§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§ MR. ANDERSON, in rising to move, in page 2, after Clause 6, to insert the following clause:—
(Constituency to have claim on services of Member elected, and if absent for three months without leave may be summoned to attend, and on failure for one month more, new writ may be issued.)1147After any election shall have taken place under this Act, the electing constituency shall have a recognized right to claim the services in Parliament of the representative so elected; and in case of his non-attendance for three consecutive months of any Session, may petition the House setting forth the facts, and praying for redress on the ground that such absence is prejudicial to the interests of the constituency. On such petition being read from the Table, the House will appoint a committee not exceeding ten Members to inquire into the facts; and if they report to the House that such Member has been absent from the service of the House for three consecutive calendar months, without the leave of the House, and without any apparent sanction from the constituency, and that the petition has been signed by at least fifty duly qualified electors of the constituency, Mr. Speaker will thereupon send notice to the absent Member, by registered letter to his last known address, requiring him to appear in his place forthwith; and should such notice not be complied with before the expiry of one calendar month, should the House then be sitting, or on its re-assembling should the Member still be absent, Mr. Speaker will report to the House; whereupon on Motion duly made and carried, a new writ may be issued,said, the Amendment was one which the Chairman ruled could not be put in Committee as irrelevant to the subject-matter of the Bill. Although he did not think the decision a right one, he had not questioned it, but had thought it right to put it on the Paper again. Sometimes, under the present condition of the law, a constituency was robbed of the services of its Representative by his failure to attend Parliament. In his own constituency they suffered from a misfortune of that sort which everyone deplored, and for which nobody could in the faintest degree be to blame. The constituency of Glasgow had been reduced for the last three years to exactly the same position as it held previous to the Reform Bill of 1868—that of having only two Members to represent it. A constituency of 68,000 electors had now only two Representatives in Parliament, the same as in an Irish county or in many quite small English boroughs; and as there appeared to be no remedy for the existing condition of things, he had attempted to suggest one by giving every constituency certain claims on the men it elected. He might mention the case of an Irish Member, who was connected with the Australian Legislature, who refused to give up his connection with the Colonial Legislature, but, at the same time, would not take any steps to vacate his seat as a Member of the British House of Commons; and so the 1148 matter went on until a General Election. Then, at the present time, one of the Members for Mayo had been absent for some years. By the present state of the law there was nothing to prevent any Member of that House going to the utmost ends of the earth, and remaining there as long as he pleased for his own pleasure, and thus entirely neglecting his constituency. The constituency had no redress except by calling upon the Member to accept the Chiltern Hundreds, and he could refuse to do that. In old times the call of the House would have remedied this evil; but that practically was now obsolete, and there now was practically no remedy, and, believing there ought to be one, he moved this new clause.
§ New Clause (Constituency to have claim on services of Member elected, and if absent for three months without leave, may be summoned to attend, and on failure for one month more, new writ maybe issued,)—(Mr. Anderson,)— brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, they all deplored the circumstances which deprived Glasgow of one of its Members; but he could give no encouragement to the clause of the hon. Gentleman. This Bill was one of enfranchisement, and they could not under it remedy all the evils which might exist. Under the clause, if a Member were ill for three months he would lose his seat. He asked his hon. Friend not to press his Motion, which in itself was not one the House could accept, while it was not relevant to the subject of the Bill.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. TOMLINSONrose to move the following clause:—
(Qualification by payment of Income Tax.)Every man who has resided within a county or a borough for a period of twelve months, but has not by reason of such residence a qualification to be registered as a voter in such county or borough may be registered as a voter, and may vote upon proving that he has, in the year for which he claims to be so registered, paid or had deducted from the income of any real or personal property accruing to him during such year income or property tax to the amount of not less than ten shillings.1149 That clause, he maintained, would enfranchise a class of capable citizens who had a fixed residence, but not of a kind that now gave them a vote; and he held that, having regard to the due representation of property, and to the principle that taxation and representation should go together, that class was well entitled to be included in a measure which proposed widely to extend the suffrage. He begged, therefore, to move the clause.
§ New Clause (Qualification by payment of Income Tax,) — (Mr. Tomlinson,)— brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. WARTON, in supporting the clause, maintained that by far the greater part of those who paid 1d. of Income Tax were more respectable than those who inhabited mud cabins in the wilds of Connemara at £1 a-year. He could not see why a young man who had means should be prevented from having a vote because he lived in his father's house. If the Government were sincere, which he very much doubted, in their search for capable citizens, they must in all conscience and honesty accept the clause.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that this question had already been discussed somewhat fully in Committee. The chief objection to this clause was that it would lead to the creation of fagot votes. Assuming the Income Tax to be at the same rate as now, anyone receiving a dividend warrant for £40 a-year would pay 10s. Income Tax. All that would then have to be done would be for anyone who wished to make votes to put a sufficient amount of stock in the hands of someone else for a year only, and, whether they were householders or not, they would have the right to vote. Government had already made concessions in the way of the property vote; but this was something different, as the vote was not to depend upon the possession of any real property.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 108: Majority 84.—(Div. List, No. 127.)
§ MR. COLERIDGE KENNARD, in moving the insertion of a clause to provide— 1150
That no disqualification or penalty with respect to voting shall hereafter attach, to any member of the Constabulary Force of the United Kingdom,paid a high tribute to the services which the police constables, a most deserving body of capable citizens, rendered to the public, and asked Parliament to remove the disability under which they now suffered.
§ New Clause (Removal of disqualification of constables,)—(Mr. Coleridge Kennard,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)thought there were grave objections to the proposal, among the strongest of which were that the proposal of the hon. Member would make guardians of the peace at political meetings and at election times in the polling booths political partizans; and that policemen would probably be appointed on account of the political views they were known to possess, both of them very objectionable circumstances in regard to men who ought to be above suspicion.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, it was a pleasure to him to be able to agree with the Attorney General.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he rose to move the following new clause:—
(Disqualification of Criminals.)Any person who shall have been convicted and sentenced for felony or for indictable misdemeanour in any court of justice in the United Kingdom shall be incapacitated from voting in the election of a Member or Members to serve in any future Parliament, or from being elected to serve in any future Parliament, for a period not exceeding five years, at the discretion of the Judge adjudicating on the case.He hoped the House would be more disposed than it was when the Bill was in Committee to accept the principle of the clause, which was less drastic than that he proposed in Committee. He offered not to move the clause on receiving an assurance that the next which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) would be proposed and pressed to a Division.
§ MR. MORGAN LLOYD, in moving the following clause:—
(Disqualification of persons convicted of felony or other crime, and sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment with hard labour.)No person convicted of felony or any other crime, and sentenced to penal servitude or to be imprisoned with hard labour, shall he entitled to be registered as a voter, or to vote at any election for twelve calendar months next after the expiration of his sentence,urged that the House had manifested a strong feeling against imposing a disqualification for pauperism which did not attach to crime; and he therefore hoped the Government would meet the views which had been generally expressed by accepting this Amendment. So long as the principle of the clause was adopted he was not particular as to the form; and if the Attorney General wished to alter the wording of it he would have no objection. He contended that the criminal class should be excluded from the Register of voters as the pauper class was now excluded; and as a test whether a man belonged to that class or not deprivation for one year would not be unreasonable. If he remained for one year after the expiration of his sentence without being again convicted it might be not unreasonably presumed to have ceased to belong to the criminal class.
