FURTHER PROCEEDING ON CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 11 June 1886 vol 306 cc1579-619

Bill, as amended, further considered.

New Schedule.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question, "That this Schedule be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chance.)

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

It seems to me that the House does not understand the position it is in with regard to this Schedule. I think that when the matter comes to be examined, it will be found that there are certain charges in the Schedule to the Act of 1875 which might well be subject to revision, and that the hon. Member who is responsible for the Schedule is justified in thinking that some reductions might be made. But I confess that, so far as England is concerned, I have very great difficulty in dealing with the matter at all. I hardly need remind the House that the original Schedule formed part of an Irish Bill; that it was subsequently made part of another Bill, and extended to England. I find that in dealing with these charges in reference to England we shall find considerable difficulty. Some of the charges formed the subject of a Bill last year. That Bill was passed after communication with a great number of Returning Officers, and it was passed with the assent of both sides of the House. There may be cause for some of the reductions which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chance) proposes; but we are without information with regard to the amount of the charges, so far as England is concerned. I speak, of course, for myself. I myself am not in a position to form an opinion as to whether the reductions are fair and proper. The House is placed in considerable difficulty, because this Schedule has only been extended to England within the last few days. We have no information upon which we can deal with the matter. No doubt, so far as Ireland is concerned, the hon. Member may be in a position to give us some accurate information; but I feel great difficulty in allowing this Schedule to be read a second time if it is to stand as now extended to England. There are a great many objections to the Schedule, and if it is read a second time it will be necessary to move a great many Amendments to it before it can be passed.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)

We were bound to make this Bill apply to England; because, if ever we move a Bill on a Wednesday afternoon, we are met with this taunt—"Why do you not propose equal legislation for the whole Kingdom?" As far as we are concerned, we do not wish to meddle with England. We would rather not do so. I would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Webster), therefore, that election expenses are much cheaper here than they are in Ireland—the Sheriff's charges are much lower than they are in Ireland. You can always bring a certain amount of common sense to bear on the Sheriffs in England; but in Ireland they belong to one particular class, and they regard it as part of their business to bring up the expenses as much as possible.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR HENRY JAMES (Bury)

I think that the sum of £2 for the necessary expenses for constructing a polling station is hardly sufficient.

MR. T. M. HEALY

What line of the Schedule is the right hon. and learned Gentleman referring to?

SIR HENRY JAMES

I think it is line 8. It is the 2nd paragraph. The sum of £2 does not appear to me to be sufficient; and I would ask your leave, Sir, to amend the Schedule by omitting £2 in order to insert £4.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "£2," and insert "£4."—(Sir Henry James.)

Question proposed, "That'£ 2' stand part of the Schedule."

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in the House earlier in the evening, or he would not have proposed this Amendment. It is a curious fact that a smaller sum than this has been assented to to-night in the Scotch Bill. In the Scotch Bill £3 only was allowed where there were 700 voters; whereas I propose £2 for 400 voters, and for 1,000 voters I give £5, as against £3 3s. in the Scotch Bill. Now, I think that is a very conclusive argument in favour of my figures, and particularly when we remember that the Amendment was introduced into the Scotch Bill with the consent of the Scotch Sheriffs. If they can construct places for that sum, certainly we ought to be able to do it.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

Surely the hon. Member has not considered that this is an item for the first expense of a polling station. It can scarcely be considered sufficient for erecting a new polling station where no materials whatever exist. The Scotch Amendments were not discussed in this House. There were so many of them that they could not be discussed. But in any case I should have thought that this Amendment was not unreasonable.

MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

We owe a good deal to my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James) for the popularization of our elections, and I thank him for the good work which he has done. But I think it would be an irony that having opened the door of this House to the humbler classes of Her Majesty's subjects, we should, on the other hand, keep up these expenses, and prevent them taking advantage of the privilege. Board schools are generally used now as polling places, and a very moderate outlay upon them is sufficient, and therefore I think that the sum of £2 is sufficient.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, North-West)

I am one of those who regard these expenses at elections as necessary. Our expenses in North-West Sussex amounted to £658 for two candidates for one day's polling; but there were 32 polling stations. Well, the Committee is anxious that there should be polling places for everybody, and as near everybody as possible, and this, of course, necessitates a great many polling stations. I agree that there should be as many polling stations as possible; but I really think that, that being so, the cost of each station should be reduced as much as it can be, so that as little expense as possible shall be put upon the candidate.

MR. GATHORNE-HARDY (Kent, Medway)

I quite agree with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Illingworth); but the House must remember that you are not only opening up the House to poor men, but you are also opening up the post of Returning Officer to poor men, and we ought to be careful not to impose burdens upon Returning Officers who may be poor men, and who may have to pay more than is given by the Bill. I think that while we consider ourselves in this House, we should be careful to enable men, however poor, to undertake the position of Mayor and Returning Officer of his town.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

There is no fear of the Returning Officer losing money. The Sheriffs, at the present moment, make money out of a contested election. I have an acknowledgment from the Sheriff of the County Galway, who said that he made money. I do not think that the Sheriffs ought to make money out of the elections; and, therefore, I do not see why we should allow as much as £2. All they do is to bring in a chair and a table; and, as a rule, they have no regard for the comfort of the voters whatever.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE (Middlesex, Enfield)

May I point out to the House that the sum put down is not necessarily to be charged always? It does not say that he shall charge the £4. In my election he did charge it; but I appealed, and a great deal of it was cut down.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

I hope that the House will not run away with the idea that this is more than the ordinary price that is charged. The present law enables a charge of £7.

MR. T. M. HEALY

In my constituency the Sheriffs put the voters into the most terrible places, where there was no light or air, or any comfort whatever, and for this the candidates were mulcted in enormous sums.

SIR HENRY JAMES

I would point out that there are a great many places in which rooms will have to be hired, and that under this Bill there will be very stringent powers of taxation. Therefore, it is only to guard against injustice that I moved this Amendment. However, I am willing to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

I beg, as an Amendment, to move the omission of the last three lines on the page, namely— That there shall not be in any polling district more than one polling station, to which less than 400 voters shall be assigned. All I can say is that, with regard to county constituencies, this provision will be perfectly unworkable. I know more than one instance where, in a polling district which has only about 600 voters altogether, it has been considered desirable that they should have three polling stations, in order that some of the voters should not have to walk three or four miles. In this matter we are dealing with a subject which is beyond any question of charge. It is a matter of the convenience of the voters; and, therefore, I propose to omit the last three lines of the Schedule on the page.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 27, to leave out the words "there shall not be in any polling district more than one polling station to which less than 400 voters shall be assigned."—(Sir Richard Webster.)

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

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

A moment ago I said it was evident that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry James) had not been in the House earlier in the evening. I am not only sure of that now, but he must have taken the late Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) with him. The same observation which I made a few minutes ago to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite I now make to the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General. Exactly the same provision as this was inserted in the Scotch Bill, and not one word was said against it, except that in that case the figure was 700 voters. Now, I trust the House will allow me to tell them why I have put this provision in. It was because we frequently find that in Ireland the Sheriffs appoint a great number of Presiding Officer?, where there are only 600 voters to poll; and the meaning of that is that a certain amount of profit is made by the Returning Officer. He gets £2 for each polling place, and probably he has some arrangement with the Presiding Officers to return to him some portion of their fees. Again, I have provided for cases in which there are 600, or less than 800, voters in a polling district. I provide there that you may have two polling places—one for 400 voters, and another of 200 odd, or 300 odd. I am merely desirous of preventing Returning Officers overcharging candidates, for the purpose of making a paltry profit out of an undue number of polling stations, and I do hope the House will accept the Schedule as it stands.

