§ Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)I am aware that, with regard to the consideration of this Bill, a number of hon. Gentlemen are looking at it not in relation to my Amendments, but in relation to Amendments moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite. When the scale now in vogue was proposed, the number of voters in the constituencies differed greatly as between one and the other; but now the principle is, that all the Electoral Divisions are equal in respect of the number of voters. I propose, then, that the Returning Officer should have security in accordance with the number of Divisions in his charge. In Cork County the Returning Officer would pocket something like £2,000 for the elections. There are seven divisions, and he would take the elections on several days, and use the plant in each case. A change has been made in the amount of security required by the Act, a little more being required in the case of the boroughs than in the case of the counties. My proposal is that the maximum security that may be required by the Returning Officer shall be in counties or boroughs containing only one Parliamentary Division, £200; where there are two Divisions, £150 for each Division; where there are three or more, £100 for each Division; and in case no more candidates stand nominated than there are vacancies to be filled the maximum amount of security to be deposited by each candidate shall be £10. In Dublin and in Belfast, where there are four Divisions, the Returning Officer would in each case get £400 as security. I do not know why we should be more tender in the matter of Returning Officers than we are for other electoral purposes; and it should be borne in mind that we propose that candidates should be required to pay in advance for value which they have not received. For my part, I think it a stigma on the character of Members of Parliament to suppose that they would be so lax as to make off without paying the Returning 1437 Officer. The Returning Officer gets a substantial sum down and anything over and above that he can easily collect. I would point out also that if Members of Parliament do not pay their debts they would lose their seats; because if £50 were owing from them they could be made bankrupts; and, therefore, I say that the Returning Officers have much better security than ordinary creditors. It must not be supposed by the House that this Schedule contains a limit of the amount which a Returning Officer may receive; on the contrary, he can collect any further sum which he can prove to be due from the candidate. Unfortunately, however, there is an idea in the minds of Returning Officers that Members of Parliament are so many pigeons to be plucked. In the case of an uncontested election in Ulster—where £25 was the maximum for an uncontested election—the Returning Officer sent in a bill for £100. But I do not direct my observations against the class of Returning Officers alone; I must say that our Sheriffs are often as great plunderers as the Returning Officers. It does not matter what are the politics of the man; he will try to get as much out of the candidates as the others—that is to say, a Nationalist Sheriff in Dublin will try to get just as much out of the candidate as a Tory Sheriff in Belfast.
§
New Clause:—
The Third Schedule of the principal Act is hereby repealed, and, instead thereof, it is hereby enacted that the maximum amount of security which may be required by a returning officer, in cases where more candidates stand nominated than there are vacancies to be filled, shall be in accordance with the following scale:—
| In Counties or Boroughs containing only one Parliamentary Division, in each Division | £ |
| 200 | |
| In Counties or Boroughs containing two Parliamentary Divisions, in each Division | 150 |
| In Counties or Boroughs containing three or more Parliamentary Divisions, in each Division | 100 |
| In case not more candidates stand nominated than there are vacancies to be filled, the maximum amount of security to be deposited by each candidate shall be | 10," |
§ —(Mr. T. M. Healy,)
§ —brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
1438§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)Sir, it may be a very right thing to limit the security required by Returning Officers; but it is very inconvenient to bring up a number of new clauses to effect great changes in the Act of 1875 at this stage. The Bill before the House underwent considerable changes in Committee, no doubt for the better; it went through Committee, and now stands for the consideration of the House. There is no reason that I can perceive why these beneficial changes should not have been introduced in Committee, when Members could have thoroughly considered and decided upon them. I venture to remind hon. Members that the understanding was that non-contentious matter alone should be discussed during the remaining days of Parliament. My opinion is that it is not desirable that these changes should be introduced at the present time; and I think, therefore, I shall be doing rightly in opposing the Motion for the second reading of this clause.
§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)This clause affects the rights of persons not alone in Ireland. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has inquired whether the amounts in the clause will be a fair security for Returning Officers throughout the United Kingdom; but I shall be glad to hear his opinion on that point.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Tomlinson) has appealed to me; but I must point out that the Bill is not one which comes under my control. As, however, he asks my opinion, I may say that I think the further consideration of the Bill might with advantage be adjourned till to-morrow.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)I protest entirely against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. When the Prime Minister is not here Gentlemen who are supposed to represent the Prime Minister do not represent him—they come down to the House and shirk and evade on every matter when a real issue is raised. This is a matter on which people outside the House feel strongly; and if the Members of the Government choose to adopt this course, I can only say that the sooner they are turned out the better.
MR. CHILDERSThe hon. Member for Northampton has entirely misunderstood me. What I said was that we had better take up the subject to-morrow.
§ MR. RAIKES (Cambridge University)Sir, I think, after the words which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, it is obvious that further consideration of this question is desirable. On the understanding arrived at to-day the House is not to be troubled with any contentious Government matters. If, then, the Government undertake, so far as they are concerned, that contentious Business is not to be proceeded with, à fortiori Private Business should be treated in the same manner. I express no opinion on this particular Amendment; but hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who take an interest in the matter will surely not lose by having it considered by the Government. I am unwilling to go further into the matter now, which has been the subject of frequent and heated debate, and therefore beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Raikes.)
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman, who represents a University constituency, to move the adjournment of the debate. His argument that this question has been the subject of frequent and heated discussion is a strong argument why it should not be so any longer, and that it is time to come to a rational decision about it. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman is one of those to whom a few hundred pounds are of no consequence whatever.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must remind the hon. Gentleman that the subject before the House is not the Main Question, but the adjournment of the debate.
