RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 25 May 1894 vol 24 cc1329-61

MB. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

rose to move the following Resolution:— That, in the opinion of this House, the Returning Officers' Expenses and all other Official Charges in connection with Parliamentary Elections should be defrayed out of public funds, and that a material reduction is possible in the present scale of charges allowed under 'The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Expenses) Act, 1875.'

An hon. MEMBER

Take the Division at once.

* MR. J. ROWLANDS

said, he was afraid he could not fall in with that view of the hon. Member, though he thought there would be very little doubt of the result if the House were to divide now. He did not think any apology was necessary for bringing a question like this before the House at the present time. For a long period of years they had been broadening out their institutions, and the one ideal of most persons bad been that this House should be as thoroughly representative of all sections of the community as it was possible by a popular election to make it. They had broadened out the whole question of the franchise; they had gone further, and thought it necessary to re-adjust their electoral areas. But there was one thing they had not done at present, and that was, they had not liberated candidates for Parliamentary honours from the official charges which, in his opinion, should belong to the community in some way or other, and not the individual who sought to do the work of the nation. Those who had read the Resolution would notice that it contained two distinct propositions. The first was— That, in the opinion of this House, the Returning Officers' Expenses and all other Official Charges in connection with Parliamentary Elections should be defrayed out of public funds. That in itself was a self-contained proposition, and anyone could support that without supporting the latter part of the Resolution he had placed on the Paper. But before he had done, he thought he should give such evidence in the way of figures as to show it was quite possible not only to support the first part of the Resolution, but also the latter part, and that he should be able to prove that the Returning Officers' charges could be materially reduced. He had put into his Resolution a particular form of words thad had given rise to some amount of discussion. Instead of using the words "the rates or Consolidated Fund," he had purposely put in that these charges "should be defrayed out of public funds." His reason for doing so was that upon this occasion they wanted to get a definite expression of the opinion of the House as to whether the community should bear these expenses or whether they should still remain a charge upon the candidate. There was, undoubtedly, much difference of opinion amongst Members of this House as to whether candidates should be exonerated from these charges, much difference of opinion as to where the charges should be placed, and he proposed to-night to get as strong an expression of opinion as possible from those who believed candidates should be liberated from these expenses. If they went as far as that tonight it would be quite possible, when the practical suggestion was made in the House, either by Amendment to a Bill before the House or by a separate measure, for the House to express an opinion whether the expense should be put on the Consolidated Fund or the rates. That could be done in the form of an Amendment to a Bill or a separate measure, and if the Consolidated Fund were included in the measure the House would have the power of saying in what quarter the charge should be placed. So far as he was concerned to-night, what he desired was that he should have the support of the House in definitely stating—he hoped by no small majority—that the person who was charged by his fellows, whatever his social position might be, to represent them in this House should not have a burden put upon him or his friends in the way of penal charges. The second portion of his Resolution was— That a material reduction is possible in the present scale of charges allowed under 'The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Expenses) Act, 1875.' When he came to deal with this part of the Resolution he would be able to show that the scale of charges was far too high. Dealing with the first part of the Resolution they would find that for a considerable period of time there was no very definite notion as to what the distinct charges were that could be inflicted upon the candidates, or what was the distinct opinion of the Returning Officer. But after the Ballot Act it was found necessary to move in the direction of fixing these charges, and the task was taken in hand by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James). While he might have to criticise the Act of 1875 he wished to pay his tribute of praise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the good work he then did; and though he differed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the result, he still thought it was a useful work to bring the charges within a definite scope. The principle, even then, of the official expenses being removed from the candidate and placed on the back of the community was advocated in this House, when the right hon. Gentleman—who at that time represented one of the boroughs of London—the late Mr. Fawcett challenged the position he (Mr. Rowlands) was challenging to-night, and on going into Committee on the 6th of April, 1875, moved— That no measure dealing with the expenses of Returning Officers is likely to reduce those expenses which does not interest the constituencies in economy by relieving the candidates of the charge. That, so far as he could ascertain, was the last definite discussion on this question raised as a distinct issue, and it was very interesting to turn back to the De-hate that took place on Mr. Fawcett's Amendment and see the line of argument taken by the opponents of the proposition, and from that they could judge whether during the last 20 years they had made any advance towards the settlement of the proposition contained in his Resolution. He found there was a very wide difference of opinion in the House with regard to the proposition of Mr. Fawcett. One interesting fact was that at that time the support which Mr. Fawcett received did not come entirely from the side of the House on which he sat, but from various portions of the House. But possibly the most interesting kind of argument used against Mr. Fawcett was that used by Mr. Yorke, then Member for Gloucester, who said— He did not attribute much importance to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney with reference to the increasing difficulty of obtaining candidates for seats in that House, as there was always a sufficient number hovering about the gates of that paradise who, whenever the opportunity occurred, were ready to go down and pay a handsome sum for the chance of obtaining the privilege. That was a very fair statement of the plutocrat position, as though the whole thing to be considered was not whether a Representative had the ability to represent his constituents with honour to himself and credit to the constituency, but whether he happily possessed a banking account sufficiently large to allow him to have a little sport when he thought he would like to contest a constituency. He did not think they would hear much of that sort of argument to-night. If they were to have any, he wished to say at once that those of them who supported this Resolution to-night did not specially support it because they thought that perhaps those who