§ MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to the recently issued Return of Election Expenses in the United Kingdom during the election of last year, disclosing the fact that in a considerable number of cases the expenditure by candidates exceeded the amount allowed by the Corrupt Practices Act; and whether it is the intention of the Government to propose any amendment to that Act?
§ MR. HARRY FOSTER (Suffolk, Lowestoft)At the same time, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether his attention has been called to the recently-issued Return of Election Expenses in the United Kingdom during the election of last year, purporting to disclose the fact that in several cases the expenditure by candidates exceeded the amount allowed by the Corrupt Practices Act, 46 & 47 Vict, c. 51; whether he is aware that the number of registered electors for the Division of North Suffolk, represented by the hon. Member for the Division, at the time of the election in July, 1892, was 12,996, that the maximum expenditure allowed by the said Act for the Division of North Suffolk was £1,310, and that the election expenses of the hon. Member, exclusive of personal expenses and the returning officer's charges, amounted to £1,303 10s. 9d.; whether he can explain why it is stated in the said Return that the maximum scale allowed by the Corrupt Practices. Act for the Northern Division of Suffolk is £1,250 only, thereby making it appear that such maximum was exceeded; whether he will take steps to ascertain if other mistakes have been made in the said Return; and what steps he proposes to take to rectify the mistake in view of the publicity already given to the said Return?
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEThe Corrupt Practices Act is a most valuable measure, which has now been in operation for a considerable number of years. I do not think that the results of it have been such as to lead the Government to think that there is an immediate necessity for its amendment. On the other hand, I am far from saying that it has 1381 attained, or could be expected to attain, the important purpose it had in view, but I think it has been beneficial to the country in a remarkable manner. In the present state of the case it would not be an improper subject for examination by a Select Committee with a view to collecting facts and suggesting any necessary amendment.
§ MR. LEGH (Lancashire, S.W., Newton)May I ask whether it is not the case that in several Irish elections the Sheriff refused to furnish any Return whatever?
§ [The question was not answered.]
§ MR. H. S. FOSTERThe Prime Minister does not seem to have answered my question.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEIt was comprised in the general answer.
§ MR. H. S. FOSTERI do not think the right hon. Gentleman can have apprehended the question. It is in regard to a Return presented to the House, according to which I am stated to have spent a larger amount on my election than the Corrupt Practices Act allows; I put it to the Prime Minister whether the maximum amount in my constituency is not £1,310 instead of £1,250, as given in the Return. Will he give me a categorical answer to that question?
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEThe hon. Member will have an excellent opportunity of affording whatever explanation he may have to give when we have a Committee on the working of the Act.
§ MR. H. S. FOSTERI am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but I am asking him nothing with reference to any Committee. A Return was made to this House by the Government a few days ago. It was made by the Home Office, and signed by the right hon. Gentleman's son. That Return states the maximum expenditure under the Corrupt Practices Act as £1,250 for the Northern Division of Suffolk. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as a matter of fact, it ought not to have been £1,310, and I wish further to know what steps are to be taken for the purpose of correcting the false information which has been disseminated?
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEThat is not a point for me. The question is one which might have been addressed to the Home Office; but even then I assume 1382 that the Local Authority and not the Government are responsible for the information supplied locally. It is not possible for the Government to make themselves responsible for the statements of the Local Authorities.