HC Deb 07 May 1885 vol 297 cc1961-6
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, there were a number of Amendments on the Paper with regard to Forms C and E, and certain numerical distinctions. These Amendments were proposed in consequence of what had been done in the Select Committee. When the Bill was before the Select Committee the Forms were altered so as to make them more clear; and as they could not go back and alter them in the precept he now desired to do it.

Amendments, as proposed, agreed to.

MR. PICTON

said, he wished to move an Amendment in page 46, lines 9 and 10, to leave out all after "be," in order to insert— Omitted in copying and printing the revised lists for the Parliamentary Register and Burgess Roll. The object of the Amendment was to remove a practical inconvenience of which he had heard a great many complaints by those who had to prepare the lists for voting purposes. It would be observed that there was a great difference between Parliamentary counties and Parliamentary boroughs. In Parliamentary counties all useless entries were to be erased, but in the boroughs they were to be retained; and not only were they erased in the Parliamentary counties in England, but in Scotland likewise they were erased; and in Burgess Rolls it was the same, according to the Municipal Act of 1882. He did not see why these useless entries should be retained in printing the lists of borough electors, as it certainly occasioned a great deal of unnecessary printing, which would involve unnecessary expense. The unnecessary printing would make the lists more bulky than was necessary, and, at the same time, would entail some danger of confusion.

Amendment proposed, In page 46, lines 9 and 10, to leave out all after "be," and insert "omitted in copying and printing the revised lists for the Parliamentary Register and Burgess Roll."—(Mr. Picton.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that this was a matter of a very practical character; and if the Committee would consider what the proposition was they would see the hon. Member (Mr. Picton) was justified, to a certain extent, in making it. The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that two systems prevailed—one in counties and one in boroughs. But the hon. Member did not suggest that they should get rid altogether of the asterisk in boroughs, and revert to the system of erasure in counties; but he proposed that the Revising Barrister in a borough should keep to the old system of the asterisk, and the Revising Barrister having made the asterisk against the double entry, and having returned the Register to the Returning Officer, the Town Clerk should have the right of erasing names. That could not, for one moment, be allowed. He (the Attorney General) would not enter now upon the merits of the two systems; but he thought the present was a very objectionable time to alter either system. All he could say was that the Government could not consent to give to a Town Clerk the power of striking out what names he pleased. He knew the Town Clerk of Leicester was a most intelligent man; but he did not think he would like to possess the power suggested. He trusted his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.

MR. A. M'ARTHUR

said, he hoped the Amendment of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Picton) would be accepted. The system by which double entries were made involved great trouble and expense, and was, at the same time, quite unnecessary. The hon and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had just stated that the adoption of the Amendment would place the power of erasing names in the hands of the Town Clerk. He (Mr. A. M'Arthur) was informed that that was not exactly the case. The Town Clerk of Leicester, writing upon the subject, said the Revising Barrister saw the great convenience of the proposed plan, and did not, therefore, press his objection to it. The matter was one in which a good many boroughs were interested, and he hoped that the Government would take it into consideration, and, if it was possible, make some alteration in the manner suggested.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made: —In page 46, line 37, after "voters," insert "for the said parliamentary borough;" in line 38, after "said," insert "municipal;" in line 41, after "said," insert "parliamentary;" and in page 47, line 7, in the margin, insert "Omit (d.) where any reserved right does not exist."

MR. TOMLINSON

proposed, as an Amendment, to insert after "as a," in page 47, line 16, the word "parliamentary."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

assented to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to; word inserted accordingly.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 47, line 36, in margin, leave out "but no more are entitled to be registered as voters," and insert "are entitled to be registered as voters, but no more are so entitled."

On the Motion of Mr. TOMLINSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 48, line 1, after "as a" insert "Parliamentary," and insert the same word in line 32 of the same page.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 49, line 14, in margin, leave out "those rights do not," and insert "no reserved rights;" inline 36, after "months," insert "and during that time has not resided as above mentioned;" and in page 51, lines 17 to 20, leave out sub-section (e.).