were known as working class candidates should be increased in the House. They believed that would be good, but they also admitted there were many men who could do credit to the nation whose means were comparatively limited, who were able to give their time, energy, and intelligence to conducting the work of the nation, but still they ought not to be charged with one halfpenny more than was necessary. He did not know that it was necessary to deal any further with the criticisms of the other side. The then Solicitor General, Sir John Holker, was afraid someone might be inflicted with a share of the charge without having the chance of voting for the identical man he would prefer as his Representative. Until every elector could have a Member for himself they must vote for the one nearest to their own standard. But the real position was put in 1875 by Mr. Fawcett in as strong a light as it was possible for anyone to put it. Mr. Fawcett said— Nothing would be more likely to weaken or destroy the efficiency of Representative Institutions in this country than if an impression were to gain currency that the House maintained laws which placed obstacles in the way of poor men obtaining a seat in Parliament. And Mr. Fawcett used those words in their very widest sense. The result of that Motion was that it was defeated by a majority of 104—ayes 150, noes 46. He did not think they would meet with that result to-night. He thought they should pay a tribute of praise to Mr. Fawcett as one of the pioneers who raised this question 20 years ago in this House. It was not generally known, excepting by those who had taken the trouble to look up the records on this question, that the House had given its consent to the principle contained in his Resolution. In 1886 a Bill was brought into this House, he believed by the hon. Member for Westimeath as representing his Party, and it had, peculiarly enough, the object of breaking down the official expenses, which looked in the direction of the second part of his proposition. Before that Bill was passed it was amended, and it was so amended that the candidates were relieved of their official expenses so far as Ireland was concerned. That Bill went to another place, and like many other Bills that had left this House and gone to another place, it was not in its entirety—in regard to those provisions—upon the Statute Book of the country at the present time. Another feature of this Bill was one he supposed he was expected to make some remarks upon to-night. The Bill dealt with what were known as bogus candidates; that was, gentlemen who were supposed to put up for constituencies, not with the object of being returned, but for the purpose of annoying those who were undoubtedly the representatives of the feeling of the constituency. It might be said, "Supposing this Motion is carried this evening, what do you propose with regard to bogus candidates? Are you going to allow that state of things to exist under the new conditions, that any person can go just for amusement, or advertisement or otherwise, and put himself up for a Party candidate without expense, and get that cheap notoriety they desire?" He admitted that was a question that ought to be very frankly met, and he was prepared to meet it very frankly indeed. Personally, it did not exhibit any difficulties to himself because he was a believer in second ballots, and with a second ballot he thought the atmosphere would be very much cleared. There might, if necessary, be this further provision: that no person should be accepted as an official candidate unless requisitioned by a certain percentage of the electors, or they might introduce the drastic proposal of the Nationalist Member who brought in the Bill of 1886— namely, that if a candidate did not poll a certain percentage of the electorate he should be mulcted in the expenses that were caused thereby. Personally, he preferred the second ballot to any other method, and he thought that would meet the difficulty. The real position with regard to Parliamentary candidates came to this, and he threw the onus of proof on anyone who might oppose his Resolution. Why should any candidate for Parliamentary honours be placed in an exceptional condition to the candidates for all municipal or local honours? At the present time the candidates for the County Council, the Municipal Couucil, the School Board, or any other of the local offices, were not asked to defray the official expenses in connection with the election; and in 1888, when they were passing the Local Government measure for England and Wales, no one thought of raising the question as to whether or not the candidates under this new system of government should pay the official expenses. It was at once assumed as a matter of course that these expenses would be defrayed by the community. The same thing applied to the measure at the end of last year and the beginning of this, which extended this local life to rural England. No one then thought of raising the point that the candidate should be mulcted in the expenses, and he therefore said that any person who opposed this Motion should give definite and distinct reasons for so doing. A person who was elected to Parliament was elected not simply to satisfy his own vanity or his own ambition, but to do something for the benefit of his fellows. He hoped and believed a person was elected for the good of the common weal, and for taking that position he ought to be exonerated from these charges. Let them consider the position of affairs. He happened to sit for the division of East Finsbury, and he had to pay his own official expenses. For the County Council he had as a col- league the Prime Minister of the country, who sat for East Finsbury. He (Mr. Rowlands) was elected as a Member of Parliament in July, the Prime Minister was elected in March, and he paid his own official expenses, whilst the Prime Minister did not have to pay his. As a Loudon County Councillor they had the Duke of Norfolk, whose official expenses were paid. Then, on the London County Council they had as a Member the right hon. Gentleman who sat for the London University (Sir J. Lubbock), and he (Mr. Rowlands) would like to know if anyone could demonstrate what was the difference in the right hon. Gentleman's position when he sat in this House and when he sat in Spring Gardens? For his seat in Parliament the right hon. Gentleman had to pay his official expenses, but as a London County Councillor he did not have to pay them; and he should like to know if some psychological change took place, so that the right hon. Gentleman was not as good a man at Spring Gardens as he was in this House? Many other hon. Members had dual positions in London, and he did not know that they were worse at Spring Gardens than they were in this House, because in the one case they had paid their official expenses, and in the other case they had not. In London be thought they illustrated the utter absurdity of the present position of things. Before passing from this phase of the question it would not be right to ignore the remarks of the Prime Minister at Birmingham two days ago, and he was pleased to quote them. On that occasion his Lordship informed his audience— I may say, on behalf of the Government, that we will welcome any opportunity of giving effect to that provision, whenever and by whomsoever it may be proposed, with all its necessary consequences. He was pleased that the noble Lord anticipated his Motion in the way he did. He wished only to detain the House for a short time on the second portion of the Resolution, and he thought he should be able to demonstrate that here it was possible to reduce these expenses very materially. Let him draw