§ MR. CONYBEAREI only wish to express my view strongly against the adjournment of the debate. This is a matter of great importance to many hon. Members; so much so, that I think we ought not to lose the opportunity we have of proceeding with the settlement of this question. I am bound to say that I shall support, as well as I am able, the earnest protest of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). It was quite under- 1440 stood that this question was to come on, and it is surprising, under the circumstances, that the Law Officers of the Crown are not in their places.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)It is very inconvenient that hon. Members above the Gangway, who are not concerned in such small things as this question, should come down night after night and oppose the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen came down the other night for the purpose of having this Bill discussed; it came on at 4 o'clock in the morning, and then, owing to the lateness of the hour, although we were prepared to go forward, in deference to those who thought it was too late to proceed, the hon. and learned Member for South Londonderry (Mr. T. M. Healy) consented to postpone the discussion of the measure. We are here now at a comparatively early hour; we have come down to discuss the matter; and it is simple nonsense to tell us that it should be postponed because the Law Officers of the Crown are not in their places. If that is the sole reason, the Government can despatch messengers to the Law Officers, and tell them that the House of Commons is waiting for their presence.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA (Monaghan, S.)I am of opinion, Sir, that this is a matter which ought to be decided now, for it is hardly possible to proceed with the new Election if this important reform is not carried out.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)I must express surprise that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary proposes the adjournment of the debate. I do not know why we should agree to that. This is the second night that a large number of hon. Members have stopped out of bed for the purpose of this discussion. When it was last brought forward the Conservative Party was largely represented in the House, and it is largely represented now. On the last occasion the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) was in his place to a very advanced hour; and passing through the Lobby a few minutes ago I saw the noble Marquess, who, I believe, is in the House at the present moment. I fancy that the presence of the noble Marquess at this somewhat advanced hour for a man of his steady habits is, to some extent, associated with 1441 the Bill now before us; so that I cannot see that any unfairness is done to any Member of the House by proceeding with the debate. Let me call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the facts. The Bill was last brought on between 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning; we had the fullest House I have ever seen at that time; we have now almost the fullest House I have ever seen at a quarter past 2 in the morning, and therefore I repeat that there cannot be the least unfairness in bringing on this question. If these facts do not convince the right hon. Gentleman I have other arguments in support of my contention. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) said that Her Majesty's Government had undertaken not to bring forward any contentious Business. What the Government said was that they would not bring on any contentious Business of their own. But this Business is brought forward by private Members. It is brought forward by my hon. Friend (Mr. Chance), and not by the Government. My last argument is that a few minutes ago we had a Motion for Adjournment on another Bill, which Motion was rejected by a very large majority, and in which a large number of Conservative Members voted. Thus, 20 minutes ago, Conservative Gentlemen thought it right that we should go on with the discussion of the Bill. This question, Sir, is one of urgent and pressing importance. We shall be before our constituents in a short time. This is a Bill of very considerable importance to very many Members of this House—to very many Members of the aristocratic part of the House as well as to the plebeian part of the House. In face of these facts it is perfectly monstrous that at 20 minutes past 2, when we have a full House, and when we are all fresh, and apparently in the best of spirits, and with a General Election advancing upon us, we should be asked to adjourn this debate.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)It is quite true that, speaking upon the course of Business, the Government said we would not ourselves prosecute Bills which we had in hand and which contained any contentious matter; and we also stated that 1442 we should ask the House to deal with other Bills in the same way. This Bill, undoubtedly, does not come under that heading because it has already passed through its principal stages and is now in its penultimate stage. So far I am quite with hon. Members below the Gangway. On the other question I am bound in fairness to myself to say I was not aware what took place the other morning. I have been away from the House for some time, and I was not present on the occasion when the House sat until something like 4 o'clock in the morning dealing with this Bill. If I had been I should not have suggested the adjournment of the debate.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)I must object to this mode of conducting the Business of the House. We were told that no contentious Business would be taken, and yet it is now proposed to proceed with a Bill which everybody admits contains most contentious matter. I propose to support the Motion for Adjournment; and I think that the hon. and learned Member for South Londonderry (Mr. T. M. Healy) would be well advised if he would consent to the postponement of this clause until to-morrow, because this is a clause in regard to which the House really does require advice. ["No, no!"] Of course, there are some hon. Gentlemen opposite who never require any advice at all. I hope that the hon. and learned Member will see that he would stand in a much better position in regard to this clause to-morrow night. The merits of the clause I do not wish now to prejudge.
§ MR. FORWOOD (Lancashire, Ormskirk)I desire to say one word in favour of the adjournment, not on account of the time of night, but on account of the importance of the clause. As an illustration of the importance of this clause, I may say that I have consulted a gentleman who has more experience in electoral matters than any other man in this country—namely, the Town Clerk of Liverpool. That gentleman informs me that the basis of this clause——
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is not entitled to go into the merits of the question upon the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)Perhaps I may be allowed to remark that a week ago I followed the advice 1443 of the Party to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) belongs. I did so against the wishes of my own Colleagues, and, as a consequence, I have delayed my Bill for a week. I am now advised by the hon. Gentleman to delay the progress of the Bill still further. I do not think that this is exactly a fair way of treating this question. The least hon. Gentlemen could have done would have been to consider this clause on its merits. I am quite certain that if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been aware of what took place a week ago he would not have suggested an adjournment of the debate. The House is just as capable of dealing with this question now as it would be to-morrow; besides, I have no guarantee that to-morrow night hon. Gentlemen upon the Opposition Bench will not meet me in exactly the same way they have done to-night. I may be permitted to say that "once bitten twice shy."
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)I was in the House the other night when this Bill was under discussion, and I rather imagine that this Amendment has been put in the proper sense. Then the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), who is in charge of the Bill, was allowed, without any objection on our part, to make Amendments to the Bill, and he then consented to the adjournment. ["No, no!"] I think I am correct in saying that the hon. Member was allowed to make his Amendments; but we objected to go on at that late hour of the night. If I am not very much mistaken, this Amendment is a second thought. I do not think the House ought to encourage the introduction of important Amendments at this stage, and I think there is every reason for adjournment.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 113: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 127.)