Amendment proposed, in page 57, line 23, to leave out "after the last day of July."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

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

MR. H. J. TOLLEMACHE

said, he noticed that the list of the scheduled people were to be omitted from the list of Parliamentary voters and from the list of burgesses. He understood, however, there was no intention whatever to disqualify these people from voting in municipal elections.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the Amendment was proposed to make it clear to the overseers that they must provide against confusion.

MR. H.J. TOLLEMACHE

asked why the information was only to be given to the overseers in the year 1885?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

pointed out that there might be, in 1885, disqualifications under the Corrupt Practices Act.

MR. H. J. TOLLEMACHE

said, that supposing there was a municipal election in 1886, the names of the individuals who had been scheduled by the Commissioners in 1880 would not appear.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

Clearly not; but, in the meantime, we cannot tell whether there will be other corrupt practices committed.

Question put, and negatived; words left out accordingly.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 58, line 2, insert in margin "Omit 'or is on the reserved rights list' where no reserved rights exist;" in line 4, leave out "the occupiers," and insert "any;" in line 4, after "burgess," insert "only;" in line 20, after "occupiers," insert "reserved rights;" in line 20, insert in the margin "Omit 'reserved rights' where no reserved rights exist;" in page 60, line 5, after "occupation," insert "as a ten pounds occupier;" in line 6, leave out "of the clear yearly value of ten pounds;" in page 63, line 15, leave out the second "borough;" and in page 65, in the margin, after "merged," insert "or altered."

On the Motion of Mr. TOMLINSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 66, line 24, after "voters," insert "and burgesses;" in page 67, line 14, after "voters," insert "and burgesses;" in line 17, after "should," insert "if there is more than one list;" and in page 68, line 2, after "should," insert "if there is more than one list."

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 69, line 27, at end of page, insert— In this form the particulars should be copied from the claims sent in; and in page 70, after line 10, insert— This list need not include the names of persons who claim, where the occupiers' list is made out in divisions, to be entered in division one of that list.

MR. HOULDSWORTH

proposed, as an Amendment, the insertion of a new Form, entitled— Notice of Objection to be given to a person who is a Duplicate Voter.

Question, "That that Form be inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

MR. BULWER

said, that, before the Bill was finally disposed of, he would like to call the hon. and learned Attorney General's attention to a matter he had pressed on the attention of the House in Committee—namely, the position which the Isle of Ely bore to the county of Cambridge. Through the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) he had been placed in posses- sion of the view of the draftsman of the Bill. He had looked at the Statutes which regulated the jurisdiction of the Isle of Ely, and he was not at all satisfied that the object contemplated by the promoters of the Bill had been carried out. Perhaps the hon. and learned Attorney General would take a list of the Statutes. There was the 7 Will. IV., which dealt with the Isle of Ely expressly, and stipulated that the Isle should be deemed and taken to be a division of a county. There was the 30 & 31 Vict. c. 52, which provided that the Justices of the Isle of Ely were to carry into effect the provisions of the sections of that Act of Parliament, so far as regarded the Isle of Ely—that was as regarded the settlement of polling places, and so forth. Then there was an early Statute of Victoria, which required that the Justices might pay all the expenses of registration incurred, not by the overseers, but by the Clerks of the Peace, so that, possibly, this difficulty might arise. They would have the Justices of Cambridgeshire requiring the Clerk of the Peace of Cambridgeshire to make out a list of voters in the Isle, where they had no jurisdiction, and the Justices of the Isle would have no voice in the matter, but would have to pay the expenses. Also, if the Justices of Cambridgeshire were empowered to do this, a portion of the business of the Clerk of the Peace of the Isle of Ely, and, therefore, a portion of his remuneration, would be taken away. He (Mr. Bulwer) did not know whether he was in Order in mentioning these matters; but he did so to avoid future complications. He trusted the hon. and learned Attorney General or the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department would consider the point.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he was obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer) for calling attention to the Statutes he had cited, and he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would take care they were properly inquired into. There was no doubt that under the Bill, as it stood, the Isle of Ely became a part of Cambridgeshire. The matter should be attended to before Report.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]