attention to the gross cost of the official expenses of the Returning Officers in the United Kingdom respectively in the years 1885, 1886, and 1892. He merely "wished to trouble the House with these figures, because a very important lesson might be drawn from them. The total charges for England and Wales in 1885 were £175,014; in 1886 they were £109,052; and in 1892 they were £154,165. In Scotland, during the same periods, they were respectively £30,160, £16,896, and £17,855. In Ireland in the same years they were £30,731, £12,988, and £25,520. He proposed to leave 1886 out of the comparison, because then the election was fought under exceptional circumstances, and there were a large number of non-contested seats. Taking the years 1885 and 1892, they found that the expenses which, in England and Wales in 1885 were £175,000, swung back to £154,000 in 1892. In Scotland the expenses, which were £30,000 in 1885, went down to £16,000 in 1886, and went back to over £17,000 in 1892. The moral of that was, so far as he could ascertain, that the Scotch people availed themselves of the advantages they had of taxing the Returning Officers' expenses. They did it so effectually that the result was that in 1892 it was possible to fight a General Election in Scotland upon almost half the cost of the fight that took place in 1885, whereas in England and Wales they got almost back to the old figures of 1885. And in Ireland they got back to £25,000 in 1892. He had taken the trouble to go still further with regard to these figures, and had taken out some of the divisions of Scotland. He would not trouble the House with the list he had prepared; but after going carefully through them he found that in Scotland, if they went through the detailed expenses allowed, they showed in the constituencies in Scotland the charge under each particular head was vastly different in 1892 to what it was in 1885. He would take one or two cases at random, for the same thing went through them all. In East Aberdeen the cost in 1885 was £700, in 1892 it was £556. In West Aberdeen there was a still greater discrepancy, for in 1885 the cost was £697, whilst in 1892 it was £393. So he could go on through the whole list, which was taken at random from the Parliamentary Return. It might be said possibly there were more uncontested elections in Scotland in 1892 than there were in 1885. Peculiarly enough it was just the reverse, because while there were five uncontested seats in Scotland in 1885 the two Universities were the only constituencies that were uncontested in 1892. That was a practical illustration of what could be done in regard to the reduction of official expenses, and without interfering with the proper conduct of the election. Turning to the two elections in the Metropolis in 1892—in March that for the County Council and in July the Parliamentary—and comparing the cost, he found it was as follows: In 1892 there were in the Metropolis County Council and Parliamentary elections. The County Council elections cost in official expenses £8,940 and the Parliamentary elections £14,055, a difference of £5,115 for identically the same work. The polling stations, the Presiding Officers, and the polling clerks were the same in both; and the Registers were practically the same, the lodgers in one counterbalancing the women voters in the other. There were five County Council elections uncontested and four Parliamentary elections, the same Returning Officer being employed with regard to each set of circumstances. In the City the items were—County Council election, £364; Parliamentary, £732; difference £368, or, roughly, double in the one case what it was in the other. In Dulwich, County Council, £215; Parliamentary, £331; difference £116; in Poplar County Council election, £160; Parliamentary, £265; difference £105. Here they had no mere theoretical statement that it was possible to reduce materially the Returning Officers' expenses, but they had the actual evidence that it was done in the same year in London, with the same Returning Officers and upon the same Register. In face of such circumstances how could the existing Schedule be justified? In the Schedule of 1875 the first item was, "Preparing and publishing notice of election (county and boroughs), £2 2s." He was informed that Judge Collier, of the Liverpool County Court in 1885, on the taxation of costs of several divisions, allowed 2s. 6d., and stated that that was good payment for filling such a form, and he was at first only inclined to allow 1s. And yet there was a maximum for doing this work of two guineas. The word "maximum" was a blessed word in the ears of the Returning Officers. When they had fixed a maximum the mercury soon began to rise until it got very near it. Again, turning to the Schedule, there was a notice of election for which one guinea was allowed. He held in his hand a printed list of all the docu- ments supplied by Knight & Co., and he found they could buy these very notices at the rate of 6s. per 100 ! Nomination papers they could buy at the rate of 3s. per quire, and so on with item after item. With reference to ballot boxes, he would mention that in 1885, when the Parliamentary elections came on, they had in his division just had the School Board elections, and he went to see if they could not get hold of the same ballot boxes as had been used for the latter elections and hire them for the Parliamentary elections at a maximum charge of 5s. each. The Returning Officer, however, said they had disappeared and could not be found, so that they had to buy new ballot boxes, and every candidate knew he had a right to take them home with him if he liked. Then, again, they had to pay for "stations," and hon. Members knew at what a trifling cost stations were made in some parts of the country. Besides the price list he had got from Messrs. Knight, he had also taken the trouble to obtain an estimate from a leading firm of printers of what they would print ballot papers for. In the Schedule the Returning Officer was allowed 30s. per 1,000, but this leading firm of printers—a "Society" house—estimated to supply them at the rate of 10,000 for £3 5s. That was, by illustration, the whole position with regard to the charges in the Schedule. He did not criticise that Schedule except in so far as he thought the charges could be reduced in the direction he had indicated. He thought the time had come when they should have a practical system of conducting elections. They had increased the number of elections throughout the country by their Parliamentary action within the last few months, and why should they not now deal with this question in a rational manner? Let there be some central authority—say the rate collecting authority—which should supply itself with a proper set of machinery for conducting elections, keep this machinery in repair, and hold it until it was required for the purpose of some election, when a moderate sum could be paid for the user of such machinery. He thought he had proved that there was ground for a material alteration and reduction in the present scale of expenses. These charges, he contended, ought to be placed on the public and not on the candidates. He felt very strongly that in broadening their Representative Institutions they ought to continue their work until they had made it perfect. They ought to have the doors of this House open to any man who won the confidence of his fellows; the only credential he ought to have for entering that House was that he had won the suffrage of those who believed he had come there to do their work according to his conscience and to devote his time and energy to their good and well-being. He begged to move his Resolution.

MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)

seconded the Motion. It was, he said, by no means a Party Motion. It was a Motion in which men holding very different political views might join if they thought it right that the State of the country should pay the expenses of these elections. The condition of things in this House had very much changed within the last few years. Hon. Members had to be in much closer attendance in Committees and in other ways than in former times, and therefore it became more or less a tax upon every Member in this House which was not so much felt some years ago. This very condition of things rendered it necessary to be in constant attendance daily, and consequently the poorer a man might be the less would he be able to bear the strain that was thus thrust upon him. He echoed the words of his hon. Friend, that they were not there for private ends. They were there to do the work of the public, and it did seem a strange thing they should be taxed from beginning to end in order to be permitted to do it. Of course, it was all very well for a certain type of politician, with which they were tolerably familiar—those who were aspirants for place and office—needy lawyers seeking work and emoluments, and that other class whose political services were rendered to Party with the off chance of a baronetcy or peerage. But the majority of Members of this House could not rightfully aspire to either of these positions, but must be the working bees. Recently there had been expressed a sentiment all over the country and also in this House that there should be more working men in Parliament, and in order that there should be a larger number of working men in Parliament, the majority outside seemed to him to advocate the payment of Members, and many in this House seemed to hold the same opinion. But payment of Members was a very small thing compared with the tax by the election expenses on every candidate who aspired to enter this House. He had heard some hon. Members say that, even supposing there were payment of Members, it would only enable them to spend a little more in the constituency, and under such circumstances the poor man would be at a greater disadvantage still. But, without going into the matter, there was the fact that they were met with the initial difficulty that, before a man could come into the House of Commons, he must pay the election expenses when he had been selected as candidate by a constituency. It had been his fortune, good or bad, to fight many elections. He began his in 1868, when he had to fight two of the wealthiest men in England, and even with all their wealth he came very near to being second on the poll, being kept out only by the Tories and Liberals coalescing and dividing the votes. That was obviated now, but from that day to this there had always been before one's eyes the difficulty for a poor man of finding the necessary expenses for an election. They were still further handicapped not only by the election expenses, but by having to keep up the Register from year to year. flow hon. Members could oppose this Motion and yet say they were in favour of labour representation he could not conceive. Although the property qualification for Members of Parliament, in the old sense, had been abolished, the election expenses constituted a property qualification just as much as the old property qualification by law. He thought the time had come when the majority of the nation had got rid of the notion that mere money—mere wealth— should be a qualification for a seat in the House. But although in sentiment they believed that money ought not to prevail over every other qualification, nevertheless they went on in the same old way, welcoming the "money-bag," however made, whether by Company promoting or Company rigging, or anything of that sort. Never mind how it was made; so long as a man had money it was "Open, Sesame!" to him in many of their constituencies, and so into this House. If they were honest in their belief that there should be room for more working men, let them at once remove the difficulty in their path, in order that merit, capacity, ability for work and industry should find its proper place in this House. The Resolution expressed no opinion as to whether the payment for the election expenses should come out of the local rates or out of the Consolidated Fund, and he, for his part, was quite willing to leave it to the Government to take the best course they could in framing a measure for the purpose. He agreed with his hon. Friend, that the necessary machinery for these various elections should be obtained and handed over to some Central Authority, and once purchased there would be very little expense in keeping it up, the only cost that would have to be borne being the necessary printing, which would be very trifling indeed. He hoped hon. Members would unite in urging the Government to accept the Motion, and that at an early day they might find election expenses put upon the proper shoulders and the candidates relieved as they ought to be.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words-— In the opinion of this House, the Returning Officers' expenses and all other Official Charges in connection with Parliamentary Elections should be defrayed out of public funds, and that a material reduction is possible in the present scale of charges allowed under 'The Parliamentary Election (Returning Officers') Expenses Act, 1875.' "—(Mr. J. Rowlands.)