§ New Clause (Disqualification of persons convicted of felony or other crime, and sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment with hard labour,)—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was glad that the noble Lord (Viscount Folkestone) had not moved his clause, because it gave a discretion to the Judge, and the House did not like the idea of a Judge having the discretion to pass a political sentence. That objection did not apply to this clause, which proposed a definite exclusion for a certain time. The question was discussed in Committee, and he stated some objections of both principle and detail. Under this clause a person convicted of assault would lose his vote, and the House would not wish such a consequence to follow. If the 1152 House accepted this clause, the conviction must be by a jury on indictment, and the sentence must be penal servitude or imprisonment with hard labour. Many Members of the House expressed opinions different from those he advanced on behalf the Government; but, although they had a majority, he thought this was a matter in which they ought not to hold out with extreme pertinacity. Practically, he would point out that a man who was in prison for three months lost his vote because he lost that continuous occupation which was the qualification; he did not occupy his house continuously for the preceding 12 months. However, with the Amendment he had suggested, the Government were not disposed to object to the clause.
§ MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he must protest against this additional punishment being imposed upon a person who had undergone his legal sentence. Such a proposal was altogether foreign to the spirit of the Constitution, and he saw no justification for it, except the petty desire of some specialist to have his name associated in some way with the Bill, and who had no other road open to his ambition but to propose a fad of this description. It seemed to him a miserable and an unworthy proposal, contrary to the spirit of the Bill as well as to the spirit of the Constitution. It could not be argued that this exception provided any safeguard in sections, or had any important bearing upon the exercise of the franchise, except, indeed, the hon. Member who proposed it was prepared to say that the criminal classes largely abounded among his countrymen. It was true, indeed, that the convicted criminals represented only a small percentage of actual criminals. Those who were found out were punished sufficiently without a disability of this character, and it was unfair to give the exercise of the vote to criminals who had not been found out, and deprive those who had expiated their offences of the vote.
§ MR. HOPWOODexpressed his regret that the Government encouraged the imposition of this new disability. He was surprised the Government had given way.
§ MR. MACFARLANEthought that it would be shameful to say that the man who had accepted casual relief should be disfranchised, and yet that the 1153 ruffian who had beaten Ms wife to a jelly should be allowed to go to the poll directly he got out of gaol.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether such men men as hon. Members on the Irish Benches who had been imprisoned were to be considered disqualified? He objected to the proposal, because it was so easy in Ireland to procure convictions.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he did not wish to see the restriction on the exercise of the franchise relaxed in the case of paupers; but persons convicted of crime might belong to a class which specially required representation in that House. Prisoners sometimes suffered injustice, and, therefore, might often stand very much in need of representation. He hoped some hon. Member would divide against the clause, and he would give him his support. The Attorney General's position was inconsistent with his position a few days ago. Of course, the main objection to the clause was that it proposed an addition to the sentence of the law.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he warmly supported the clause. Hon. Members, he said, spoke as though imprisonment with hard labour was an accident which might at any time overtake a well-meaning person. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who had suffered imprisonment, were there to speak for themselves as well-meaning persons, and he did not dispute their claim to the title. Their cases, however, were not such cases at all as were being discussed, for they were not sentenced under an indictment or convicted by a jury. How many of the 15,000 criminals who were convicted on indictment in this country in the course of a year were innocent persons, who had done things which the crooked law construed into offences? Such a representation was a gross caricature. He could not understand how his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Arnold) could justify the disfranchisement of a pauper, and oppose the exclusion of a criminal. Sympathy for a pauper he could understand; but to include in the Register of voters men just released from imprisonment for disgraceful offences was an insult to every honest person on the Register. It was said a man would be taunted for the absence of his name from the Register; but a man who had 1154 been convicted of a gross offence might be, and probably deserved to be, reproached throughout his life for the offence for which he had undergone hard labour. If this clause were rejected, it would be something like a public scandal.
§ MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he thought the pauper would be punished by the proposal, inasmuch as he would be put on an equality with the criminal. This disqualification for the enjoyment of civil rights was in the nature of an additional punishment for the crime committed; but it should be left with the Judge to administer such punishment as he deemed right.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, there was no use in an Attorney General if he could not change his convictions on every question which might be brought before the House. This excused the Attorney General for having changed his front in respect to the proposal before the House. He, however, regretted the change, and could not help blushing for his profession. Last Friday the Prime Minister made a speech in which he recognized the principle of English law that when a man had undergone his punishment he was a free man. The Division that occurred last week on this subject was the most genuine that had taken place during the whole progress of the Bill, for the Prime Minister had graciously given his poor, blind, deluded followers gracious permission to vote as they liked. When a man had undergone his sentence he had expiated his offence, and should not be under any disqualification.
§ MR. CROPPERsaid, he heartily thanked the Attorney General for assenting to the clause. It was only fair that if they punished a man for pauperism, they should punish him for crime. He did not think that any man who had spent some time in prison would feel being struck off the Register very much.
MR. GORSTregretted the Attorney General had given encouragement to the clause. This was nothing more nor less that a proposed Amendment of the Criminal Law. When a sentence had been expiated, the criminal became a free man again, and this was a proposal to impose one uniform and unvarying additional punishment upon every case in which a man was convicted. He 1155 thought it extraordinary that a provision of that sort should find its way into a Franchise Bill. If a new provision of this kind was to be introduced into the Criminal Law, it would require great consideration and very careful definition, and he entreated the Government not to encourage the clause or endeavour to force it on the House.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Attorney General had given a most extraordinary reason for changing his opinion on this subject. He had, in fact, said that he had changed his own opinion because there was a difference of opinion upon this clause. He would like to know whether there had not been a difference of opinion upon every other Amendment proposed? No doubt in foreign countries a man was sometimes deprived of his civil rights; but that was not the law in England, and as soon as he came out of prison he was purged of his offence. Then, again, how was it to be discovered whether a man had been in prison or not? The present Bill was an enfranchising Bill, and not a disfranchising Bill, whereas the proposed clause was disfranchising, and he trusted the House would reject it by a Division.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was very glad Her Majesty's Government had seen their way to accept the principle of the clause. It did seem to him very unfair that a person should be disqualified because he had received a minimum amount of poor relief, while another person who had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a serious offence against the law of his country might be put upon the Register. He thought this clause tended to remedy a great defect in the existing law.
§ COLONEL NOLANthought the clause should be opposed not only upon Irish and Liberal, but also upon Conservative, principles. He had always voted with the Government throughout the Bill, whether they were right or wrong, on the particular question before the House; but the Government had changed front, and they could not expect their supporters to change front with them. He moved that the debate be adjourned.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Colonel Nolan.)
1156MR. GLADSTONEwished to make an appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw his Motion, which was hardly consistent with his usual attitude of supporting the Bill. No doubt the clause constituted a departure, as far as it went, from the general rule upon which the Bill had been worked through Committee; but they had taken this course in deference to what they conceived to be the general wish on both sides of the House. The fact was, as had been already stated, that this was not a Party matter, and the Government did not desire any Member to vote against his convictions, as he was sorry to hear the hon. and gallant Member for County Galway had been good enough to do; but the Government simply desired that everyone should vote according to his convictions. After so full a discussion of the clause, he hoped the House would now be allowed to go to a Division.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he desired to have some explanation before a Division was taken.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put.
§ The House divided;—Ayes 114; Noes 81: Majority 33.—(Div. List, No. 128.)
