§ MR. H. S. FOSTER (Suffolk, Lowestoft)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the Return, issued to this House by the Home Office 20th September, 1893, of Election Expenses in the United Kingdom during the election of last year, purporting to disclose the fact that 1767 in several cases the expenditure by candidates exceeded the amount allowed by the Corrupt Practices Act, 46 & 47 Vict., col; 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. ASQUITHI have inquired into this matter, with the result that the Return appears to be quite correct, and the hon. Member to be labouring under a mistake. The figure 12,996, which he suggests as the total number of electors on the Register, is apparently arrived at by adding together the ownership and occupiers' lists. But upon Division I. of the occupiers' list there are to be found marked with a star the names of all ownership voters who occupy their own property, although these names have already appeared on the owners' list. The reason for the duplicate entry is that the Register is used for County Council as well as for Parliamentary elections, and, as owners do not vote for the County Council as such, it is necessary that those of them who are also occupiers should appear on the occupiers' lists. In the case of North Suffolk there are 1,169 such names, and in ascertaining the number of Parliamentary electors it was obviously right that they should only be counted once. The hon. Member's question appears to be founded on the fallacious assumption that when a person is registered as an owner and also appears as a starred voter on the occupiers' list he ought, for the purpose of determining the maximum expenditure of the candidate, to be counted as two 1768 voters, though he can only give one vote. In my opinion the sum of £1,250 was properly stated in the Return to be the maximum expenditure allowed by law to a candidate for this constituency.
§ MR. H. S. FOSTERMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is anything in the Register to indicate to the candidate that the maximum number of electors is 11,827, instead of 12,996?
§ MR. ASQUITHYes; there was a star against the occupying owners.
§ MR. H. S. FOSTERDoes the right hon. Gentleman expect the candidates to count 1,169 stars?
§ MR. ASQUITHThe candidates were expected to know and to observe the law.
§ MR. H. S. FOSTERI beg to give notice that, in consequence of the answer of the Home Secretary, on Thursday I shall ask the Attorney General whether the maximum expenditure under the Corrupt Practices Act is regulated— [Cries of "Order!"]