Amendment was not similar to the question now under consideration. The proposal he submitted to the Committee on that occasion related to treating, and was to the effect that treating, to be considered a corrupt practice, should have taken place three months before, during, or after an election. If the Attorney General had accepted that Amendment he might have saved himself a good deal of subsequent discussion. Now they were called upon to consider a question which was not identical to the one he formerly raised; the question now under consideration was as to illegal practices. It might be difficult for the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) to find a date at which an election was to commence, having regard to the cost of the elections as defined by the Schedule; but he (Mr. Raikes) thought it would be pretty clear to most Members of the Committee that the expenses in question were certainly calculated to be merely the actual expenses of an immediate election. He was still of opinion that some date should be fixed at which the expenses should not be considered election expenses. If that course were not adopted they would certainly have to make some alterations in the Schedule dealing with the amount a candidate might legally expend.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he hoped the Government would adhere to the clause, and for a variety of reasons. One great source of corruption with regard to electioneering affairs was not the work of the candidate at all. There were always a few people who were exceedingly anxious to be bribed, directly or indirectly. The consequence was that a candidate was fleeced in all manner of 1930 ways, and the result of making it an illegal practice to submit to be fleeced would have a very salutary effect. There were subscriptions for cricket clubs, yacht clubs, race meetings, and the like. All these things came within the rule of illegal practices, if the subscriptions were given to any large extent. He very strongly objected to subscribe to anything of the kind, and a few years ago he positively refused to subscribe to a race meeting at Cavan. In January last he was in Cavan, and he got some posting done. The proprietor of the hotel was not an elector, or, strictly speaking, if he had been, what he (Mr. Biggar) did would have brought him within the province of an illegal payment. He was charged much beyond the ordinary trade price. Had he paid such a bill, and this Act had been in operation, he supposed he would have been guilty of committing an illegal practice. That sort of thing was exceedingly common. He might give the Committee the benefit of another illustration. Some time ago he and a few friends took dinner in an hotel in the county of Cavan. The person who kept the hotel was an elector, and he charged them at least three times the ordinary trade price. He believed that such a thing as that would have been held to be an illegal practice under this Act; and he considered, in the interest of Members who were fleeced by their constituents, the learned Attorney General ought to resist any alteration of this clause. he was of opinion that one of the good things of this Bill was the discouragement to the levying of black mail on Members of Parliament, or those who wished to become Members of Parliament.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, that they in the City of London had to go to considerable expense in the way of advertisements—to far greater expense, in fact, than candidates in other constituencies. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General probably only put his address in a weekly paper in Taunton, and, therefore, his expenses in advertising must be very trifling. The candidates in the City of London, however, had to advertise in The Times, The Standard, The Daily News, The Daily Telegraph, The Morning Post, The Morning Advertiser, and several evening papers. [An hon. MEMBER No; not The Times.] An hon. Gentleman said 1931 he did not put his advertisement in The Times; he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) supposed that if this Bill passed they would be practically prohibited from doing so. If a candidature was to last for 16 months, as in the case of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles Dilke), the candidate must advertise; and he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) did not see how, in the matter of advertisements alone, they could conduct elections as they had hitherto done.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, he had not yet heard any practical illustration given of the differences between General Elections—between, for instance, the General Elections of 1868, 1874, and 1880. They all knew that the Election of 1868 was, from force of circumstances, inevitable at the end of the autumn of 1868; there was practically a four months' contest. In 1874, however, they had a totally different state of circumstances. It would be in the recollection of most Members that the Dissolution took place all in a moment, and that the contest in many constituencies only lasted a week—one week as against three months in 1868. Now, what was the case in 1880? There was an intermediate period somewhere between three and four weeks. They therefore saw in the case of the three General Elections he had referred to a totally different state of things as regarded the basis of expenditure; and he had no doubt many hon. Members of the Committee were as much astonished as he was to hear of the extraordinary experience of one of the Members for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), that the longer the election the cheaper it was. He could only say that it would be a very beneficial thing if the hon. Gentleman could give them all a lesson as to the mode of conducting a cheap election. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms) conducted their elections upon very different principles. The one—namely, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board—returned his expenses from the very first moment he appeared before the constituency of Chelsea, whereas the hon. Member for Greenwich only returned his expenses from the time the election proper com- 1932 menced; in fact, his hon. Friend (Baron, Henry de Worms) took a very commonsense course. They saw what a different result might have befallen those hon. Gentlemen had Petitions been brought upon the state of facts disclosed. The 60th clause of the Bill defined the meaning of the word "candidate." He entreated the attention of the Committee to this point. The 60th section of the Bill said—
In the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts, as amended by this Act, the expression 'candidate at an election' means, unless the context otherwise requires, any person elected to serve in Parliament at such election, and any person who has been nominated as a candidate at such election, or has been declared by himself or by others to be a candidate.One was to infer from that that a candidature at an election did not commence until a man was declared to be a candidate. But that was not the obvious meaning of the words "before, during, or after an election." They, therefore, again came face to face with the difficulty which the Attorney General would not meet—namely, the inequality of the circumstances of one General Election as compared with another. He considered that it was exceedingly important that this matter should be dealt with practically by the Government before this part of the Bill was disposed of.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that after the wide difference of opinion which existed in reference to his Amendment he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had said that this Amendment had been previously discussed. That was not exactly the fact, because ill the one case they were dealing with corrupt practices, and in the other case with illegal practices. A corrupt practice was always a corrupt practice, but was under this Bill not from its being inherently bad, but because it was committed during an election. He, therefore, wished to define the limits of the period during which an act otherwise innocent would be illegal.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
1933§ The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
§ The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.