§ Amendment proposed to the said Clause, after the word "convicted," to insert the words "on indictment."— (Mr. Attorney General.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that Her Majesty's Judges tried cases by juries more than half of which were trivial and trumpery. There was no magic in the words "by indictment," and he must protest against such legislation.
MR. GORSTsaid, it was extremely difficult for the House, without Notice of the Amendment on the Paper, to deal with questions of this sort which the Government had thought fit to put before them. He did not know whether the Attorney General intended to confine the clause to persons sentenced to penal servitude, and, therefore, to move the omission of the words "or to be imprisoned with hard labour."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that he wished to mitigate the severity of the clause as it stood; but it would be necessary to re- 1157 tain the words "with hard labour." It would be difficult to exclude a man sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he should oppose the Amendment.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that the hon. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) had proposed a clause which would lead to an inconceivable number of Amendments, and had given grave ground of objection to Irish Members. The Attorney General proposed to insert the words "by indictment." If that Amendment were carried the man Magrath, who had been convicted by a jury and sentenced by Judge Lawson on Saturday last to 12 months' imprisonment, without hard labour, for conspiracy to murder, would be entitled to be registered as a voter. Magrath was convicted of the same offence as the other men; but because the Judge, in his mercy—because he must attribute mercy even to Judge Lawson—did not sentence Magrath to hard labour because he was 70 years of age, Magrath would be allowed to be a voter. What greater absurdity could they have? A man of 69 years of age, who was a little more robust, would be prevented from voting because he had served a term of penal servitude. The proposal was, therefore, to refuse a vote to the man in good health, and to allow the person who was in a state of debility to exercise the franchise. Such was the absurd position to which they had been brought by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Beaumaris.
§ MR. BUCHANANasked the Lord Advocate whether the words proposed to be inserted would apply to Scotland? If so, they would require another series of Amendments to make this clause applicable to the Scottish law.
§ MR. HARRINGTONridiculed the notion that a person who had been sentenced to penal servitude for a seditious libel should be deprived of a vote. He would urge upon the Government the fact that this Amendment raised a very serious question in regard to the difference between persons sentenced to hard labour and those who were not. A Judge might sentence a man for a grave offence to imprisonment, without adding hard labour to it; whereas for a much less grave offence a sentence of four months' imprisonment was occasionally given which did not carry hard 1158 labour along with it; and, because hard labour was imposed in the one case, the man would not be entitled to exercise a vote; whereas, when released from imprisonment under the graver offence, he would be fully qualified to exercise the suffrage.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must remind the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Harrington) that the Question before the House is the insertion of the words "on indictment." The hon. Member, at the present moment, is not dealing with that Question.
§ MR. HARRINGTONsaid, the expression "on indictment" necessarily involved a sentence of hard labour, or no hard labour; and he was solely looking at the question from that point of view; not whether a prisoner was tried on indictment or not, but whether, being tried on indictment, he was sentenced to hard labour or not. He had no wish to detain the House; but he would appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General as to whether the question of hard labour or no hard labour was one which caused so serious a distinction between crimes as would justify them in depriving one man of the vote and retaining it for the other; and, under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) would withdraw the clause altogether.
§ MR. CAUSTONsaid, he should vote for the Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend; but when it was softened down to an extreme point, and the Question put that the clause be added to the Bill, he should feel it his duty to vote against it. He was of opinion that when a man had served the term of imprisonment to which he had been sentenced, and had been discharged, he should be considered a free citizen and should have a vote.
§ MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he would call attention to the fact that the clause only affected those who had been in prison for a short time, and did not touch cases where a man had committed a heinous offence, and had been sentenced to penal servitude. He quite agreed that a man who had only committed a trifling offence should not be subjected to the additional penalty of losing his vote. An hon. Member, who spoke just now, alluded to the fact that there were 15,000 criminals; and the hon. and learned Member for Chatham 1159 (Mr. Gorst) commented upon the case of those who had suffered penal servitude. But, as he (Mr. Grantham) had pointed out, the case did not touch those who had suffered penal servitude, and was absolutely useless in that case; because no one who had suffered penal servitude could place himself in a position to be registered until, at any rate, he had been released for 12 months. The clause only affected the case of those who had been sentenced to slight terms of imprisonment, and who might otherwise have brought themselves within the terms of the Act. Therefore they were adding a far greater sentence upon those who had undergone a short term of imprisonment; whereas those greater criminals, who had been imprisoned for a series of years, were not affected in the slightest degree.
§ MR. GIBSONexpressed a hope that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would answer the question which had been put by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), and would say whether the Amendment would sufficiently harmonize with the existing requirements of the Scotch law?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he thought the Amendment which had been proposed would adapt the clause to Scotland; because the word "indictment" was the word now used in Scotland for the graver crimes.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 198; Noes 35: Majority 163.—(Div. List, No. 129.)
§ COLONEL NOLAN, in moving at the end of the last Amendment, after the word "indictment," to insert the words "before a jury," said, it was quite possible for a man to be tried by court martial, and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour; and if the clause were passed in its present shape, unless some such words as those he proposed were introduced, the Clerks of Unions in Ireland would have to write to every garrison town contributory to the Union, and probably even to England, in order to ascertain whether any particular voter had ever been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour by court martial. He pointed that out as one of the effects which the clause would have. He believed that a man tried by court martial was indicted. He did not profess to have any considerable 1160 knowledge of legal terms; but, if he were correct in his view of the matter, he would ask the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) and the hon. and learned Attorney General to take into consideration the expense which would be thrown upon Poor Law Unions, in carrying out the law, if it became necessary to obtain certificates from all the garrison towns. He wanted to prevent that by limiting the operation of the clause to the case of persons who had been indicted before a jury. That would confine the clause to the cases which occurred in the ordinary course of procedure, and would not affect cases which were brought before a court martial. He thought the hon. and learned Attorney General might be induced to accept this Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, at the end of the last Amendment, after the word "indictment," to insert the words "by a jury."—(Colonel Nolan.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) was labouring under a misapprehension, because, as a matter of fact, no person was indicted before a court martial; and, therefore, the case was not likely to occur of the Clerk of a Union writing to the military authorities in a garrison town, in order to find out whether a man claiming the right to vote had been convicted and sentenced by a court martial. He had not, however, the slightest objection to the insertion of the words proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend; but he would suggest that his hon. and. gallant Friend should substitute the words "by a jury," instead of the words "before a jury."
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Attorney General.
§ Amendment amended, and again proposed.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he thought it would be far better to put an Amendment to this effect as a Proviso at the end of the clause, which would obviate some of the objections he entertained to it in its present shape. He would suggest that a Proviso should be added at the end 1161 stating—"Whereas this clause does not apply, &c., to certain specific cases." There was, however, one point upon which he desired information. He had not yet heard from the hon. and learned Attorney General how he proposed to find out whether a man had been convicted or not, and under what head would the expense be borne? If it became necessary for the Clerk of a Union to write to the Judges, or to the Clerk of the Crown in every county or borough in Ireland, in order to find whether a man had been convicted or not, how was it proposed that the expense which would be incurred should be borne? He thought he was entitled to have some explanation from the Government upon that point; and there ought also to be some explanation as to how the Register was to be prepared. Was it to be prepared by inquiry, directed to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, or by information received from some authority in England, in answer to an application to know whether a particular individual had been convicted or not? He certainly thought that the clause should not apply to convictions under the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there would be no duty cast by the clause upon the Clerk of the Union, or upon any Overseer, to make any such inquiry. The objection must come in the ordinary way. No one was called upon to make any inquiry; but the objection was made by a person serving the voter with a notice of objection. He believed the course pursued was, that a notice was served upon the voter, and it then became the duty of the Overseer to obtain any information he could.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) would be aware that, under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, it was a very common practice to ask an accused person whether he preferred to be tried summarily by the magistrates or by a jury. It would, therefore, be possible, if this Amendment were accepted, for the man himself to select whether he would resign his vote or not.