§ Original Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," again proposed.
§ MR. PLUNKET (Dublin University)We have taken a division on the question of adjournment as a protest against proceeding further, under the circumstances, with the consideration of this 1444 clause; but I am bound to say that this particular clause differs in some respects from the clauses which it is proposed shall follow it. In the first place, it is in some sense germane to the principal purpose of the Bill in which it is proposed to introduce it; and as I understand there will be a further stage after the second reading of this clause, if the House should see fit to sanction the second reading, I do not think there would be any use in pressing further the question of adjournment. I should be disposed to advise anyone, who is willing to take my advice on the subject, not to press the question of adjournment any further. But, before I sit down, I wish to enter a protest against the course which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) has seen fit to adopt. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman supported the adjournment of the debate on the ground that the Government had promised that they would not only themselves abstain from pressing forward contentious matter under the present circumstances, but also advise the House against doing so in the case of Private Bills. Having received a sound lecture from his political Friends, however, the right hon. Gentleman gave way, upon the ground that this was not new matter introduced for the first time. The fact is, that this is new matter introduced for the first time; but I shall not inconvenience the House by pressing the question of adjournment further upon this stage, which I understand is only the second reading of the clause.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)The right hon. and learned Gentleman takes me to task because I did not take the same course when the matter was explained to me that I took in the first instance. I was asked by an hon. Gentleman—I think the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson)—what course the Government proposed to take with regard to this Bill, and I stated my views; but I must confess I did so without knowing what had already taken place.
§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)I did not ask what course the Government proposed to take with regard to the Bill, but whether they could give us any information as to the operation of the clause.
MR. CHILDERSI do not quite see the difference. An appeal certainly was made to me to make some declaration on the part of the Government as to the Bill before the House. Having been absent from the House for some time, and having no idea what had previously occurred, my view was that it was rather late at night to go on with this Bill. I was not aware that a week or 10 days ago the question had been discussed; if I had been aware of that, I should not have taken the view I did.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERS (Southwark, Bermondsey)I hope this is the first and last time that we shall find that when a right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench gives as his reason for not knowing the particular circumstances of a case his enforced absence from this House—an absence which in this case all Members of the House must deplore—he will have indecent reproaches levelled against him.
§ MR. FORWOOD (Lancashire, Ormskirk)I hope the House will pause before passing this Bill. We are in this clause dealing with a class of gentlemen who have very onerous and responsible duties to perform—namely, the Returning Officers of the country, and on behalf of that body of gentlemen I wish to say a word. This is a matter that affects them very seriously. I remember that some years ago, before Parliament passed an exactment requiring security to be given, the Returning Officer for Liverpool did not receive from one of the candidates the sum of money which was due from him in regard to his candidature. A clause was subsequently adopted requiring deposits from candidates. I have been informed by a gentleman who has had a larger experience in electoral matters than any other gentleman—the Town Clerk of Liverpool—["Oh!"]—and I may say as regards that gentleman's experience that he obtains no personal benefit whatever from any electoral contest, but in many cases he has absolutely been out of pocket—that an election in any one of the nine Divisions of Liverpool cannot possibly be conducted for the amount allowed by this Bill. Anything over and above what is here allowed would have to come out of the private pocket of the Mayor for the time being. I am sure it cannot be the wish of the House to mulct a gentleman holding 1446 the position of Mayor for the time being of any sum of money because he is compelled to act as Returning Officer. Therefore, I do think that we ought to pause before passing a clause of this character.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)There are two answers to the argument of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Forwood). One is that this clause simply specifies the amount of security to be required, and in no sense limits the amount of money to be paid to the Returning Officer; and the other is that a later Amendment, if we get to it to-night, and I sincerely trust we shall, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), is to the effect that all these charges shall be paid out of the county rates. Under the latter clause the Returning Officers would be able to recover whatever was due to them. There can be no objection to this clause, which is but a very small instalment of that reform which we all desire to see.
§ MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)I may not have had as much experience in electioneering as the Town Clerk of Liverpool, but I have had some little experience of electoral contests, and, in my opinion, so far from the amount allowed by Parliament being insufficient, in most cases it is more than sufficient. This subject has been before the country, and before Parliament, if not in this particular manner, at least in general terms, for a very considerable time, and I think that hon. Members have a capacity for understanding the bearings of this question, notwithstanding the fact that the Law Officers of the Crown are not present.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
§ MR. HALSEY (Herts, Watford)Before the clause is added to the Bill, I should like to ask the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy) how he has arrived at these amounts? I have not taken part in this discussion previously, and I think that perhaps Returning Officers' charges in many cases might very fairly be cut down; but I want to point out that in many cases the Returning Officer cannot protect himself at all. For instance, a man of straw 1447 may come down to a constituency and get somebody to nominate and somebody to second him—I think hon. Members will agree that there have been such cases—and the Returning Officer may be out of pocket by the actual amount that he spends if the deposits are not large enough. I believe the hon. and learned Member proposes presently to move a Schedule giving the charges which may be made in future; but it does not appear to me that the security which he proposes to give by this clause is anything like fairly proportionate to the amounts which the Returning Officer will be allowed to charge. It seems to me that there should be some proportion between the two, and, therefore, I do not think that I am taking up the time of the House unnecessarily in asking for some further explanation.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)It appears to me, if anything, my accounts are too high. If the hon. Member knows anything about these matters, and if he has had to tax the Returning Officer's charges, as unfortunately I have had to do, he will find that this Schedule allows the Returning Officer much more than the County Court Judge would be likely to allow him. I want to show also that under this Schedule the Town Clerk of Liverpool would receive no less than £900. Well, the Returning Officers already have all the fittings for the polling booths, the ballot boxes, and so forth; and they have really nothing to provide but a few printed notices, and a few notices in the newspapers. Am I to be told that that cannot be done in a town like Liverpool for £900? Why, the thing is absurd. I admit that no injustice ought to be done to Returning Officers, and I quite admit that the Returning Officer might be mulcted; but, on the whole, I am sure that taking one thing with another the work can be amply done for these amounts.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)I quite admit that these maximum amounts may be cut down; but, so far as my experience goes, I believe that the amounts in this scale will practically amount to less than the Returning Officer's expenses at the large elections. Under these circumstances, and in the absence of the Law Officers of the Crown, and having regard to the fact 1448 that this Amendment was not put down on the Paper at all——
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)It has been on the Paper since Saturday.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYWell, that may be so; but, what chance have the Returning Officers of the country had to consider these amounts? And, under these circumstances, considering that those who alone can advise us have not had an opportunity of doing so, I think the matter ought not to be gone on with now.
§ MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)The great idea at present seems to be to fill the places of Returning Officers with high professional gentlemen—to provide men of great professional ability to perform a simple duty which can be done easily by an ordinary Registrar, or which might be done very well by an ordinary Superintendent of Police. It is because we have imagined a state of things requiring a professional experience that the whole thing is out of harmony with the Ballot Act, which ought to work with the greatest simplicity. The Returning Officer ought to be recouped; but when his charges are taxed it is generally found that they have been fixed much too high. To say that the work cannot be done under the scale in this Bill is altogether out of the question.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)I wish to protest against what has been said by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), who said that any important measure like this ought not to be brought on at this hour of the morning without the presence of the Law Officers of the Crown. That is merely a paltry excuse for the other House to throw out the Bill. This is a matter in which every Member is an expert, and I protest in the strongest possible manner against these constant threats that "another place," which is in no way responsible to the people of the country, will throw out this Bill. I would point out that the average expenses in the nine Divisions was only £71, so that the £100 proposed in the Bill would be amply sufficient. I should be very glad if hon. Gentlemen who object to this proposal, instead of making general appeals to a majority "elsewhere," or threats intended to be used for future purposes, will take the clause 1449 bit by bit, and item by item, and point out where the amounts are too small. I hope my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) will resist the attempt to defeat the clause which is now being made.
§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)This clause is one upon which, if we are to go to a division, we ought to have some practical help from Her Majesty's Government. This is certainly a Bill to make important alterations in matters affecting the conduct of elections, and I should like to know if Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite have any information to give us on the subject we are now discussing. Have they ascertained what is a reasonable amount to fix as that for which security must be given? I can quite believe that the amounts charged by Returning Officers are higher than they ought to be; but it is surely not to be said that a matter of this kind, which affects directly the interests of Returning Officers, is to be settled without any formal inquiry of any kind. I am quite sure that the House is satisfied that the hon. and learned Member for South Londonderry (Mr. T. M. Healy) is quite certain in his own mind that the sums put down are quite sufficient; but is it proper for the House to settle such a matter as this without a very careful inquiry? I do not think we can have any better proof that inquiry is necessary than the speech which we have just listened to from the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), because while he told us the actual expense of the election at Liverpool came to £71—£71 for each candidate, I presume—I understand him to say that for each Division of Liverpool £100 would be sufficient. As under this clause the actual sum to be divided would be only £900 for the whole of Liverpool, and as the hon. Member is aware that there were two candidates in nearly all the constituencies, the hon. Member will see that the actual expense would be much more than £900. There were two candidates in each Division; there may have been more than 20 candidates. ["No!"] Well, at any rate, there were 18 candidates, and each of these 18 candidates had to pay £71. Well, 18 times £71 comes to a much larger sum than £900. I am quite sure that if I had not brought this matter before the attention of the 1450 House, after what was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, many Members might have given their vote under a misconception. It is perfectly certain, that under this clause the amount to be given as security will not be sufficient to place the Mayor of Liverpool in a safe position in the case of a contested election. But, beyond this, I press for some statement from the Government that they are satisfied that these sums are sufficient. They may be satisfied; but it seems to me to be rash to go to a division, and place a division on record as the wisdom of Parliament, when Her Majesty's Government and all their Followers are unable to give us any opinion on the subject before us.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA (Monaghan, S.)I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken has altogether mistaken the meaning of this clause. Will any hon. Member assert that if the Returning Officer of Liverpool was secured by a sum of £900 that he would have any difficulty in recovering the additional £200 or £300 if he could show that he had properly spent that sum? I have an objection to give over security to Returning Officers. They do their best to swamp the sums they obtain as security by bringing up every charge which it is possible for them to bring up. I hope that the House will not take the view that we should wait for the Law Officers of the Grown or for the Government to give any opinion upon this matter. We are all experts in the matter ourselves, and I hope that we shall not again have to place ourselves in the hands of these Returning Officers, who do everything they can to bring the expenses up to the maximum amount.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERS (Southwark, Bermondsey)This is the first time I ever heard a Member for a University speaking on the subject of Returning Officers' charges. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) does not pay anything. We do not pay anything at Oxford.
§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDI wish that was so.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSWell, then, all I can say is that the Vice Chancellor at the Scotch University must be meaner than our Vice Chancellor at Oxford. Our Vice Chancellor charges nothing. In my own constitu- 1451 ency the Returning Officer is some minor official of that dreadful Institution called the Corporation of London. We have to pay £150; and I know that he multiplied every charge that he possibly could. If you reduce the amount which they can receive as security, you do not reduce the charges. The candidate can have the charges recovered from him if it can be shown that they have been properly incurred. But, on the other side, if you put down a larger sum, he considers that he has a right to interpret the clause as he thinks fit, and to spend all the money he has obtained as security. As to these Law Officers of the Crown telling us what we ought to pay, all I can say is that the Law Officers, as a rule, merely know what they have got to receive, and I do not think that their advice is necessary. In my mind, the system of Returning Officers' fees is a system of brigandage, and it is quite time that it was put a stop to.
§ SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)The hon. Member who has just sat down has attacked the Corporation; but I can tell him that the person who is responsible for the charges which he complains of is a gentleman much respected in this House—Sir Thomas Chambers.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSNo, no; his name is Prodgers, or Dodgers, or something of that sort.
§ SIR ROBERT FOWLERPerhaps the hon. Gentleman is thinking of Mr. Pritcher?
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSSomething of that sort.
§ SIR ROBERT FOWLERHe did act in that capacity before the last Election; and I know that he was a man who was much respected by a great many Members in this House.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSI think that he was a Secondary, or some curious animal of that kind?
§ SIR ROBERT FOWLERI believe that over the water the Election is conducted by the High Bailiff of Southwark, and he, as I have said, is Sir Thomas Chambers. However, I need not pursue that matter. I will point out that elections used to be much more expensive than they are now, and that at present I think there is little to complain of. I wish to remind the House also that we are debating this important question in the absence of the right hon. 1452 and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), who has been so closely identified with this subject, besides the absence of the Law Officers of the Crown.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. BROADHURST) (Birmingham, Bordesley)Might I make a suggestion which I think will be approved of by the whole House, which is that we should consent to strike out the figures in the clause and insert that in all contested boroughs in each Division a deposit of £200 shall be made. I only make this suggestion in order to relieve the House from what we believe to be a deadlock. It is very desirable that we should pass this Bill at this Sitting. We have had many late Sittings in order to get through this Bill, and I only make this suggestion in order to relieve the House. Before I sit down may I say, as to the remarks which have been made as to the absence of the Law Officers of the Crown, that this is essentially a question in which the Law Officers could not possibly be higher authorities than any Gentleman who has been through an election. I would appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Cremer), who is a practical carpenter, and who I venture to say, therefore, is a much higher authority on these matters than the Law Officers of the Crown. I hope the House will accept the suggestion which I have made.
§ MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)I had desired to say a few words on this question, not as a practical carpenter, but as a Member of this House. A great deal has been said as to the absence of the Law Officers of the Crown; but, for my part, I think it is rather fortunate that they are absent, because we all know the old saying that a "fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind;" and I think that if they had been here to-night it is possible they might have thrown in their voices for the maximum charges in favour of the Returning Officers. Therefore, I think we may congratulate ourselves upon their absence. My experience is that Returning Officers always demand the maximum charges, and in most instances they demand more. I do not know many instances in which they have not had to return some of the amount de- 1453 posited with them; but it is only fair to them to say that they generally make an effort, and they generally succeed in it, to spend the whole of the amount which has been placed in their hands. I, therefore, think it is necessary that we should reduce the amount very considerably. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman who has introduced the Bill has not proposed to limit it still more. I think the Returning Officers are very well able to take care of themselves and look after their interests, and there need not be the slightest apprehension in their regard. I shall cordially support the Motion.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)To end the controversy I will accept the proposal of the Government.
§ MR. SPEAKERBefore the Amendment is made the hon. and learned Member will withdraw his Motion?
§ MR. T. M. HEALYNo; I will allow it to be negatived.
§ MR. SPEAKERI have put the Question that the clause be added to the Bill. That must be withdrawn before the Motion can be made. Is it your pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn?
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)I should be sorry to see the Amendment accepted as proposed——
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)I rise to Order. Is there any Motion before the House?
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, in order to move a fresh one.
§ MR. SPEAKERDoes the hon. and learned Gentleman move?
§ MR. T. M. HEALYYes; in line 6 of the clause I would insert the word "all" after "In," so that the line would read—"In all counties or boroughs in each division, £200."
§
Amendment proposed,
In line 6, after the word "In," to insert the word "all," and omit the words "containing only one Parliamentary Division."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'all' be there inserted."
§ MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)That would make it clear that the sum of £200 is not to be charged to each candidate.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThat is governed by the Act of 1875, of which this is only an Amending Act.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)We have double scales. It was £100, and now it will be £200, for each candidate for each Division. I feel bound to protest against the accusation of the learned Professor (Mr. Thorold Rogers) as to the Returning Officers being brigands. What occurred in Manchester at the last Election? There was a deposit of £160 taken from each candidate, and after the Election £50 was returned to each of us. That, I think, was the experience of every Member. If £200 had been allowed there would have been nearly £100 to return. There is a confusing element in the present discussion. We have two Members of the Government getting up and saying different things. The Home Secretary says that as the Law Officers of the Crown are not present we cannot deal with the matter; and then the Under Secretary (Mr. Broadhurst) tells us there is no necessity for the opinion of the Law Officers. I complain that the matter is brought before us now for the first time. It was only put on the Paper since the Bill was last before us, which entirely removes the excuse of the Under Secretary. There ought to be time for a proposal of this kind to be sent down to the country and for us to obtain the views of others outside with regard to it. It ought not to be sprung upon us like this. It is unfortunate that we should have to legislate in such a manner; and we ought not to proceed further in the matter before we have had an opportunity of hearing all the facts and considering them on their merits.
§ MR. SPEAKERI find that the Question has not been put correctly. The Amendment to the proposed Amendment should be to leave out the words in line 5 "in accordance with the following scale," in order to insert the words "as follows." There will be no scale, so that line 5, as it stands, will be inapplicable. Then you will omit lines 8, 9, 10, and 11 with the figures, so that the latter part of the clause will run—"Shall be as follows:—In counties or boroughs in each division," and so on.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to omit line 5, in order to 1455 insert the words "as follows."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)Constituencies returning only one Member will be in the same position as those which return two Members.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)In justification of the objection we were raising just now, I must point out that the Bill gives you no new check upon the Returning Officer. The only effect of giving him an insufficient deposit will be that he will recover from the other candidate the sum he may be out of pocket. We shall not stand in a better position as to checking excessive charges. I am disposed to accept this £200; but I should like to ask the opinion of the Secretary to the Treasury as to this £10, the maximum amount of security to be deposited by each candidate in case not more candidates stand nominated than there are vacancies to be filled. He will remember that at the end of last Session he dealt with these deposits in case of uncontested elections, and showed great jealousy in the matter of limiting the amount to £25.
§ MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)If I am in Order, I should like to move an Amendment—to alter the figure £200 to £150. I will briefly state my reasons for moving the Amendment——
§ MR. SPEAKERThat would come later; after the words I have put to the House.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
§ Question, "That the words 'as follows' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, line 6, after the word "In," to insert the word "all."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ Question "That the word 'all' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, line 6, after "boroughs," omit the words "containing only one Parliamentary Division."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
1456§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member (Mr. Cremer) wishes to alter the figure £200 he can now move an Amendment.
§ MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)I beg to move to omit £200 in order to insert £150, and I will give my reasons for doing so. The constituency I represent has about 700 electors. The Returning Officer asked each of us candidates to deposit £100, and it was deposited, the exact amount we finally had to pay being £68. I thought the amount—however hon. Members may smile at my coming to that conclusion—excessive. I could not understand how the money had been spent. I called upon the Returning Officer, who was a gentlemanly person, and asked him for an explanation. He spent three quarters of an hour in endeavouring to show me how the money had been spent, but at the end of that time he had utterly failed to satisfy me in the matter; and that experience, I think, is shared by other Members of the House. It became clear to me that the greater part of the money had gone into his own pocket, and that a large sum had been expended unnecessarily after the manner described by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers). I feel quite satisfied that if the amount is reduced as I propose it will be found quite ample, and may lead to the Returning Officers exercising—what I am sure they do not trouble themselves to exercise at present—rigid economy. The result may be that candidates will be saved the expenditure of a considerable sum of money that is now spent unnecessarily.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, line 7, to leave out "£200," in order to insert "£150,"—(Mr. Cremer,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That '£200' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)I beg to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Cremer). I think that if £150 is accepted instead of £200 it will be found amply sufficient. In my own Division, at the last Election, we were called upon to deposit £125, and I have no doubt that that amount 1457 would have been expended had it not been that we thought fit to demand an account of the manner in which it was spent. The result of our action was that the expenditure was cut down to £79. No doubt we are pleading to some hon. Members to whom £100 is no object, but we are pleading for all Members that their election expenses may be cut down. I hope and trust that the Amendment will be accepted.
§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)I would strongly urge upon the hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment not to press it. I accept what he says with regard to the borough he represents. It may be correct to say that in that case £150 would be quite sufficient; but anyone who knows the counties must be aware that the hon. Member's experience cannot be a test of what happens in them. You cannot take the condition of things in a borough as a guide to what will happen in a county. I think that, the hon. and learned Member for South Londonderry (Mr. T. M. Healy) having consented to amend the clause as he has done, we have arrived at a fair compromise. I should think, in the absence of those hon. and learned Gentlemen who ought to know most about this matter, that we can adopt this compromise with perfect safety. It must be clear to all Members of this House that we are acting very much at hap-hazard in this matter, without any clear information from the quarter from which we might very naturally look for guidance; but under the circumstances I think there will not be much fear of our being unfair to anyone if we adopt the compromise to which I refer.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. BROADHURST) (Birmingham, Bordesley)I appeal to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cremer) to withdraw the Amendment. I also, like the hon. Members who support this proposal, have experience in these matters. The £200 was proposed to the House as a compromise, and accepted as such, and under the circumstances I think hon. Members should consult the convenience and general wish of the House at this late hour of the morning by withdrawing the Amendment. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman the Member for 1458 Shoreditch (Mr. Cremer), who seemed to think that this sum would be the limit of the call of the Returning Officer from the candidates, that it will not necessarily be so. The limit the hon. Member proposes would not be a protection against further calls on the part of the Returning Officer, and, I therefore, sincerely trust that he will not press the Amendment.
§ MR. CREMERintimated his willingness to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to omit lines 8, 9, 10, and 11.—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ Question, "That the lines proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put and negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)I think it would be wise if we adopted the settlement of last year as to uncontested elections. I should like to have the opinion of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury upon the matter.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER) (Wolverhampton)It is said the House is acting in the dark on this subject; but that can not be so, because every hon. Member has his own experience to guide him and his own knowledge of what Returning Officer's expenses should be. We are not dealing with the question of what the Returning Officers' expenses ought to be, but the amount of security the Returning Officer ought to take for the payment of his expenses. I dispute the doctrine that the Returning Officer should take a sufficient amount to cover all the expenses. It seems to me that he should only require enough to guard against a bogus candidate. In the case the hon. Member has put—the case of an uncontested election—he must remember that the Returning Officer will not have to deal with a candidate but with a Member. He will have the guarantee of a Member sitting in this House. I thought £25 was too little last year, as applied to contested elections. As I say, it will be a Member that the Returning Officer will have to deal with, and he 1459 will be able to recover from him the few pounds he has expended. If he does not recover, he will be able to make the Member a bankrupt, and, if he does that, the Member will lose his seat.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Clause added.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)The next clause upon the Paper was to have been moved by my hon. Colleague (Mr. Bradlaugh). It is as follows:—
Where there are more candidates than vacancies to be filled and any unsuccessful candidate fails to receive more than one-fourth of the lowest number of votes received by a successful candidate at the election, the charges authorised by section two of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, shall be paid by the candidate so failing; and, if more than one candidate so fails, then by the candidates so failing in equal shares.The object of this Amendment was to divide the candidates into two categories, one consisting of those who have received a considerable number of votes, and the other of those who have only received a small number, and to inflict a sort of fine upon those who have received a small number. I consider such a clause very doubtful policy, and, therefore, I am not sorry that my hon. Friend does not happen to be here this evening. I must explain that I have a clause on the Paper which I intended to move on the supposition that this would be passed. I propose to leave out the first part of my clause, and to move—The charges authorised by section two of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, shall be paid in manner provided in the Second Schedule to this Act.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member will not be entitled to do that—he must move the clause in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh).
