HC Deb 23 April 1888 vol 325 cc184-5
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been directed to the demands made, in the years 1887 and 1888, by the Under Sheriffs of Middlesex upon Mr. William Miller, the present Returning Officer for the Division of Chelsea, for the payment of a fee of two guineas in respect of his application for, or appointment to, his present office; whether the payment of similar fees has been insisted upon by the same Under Sheriffs at the hands of other Returning Officers in the remaining divisions of their county; and, whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table a Copy of the Correspondence between the said Under Sheriffs and Mr. William Miller?

Tim FIRST LORD (Mr. W. SMITH) (Strand, "Westminster)

The Under Sheriffs have been asked for their explanation of this matter. Their statement is that gentlemen seeking appointment as Returning Officers commonly apply to them to prepare the form of appointment, to procure the signature of the Sheriffs, and to file the appointment with the Clerk of the Peace. This work is done by them, in their view, not as Under Sheriffs, but as solicitors, and their charge for it is two guineas. This charge has been voluntarily paid by several Returning Officers. The Under Sheriffs state that the fee is not demanded as a condition of appointment, or in respect of the application for appointment. Although Mr. Miller has paid no fee his appointment has been prepared, signed, and filed. The correspondence between the Under Sheriffs and. Mr. Miller is not in the possession or control of the Government.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

asked, whether the Government had any means of preventing the appointment of Returning Officers being made dependent on a system of blackmail; and whether the Government could put a stop to the practice?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, the Government had no control whatever over the Sheriffs.

MR. ARTHUR. O'CONNOR,

asked, whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department could not direct proceedings to be taken against the Sheriff?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

said, the Question of the hon. Gentleman involved points of considerable nicety, and therefore he thought Notice should be given. As he understood this transaction, it was not a fee demanded for the appointment; but a charge made for the labour of preparing the appointment, procuring the signatures of the Sheriffs, and filing the appointment to the Clerk of the Peace. All these things any applicant for the appointment was perfectly at liberty to do for himself if he thought fit.