SIR HENRY JAMES (Bury)

I think we are getting into a little confusion as to the difference between a polling district and a polling place. If the hon. Member means, by this Amendment, that the Returning Officer shall not divide localities I agree with him; but if it means bringing voters from a great distance to record their votes I cannot agree with him. I do not wish to oppose this measure, and I do not wish to refer to what may be done in "another place;" but I suppose, if it is necessary to make Amendments there, no doubt it will be done.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

If we alter the word "district" into "places" it will be all right, and doubt as to its meaning will be removed.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

The universal practice is to split up the names according to the alphabet, and to have five or six stations where there are a large number of voters. No voter will have to walk a single mile in consequence of this Schedule.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I beg to move now to leave out the word "district" in order to insert "place."

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 27, to leave out the word "district," in order to insert the word "place."—(Sir Richard Webster.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'district' stand part of the Schedule."

MR. CHANCE

The result of this will be to create the greatest confusion in the case of boroughs, without being of the slightest benefit.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)

If the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Webster) is not satisfied on this point, we shall be quite satisfied to aceept an Amendment to this effect in "another place."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I think the provision that only 10s. shall be given for ballot boxes is too small, and I would point out that in the Scotch Bill the sum is a guinea. I propose that the amount shall stand as in the Act of 1874, and in the Scotch Bill—namely, a guinea. These boxes, in some cases, have to be carried a considerable distance, and I think that we ought not to cut the price down to less than a guinea.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 2, to leave out "10s." in order to insert "£1 1s.,"—(Sir Richard Webster,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That '10s.' stand part of the Schedule."

MR. CHANCE

All I can say as to this is that it is a matter of absolute fact, within my own knowledge, that Presiding Officers in Ireland were offered tin ballot boxes for 10s. each. They were sent over from England for 10s., and why, therefore, should you give them a guinea?

MR. T. M. HEALY

I would point out that several large firms of stationers in England offered to supply Sheriffs with everything that is requisite for them in regard to elections, and in the circulars of every one of them ballot boxes are put down at 10s. each, and why should a candidate pay more? As a matter of fact, these gentlemen have ballot boxes in hand, and do not want them every time there is an election.

MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

I am a manufacturer of ballot boxes, and am able to supply them for 10s. each, and have a large profit for myself.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

After that information I should not be justified in pressing my Amendment, and shall be willing to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR HENRY JAMES

It appears to me that 15s. is very little for printing 1,000 ballot papers. Will the hon. Member (Mr. Chance) accept the substitution of £1 5s. I beg to move that "15s." be left out and "£1 5s." inserted.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 13, to leave out "15s." in order to insert "£1 5s.,"—(Sir Henry James,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That '15s.' stand part of the Schedule."

MR. CHANCE

I hope that there is a practical printer in the House who will speak as to this. But, considering that I have been interested in no less than 68 contested elections, I think I may be considered an authority on this point. All I can say is that I got a most respectable firm of printers to take a contract to supply me with these ballot papers at 6s. a thousand, and another firm undertook to do them at 10s. a thousand. I think that we ought to be able to get them at even a lower figure in London.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I hope the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), who is doing good work, will not press this matter too hard. It is a fact that if they can do it in Ireland we can do it in England; but it must be remembered that the printer often has to be appealed to at the last moment, and I think that if the hon. Member will agree to the insertion of £1 it would not be unreasonable.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I would ask my hon. Friend (Mr. Chance) to accept £1.

MR. CHANCE

Certainly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "To leave out '15s.' and insert '£1,'" put, and agreed to.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I must call attention to the allowances of the Presiding Officers in counties and boroughs. It is proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Chance) that the Presiding Officers in counties shall be paid around sum of £5, and the Presiding Officers in boroughs a round sum of £4. That is to include all travelling expenses, and not only the travelling allowances of the officers themselves, but also the conveyance of the ballot boxes to and from the polling places at their own expense. I hope that Her Majesty's Government, if they have considered this matter, will tell us what their view is, for the reason that it formed the subject of legislation last year. In regard to counties, owing to the multiplication of polling districts, and the difficulty of finding proper Presiding Officers, the charge of £3 3s. in the Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) was increased to £4 4s., the amount in the case of boroughs being left at £3 3s. In counties the Presiding Officers were allowed only £4 4s. and travelling expenses—their own travelling expenses and the expenses of conveying the ballot boxes to and from the polling places. On that occasion we had communications from a large number of Returning Officers. The matter was brought before my notice when I was Attorney General. I had communications from nearly all the Sheriffs in the counties, and they conveyed to me information that I should have had with me if I had known the subject was to take this form. I must say that having regard to the character of the men that the remuneration of £4 4s. was certainly not excessive remuneration for those who were called on to perform the duty. Last Session the House decided that we should have responsible men and men in a trustworthy position; and I would suggest that it is not wise, or right, or fair to alter the bargain agreed to by both sides of the House on that occasion. I must point out that the hon. Member's proposition to turn the £4 4s. into £5, fixing an all-round sum for services and travelling expenses, does not seem fair; for in some cases the officers may have to travel eight or 10 miles, whilst in others they may only have to go short distances. In some cases they may have to remain out two nights, whilst in others they may be able to sleep at their own houses. I think it would be much more just that the charge should be what was agreed upon last year. The amount charged can be taxed. The remedy for excessive charges is a proper system of taxation and appeal. It does seem an unwise thing to put travelling expenses and the expenses of conveying ballot boxes into an all-round charge, when we know perfectly well that in some cases these charges may amount to a few shillings and in others to pounds. I beg to move that the £5 be reduced to £4 4s. Of course, if that is carried, I shall move to strike out the words on the next page with regard to travelling allowances and expenses. The House will understand that I make this Motion in order afterwards to omit words, so as to restore the matter to the position it occupies at present, and would continue to occupy if that Bill had not been brought forward.

Amendment proposed, to omit "£5" in order to insert "£4 4s.,"—(Sir Richard Webster,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That '£5' stand part of the Schedule."

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

I can claim the support of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) on at least a part of this question, because he will remember, when this subject was last before us, I pointed out that Presiding Officers in Ireland could use one car themselves, put the ballot boxes on another, and charge for both. I moved an Amendment, and pressed the matter to a division, and was only beaten by five or six in a House of 200. Immediately after that decision the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he would get the Amendment inserted in the House of Lords, out of respect to the large minority that voted on that occasion. But the point was forgotten, and ever since the Sheriffs have had power to charge for the two cars. The right hon. and learned Gentleman ridiculed the idea that the Sheriffs would charge for two cars, but they have always done it. He insisted that the charge would be struck out.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)

The hon. and learned Member (Sir Richard Webster) proposes this reduction in order that a special charge may be made for travelling expenses. I hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Schedule (Mr. Chance) will not agree to anything of the kind, for I concur in what has been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan), that the sum of £5 is, if anything, an extravagantly large charge for these purposes. I do not know how it may be in England; but, so far as I know anything about the matter in Ireland, and certainly in the constituency I represent myself, there are dozens and dozens of men to be got, most capable of filling the position of Presiding Officer, who would be very glad to do a day's work of this description for a couple of pounds. I say, therefore, that it is perfectly ridiculous to ask a candidate to pay £5 for work which I undertake to say you could get men to do in every county, not only in Ireland, but in England and Scotland also, for a couple of guineas. A couple of guineas is quite sufficient; but £5 is here allowed to include travelling expenses, though there are no travelling expenses at all to speak of, for the distances are in no case very great. So far as the conveyance of ballot boxes is concerned, a man must have a conveyance to go to the station where he is to preside, and the car which he will take will also serve to convey the ballot box. There has been no attempt in any way to show that £5 is other than a most generous item for this work. As to the item of £4 for Presiding Officers in boroughs, I think that is altogether an extravagant item, for they will have no travelling expenses at all to incur. In my own constituency there were several Presiding Officers—I think half a-dozen—in the Court House on the polling day. These gentlemen had no expenses in travelling, because the ballot boxes were deposited in the same house where the polling stations were. Therefore, I think it is ridiculous to fix £4 for the payment of Presiding Officers in boroughs. While I was reading over these items, I said I thought £5 for a Presiding Officer in a county, and £4 for a Presiding Officer in a borough, was, if anything, too large a payment. I should like to know what kind of work, as a rule, you would pay a man £4 or £5 a-day for doing? I do not believe you would pay so much for any other kind of work. I am sure the House will not agree to anything which will tend to enlarge these expenses.

MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)

I wish to point out that if you leave the amount to be taxed a good many disagreeable consequences may be avoided. We remember that after the last General Election there were a great many appeals—hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway had stated that appeals could be made. Well, they were made, and they were very disagreeable things, not only for the candidates, but for the Sheriffs themselves, because in almost every case in Ireland these gentlemen had to forego a great many exorbitant claims. When you make it a fixed sum these appeals will no longer be possible. When the amount is left an open question, there is a temptation to make charges and put down expenses which otherwise would not be put down. I would, therefore, urge on the House to adhere to the fixed charge. There is everything in reason and argument in its favour.

MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby)

It is obvious that there must be some difference in the amounts expended by different Presiding Officers, seeing that in some cases they may live near the polling places, and in others some distance away. I can say as to my own constituency that, in one instance, the Presiding Officer had to bring the ballot box 20 miles, and in another instance even further, and had to hire a conveyance all the way. I think it must be obvious to everyone that it is impossible justly to have a fixed charge.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I trust my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny will insist on the proposal in this Schedule, to keep the charge for the Presiding Officer a fixed charge. I have had some little experience in the matter of taxing Sheriffs' bills after elections, and I must say that what I have seen convinces me that there is no item in the existing Schedule which gives Returning Officers so great an opportunity for fraud on candidates than the present mileage. Subsequent to the last General Election I had to do with the taxing of the Returning Officers' charges for the county of Cork, and for the seven divisions the Returning Officer came into Court with a nice little table, showing the maximum amount charged for travelling expenses in the case of 250 Presiding Officers. In every case 1s. per mile was charged for taking the ballot boxes to the place where the ballot papers were counted. It was impossible to have an inquiry into what the real sums expended were, as it would have involved the examination of 230 persons. The result was that the maximum sum was allowed in every case. In this way hundreds of pounds were allowed to the Presiding Officers—sums amounting, in some cases, to twice and three times what they should actually have spent. It is said that the Schedule of my hon. Friend (Mr. Chance) does an injustice, and that it will have the effect of giving the Returning Officer who has to go a short distance more than the Returning Officer who has to go a long distance. That is, no doubt, so; but what I would say on the point is that in these matters you have for the protection of candidates to adopt what I may call the rule of thumb. You have to do what this Schedule does—namely, strike an average. The sum my hon. Friend has mentioned—£5—seems a very fair sum to adopt. Instead of being too low, I think it will be found, in the majority of cases, to be too high a sum. My hon. Friend, in order to meet the objections that may be raised, has purposely fixed a high sum. I hope he will abide by the principle he has laid down, that you should have a fixed instead of a variable sum; because if you do not you will lose a great source of protection for candidates against Returning Officers' charges.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT) (Derby)

, I have listened very carefully to the discussion, and I think there is a great deal to be said on both sides. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says the Schedule strikes an average. But an average is not always fair. You do not compromise, or rather compensate, one man for giving him too little by giving another man too much. Lord Erskine is said to have stated that he had lost a great many verdicts that he ought to have won; but that he had won a great many verdicts he ought to have lost, and that, therefore, average justice was done. The expenses of a Presiding Officer might vary very much. It might be necessary for him to go to the polling station over night, so as to be there at 7 o'clock in the morning. He might have to go by train and sleep at the place, whilst another could easily reach it from his home in the morning, and in that way the expenses might vary. The county may be a scattered one; therefore, on the whole, it seems to me that it would be desirable to keep to the old plan of allowing the Returning Officer £4 4s., and paying him in addition the actual sum out of pocket for travelling expenses. With regard to boroughs, I see no reason why the amount should be raised from £3 to £4. I think it would be better to keep to the old sum of £3.

MR. WARMINGTON (Monmouth, W.)

I should like to point out that the Schedule does not propose to pay each Presiding Officer in a county £5. It only fixes that sum as the maximum which a Returning Officer can pay. So that in the case of a person who has not travelled far the Returning Officer may say that £3 will be enough.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When I contested Monaghan the Sheriff had the audacity to bring the Presiding Officers from Armagh, and to insist upon my paying my share of their expenses. I said to him—"Suppose you brought them from India, on a P. and O. ticket, should I have to pay for it?" And it was the view of that intelligent and distinguished officer that I should. Have I to understand that if Presiding Officers are brought from London to manage Irish elections the candidates will have to pay their expenses? For that seems to be the view to be taken of this matter as it stands. The amount ought in no case to exceed £5, and if the House prefers it you might say that the charge shall be £4 4s., with a maximum of £5 to cover travelling expenses. If the hon. Member (Mr. Chance) would accept that I should have no objection. It might be fair for the Government to say the amount shall be £4 4s., with a maximum of 1s. a-mile for travelling expenses up to 20 miles. I do not think the hon. Gentleman could object to that.

MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)

In my case, my constituency being within a moderate distance of London, the Presiding Officers were brought from London, and were charged for accordingly. I must say that that appeared to me a great hardship and a very undesirable thing; but, at the same time, I think it would be very difficult to fix an absolute scale. I should have thought it would have been possible to get over the difficulty by taking the old sum of £4 4s. for the Presiding Officer, and making a mileage allowance for travelling expenses, carefully limiting that allowance to such an amount as may be reasonable—limiting the charge to 10 or 20 miles, or to such distance as may be regarded as reasonable. I think, if £5 were adopted, it might press hardly upon the Presiding Officers in some very out-of-the-way districts. Still, I think it desirable that some limit or other should be adopted.

MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

It seems to me very desirable to make this arrangement as exact and precise as we can, so that there shall be as little room as possible for litigation. I think the question of boroughs ought to be left out of account in the present controversy. When we come to deal with them, I do not see what objection there can be to adopting the arrangement that already exists. As to Presiding Officers in counties, it seems to me that this is the method upon which we should act. Some men have reached such a position in their profession that they should not be asked to travel to a place, and to preside at a polling station, for less than £5; but there are juniors for whom a less payment would be ample. We should, I think, leave it to the Sheriff to make the selection. There are men in a comparatively humble position who would be glad to accept £5, and pay all their expenses wherever they had to go; but, on the other hand, there are men who should be paid £5, without being expected to travel any very long distance.

MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)

In Scotland we have an allowance of of £3 3s.; but in cases where the Presiding Officer is necessarily kept away from home he is allowed £1 1s. a-night for expenses. There are county polling stations in boroughs where the Presiding Officers, residing in the boroughs, should not be entitled to travelling expenses. In my own district there are several boroughs included in the county constituency, and it would be obviously unfair to give the Presiding Officers in these a fee as though they remained from home all night, and to give only the same amount to a Presiding Officer who might have to travel 20 miles and stay in the neighbourhood of the polling station over-night. I would suggest that the fee should be £ 3s., with £1 1s. a-night when detained from home.

DR. R. MACDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)

I think it would be better to have a fixed sum set down, and if that is done you can rest assured that the Returning Officer will take good care that he finds Presiding Officers in the district. Such a thing as happened in my own case would then be impossible—that is to say, men would not be sent from Edinburgh to the North of Scotland, and receive £3 3s. for five or six days, as the case may be. If the fees are fixed, the Returning Officers will take good care to find men in the district.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

It may be convenient if I here explain that if we take these £4 4s. as being the charge for the Presiding Officer, we can consider the question as to what should be the proper amount of expenses when I bring up words—as I should bring them up—in substitution for line 26.