§ MR. HARRINGTONsaid, that, as the clause stood, the application to strike off the name of the voter must be made to the officer presiding at the polling booth. He considered that that 1162 was giving a power to the officer presiding at an election which would work very great mischief; because it provided that persons convicted of felony, or any other crime, and sentenced for the same to penal servitude or imprisonment with hard labour. Such persons were not entitled to be registered as voters, or to vote at any election, for 12 months after the expiration of a sentence.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was not for him, to describe the duty of the officer in charge of the polling booth; but he believed that all the Returning Officer did was to ask the man claiming to vote—"Are you the person whose name appears upon the Register?"—and he was not able to exercise any other power.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he was in favour of the Amendment, because there was a disposition in some quarters to do away with juries altogether.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, in trying to make the clause acceptable to the House, had put words into it—"convicted by jury"— which would have a very curious effect. In many cases which occurred at Sessions and Assizes, a prisoner, against whom a case was clear, and who was most probably an habitual criminal, pleaded guilty; and, if those words were inserted, persons pleading guilty would still be entitled to enjoy the vote, notwithstanding the fact that they were persons in regard to whose guilt there could be no doubt at all. They would be entitled the moment they came out of prison to vote; whereas a person who had been convicted by a jury for a less serious offence, and who might have been convicted by mistake, would be deprived of the vote.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHtrusted that the hon. and learned Attorney General would give some answer to the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke). It was perfectly absurd, as his hon. and learned Friend had put it, that they should punish a person who had been convicted by mistake, and allow undoubted criminals to escape scot free. He hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would be content with the words, "on indictment."
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes 149; Noes 111: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 130.)
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the clause now ran—"No person convicted on indictment by a jury of felony or any other crime." He would now move a further Amendment to provide that it should be—" No person convicted on indictment, by a jury, or pleading guilty."
§ Amendment proposed, at the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words "or pleading guilty."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the words proposed to be inserted might affect a person who pleaded guilty to having committed a crime before the magistrates. It would be better to discuss the effect of such an Amendment later on.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had accepted the words "on an indictment by a jury" on the spur of the moment.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the present Amendment would have a very different effect; because it might affect the case of a man who pleaded guilty before the magistrates.
§ MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he thought the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had very little weight, because the clause went on to say—"And sentenced for the same to penal servitude."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)"Or to be imprisoned with hard labour."
§ MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he thought it would be convenient for the House to have before them the exact form of the Amendment which the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed to substitute for that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach).
§ MR. SPEAKERI must point out that before another Amendment can be proposed, it will be necessary to withdraw the Amendment now before the House.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that, with the leave of the House, he would withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would now propose an Amendment after the word "crime."
§ COLONEL NOLANrose to Order, and remarked that he had an Amendment which came before that.
§ MR. SPEAKERI think the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) has an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words, "or any other crime."
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, that was so; and he would be precluded from making that proposal if the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) were assented to.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that he also proposed to move an Amendment which would come before that of the right hon. Baronet—namely, to insert the words, "not being a political offence."
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Question is, "That the words "or any other crimes" stand part of the Clause."
§ COLONEL NOLAN, in moving a further Amendment to leave out the words "or any other crime," said, he thought the Amendment would require a little explanation. He was of opinion that, if these words were retained, they might entail considerable expense in order to ascertain whether a voter had been convicted of a crime or not. A great amount of trouble would be involved, and they would be, in point of fact, introducing another very great complication into Parliamentary Elections. He quite agreed with the object of the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd); but it was opening out quite a new field, which had never yet been touched by the English law, and it would considerably increase the field of investigation, and add to the difficulty by imposing upon the election authorities the duty of finding out whether a man had been convicted of felony or any other crime. In some cases a man might have been convicted of some petty offence and sentenced to eight days' imprisonment, and it would be necessary to make inquiry even into convictions of that nature. The omission of the words "or any other crime" would diminish 1165 the difficulty, and render the clause less objectionable to a large section of the House. He would, therefore, propose that those words be struck out of the Clause.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the words, "or any other crime."—(Colonel Nolan.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he had intended to move the same Amendment, and his reason was this. He was astonished to find a lawyer of such eminence as the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) making use of such a loose expression as "any other crime." The law divided crimes into felonies and misdemeanours, and if the object of the clause was to punish misdemeanants in this way he should strongly object to it. For his own part, he would limit this obnoxious clause in every possible way. Although he did not disguise the fact that some misdemeanours were worse than certain felonies, yet, as a whole, felonies were graver crimes than misdemeanours. Therefore, he heartily supported the Amendment to omit the words "or any other crime." He protested against the introduction by a lawyer of objectionable phrases into an Act of Parliament.
MR. GORSTsaid, he thought he was correct in asserting that the word "crime" was unknown to the law. In the Criminal Law, as it now stood, the word used was either "felony" or "misdemeanour;" and he would suggest the substitution of the words, "punishable as felony or punishable as misdemeanours." He thought it would be objectionable to strike out the words altogether, because perjury was not a felony, but a misdemeanour, and a man ought to be punished for perjury just as much as for larceny, and crimes of that class.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the difficulty he had in striking out the words "any other crime," was that the word "felony" was not known in the Scotch law; but the word "crime" was known in the Scotch law, and was sufficiently known in the English law to include misdemeanour; and the fact that penal servitude and hard labour were involved 1166 would be a sufficient indication that the crime in contemplation was a grave one.
§ SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he must confess that he was somewhat surprised at the statement of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, because his observations went directly to show that he proposed to introduce a word which was to mean one thing in England, and another in Scotland. There was no wonder that Courts of Law experienced such difficulty in construing Acts of Parliament, when the head of his Profession in the House of Commons suggested that they should keep in words which he could not deny had no legal interpretation, and which would be construed differently in England and in the Sister Kingdom of Scotland. He should, therefore, vote for the Amendment.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)regretted that his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hardinge Giffard) gave the Judges so little credit for being able to interpret an Act of Parliament. As the clause stood, it must be either a felony or not a felony; but, at any rate, it must be a crime punishable by penal servitude or hard labour. He did not conceive there would be the slightest difficulty in making use of an English word that was commonly used and well known to both countries.
§ SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDYes; but in a different sense.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)denied that the word was used in a different sense in each country. It meant a criminal offence, and that was the construction the Government put upon the word here, and that was how it would be construed by the Judges. He had not the slightest notion that any real difficulty or ambiguity would arise in regard to the interpretation of the clause with these words in it. On the contrary, he thought they were perfectly intelligible words.