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI am afraid I have not explained myself. I am not moving my hon. Friend's clause. I am asking to be allowed to leave out the first line of my clause, because, as it stands, it is drawn up on the supposition that the clause preceding it, that of my hon. Friend, would have been moved and passed. If that clause is not moved, I propose to move my clause as it stands on the Paper, omitting the words "Save as is provided by section … of this 1460 Act," and beginning with the words "The charges."
§ MR. SPEAKERI thought the words "the charges," the hon. Member referred to, were those in the Clause standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman's Colleague.
§ MR. LABOUCHERENo, Sir. The clause will stand thus—
The charges authorised by section two of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, shall be paid in manner provided in the Second Schedule to this Act.I need not say that at this hour of the morning (3.30 A.M.) I am not going to make a long speech. I think by this time everyone in the House ought to know what this means, and to have formed his conclusion on the matter. A few days ago, as the House will remember, I asked the Prime Minister whether he contemplated bringing in a Bill to give effect to this principle, and the right hon. Gentleman said he was in favour of it, but could not see his way, at this time of the Session, to proposing legislation. The Bill has passed some of its stages, but a mode has been found consistent with the Rules of the House, and with due propriety, to give effect to the wishes of the Prime Minister and the majority of the House, and those, too, who are out of the House. A clause like this is all the more important when there is a General Election about to take place, and when an attempt is made——
§ MR. SPEAKERI must interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I understand him to move the second paragraph standing in his name?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREYes.
§ MR. SPEAKERThat cannot be moved with the Speaker in the Chair. It can only be moved with the Speaker out of the Chair. It has reference to the Returning Officer's expenses.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREMust I move, Sir, that you do leave the Chair?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Bill might be re-committed in respect of that particular clause.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREThen I now move that you do leave the Chair.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)The hon. Member could bring up the clause on third reading.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member can move to re-commit the Bill if he desires.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of a new Clause."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
§ An hon. MEMBER asked whether it was competent to re-commit the Bill for a purpose such as this—a purpose totally foreign to the principle of the Bill—without moving an Instruction to the Committee?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREIf it were possible for me to move this clause on the third reading of the Bill, it would, perhaps, be more convenient to Members present. If I can move it on the third reading, I would ask to be allowed to withdraw the proposal I have made.
§ MR. SPEAKERAs a point of Order, the House must judge whether the clause is pertinent to the Bill or not.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)I thought the practice was, if a Bill was re-committed even as to a single clause it should be done on the Order for the third reading, and not on the Order for going into Committee.
§ MR. HALSEY (Herts, Watford)It is in the discretion of the House. It would be in Order to re-commit the Bill. Such a thing has been repeatedly done. It is for the House to judge whether or not the thing shall be done after the Motion is made.
| SCHEDULE. | |||
| CHARGES OF RETURNING OFFICERS. | |||
| The following are the maximum charges to be made by the returning officer, but the charges are in no case to exceed the sum actually necessarily paid:— | |||
| £ | s. | d. | |
| For preparing and publishing notice of election | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| * For hire and necessary fitting up of rooms for polling (this item includes damages or expenses for or by the use of such rooms). | The necessary expenses not to exceed the sum of £2 where not more than 400 voters are assigned to such room, with 10s. for every additional 100 voters assigned to such room. | ||
| * For constructing a polling station or booth with its fittings and compartments. | The necessary expenses not exceeding the sum of £4 4s. where not more than five hundred voters are assigned to such station or booth, and 10s. for each hundred electors so assigned above 500. | ||
| This item is for the construction of a booth in the open air where no pre-existing structure is available as a polling station.) | |||
| In Ireland the returning officer shall use a court house where one is available for polling, and his maximum charge for using and fitting the same shall not exceed 10s. for each 100 voters assigned to such court house. |
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)Should not the other clauses on the Paper be proceeded with?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREYes; I will withdraw the Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)I beg to move the clause in my name. It is a purely formal Amendment—
The Schedule of this Act, and the directions therein, shall be construed and have effect as part of this Act.
§ New Clause (Effect of Schedule,)—(Mr. T. M. Healy,)—added.
§ Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end, insert "and shall be read as one with the principal Act."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)I beg to move the Schedule which stands on the Paper in my name. I need not trouble the House with any lengthened remarks. I have had considerable experience in election matters, and I can say that this Schedule will be found fair in every case, and to give the Returning Officer a reasonable amount of recompense for his trouble.