Question, "That '£5' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That £4 4s. be there inserted."—(Sir Richard Webster.)

MR. CHANCE

Before that is put, I desire to insert the words "in England" after the words "in counties" in order to insert—"In Ireland £3 3s."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, after "counties," to insert "£4 4s. in England."—(Mr. Chance.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER

It is now proposed to add at the end—"In Ireland £3 3s."

MR. CHANCE

To make it uniform, I would move to insert the words "and £3 3s. in Ireland."

Amendment proposed, after "England" to insert "and £3 3s. in Ireland."—(Mr. Chance.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. CHANCE

I wish to move to add the words— In addition to these sums a sum not exceeding £1 1s. may be allowed for travelling and all other expenses actually incurred.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "In addition to these sums a sum not exceeding £1 1s. may be allowed for travelling and all other expenses actually incurred."—(Mr. Chance.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I should like to have an opportunity of communicating with the hon. Member (Mr. Chance), and to suggest to him that the better course would be—as I rather think his Schedule is supposed to be in substitution for the Schedule to the Act of 1875—to adopt some such plan as this—we have to deal with two classes of expenses, the conveyance of the ballot boxes and the travelling expenses of the Presiding Officers and their clerks. I venture to say that £1 1s. would not be fair as a standard charge for both these expenses. I framed the following Amendment during the discussion of the last Amendment, After the words— For the conveyance of the ballot boxes to the polling station, and from the polling station to the place where the ballot papers are to be counted, for travelling expenses of presiding officers and clerks to and from the polling places, the actual expenses not exceeding 1s. per mile, and a maximum of £2 per head. I quite agree that there should be some limit adopted, so as to prevent Presiding Officers from being brought long distances to polling stations, instead of selecting Presiding Officers in the district. Of course, the ballot box has to be taken from the polling stations to the place where the votes are counted by the Returning Officers; and, therefore, there is no fear of its being taken to an excessive distance. With regard to the expenses of the Presiding Officer, surely I think that the House will agree with me in saying that one guinea is scarcely sufficient as a maximum charge, as in some counties one may have to travel more than 20 miles, and I ask the House to agree that £2 should be the maximum, and 1s. a mile for railway.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)

I ask whether there is any objection to allow, as we propose, payment of railway fares at the rate of 1s. a mile return? The railway fares in Ireland are only 2d. a mile for first-class single tickets, and 3d. a mile for return tickets. If our proposal be adopted, the officer who has to travel 30 miles will receive 30s. I think hon. Members will agree that if the distance travelled be only 10 miles the candidate ought not to be charged 20s.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I do not think the hon. and learned Member for South Londonderry quite understood my meaning. I assume the honesty of these gentlemen referred to—["No, no!"]—and with regard to railway fares would pay them a fixed sum.

Original Question again proposed.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

Is it open to me to move an Amendment?

MR. SPEAKER

Yes.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

Then I propose, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after "in addition to" to the end of the line, in order to add— For the conveyance of ballot boxes to the polling stations, and from the polling stations to the place where the ballot papers are to be counted, the expenses incurred not exceeding the maximum sum of £2 per head.

MR. GREGORY (Sussex, East Grinstead)

I wish to point out to the House that this Amendment proceeds on the assumption that railway communication exists in all cases; but that is not so. I live in a county in which railway communications are by no means frequent—where, indeed, they are altogether infrequent, the result being that to reach many places by railway you have to travel along two sides of the triangle in order to get to the end of the third side. I think it will not, therefore, be wise or proper to lay down a hard-and-fast line for the railway expenses of Returning Officers, who are performing the duty imposed upon them by law.

COLONEL NOLAN

I wish to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench that he has stated exactly what we complain of at the present moment. These Returning Officers always will go two sides of the triangle if they possibly can, and take care to claim for doing so. It is not difficult to see why they do not go another way to work. Moreover, they are in the habit of joining two or three polling stations together on the same road; they pick each other up, and then charge for each separately. Unquestionably, £1 1s. will cover the personal expenses; but the other payment would be excessive. You are actually giving a premium for bringing persons from other places to the district to receive this money. For my own part, I would very much prefer to pay it, if it is to be paid at all, to one of my own constituency; but I may add that I would much rather not pay it at all. As I have said, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman is simply an inducement to carry on this practice, and I sincerely hope my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) will press his Amendment.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER) (Wolverhampton, E.)

While I wish to add my protest to that of the hon. Gentleman opposite against excessive charges by Returning Officers, I am unable to go to the length of saying that the Sheriffs of England are a set of dishonest rogues. I think it quite justifiable to reduce these charges, but do it openly. Why should you import into this matter the assumption that all parties are about to commit a fraud. I say that in my own county of Stafford, for instance, it would be absolutely impossible to carry on an election on the scale here proposed. If hon. Members look at the matter, I think they will see that the Returning Officers have no motive whatever for overcharging. As a matter of fact, they can get no profit out of it. I shall certainly most willingly support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir Richard Webster), and in the interest of passing this Bill I sincerely hope hon. Members opposite will not press this matter any further, but endeavour to facilitate a measure of interest not only to Irish, but to English Members. I would ask hon. Gentlemen who support the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Chance) how the Schedule would apply in the case of Cornwall, where the polling places are in some cases 40 miles distant from the mainland?

MR. PETER MACDONALD (Sligo, North)

Having had some experience of elections in the county of Sligo, I am pretty well aware of the amount actually expended in these matters, and I have calculated that £6 will cover the entire expenses, although the amount proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny is £8 8s. So far, then, from there being any illiberality in the Schedule, the amount, as fixed by the Amendment, is very considerably in advance of that which will be expended. The sum proposed is, therefore, quite reasonable and adequate to the purpose intended.

DR. R. MACDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)

I ask why the sum is to be fixed at 1s. a-mile for railway expenses, and so much a-mile more for the Returning Officer extra in connection with the ballot boxes?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I thought I had stated the matter plainly; but my proposal is this—I put in each case a sum not exceeding 1s. per mile and the maximum of £2.

MR. CHANCE

As the sense of the House seems to be against me, I must ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I now propose to deal with this question of railway expenses and ballot boxes. I contend that the actually necessary expenses shall be the charge, and I impose a limit afterwards which will prevent people being brought and charged for from a distance.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words— For conveyance of ballot boxes to the polling stations, and from the polling stations to the place where the ballot papers are to be counted, the expenses incurred not exceeding the maximum sum of £2 per head."—(Sir Richard Webster.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. BRODRICK

My suggestion is that, in these circumstances, the actual expenses will always be taken to be 1s. per mile; and I put it to the sense of the House whether it might not be well to iasert— Not exceeding two pence a mile, where the train is available, or one shilling a mile in other cases.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The Schedule sets forth a charge which is not to exceed the sum actually paid. I cannot see why Sheriffs should get 1s. a mile for taking the ballot boxes by train. This operation does not cost more than a few pence, and I think that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Guilford (Mr. Brodrick) is a very reasonable one. Again, with regard to carriage hire, I do not see why there should be two charges, while one vehicle will serve two purposes. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree to the words which are in the Act of 1875— Travelling expenses not to be allowed in the case of any person, unless the distance exceeds two miles from the place where he resides? We have omitted this, but I think it would be better to have it inserted in the Schedule.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I would prefer to stand by the words I have proposed.