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, it was quite evident that as they went on with the clause they got deeper and deeper into difficulty. He would therefore, in a friendly spirit, suggest to the Government that they should be content with the discussion which had taken place upon the clause, and not press it further. 1167 He had voted against the Amendment proposed on a former occasion; but he should now vote in favour of the present one, with the intention of by-and-bye voting against the entire clause in the hope that the House might be get out of the difficulty in which they were involved. He trusted the Government would say frankly that they had made a mistake, and that they meant ultimately to divide against the clause. He hoped that course would meet with the acquiescence of the House. They might pass with little or no discussion all the Amendments which were upon the Paper in reference to the clause, and then, when the Question was proposed that the clause be added to the Bill, he thought they would be able, by a considerable majority, to get rid of it altogether.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was very reluctant to interpose between the eminent lawyers who had been engaged in discussing the question, and in endeavouring to explain how the word "crime" had a different meaning in Scotland and in England. In England, they were told, "crime" meant either a felony or a misdemeanour; but in Scotland the word "crime" meant an offence which was graver than a misdemeanour. In other words, the word "crime" in England included misdemeanour, whereas in Scotland it excluded it. He submitted that, if a different meaning were attached to the same words in the two countries, it was not desirable to insert them in an Act of Parliament. He did not, however, propose to discuss that point, but simply to support the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). It had given him several qualms of conscience to discuss the clause at all, and he doubted the propriety of persevering in a course which could only retard the progress of the Bill, and imperil its future fate. He therefore thought the Prime Minister would afford considerable relief to the ardent supporters of the measure, who desired to see it brought to a successful end, if he would get up and say that the Government were of opinion that, putting on the one side the advantages of arriving at a speedy termination of the Bill, and on the other the small advantage to be gained by passing the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), they 1168 would prefer giving up the clause, and making progress with the Bill.
§ MR. HENEAGEsupported the appeal which had been made to the Government by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). He was of opinion that the further they went on with the discussion of the clause the greater their difficulties became. He was quite determined to vote against this Amendment. Not only had they lost two hours in discussing the clause, but if they continued moving Amendment after Amendment, the result would inevitably be that the clause would be left in such a shape that it would have to be struck out in the end.
§ MR. WADDYsaid, he had gone into the Lobby in support of the proposal when it was first moved, and he had voted conscientiously; but he rose now to support the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). He did so, because he cared a great deal more for the Bill than he did for this clause.
§ MR. WARTONrose to Order. He wished to know from the Speaker whether it was competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Waddy) to discuss the whole Bill upon an Amendment for the omission of one or two words?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Question immediately before the House is the omission of the words "or any other crime."
§ MR. WADDYsaid, he was going to speak to the Amendment. What he was going to propose was that those words, and even something beyond, should be omitted.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, the hon. and learned Member could not do that.
§ MR. WADDYsaid, he was not in the habit of troubling the House at any great length, or very frequently; and the only observation he would make on the subject of this clause was, that if it were a question of opinion involving any point of principle, and was supported by the Government, nothing would induce him to agree to the adoption of the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hop-wood); but he thought that this was the only compromise that could be arrived at, if they were sincere in their desire to make progress in the Bill.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he hoped that the Government would not succumb to the attack made upon them 1169 from so many quarters in this matter. He trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would stand by the words of the clause. They were words that were perfectly intelligible, and they described, with substantial and sufficient accuracy, the matter to which the clause was intended to apply in this country; and it was impossible to supply any substitute for them that would be equally well understood. The adoption of this Amendment, and the striking out of these words, would reduce the clause to such a condition that it would be perfectly inoperative, and would have to be got rid of altogether. He thought it would be unfair to the House to take the course which was suggested by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). There was a strong feeling on the part of the House in favour of the clause, and in consequence of certain communications which had passed, the the hon. and learned Attorney General had signified his acceptance of the proposal to the House last night. The clause, as it was accepted, contained the very words which it was now proposed to leave out, and upon a Division the clause, as such, was accepted. To omit those words now, without substituting anything for them, would have the result of destroying the effect of the whole clause. If they left out these words, he did not think it was possible to invent words that would equally answer the purpose. Although it was perfectly true that the word "crime" did not appear in the Statute Book of this country, it was, nevertheless, a perfectly legal term; and crimes in this country were divided into felonies and misdemeanours, and included both. Therefore, when they described an offence as a "crime," punishable either by penal servitude or hard labour, they were describing a matter that was thoroughly intelligible to everybody. He hoped the Government would adhere to the clause, and insert it in the Bill.
§ MR. GRANTHAMthought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) was right in saying that the House ought not to omit these words from the clause. It would be in the recollection of the House that many hon. Members, and especially the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), desired to know what the 1170 clause was to be which the hon. and learned Attorney General was prepared to accept? The hon. and learned Attorney General had stated that the Government were willing to accept certain Amendments; but what they were the House had not been able to understand; and the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) thought the Government intended to leave out these words. Yet now it was found that the clause had been accepted only upon one condition —namely, that the words "on indictment" should be inserted after the word "convicted." Under these circumstances, he wished to ask this question—If in Scotland felony had no meaning such as it had in England, why insert the word "felony" at all? It was quite true, as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) had stated, that they were introducing into the English law the word "crime," which was not known to it, because in the English law the words were "felony and misdemeanour;" yet in the Scotch law they had the word "crime," and not "felony." Then why not leave out the word "felony" altogether, and do away with the difficulty that was now created by simply saying — "No person convicted of any crime." Those words would cover the whole thing. He meant to vote against the retention of the words "or any other crime," with a view of placing the clause in a satisfactory position subsequently. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Waddy) said the words of the clause which specified penal servitude or imprisonment with hard labour showed that the offence contemplated meant a heinous offence; but the hon. and learned Gentleman was entirely in error in supposing that hard labour was only applied to heinous offences. There were many instances in which a man was committed to prison for three months with hard labour, and there were, as everyone knew, who was acquainted with the administration of the Criminal Law, many instances in which hard labour followed as a necessary consequence upon a sentence, if it were only for imprisonment for a week, a fortnight, three months, or six months. Consequently, hard labour was not restricted to what might be termed heinous offences.
§ MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he was sorry that the Prime Minister had not 1171 long ago signified the intention of the Government to accede to the very reasonable request which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). If the House were now to pass the clause in the shape in which it stood, it would be unworkable, and no number of Amendments introduced into it that night would make it workable. They were now on the point of providing that a man who had been convicted of crime should not, upon being released from prison, have his name placed upon the Register, in order to be in a position to record his vote. The hon. and learned Attorney General had pointed out, a short time ago, that no power was vested in the Returning Officer or in the Overseer to prevent a man from voting whose name was upon the Register. That being so, the Amendment did not meet the cases for which it was proposed. It did not disqualify from voting in the case of a man serving three, six, or 12 months' imprisonment; because, after he was released, there would be no power to prevent him from voting if his name were on the Register. They might strike the name off when the Revising Barrister went round; but if it was on the Register the man could exercise the vote for 12 months after his release from prison; and this clause, which was brought in in order to curtail his privileges, could not take effect until after he had been released for a period of 12 months. It therefore contained the ridiculous proposal that a released convict or released hard labour prisoner might exercise the franchise for 12 or 18 months after his release from gaol, but that then a motion would be made to deprive him of the exercise of it. This was the logical bearing of the clause; but it was not what was in the minds of the Proposer or supporters of it. He certainly thought the clause would prove to be altogether unworkable, and the time of the House was being seriously wasted by this discussion, even to the extent of endangering the fate of the Bill.