| There shall not be in any polling district more than one polling station to which less than 400 voters shall be assigned. | £ | s. | d. | |||||||
| * For each ballot box required to be purchased | 0 | 10 | 0 | |||||||
| Ballot boxes purchased for any election shall be kept by the returning officer for the time being for use (without charge) at subsequent elections in the same county or borough | ||||||||||
| * For the use of each ballot box when hired | 0 | 2 | 6 | |||||||
| * For stationery at each polling station | 0 | 2 | 6 | |||||||
| for each 100 voters assigned to such polling station. | ||||||||||
| * For printing and providing ballot papers, per 1,000 | 0 | 15 | 0 | |||||||
| No greater number of ballot papers shall be chargeable than is ten per centum greater than the total number of voters registered. | ||||||||||
| * For each stamping instrument | 0 | 2 | 6 | |||||||
| * For copies of the register | The sum payable by statute for the necessary copies. | |||||||||
| * For every person employed in counting votes, not exceeding four such persons where the number of registered electors does not exceed 4,000, and one for every additional 2,000 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||||||
| For making the return to the clerk of the Crown | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||||||
| * For the preparation, and publication of notices (other than notices of election). | Not exceeding for the whole of such notices £10, and £1 for every additional 2,000 electors above 5,000. | |||||||||
| * For professional and other assistance in and about the conduct of a contested election. | Not exceeding £20, and an additional £1 for every 1,000 registered voters above 6,000 | |||||||||
| For services and expenses in relation to receiving and publishing accounts of election expenses in respect of each candidate | 2 | 2 | 0 | |||||||
| * For all other expenses in the case of a contested election. | Not exceeding £10, and an additional £1 for every 1,000 electors above 3,000. | |||||||||
| * For each presiding officer in counties | 5 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| * For each presiding officer in boroughs | 4 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| This sum includes all travelling allowances and expenses, and the presiding officers are to convey the ballot boxes to and from the polling station at their own expense. | ||||||||||
| There shall not be more than one presiding officer for each 400 voters registered. | ||||||||||
| * For one clerk at each polling station where not less than 400 voters are assigned to such station | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||||||
| This sum includes all travelling allowances and expenses. | ||||||||||
| * For an additional clerk at a polling station for every 500 voters or fraction thereof beyond the first 500 assigned to such polling station | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||||||
| This sum includes all travelling allowances and expenses. | ||||||||||
| The items marked* shall be chargeable only in the case of a contested election,—(Mr. Chance,)—brought up, and read the first time. |
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule be read a second time."
§ MR. PLUNKET (Dublin University)It is quite impossible for us to discuss the real advantages or disadvantages of the change which would be effected by the proposed Schedule at this hour of the night. I do not know what course the Government will take; but certainly I shall oppose the Schedule.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)Perhaps I might be allowed to explain that this Schedule has been on the Paper for a fortnight, and that I consulted the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Colleague the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Holmes) with respect to it. He promised me that if he had any fault to find with it he would let me know. Well, he has not stated to me that he has any fault to find with it; and as it has been a long time on the Paper, and has been carefully considered by a large number of Members, I trust the House will pass it.
§ MR. FORWOOD (Lancashire, Ormskirk)Would it not be possible for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chance) to give us some practical idea of the alterations which will be brought about in the existing scale of charges by this Schedule? Not only are we discussing this matter under peculiar circumstances, but it might fairly have been expected that nothing of this kind could have come on at all. It would be fair to ask that this Schedule should not be proceeded with. I would inform the hon. Gentleman who moved it that it would have an unfair operation. Take the case of Liverpool. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh; but the only way to enlighten hon. Members' minds on the subject is to quote instances which have actually occurred. In two Divisions in Liverpool, where rooms are not to be obtained for polling and booths have to be erected, this Schedule will not apply. In one Division the cheapest contract that could be made was £18 for the erection of a booth, and in the other Division it was £20. In other districts, no doubt, the amount would be sufficient.
§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)I shall be prepared, if necessary, to defend this Schedule line by line. In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I would draw his attention to the line "For all other expenses 1466 in the case of a contested election," &c. I will give a short statement as to some of the changes that this Schedule will make. In the first item—"For preparing and publishing notice of election, £2 2s."—no change is made. The second item in the Schedule—"For hire and necessary fitting up of rooms for polling, and for construction of polling station"—reduces the expenditure very slightly. It reduces it to an amount for which, to my own personal knowledge, the work can be done. The next paragraph refers to Ireland only; therefore, I do not think the hon. Member can be much interested. The following paragraph fixes the price to be paid for ballot boxes at 10s. I know that ballot boxes capable of holding from 600 to 800 ballot papers can be purchased at from 6s. to 10s. each, and I do not see why the price allowed in the Schedule should be higher. The next item is 2s. 6d. for the use of each ballot box when hired. The old charge was 5s.; but it seems to me that half that sum will be amply sufficient. I do not make any practical change in the next item. I allow 2s. 6d. for stationery, no matter how large or small the station. The move is one in the right direction, and no one has objected to it. Then, for printing and providing ballot papers, I allow 15s. per 1,000 instead of 30s. They can be obtained at from 6s. to 12s. per 1,000 to my certain knowledge. For a stamping instrument I allow, in the next item, 2s. 6d., which sum is ample unless the Returning Officer procures an expensive die, which is not at all necessary. As to the sum for copies of the Register there is no alteration. I make no difference in the fee allowed to the Clerk of the Crown; and for the preparation and publication of notices (other than notices of election), I say—
Not exceeding for the whole of such notices £10, and £1 for every additional 2,000 electors above 5,000.I am puzzled to know what these notices can be, and it seems to me that we have here a very good opportunity for extortion. For professional and other assistance in and about the conduct of a contested election, I say—Not exceeding £20, and an additional £1 for every 1,000 registered voters above 6,000.I reduce the amount for receiving and 1467 publishing accounts; and the item—"For all other expenses in the case of a contested election," I reduce to about two-thirds of what it was originally. The main alteration comes in on the next item—"For each, presiding officer in counties." Formerly, in England, they got £4, and Ireland, £3 3s., with travelling expenses in each case. I allow £5, the sum to include travelling expenses, and my object is to induce the Returning Officer to employ Presiding Officers resident in the district. That is desirable in order to prevent personation, gentlemen from the district being much more likely to detect attempts at personation than strangers. The result of the Schedule will be that the charge will be reduced by 45 per cent.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)Sir, we have now been for two hours discussing this Bill, and I confess I think I was right in giving way at first. But, Sir, it is quite impossible at 4 o'clock in the morning to discuss the details of the Schedule, upon which I am aware that there will be a great difference of opinion. The discussion, if we were to continue it, would last till 7 o'clock in the morning, and, therefore, I appeal to the hon. Member not to proceed further with the Schedule to-night, I undertaking that we will go on with it this day (Friday).
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Secretary Childers.)
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Debate adjourned till To-morrow.