MR. CHANCE

The Ballot Act of 1873 provides that the Presiding Officer shall take the ballot boxes to the polling places; but this Amendment seems to suppose that the ballot boxes would travel there on their own account, and that the Presiding Officer would not travel along with them. I do not see why they should not travel together. The sum of £2 would cover all expenses; but instead of having the £5 originally fixed we shall now have in England £5 5s., and in Ireland £8 8s.

MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)

I wish to point out that in the Schedule of the Scotch Bill it is provided that 1s. a mile shall be paid where the ballot boxes cannot be sent by the Presiding Officer or his clerk.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman to omit the word "maximum." For my own part, I would make the sum of £2 cover all the expenses.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)

The Presiding Officer is responsible for the conveyance of the ballot boxes to the polling station and from it; and therefore it is out of the question that the ballot box should be separated at any time from the Presiding Officer. It follows, then, that £2 is quite sufficient, seeing that the ballot box must accompany him.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I desire to meet the views of hon. Members, as far as I can, without doing anything unfair in the matter. I am exceedingly sorry to give so much trouble; but, for the reason I have stated, I propose to withdraw the Amendment now before us, and to move another, including words which go in the direction I have indicated.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words— For the travelling expenses of presiding officer and clerks to and from polling station, including the conveyance of the ballot box to the polling station and from the polling station to the place where the ballot papers are to be counted, the actual expenditure inclined not exceeding a maximum of two pounds per head."—(Sir Richard Webster)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. BRODRICK

I only rise to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the words include a point which I raised a few minutes ago—namely, the use of the train wherever it is available, because otherwise you may always have the road fare charged. I suggest that it would be well to insert before the word "maximum" the words "not exceeding the railway fare there and back where the railway is available."

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

Certainly, the words would involve the use of the train where available.

Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

MR. T. M. HEALY

As I have pointed out, the former Act limits the travelling expenses to the case where the individual travels more than two miles from the place where he resides. I can assure hon. Members that this is a very necessary limit, and I would, if the House will allow me, make it three miles instead of two.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words— Travelling expenses are not to be allowed in the case of any person, unless for a distance exceeding three miles from the place in which he resides."—(Mr. T. M. Sealy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER) (Wolverhampton, E.)

I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. Returning Officers have to go a good many miles in the course of the day, and, as a matter of fact, a cab is invariably required.

MR. T. M. HEALY

In deference to the wish of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken I will not press my Amendment; but I must point out that the Act of 1875 provides a limit of two miles. I, therefore, move to omit the word "three" from my Amendment and insert "two."

Amendment proposed, to amend the proposed Amendment, by leaving out the word "three" in order to insert the word "two."

Question, "That the word 'three' stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word 'two' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 1, leave out "£4," and insert "£3 3s."—(Mr. Small,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That '£4' stand part of the Schedule."

MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Nottingham, S.)

I shall support the Amendment, on the distinct understanding that there is no allowance superadded for travelling expenses.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That '£3 3s.' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I now appeal to the House to allow me to propose the restoration of £1 10s. for £1 1s. to be paid to the polling clerk. Last year Parliament decided to allow £1 10s., on the ground that very often, in country places, polling clerks had to be away from home two nights. It was pointed out that having regard to the class of men who served as polling clerks £1 1s. was not sufficient payment. The question was fully discussed last July, and I submit to the House there is no ground for altering the £1 10s. to £1 1s. I beg to move that the polling clerk's fee be £1 10s.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 9, to leave out "£1 1s.," in order to insert "£1 10s."—(Sir Richard Webster.)

Question proposed, "That '£1 1s.' stand part of the Schedule."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT) (Derby)

I think there ought to be a distinction in this case between the counties and boroughs.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I mean my Amendment to relate to counties.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

There is no distinction in the Schedule as drawn. We might very well make it £1 10s. in counties, and £1 1s. in boroughs.

MR. CHANCE

In Ireland there is no need for a polling clerk to be away from home at night. Polling clerks are generally local mercantile men, and a guinea is very good pay for them. They have nothing to do with the conveyance of the ballot boxes to the place of counting; but their work ceases when the ballot closes.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I intended the Amendment to refer to counties, and I am quite willing to insert the words "in counties in England."

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

I object to increasing the payment for clerks at polling stations.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

It is not increased; it is now 30s.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will confine his Amendment to England?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

Certainly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, after "station," in line 7, page 3, to insert "in counties in England."—(Sir Richard Webster.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I now beg to move to omit "£1 1s." and insert "£1 10s.," so that the provision will then read— For one clerk at each polling station in counties in England, where not less than 400 voters are assigned to such station, £1 10s.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 9, to leave out "£1 1s." in order to insert "£1 10s."—(Sir Richard Webster.)

"Question, "That '£1 1s.' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived

Question, "That '£1 10s.' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will propose the words "and in Ireland £1 1s."

Amendment proposed, to add to the last Amendment "and in Ireland £1 1s."—(Sir Richard Webster.)

Question, "That those words be there added, "put, and agreed to.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I have now to move the omission of the words "this sum includes all travelling allowances and expenses."

Amendment proposed, in lines 10 and 11, omit the words "this sum includes all travelling allowances and expenses."—(Sir Richard Webster.)

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

MR. CHANCE

I am afraid there is a technical objection to this Amendment. A previous Amendment gives £2 2s. travelling expenses. Is it clearly understood that the maximum of £2 2s. applies here?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

Certainly.

Question put, and negatived; words left out accordingly.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

It is now necessary to add the words—"In boroughs, for one clerk at each polling station, £1 1s."

Amendment proposed, at end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words—"In boroughs, for one clerk at each polling station, £1 1s."—(Sir Richard Webster.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

A corresponding Amendment must be made in the next clause. I apprehend hon. Members below the Gangway will wish to limit the increased allowance for an additional clerk to England; and, therefore, I beg to move to add "in counties in England," after "station," in line 12. The clause will then read— For an additional clerk at a polling station in counties in England, for every 500 voters or fraction thereof beyond the first 500 assigned to such polling station.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, after the word "station," to insert the words "in counties in England."—(Sir Richard Webster.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 14, to leave out "£1 1s.," and insert "£1 10s"—(Sir Richard Webster.)

Question, "That '£1 1s.' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.

Question, "That '£1 10s.' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, at end of foregoing Amendment, to add the words— For an additional clerk at a polling station in Ireland and in boroughs in England, for every 600 voters or fraction thereof beyond the first 600 assigned to such polling station, £1 1s."—(Sir Richard Webster.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. SMALL (Down, S.)

This Amendment assumes that a Presiding Officer may have two clerks. I never saw a Presiding Officer with two clerks. The Amendment will increase the expenses of an election, instead of decreasing them. One man can only be polled at a time, and one clerk can mark out any number of voters.

MR. T. M. HEALY

My hon. Friend (Mr. Small) seems to forget that we have adopted the words "there shall not be in any polling district more than one polling station to which less than 400 voters shall be assigned."

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 15, to omit the words "this sum includes all travelling allowances and expenses."—(Sir Richard Webster.)

Question, "That those words stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived

MR. T. M. HEALY

I beg to move the insertion of the following words:— The above sums are the aggregate charges the amount of which is to be apportioned amongst the several candidates or other persons liable for the same. I think these words are desirable for the protection of the candidates.