MR. GLADSTONEI will ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) to withdraw the Amendment now before the House; and I think the reason I shall give him he will deem to be a sufficient one. I know that I shall expose myself to criticism and to laughter, to 1172 which I admit I may be very fairly made the object on this occasion; but I have to confess, and I do so ingenuously and outright, that we have made a mistake. I do not know whether that will disarm the anger of those who may take a severe view of our conduct; but we believed that, by the course we propose to take to-night, we were meeting a wish— at all events, a prevailing wish on the part of the House. But we have now wasted three hours. My hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. Hopwood) has understated the case; because it is more than three hours since we undertook the discussion of what I may call this ill-starred proposal, and that circumstances appear to show that it would be the work of several days to adjust the measure before it could receive the final judgment of the House. That is the best estimate I can form. Well, Sir, unquestionably I should have risen immediately after the appeal of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), but for the fact that I had a scruple on the point of Order, which, however, I hope I may now dismiss, because I find myself frankly compelled to beg the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw his Amendment. The Government think the object in view is not worth the time of the House which would necessarily have to be expended upon it. Without further explanation, and fully admitting that we lay ourselves open to all the jeers that may be directed against us on the other side of the House upon this particular occasion, I would make an appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw the Amendment; and then I would make a further appeal to my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) to withdraw the clause. We have have done all we could for the purpose of promoting his views; but I almost think that he, as a supporter of the Bill, would be disposed to agree with us that the game is not worth the candle, and would desist in his endeavour to attain an object on which the House cannot afford to expend so immoderate an amount of time.
§ COLONEL NOLANexpressed his willingness to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Question proposed, "That the Amendment, by leave, be withdrawn."
1173§ MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, the proposal for inserting this clause was not originally his; but he understood that it was considered desirable to insert some Amendment analogous to it in character; and he had, therefore, submitted the clause. He would remind the House that the matter was discussed at some length in Committee, and that a very large number of Members expressed their opinion by voting in favour of the clause. In consequence of what occurred in Committee, he had placed the present clause upon the Paper which had now been read a second time by the House. He retained the opinion that the clause would be advantageous to the Bill; but he certainly was ready to admit that he would not have made a point of bringing the clause forward, had he thought that the introduction of it would have consumed so much time, because he thought it was of much greater importance that the Bill should pass as it stood, than that its fate should be endangered by discussing the improvement which this clause would undoubtedly effect if it were added to the Bill. Hon. Members from Ireland had, in the course of the debate, chosen to make some remarks as to his motive in proposing the clause. Ever since he had been a Member of the House, he had been prepared to stand up for what he considered to be right, whether it was in favour of hon. Gentlemen connected with the Island on the other side of the water or not, and he would continue to do so in spite of their sneers and insinuations. He was quite ready to withdraw the clause; but he did not know how far he was in a position to do so, seeing that the clause had been read a second time, and was in the possession of the House. Whatever suggestion might be made, for that object he would be prepared to adopt.
§ MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he understood that the question now before the House was that the Amendment be withdrawn. It was all very well for the Prime Minister to say, at that moment, that the Government frankly confessed they did not think the question was worthy of the consideration of the House; but he (Mr. E. H. Paget) would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the question was one of principle. It was not the first time of asking, but the second, and the Government had had ample oppor- 1174 tunity for making up their minds on the matter. Personally, he considered himself to be an injured person. He had had great satisfaction in supporting Her Majesty's Government in several Divisions; because he thought that, in the matter of principle, they were right; and, having adopted this as a question of principle, he protested against its being abandoned in the way it was now being abandoned by the Government, who all along had been priding themselves upon their consistency. He did not think they could have supplied a more curious instance of their inconsistency. The Government had opposed the question when it was brought before them in Committee; now, upon the Report, they had agreed to support it as a matter of principle which ought to be supported. The clause had been read a second time, and they had put up the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to advocate it; and, because an opposition had sprung up in one or two quarters, they now suddenly made up their minds that the question was not one that was worthy to occupy the time of the House. Surely, if it was worthy of the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, and the Solicitor General—if it was worthy of taking up three hours of the time of the House in supporting it in Division after Division, it was worthy of being gone on with to the end, and it ought not to be withdrawn. He should certainly raise his voice against the withdrawal of the clause.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the House to the nature of their proceedings that evening. In the course of the debate it had been admitted by the Government that unless that clause were introduced, or something equivalent to it, they would be deliberately enfranchising crime in Ireland. [Cries of "No, no!" from the Irish Members.] Hon. Members below him seemed to have a different understanding of that term from that which he had. There was some dignity in treason; but the phases which rebellion adopted were sometimes of a lower type, especially when it assumed this phase of outrage and individual murder. Personally, he could not draw any distinction between these offences and offences which were usually 1175 designated crime. He must say that he thought the House would arrive at a very grave decision if, after having prepared the ground, and approved the clause, it deliberately voted for the enfranchisement of crime in Ireland.
§ Question put, and agreed, to.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHmoved a further Amendment, to insert after the word "crime," "or pleading guilty on indictment to any such crime."
§ Amendment proposed, after the word "crime," to insert the words "or pleading guilty on indictment to any such crime."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he wished to have some information as to the position in which the House was now placed. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister propose to accept the Amendment, on the understanding that the clause would subsequently be withdrawn?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government could not withdraw the clause, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was quite within his right in moving the Amendment. He thought, after what had been done, that the House should accept the Amendment; but it was the intention of the Government to vote against the clause when it was put.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, the Prime Minister had said that he know he was exposing himself to some criticism, and possibly to some jeers; but, up to the present moment, he (Mr. Gibson) did not think the observation of the right hon. Gentleman had any foundation in fact. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman was listened to with patience; but there were points now raised which rendered it necessary to make a few short observations in the way of legitimate criticism. The hon. and learned Attorney General had certainly placed himself and the operations of the Bill under the notice of the House in a very peculiar manner. This clause had been under discussion for over three hours, and had been supported by the hon. and learned Attorney General, not rashly or unexpectedly. They had had a discus- 1176 sion upon a cognate subject some four or five days ago, and a Division had been taken—a Division which was of by no means a Party character. The clause seemed to find support on both sides of the House—
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he rose to Order. He was sorry to have to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he appealed to the Speaker whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not now discussing the general merits of the clause? He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) might say, in explanation, that he should not have wished to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he did not know that on the Question that the clause be added to the Bill there would be ample opportunity for discussing the general merits of the clause.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe right hon. and learned Gentleman is not entitled to discuss the general Question on this Amendment.
§ MR. GIBSONThen I will defer my observations.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Question I have to put is—"That the words 'or pleading guilty on indictment to any such crime' be there inserted."
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he was quite sure the House would excuse him for offering a short criticism of the Amendment. He quite agreed as to the importance of the Amendment, which, no doubt, had been moved in consequence of a suggestion made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), to the effect that, under the clause, a prisoner who pleaded guilty would not be punished by having the franchise withheld from him, as would a man who had been convicted of a similar crime. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would allow him to point out that these words "or pleading guilty on indictment to any such crime" would bring about an odd jumble of English and Scotch law. He would recommend that the words of the Amendment should be "or who has pleaded guilty to felony or any other crime." That Amendment would follow the phraseology which had been adopted hitherto, and would be an improvement on the course suggested, wretched as the phraseology of the Bill might be. He did not like the phrase; but he thought if the words "to any such crime" 1177 were used, it would make the clause refer only to the last-mentioned crime. Now that they had got it, they might just as well retain the hon. and learned Attorney General's singular mixture of English and Scotch law as an instruction to posterity.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought it was not worth while continuing the discussion. They were all pretty well agreed that the clause should not now stand part of the Bill. ["No, no!"] Well, there was a preponderance of opinion on the other side of the House in favour of dropping the clause. He felt sure, if the Question was put to the House, "That the Clause should stand part of the Bill," the provision would stand little chance of being adopted. Looking at the important Business on the Paper for to-night, and the discussions they would have to take, he trusted that hon. Members would allow the question before them at this moment to be decided, and would at once proceed to a Division.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
§ MR. CAUSTONsaid, that several hon. Gentlemen opposite were very anxious to speak, and he also should like to give one or two reasons why he should be prepared to vote for the rejection of the clause. He declined to punish a man who, having served out his sentence, was entitled to have all the rights of citizenship restored to him. The hon. and learned Attorney General had stated just now that the objection to a voter being placed on the Register should, in all cases, be taken in the ordinary way; but it would be extremely objectionable for a person dwelling in a house in a town, where he had possibly gone to lead a reformed and respectable life, to be cross-examined, on making application for a vote, as to whether he had or had not been convicted of crime. Under the circumstances, he would move the rejection of the clause; although, as he did not wish to take up the time of the House for any lengthened period, he would say nothing more in opposition to it.
