Part II.—Scotland. (Hansard, 14 July 1885)

§ MR. WARTON
, in rising to move the second reading of the clause, said, as the Committee would be aware, there was a maximum fixed in the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act of 1883, which, when the measure was passing through Committee, was the subject of a great deal of discussion. He had no doubt that the Lord Advocate had the Act before him, and if he would look at the second part of the 1st Schedule he would find that the first payment there referred to was the charge of the Returning Officer. Now, that item was one of those which came within the maximum. Again, by the 8th section of the Act, no Member might spend more than the maximum, and, by the 11th section, if he did, he would lose his right to be a Member of Parliament for seven years, besides incurring other penalties. So that a candidate, if he should do wrong or even make a mistake, would be in a very serious position. He quoted from the second part of the Act words which now stood therein. Those words were added to the Bill in the dinner hour, in a thin House, on the Motion of the Solicitor General. He said that that Motion took the then Government by surprise; it was opposed very strongly by the late Government, but, as he had said, the words now stood part of the Act. On the division which took place there voted for the Motion 65 Members, of 781 whom there were only seven Conservatives, 15 Home Rulers, and 43 Liberals, nearly all of whom were Members of what he might call the extreme Radical Party. Such was the composition of the majority. On the other side there voted 56 Members, 40 of whom were Liberals, and that number included 26 Liberal officials, or nearly the whole strength of the Government who were opposed to the Amendment of the Solicitor General at the time he moved it. The other 14 Liberals were what one might call regular Ministerialists. Most of the Conservatives present also voted against the Motion; the official Conservatives were not in their places, and were probably at dinner. He contended that the Motion had been carried by a mere accident, and that it was utterly opposed to the feeling of the late Ministry. The danger was that a candidate would be liable to the severe penalties provided in the Act, if the Returning Officer, by accident or design, charged him £1 more than he ought to pay.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, this matter was a very much more reasonable one than the Committee would have thought from the speech of his hon. and learned Friend, who was anxious, in the present condition of the House of Commons, to reverse the decision of the Committee of 1883. If that decision were reversed, as he was afraid they would not be able to get as many to vote as last year, it would be a small House reversing the decision of a larger one. The question was whether candidates' agents would charge candidates by a scale which was according to Act of Parliament, or by a scale of their own invention? The advantage of the scale in the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act was that the candidates knew what the charges were, and that they would have to pay the lawful scale of the Act, and nothing more. If a candidate paid more than the statutory charges he would be guilty, not of a corrupt practice, but of an illegal payment, and, no doubt, if elected, he would forfeit his seat thereby. If the amounts in the Schedule of the Bill were not sufficient, of course, they could be increased. The other Amend- 782 ments of which the hon. and learned Gentleman had given Notice raised the question whether the sums in the Pill were sufficient or not, and on that question the Committee would be able to give an opinion. But he (the Solicitor General) contended that the principle as to the charges which the House had adopted was the principle which should guide the Returning Officers. He hoped the Committee would adhere to the decision arrived at so wisely in 1883, and would restrict the charges of the Returning Officers to the legal amount.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he begged to move the other new Clause standing in his name, as follows:— (Increase of Returning Officers' charges in certain cases.) Notwithstanding the scale of charges laid down in the First Schedule of the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875, it shall be lawful in any county or borough constituency where the poll is kept open to an hour later than 4 p.m. for the Returning Officer to charge four guineas for each presiding officer and thirty shillings for each clerk at a polling station. He thought that, as they had increased the hours of polling and thereby also increased the amount of duty to be performed, so far as the presiding officers and clerks were concerned, that those officials should have a higher scale of remuneration.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I beg to point out to the hon. and learned Member that his clause does not come next in order.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he thought he was at liberty to move the clause at this point.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
It will come on at the end.

§ MR. WARTON
I merely reversed the order of my clauses. Having taken the second first, I thought I could now take the other.

MR. HEALT
said, he begged to move the following new Clause:— (Borough scale to apply to counties in Ireland.) In Ireland the scale applicable to a borough in the Third Schedule of the above Act shall apply also to counties, and the scale applicable to a 'county or district of a contributory borough' shall not extend to Ireland. The 3rd Schedule of the Act was put altogether out of date by the passing of 783 the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Act, and which would make the borough scale apply equally to counties and boroughs. This question of scale had been overlooked in previous legislation, the fact being that when that legislation was passed a large number of boroughs which had now been constituted were not thought of. The scale commenced where the number of electors did not exceed 1,000; but in the future there would not be a single borough with such a small electorate. The smallest would be 3,000 or 4,000. It was entirely unnecessary, so far as Ireland was concerned, that there should be this distinction between them. The Committee would remember all along that these deposits were only guarantees of good faith. They would not prevent the Sheriff from coming on the candidate if he had over-spent the amount. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had this very good Amendment on the Paper— In Ireland the following scale, which shall apply both in counties and boroughs, shall be substituted from and after the end of this present Parliament for the scale allowed by the Third Schedule of the above Act:— Where the Registered Electors do not exceed 4,000, £100; Where the Registered Electors exceed 4,000, but do not exceed 7,000, £200; Where the Registered Electors exceed 7,000, but do not exceed 10,000, £250; Where the Registered Electors exceed 10,000, but do not exceed 15,000, £300; Where the Registered Electors exceed 15,000, £400. He should like to see that Amendment accepted; but if the Committee preferred it, he (Mr. Healy) would adhere to his own Amendment. It would meet with the support of the Irish Members. Something was necessary in order to put a stop to the system of plunder which had been adopted by the Sheriffs. During the last 10 years the Sheriffs, owing to a law which was intended to prevent men of straw from becoming candidates, had had a deal of plunder out of the candidates, and he thought it behaved them to do what they could to cut those gentlemen down in some way or other.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)
said, that it would be more satisfactory if the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy) would allow his Amendment and that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to stand over until the Report, the Government undertaking, meanwhile, to give the proposals their careful consideration. Hitherto the Government had scarcely had an opportunity of looking into the matter. If the course he proposed were adopted, an endeavour would be made to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion by the time the Report stage was reached.

§ MR. HEALY
said, the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a very reasonable one, and he should have no hesitation in accepting it. These clauses were really matters of arrangement between the Government and private Members. He would point out, however, that it was rather inconvenient to take a discussion on the Report stage, for the reason that hon. Members could not speak twice.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND
I would suggest that we should now report Progress.