Amendment proposed, At end of Schedule, to add the words "the above sums are the aggregate charges, the amount of which is to be apportioned amongst the several candidates or other persons liable for the same."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, added.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

, in rising, according to Notice, to move— That the Bill be re-committed in respect of a new Clause and Schedule providing for the payment of the returning officer's expenses out of the rates. That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision in the Bill accordingly, said: For the last two hours we have been discussing how much a candidate shall pay; but I have now to move that the Bill be re-committed, in order that we may adopt a clause providing that a candidate shall pay nothing. There is some objection, I believe, on the part of some hon. Gentlemen in the House to the mode of proceeding in this matter. They seem to think that the clause I wish to move has been, to a certain extent, sprung upon them. Practically, the clause has been on the Paper for more than a week; it has been brought forward twice already at a little later hour than the present (1.35), and then there has been a discussion upon it. On both occasions the House has been full. It appears to me that, at the present time, we can have a full and fair discussion, if hon. Gentlemen opposite desire it. I do not think any hon. Member should be called upon to do more than conform to the Rules of the House, and the Rules allow an Amendment to be moved on Report, and that is what I am doing. Now, Sir, we have been told that this Amendment ought not to be moved, because it goes to the root of a great principle. The only principle in regard to it is the principle of plain common sense. We have school board elections and municipal elections; but no one ever dreams of calling upon the candidates to pay for the machinery of these elections. There are elections for Legislative Assemblies in other countries; but no one would dream, for a moment, of laying it down that a man who wishes to be elected to the Legislative Assembly of his country must pay for such things as ballot boxes and other necessary election machinery. The real reason why hon. Gentlemen object to my proposition is that they look upon the present state of things as creating an artificial barrier against the poor man coming into Parliament. We have had members of the aristocratic Party flourishing their money-bags, and telling us they will carry the Election by the effect of their money. We know what occurred on this side of the House a little while ago. We know that Gentlemen who had voted money for Secret Service most freely, year after year, stood aghast when it was suggested that the money was being spent in electioneering. We also know perfectly well that it has been the boast of hon. Gentlemen opposite and their allies on this side of the House that they mean to obtain a majority by the effect of their money. I think we ought, at the present moment, to carry a Resolution such as I suggest. It has been asserted that to do what I propose would produce a large number of bogus candidates. I do not know what that means. A man cannot tell, when he comes forward, whether he will be elected or not; he may have a large number of supporters or a small number. I think we shall find that what occurs at municipal and school board elections will occur in the case of Parliamentary elections; no one will come forward merely for the purpose of advertising himself. There are no bogus candidates at municipal elections, and it is not probable there will be bogus candidates at Parliamentary elections, even if the Returning Officer's expenses are paid out of the rates. I have no doubt we shall hear another objection from hon. Gentlemen opposite—namely, that this will increase the rates. By whom ought these expenses to be paid? I do not see why they should be charged on the Consolidated Fund. Do you not pay for municipal elections and school board elections out of the rates, and not out of the Consolidated Fund? The sum is very small when distributed over the rates. While it is a serious amount to a poor candidate, it is practically nothing to the entire body of ratepayers. A speech was made in 1875 on this subject by the late Mr. Fawcett, and Mr. Fawcett then pointed out that the amount that this reform would cost a holder of a £10 house would be about the price of one glass of beer every three years. Who would object to that? We have been told by an hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench that it is a waste of time debating this subject, because the clause will be thrown out in "another place." It appears to me that if "another place" will throw it out, that is an extremely good reason for us insisting upon it. I beg to move— That the Bill be re-committed in respect of a new Clause and Schedule providing for the payment of the returning officer's expenses out of the rates.

MR. SPEAKER

The proper form in which to put it is—"That the Bill be re-committed in respect of a new Clause and Schedule;" and, subsequently, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide for the payment of the returning officer's expenses out of the rates."

MR. LABOUCHERE

I will make the Motion in that form.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of a new Clause and Schedule."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

I certainly hope that the burden which Her Majesty's Government have been willing to put upon this Bench in regard to the Bill hitherto will not be comtinued, as far as this part of the Bill is concerned. I do not mind a little work; but really I hope I shall have some assistance from those whose duty it is to look after such matters. Now, Sir, I do trust the House will not adopt the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) without fully considering how the matter stands. It is all very well to say that the hon. Member has conformed to the Rules of the House. That may be perfectly true; but, still, I do not think hon. Gentlemen consider that the Forms of the House have been fairly made use of. I am sure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) will not think I mean any discourtesy when I say that if this course is adopted it will be an abuse of the Forms of the House. On the 22nd of January last there was brought in a Bill with reference to the Returning Officers' expenses—the Parliamentary Elections Returning Officers' Expenses (Ireland) Bill. That was a Bill to which there was a Schedule attached, a Schedule of the same character as that we have been discussing to-night. About the same time the Bill now before the House was brought in by the hon. and learned Member for South Londonderry (Mr. T. M. Healy) and the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance). That was a Bill which simply provided, by its title and clauses, for an appeal against the Returning Officers' charges. So far the Bill was a very proper one; but it did not give the slightest warning or notice to any Member of the House that it contemplated anything else. So little was it thought that the Bill was intended to have a wide application, that it was not until the Committee stage that words were inserted to make it clear that it was intended to extend to England. I make no further observations upon that, because there is no reason why the provision for appeal should not be extended to England as well as to Ireland. Finding that their Bill with regard to the charges was not likely to be carried, hon. Gentlemen succeeded in getting the Schedule transferred from that Bill to this Bill. So the Bill remained until a few days ago, when the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) brought up this clause. It seems an extraordinary thing that, at this stage, there should be brought up a clause dealing with the whole question, practically speaking, of the incidence of these charges. There has been no discussion upon the principle of this clause; and, indeed, the usual opportunities of debate have not been afforded. We are dealing with a matter which, if it is to be passed, ought to be passed after most careful consideration. I do not know what the views of the Government are; but I shall feel it my duty to divide the House, because it seems to me that such a clause ought not to be sprung on the House, and it has been sprung on the House. If such a subject is going to be taken up, it should be taken up in a fair and open manner. The Procedure Committee call attention, in the Report they have just presented, to one great defect in our procedure, and that is that important changes have been introduced at this stage of Bills. Old Members of the House will bear me out when I say that it is only within recent years that this practice has sprung up. I know nothing about "winning by money bags," nor have I heard of it, and having regard to the stringency of the Corrupt Practices Act such a threat would be absurd; and I cannot understand its having the slightest effect upon any audience. It is a serious thing to say that we are to alter a system which has prevailed for a considerable time, which was the subject of discussion when the Redistribution Bill was before the House in 1884, and which the Prime Minister declined to enter into on that measure. Considering those facts, it is, to say the least of it, not quite a proper proceeding that this matter should be brought forward in the last days of an expiring Parliament—and brought forward in such a way—when it has been kept back and suppressed from hon. Members until the last moment. As to the threat that the Bill is to be thrown out in the House of Lords, I have heard no such threat; but all I can say is that if this clause is to be put in in this way, and at this stage, I think the House of Lords will be perfectly right in throwing it out. I do not appeal to the House of Lords; I appeal to the spirit of fair play in this House; and I say that any such change as this Amendment involves should have been brought forward by the Government—we should have had it square and fair before us, at a time when it could have been adequately discussed. I shall feel it necessary to divide the House on this matter.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL) (Hackney, S.)

My hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down seeks to take credit to himself for the part he took on the Schedule which has just been passed, and complains that I did not give him my assistance. Well, I will tell the House why he has got no assistance from me so far. Because it appeared to me that he showed a disposition to increase expenses, and, inasmuch as my sympathies are in the opposite direction, I was prepared to vote with hon. Members below the Gangway, and I was certainly quite prepared to give my hon. and learned Friend all the credit of attempting to increase the expenses of elections. My hon. and learned Friend resents the statement that early this morning somebody threatened that this Bill would be thrown out in the House of Lords. [Cries of "No, no!"] I am not affirming that that was said; but I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) says that such a threat was made. The hon. and learned Gentleman disclaimed it with something like indignation; but he proceeded to say something which sounded to me very much like a threat to this House, because he said the introduction of this clause was an abuse of the Forms of the House; and then, having passed judgment to his own satisfaction in this way, he proceeded to say that the House of Lords would be perfectly justified in throwing it out. Well, the House is quite capable of taking care of its own Forms, and if this, in truth, is an abuse of the Forms of the House, let the House vindicate those Forms and pronounce judgment upon the matter; but if the House does not do that then hon. Members are entitled to say that this is a fit and proper matter to discuss without any regard to what may be done or said in "another place," and to leave the responsibility of what may be done and said in "another place" to those who say and do it. It might be pointed out that propositions of this kind have been introduced over and over again on various occasions; but I will not pretend to cite precedents on the subject. My hon. and learned Friend says that he desires "a fair and square" discussion of the question; but what is there in the way of a "fair and square" discussion? We have had discussions in the prior stages of this measure which, foreshadowed this clause, and the proposal of my hon. Friend has been before the House for some considerable time. Therefore, so far as Notice is concerned, it cannot be said with truth that the House has not had ample Notice of the discussion of the question. I want the House to observe a very curious omission on the part of my hon. and learned Friend. Whilst he was very strong in opposition to the form in which this clause was brought forward, I did not hear a word from him against the substance; and what I want to know, therefore, is this—is his a sincere desire to cheapen the cost of elections? Are they on those Benches sincerely anxious to have the poorest classes represented in this House—are they in favour of making it practicable for Representatives of that class to come into this House? My hon. and learned Friend was silent on that question; but I am not silent upon it. I am distinctly and absolutely in favour of it. I desire to give practical effect to that view by supporting the proposition of my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere)—a proposition reasonable in itself, perfectly just in its nature, vindicated and justified by the usage of municipal elections, justified by the practice of foreign countries, justified by the lesson which it would afford to the country that Parliamentary elections were national and not personal concerns, and justified, therefore, both in the interests of the candidates and of the constituencies themselves.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.)

I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell) was not in his place last night, when his presence was greatly desired; but I venture to say that we are not much better off to-night now that he is here. He says he cannot see why the introduction of this clause on the Report now is an abuse of the Forms of the House. Well, I can justify that statement on the highest authority. This is what Sir Erskine May says upon it— The vicious practice of adding provisions to Bills quite foreign to their object, which was formerly very common, is now very rarely followed. I think that that pretty well establishes that it is an abuse of the Forms of the House. I think my hon. and learned Friend made it very plain that the present proposal did not form a part of the subject-matter of the Bill when it was first introduced. It has been debated by Bill many times, and why has it not been passed? Because it has always been rejected. And now it is that by evading the Forms of the House, which guard us from hasty legislation, this is brought in without giving us a chance of discussing it. The Committee on Procedure also, in their Report, condemned this practice. I am not going to detain the House at this moment; but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has challenged us on the principle. Well, I say it will look very bad if, when hon. Members are about to go to their constituents, they should appear as if they intend to save their own pockets at the expense of the ratepayers. It has been conceded, moreover, that local taxation should not be increased until local taxation has been more evenly distributed; and that, in my opinion, is sufficient reason for not proceeding further with this proposal.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT) (Derby)

It is a good thing to read the whole of an extract; but the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Fergusson) has omitted what goes before and what comes after what he has read. What Sir Erskine May says is this— When a Bill, as amended by the Committee, is considered, the entire Bill is open to consideration, and new clauses may be added and Amendments made, whether they be within the scope of the title or even relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill or not. Therefore, he says it is a technical Rule. Then he says— The vicious practice of adding provisions to Bills, quite foreign to their object, which was formerly not uncommon, is now very rarely followed. Well, will anyone contend that this is foreign to the Bill? This Bill has to do with the expenses of elections, and to say that the manner in which those expenses are to be defrayed is foreign to the Bill appears to me to be an extraordinary proposition. It is perfectly relevant to the objects of the Bill——[An hon. MEMBER: Title of the Bill.]

MR. T. M. HEALY

It is perfectly relevant to the title as amended.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I beg to say that no reasonable man can affirm that the funds out of which these expenses are to be paid is irrelevant to the object of the Bill. But there is another matter which is very relevant to the objects of this Bill. If you want to keep these expenses down, make it to the interest of the people to keep them down. It will be to the interest of the Local Authorities to keep them down. It appears to me that one way to keep them down will be to provide for them in this way. The object of the Bill is to enable persons who are not possessed of wealth to enter Parliament, and for these reasons I support the introduction of the clause.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

If this is not irrelevant, why should the hon. Member have to move an Instruction?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I am surprised that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), who has been in this House for some time——

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS (Lancashire, S.W., Newton)

Order, order!

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

If the right hon. Gentleman has any point of Order to put why does he not rise in his place?

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

The right hon. Gentleman has already spoken.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

When a Member is asked a question in this House, by the ordinary courtesy of the House he is permitted to answer it. [Cries of "Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) has been asked a question, and by the Rules of the House he is entitled to answer it.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

In answer to the hon. Member for Hallam I may say that it is perfectly competent for an hon. Member to move an Instruction to the Committee to consider a matter which is not included in the title of the Bill, but which is perfectly germane to the objects of the Bill. It is impossible to introduce anything that is not germane.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

I contend that the proposal to move an Instruction to the Committee is sufficient justification for all that my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Richard Webster) has said against the clause.

MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

I would point out that in 1875 my late Friend Mr. Fawcett made an exactly similar Motion to this. At that time he gave a series of precedents which it is not necessary for me to enter into. It appears to me that the matter is absolutely relevant to the Bill; and, since it is relevant, I think, under all the circumstances, my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) is justified in bringing it forward. This is not a matter which has been sprung upon the House—it has been before the House and the constituencies for a long time. These expenses are about to be altered by the Bill with which we have been dealing, and there is no more effectual way of reducing them than by such a clause as this. Someone on the other side of the House dissented from the statement that someone had said that moneybags were to be used at the forthcoming Election. It may not have been put in that way; it may not have been said that they were to contravene the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act; but it has been intimated by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Goschen)—[Cries of "Order!"]—I am answering the point which has been raised on the other side—that long purses will be found by many Gentlemen. These are to be employed in resisting men of small means, although they are men of ability; and the amount of the expenses has a tendency to keep such men, who frequently have large special and technical knowledge, out of this House. Well, we have to look forward to several elections not far distant from one another, and what is to be the result of these elections unless you reduce the expenses? It will be this—that after three or four of them the residuum of this House will be the wealthy and plutocratic classes of the community. One right hon. Gentleman spoke about "another place" throwing out this Bill. Well, all I have to say to that is that this Bill has to do with the Representatives of the people alone, and it is eminently a case for this House to discuss and decide.

MR. RADOLIFFE COOKE (Newington, W.)

Notwithstanding what I have heard from my Leaders from this side of the House, I do not see why this matter cannot be fairly debated. I was asked to stay in the House in order to listen to what was to be said on it. In my opinion, the cost to the ratepayers would be exceedingly trifling, and I cannot attach any importance to that whatever. I want to see in this House men to whom these costs would be a very serious matter. I believe that there would be a great many such men holding the opinions which I hold,. and therefore I shall vote for the Amendment. If I wanted any justification for the course which I am about to take, it is provided in the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken, because if we have the class of Members I have referred to on these Benches we shall not have that class of speeches from the Benches opposite.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 67: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 129.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide for the payment of the returning officer's expenses out of rates."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I do not propose to trouble the House with any further discussion on the clause. I do not entirely approve of the language of it; still, as the House has expressed an opinion on it, I do not propose to intervene further.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide for the payment of the returning officer's expenses out of rates.

Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. LABOUCHERE

I beg to move a new clause (Payment of returning officer's expenses in certain cases)——

MR. T. M. HEALY

Before the hon. Member moves that, I wish to point out that last night, on the Report stage, on my Motion the word "Schedules" was altered into "Schedule." I presume it will be competent for us now to change the word "Schedule" back again into "Schedules." We have carried a Motion to re-commit the Bill in respect of a new clause and Schedule providing for the payment of Returning Officers' expenses out of the rates, so that I presume it will be in order to make this change.