§ An hon. MEMBER: You cannot move the rejection of the clause. You can vote with the Noes.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he remembered that some time ago Mr. Lever, the 1178 novelist, when he was seeking for a reductio ad absurdum to some of the Liberal cries of the day, suggested, as a cry for a new Reform Bill, "Emancipate the unconvicted." It appeared that now they had got a step beyond that, and the cry of the Radical Party was— "Enfranchise the convicted." He was glad to recognize the frankness with which the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Causton) had adopted that as the platform of the Radical Party. But what he thought was really worthy the attention of the House and the country was the deliberate manner in which Her Majesty's Government had delayed the progress of this measure throughout the whole of this evening. They had had this clause proposed by an hon. and learned Member sitting on the Ministerial side of the House, adopted by the hon. and learned Attorney General, then carefully considered by the House at large, repudiated by the Prime Minister, and now about to be doomed to the limbo to which everything apparently had to go which did not, at the moment, happen to meet with the view of that right hon. Gentleman. He really did think that, having regard to the energy which the hon. and learned Attorney General had devoted to carry this Bill through the House, he deserved better treatment from his Leader than that which he appeared to have received. He (Mr. Raikes) sincerely trusted that it would go forth to the country that this proposition had originated on the Ministerial side of the House, had been accepted by a Member of the Government responsible for the Bill, had occupied the attention of the House for some hours, and was now put aside, because the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had listened to some suggestions made from the Benches below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had reasons for listening to the suggestions of those who brought forward objections from that quarter of the House—reasons which were not known to the hon. and learned Attorney General. It was desirable, perhaps, that the House should take notice of the circumstances under which this clause had occupied their attention for such a substantial part of the evening; and he trusted that if the 1179 provision went to "another place," all the circumstances attending it would be taken into consideration.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he must say one word with regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Raikes). When the right hon. Gentleman had said that he (the Attorney General) had been treated by the Prime Minister in a manner which he did not deserve, he must say that if there had been any misjudgment of the opinion of the House, the responsibility of that misjudgment rested entirely with himself. In the course that had been taken, there had been perfect unanimity of action in regard to this last clause. He would tell the House what had actuated them in the course they had taken. They had been under the impression that there was a large majority in the House willing to accept the clause; but. as they proceeded, they found, not, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that it was the Radical Party who wished to enfranchise the convicted classes, but, to their astonishment, they found that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), who was supposed to direct the legal counsels of hon. Gentlemen opposite, was an opponent of the clause, declaring himself as willing to vote against it. It was said the Liberal Party wished to enfranchise the convicted classes. Well, was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) a Member of the Liberal Party? No; yet he had been working against this clause. Was the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) a Member of the Liberal Party? Certainly not. Then was the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grantham) one of the Radical Party, willing to enfranchise the convicted classes? And what would the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) say of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton)—and although he came last, he was by no means least? Was he a Member of the Radical Party? The fact was, the Government had yielded through a want of support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Who had been the Tellers in the Divisions against this clause? Why, two of them were hon. 1180 Gentlemen who sat together—two of the most respected legal Members of the Party opposite, the hon. Members for East Surrey and East Sussex. And those two Conservative county Members, having so substantially supported the clause, the Government were now told that they had yielded to the cries of hon. Members from Ireland. They were told that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Surrey were not to be listened to. The Government had thought hon. Members opposite were in favour of the clause. ["No, no!"] He did not mean to say that they had supposed that all hon. Members opposite were in favour of the clause; but, at any rate, the majority, and the most influential amongst them. They, however, found these Gentlemen telling against them. The opposition was such that it did not enable the Government to divide against it; therefore, unsupported by the hon. and learned Member for Launceston, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire, and the hon. and learned Member for East Surrey, they had taken the course which, under the circumstances, they deemed right. At the same time, for their own part, they were of opinion that the question did not deserve the consumption of any further time. Let the judgment of hon. Members opposite be what it might—and he did not think it would be a very severe one—if they were displeased with the course the Government was now taking, they would be able to settle the matter with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Launceston and his Colleagues.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not intend to take up the heroic tone adopted by the hon. and learned Attorney General. He must say he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman's excuse was somewhat of an afterthought. The hon. and learned Gentleman could not have had the slightest conception, a short time ago, of the reasons he was now giving for opposing the clause. Although there had been five or six Divisions on the clause, they had all been in one way, the majority having been in favour of the Government on each occasion, and against the provision — majorities increasing and enlarging every time. The smallest Division which had been taken 1181 against the clause had been the earliest Division, and that had indicated that this was not a clause on which Party lines were observed. Three or four days ago the House knew that supporters of the clause were to be found on the Ministerial as well as on the Opposition side of the House; therefore, with the greatest respect to the hon. and learned Attorney General, he must say that if anyone had said some time ago that the Government would have used the argument that they were altering their view, and taking a particular line in deference to the opinion of the Opposition, he should have said it was rank nonsense. The clause had been moved from the Ministerial side of the House, and many of its most prominent supporters had been hon. Gentlemen sitting on that side. Many of those prominent supporters were now amongst its opponents; therefore, it was asking too much of the House to believe that the Opposition was really the cause of the Government now giving up the provision. It was really remarkable to watch the course this discussion had taken. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, knowing perfectly well what had taken place and what was taking place, knowing that two Friends of his (Mr. Gibson's) had been Tellers for the rejection of the second reading of the clause, and knowing that the second reading was carried by a large majority, allowed the matter to proceed, and many Amendments to be proposed and carried with increasing majorities, until the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) got up, and, declaring that he had steadily voted black was white for the Government in order to facilitate the passing of the Bill, appealed to the Government to drop the clause. It was only then that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, summarizing the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway, declared himself to be greatly exercised at hearing that the hon. and gallant Member had voted against his conscience; but, under the circumstances, the Government had made up their minds that they could not make an exception in reference to this particular matter, and must leave it an open question—that they must leave hon. Members on this particular question to vote according to their consciences. That 1182 might be all very satisfactory; but, still, there ought to be a majority distinctly in favour of the clause. The clause had not been abandoned; but Amendments had been proposed and supported by both sides of the House — by Members sitting opposite as well as Members sitting on the Opposition side. It was really very remarkable that they should then find that, in deference to further statements made, the Prime Minister — certainly with the greatest possible frankness—took the House into his confidence, and declared that "the game was not worth the candle." The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Government had made a mistake. ["No, no!"] Well, it was not for him (Mr. Gibson) to question that contradiction. He did not particularly complain of the Prime Minister's statement, or of anything beyond the narrow lines to which the right hon. Gentleman at that moment seemed to be confining himself. Considering that, in the most important Bill of the Session, they were discussing Amendments to a clause which had been adopted, after some days' consideration, it was most remarkable that after three hours had been expended upon the provision, they should find the Government prepared to oppose what had already been agreed to, and for which they themselves had voted some hours ago. The Government could not be surprised if, in consequence of the episode of that night, a lengthy discussion took place on the Report of the Bill. They had assented to the clause after deliberate consideration. They now admitted they had taken a mistaken view of the matter, and, as a result of further consideration, they were prepared to vote against the clause.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that before the House parted with the clause he would like to call attention to the position in which they stood in regard to it. It was not as if this were a small or light matter, or one involving no political principle. In the early part of the evening, the Prime Minister recognized that there was a difference of opinion on his own side of the House; that there had been a difference of opinion on the Opposition side of the House; and that the large minority which voted in favour of the proposal when it came from the Liberal Benches, on a previous occasion, was made up of 1183 Members on both sides of the House. The Prime Minister having said that, the House went on with the discussion of the clause, and it soon became perfectly clear that there was a majority in favour of having such a clause in the Bill. Let the House just examine what position it was in at the present moment. A considerable amount of time had been spent upon the clause; the consumption of that time was not to be charged on Members of the Opposition. The proposal came from the Liberal Benches— from those who, throughout the progress of the Bill, had acted with the Government. The four valuable hours they had spent in discussing the clause were now beyond recall; but the clause was now in what he ventured to say was a satisfactory condition and shape. Its acceptance would involve no further loss of time. Why should it not be accepted? All the Members of the Government had voted in its favour; it was not accepted by the hon, and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) without consideration, and it involved the principle that those who had exposed themselves to the penalty of the Criminal Law were not, in the eyes of the House, capable citizens in the sense that they ought to be entrusted with the duty of voting for Members of Parliament. He could not understand how those on the other side of the House, who were prepared to extend the franchise to women, and to deprive of the suffrage persons who had been obliged to apply for parochial relief, could refuse to put on the Statute Book a clause which now stood in a complete form, which was accepted by the Government, and which would disqualify criminals from becoming voters. His hon, and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had said more than once that the Government believed, from all they heard and saw, that a large majority of the House were in favour of the clause. If the clause were put to the House deliberately for its acceptance, he (Mr. Clarke) believed it would still be found that a majority were in favour of it. In the circumstances, which he agreed were strange and perplexing circumstances, but circumstances which could not be charged on the Opposition, the right course would be to take a final decision on the matter at another Sitting of the House—when, for instance, the House 1184 had had an opportunity of considering fully the condition in which the clause now stood, and of coming to a decision, aye or no, whether it was proper to put such a clause on the Statute Book. It would be conceded that this was a right course, when it was remembered that many Members of the House must have gone away, after having heard the hon. and learned Attorney General's firm and deliberate vindication of the clause, convinced that the Government would not treat with such levity and vacillation a matter which had been before the House some time. He begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
§ MR. BRODRICKseconded the Motion.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Edward Clarke.)
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must decline to attempt to refute the charges which had been made against the Government with regard to the time lost over the discussion of this clause. There was no charge to be made against that, or any other side of the House. The loss of time was due to an unfortunate error of judgment of theirs to amend the Bill. The proposal to adjourn the debate and resume the discussion would only lead to further loss of time; and, therefore, he could not agree to it.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that as the Government were uncertain as to the course they should take, probably the best plan for them to adopt would be to withdraw altogether, and leave the House to decide the matter.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 174: Majority 85.—(Div. List, No. 131.)
§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," again proposed.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not wish to reiterate the observations which had been made by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), or the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke); but he ventured to make a further appeal to Her Majesty's Government in respect to this clause. He 1185 endeavoured, when the clause was being discussed, to give it such support as he could, and if he criticized one or two verbal points, he was sure the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) would admit his criticism was friendly to the clause. He attached considerable importance to the clause; it appeared to him to be sound and just in principle; and it was a clause which, to his mind, would be a very material and useful addition to the Bill. That was the opinion entertained by many other hon. Members quite irrespective of the part of the House in which they sat. The clause was negatived, when it was proposed in Committee; because Her Majesty's Government had resisted it. This evening it was discussed at no very great length and the Prime Minister stated that he would, on the part of the Government, consider it an open question, and in no way interfere with the wishes of any of his supporters in regard to the clause. The result of that expression of opinion was, that the clause, which had been negatived in Committee, was carried by a large majority in its second reading on Report. He appealed to Her Majesty Government not to exercise that influence, which, of course, they could exercise over their followers against the addition of the clause to the Bill. He would ask the Prime Minister to inform the House that the votes of hon. Members were entirely within their own discretion; that the Government loft the matter entirely to the judgment of the House, in the same manner as when the clause was read a second time. If the result was, that the clause was negatived, through the opposition of the Government, then, he thought, there would be more reason than ever to speak of the mechanical majority on the other side.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government had taken that course, and Members would vote according to their judgment; the Government had made no attempt to make this a Party question, and what he said a few days ago still held good.
§ VISOOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he felt he was somewhat hardly used by Her Majesty's Government on this occasion. He hoped the House would allow him to make a few observations which should not occupy more than two minutes. He had the opinion first, and 1186 held the opinion still, that the new clause, as he originally meant to propose it, was much the better clause of the two; but he was deluded into the idea that the Government meant to accept the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd). But it appeared to him, that the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris, after hearing the announcement made by Her Majesty's Government had "bolted." That meant, he supposed, that the hon. and learned Member left it to the discretion of hon. Members how they should vote. His hon. and learned Friend, he observed, had just come back; but though he had returned, there was not the slightest doubt that he did not mean to challenge a Division; but he (Viscount Folkestone) should do so, and he hoped a majority of the House would support the clause. He had supported the Amendment, and should still support the clause on this occasion. The Government had changed their minds twice. They had voted against the proposal in Committee; then they changed their minds, and agreed to support it; and now they had changed their minds again, and were going to vote against it. Unless they could bring themselves to a third change, he should certainly challenge a Division, and he hoped the majority in favour of the clause would be larger than on the last occasion.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 156: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 132.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Amendment he now had to propose was merely of a clerical character, simply pro formâ to carry out what had been already decided—
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he had an earlier Amendment he wished to move—
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was in possession of the House, unless the hon. and learned Member had an Amendment coming before line 27 of page 1.
§ MR. SPEAKERDoes the hon. and learned Member wish to move an earlier Amendment?
§ MR. WARTONsaid, in Clause 3, page 1, line 19, he wished to propose an Amendment, to omit the word "himself," in order to insert the words "by himself, or by himself and his family." 1187 The object of the Amendment was, first of all, to remove what might be an objectionable practice. "Himself" might seem to exclude his family, but, of course, it meant living in the house by himself, or with his family; therefore it was he wished to introduce the words he proposed. There was another meaning to the Amendment, that the man himself, or with his family, should wholly occupy the house; it prevented a number of persons being collected in the same house under the service franchise, and it would prevent the question of the lodger franchise being raised.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, to leave out the word "himself," in order to insert the words "by himself, or by himself and his family."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'himself' stand part of the Bill."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not think they would make any practical progress by discussing the Motion then, and he would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Attorney General,)—put, and agreed to.
§ Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.