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)

That can be done on third reading. The Bill is now recommitted for a special purpose, and we cannot go beyond that purpose.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I beg to move the new clause standing on the Paper in my name— The charges authorized 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.

New Clause (Payment of returning officer's expenses in certain cases,)—(Mr. Labouchere,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

Before that Question is put I have an Amendment of a non-contentious character to move. The Returning Officer's fees, as they at present stand, have been drawn up on the assumption that the charges are to be paid by the candidate; and it is, therefore, assumed that the deposit the candidate will lodge as security will be devoted by the Returning Officer to the purpose of defraying the expenses of the election. If this second Schedule passes into law, however, these expenses will be defrayed out of the rates, and the candidate will be entitled to get the amount of his deposit back from the Returning Officer. I have, therefore, drawn up the following Amendment to the clause:— Where a returning officer has, pursuant to the provisions of the principal Act, required security to be given for the charges payable in respect of an election, he shall, on being paid the charges under this section, forthwith pay back to the person or persons entitled to same the sum or sums which have been deposited with him as such security.

THE CHAIRMAN

That would not be an Amendment to the clause.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

Yes, Sir; I think it would.

THE CHAIRMAN

It will be proper to deal with the Amendment on third reading; but the work of the Committee must be confined especially to the Order of Instruction to the Committee.

MR. T. M. HEALY

May I ask you, Sir, whether, as the general framework of the Bill provides for the deposit, and as this Amendment now provides that the money should be paid out of the rates, we may not now arrange that the candidate should get back the deposit after the Returning Officer receives the money out of the rates?

THE CHAIRMAN

It would, no doubt, be necessary to do that; but it cannot be done by this Committee, which has a special duty only to perform, even though it be consequential upon that special work.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I now beg to move the second Schedule.

Second Schedule.

(Provision for the Payment of Returning Officers' Charges.)

"(1.) In counties in England—

1. (a.) Such charges shall be paid out of the county rates, and the justices of the peace for each county shall be empowered to and shall make provision for the payment of same. Such justices shall, in each county, at the quarter sessions to be held next after the election in every year, make their order upon the treasurer of the said county for the payment of such charges out of the public stock of the said county;
2. (b.) Where a county is divided into Parliamentary divisions, but not into sessional divisions, such charges for each such Parliamentary division shall be payable in all respects as if the election were for a Member for the whole county;
3. (c.) Where the area of any Parliamentary division of a county is co-extensive with or is included in any sessional division of such county, such charges for such Parliamentary division shall be paid by such sessional division, and the justices of the peace for such sessional division shall have the same powers and duties in respect of same in all respects as if such sessional division constituted a county at large;
4. (d.) In the case of any Parliamentary division of a county divided into sessional divisions, the area of which is not co-extensive with or included in one of such sessional divisions, each sessional division of such county the area of which is in whole or in part included in such Parliamentary division shall contribute to the payment of such charges for such Parliamentary division.

"(2.) In counties in Ireland such charges shall be paid out of the grand jury cess, and the grand Jury for each county shall be empowered to, and shall make provision for the payment of same. The grand jury shall in each county present at the assizes next after the election (without previous application to presentment sessions) the amount of such charges to be raised off the county at large, and the treasurer of each county shall thereupon pay such charges forthwith.

"In Ireland, where a county is divided into Parliamentary divisions, such charges for each such Parliamentary division shall be payable in all respects as if the election were for a member for the whole county.

"(3.)—

1. (a.) Such charges for any Parliamentary borough which is co-extensive with or included in the area of a municipal borough shall be payable out of the borough fund, and the town council for such borough shall have power to and shall make and levy such rate or rates as may be necessary for the payment of same. Such town council shall, at their meeting, to be held not more than six weeks after the election, make an order upon the treasurer of the said borough for the payment of such charges out of the moneys in his hands on account of the borough fund;
2. (b.) In the case of a Parliamentary borough the area of which is not co-extensive with or included in the area of a municipal borough, but which includes in whole or in part the area of any municipal borough or boroughs, each such municipal borough shall contribute to the payment of such charges for such Parliamentary borough;
3. (c.) In the case of a Parliamentary borough the area of which includes an area not included in any municipal borough, the county or (in England) the sessional division of a county in which such area is situate shall contribute to the payment of such charges for such borough out of the county rates. The sum to be so contributed shall be calculated in every year in like manner as provided in the fifth Clause of this Schedule in the case of a municipal borough or a sessional division of a county required to contribute as therein mentioned; and the justices of the peace or grand jury (as the case may be) for such county (or sessional division) shall have the same powers and duties in respect of such contribution as are in this Act prescribed in respect of such charges wholly payable by any county.

"(4.) In the case of any municipal borough the area of which is exempt from the payment of county rates, and which is not under this Act required to pay or contribute to the payment of such charges, such municipal borough shall contribute to the payment of such charges for the county, counties, or Parliamentary division or divisions of a county, within which it is in whole or in part situate.

"(5.) Where under this Act a municipal borough or a sessional division of a county is required to contribute to such charges as aforesaid for a county or Parliamentary borough, the sum to be so contributed shall be calculated in every year according to the same relative proportion as the number of persons in such municipal borough or sessional division placed on the register of voters for such county or Parliamentary borough shall boar in such year to the total number of persons upon such register; and the town council for such municipal borough and the jusices of the peace for such sessional division shall have respectively the same powers and duties in respect of such contribution as are in this Act prescribed in respect of such charges wholly payable by any one municipal borough or sessional division of a county. In this Schedule the following words and expressions shall have the meaning hereby assigned to them, unless there be something in the context repugnant thereto (that is to say):— 'County' shall include a division of a county, but shall not include a county of a city or county of a town. 'Parliamentary borough' means any borough, city, county of a city, county of a town, place or combination or places, returning a Member or Members to serve in Parliament, not being a county at large, or riding, part or division of a county at large, and includes a Parliamentary division of a borough. 'Municipal borough' includes 'burgh,' and means any city or town corporate, or any town, township, or city governed by town or township Commissioners appointed under any general or local Act. 'Town Council' means the governing municipal authority in any municipal borough. 'Borough fund,' in the case of any municipal borough having no borough fund, shall be deemed to mean the rates imposed and collected by the town council. 'Parliamentary division' means a division of a county or Parliamentary borough within the meaning of 'The Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885,'"—(Mr. Labouchere,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Question, "That the Schedule be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the Schedule be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, considered.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I now beg to move the Amendment I have handed in.

MR. SPEAKER

The clause the hon. Member has handed to me is a new clause, and could not be moved without Notice. I could not entertain it now—it cannot be entertained at this stage.

MR. T. M. HEALY

If that is so, I beg to ask leave of the House to read the Bill the third time now. I do this on the ground that we have arrived at a period of the Session when it is essential to lose no time if we are to carry the Bill through "another place," and because, days ago, I acceded to the request of hon. Members to put off a stage of the measure. I have to thank hon. Gentlemen for their courtesy, and to assure them that it is my duty to reciprocate that courtesy in every possible way. There can be no objection to the general principle of the Bill—we are all agreed upon it, though in "another place" we may find the clause and Schedule we have just agreed to objected to. There is an important Schedule making large changes affecting the rates; but the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) did the same thing, and yet it was read the third time by general consent. As nothing is to be gained by delay, I trust we may be allowed to take this stage by consent.

MR. SPEAKER

The Bill has been very extensively amended, and unless I hear a very clear expression of opinion on the subject I should not propose to put the Question.

Bill to be read the third time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 282.]