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

MR. CAINE (Bradford, E.)

said that, as far as he was personally concerned, the question was whether at the next Election he should have to pay £150 to a Returning Officer or whether each elector of East Bradford should pay l½d. On the whole, he preferred that each elector should pay l½d. He was certain that if there were a ballot taken in a full House upon the question there would not be a single "No" against it. During a pretty well-assorted experience of electioneering he had had to pay about £2,500 to different Returning Officers in the nine contested elections he had gone through. His experience of boroughs was very much better than that of coun- ties, for he had little hesitation in saying that the average Returning Officer or Under Sheriff in a county constituency was little better than a harpy. In 1885 he contested the Tottenham Division of Middlesex—one of the largest divisions in the United Kingdom. He did not know who the Sheriff was, but he had a lively recollection of the Under Sheriff—Mr. Wynne E. Baxter—who had charge of the three divisions of Tottenham, Enfield, and Hornsey. According to law this gentleman was bound to do the very best he could for the candidates to whom he was responsible; to expend the smallest amount of money practicable in providing what was necessary for the machinery of the election. The Act, unfortunately, laid down a maximum, and this gentleman ingeniously charged each division the full maximum allowed by law, using the same machinery in each case, with, of course, the exception of printing. He charged him (Mr. Caine) and his opponent a good round sum for ballot boxes; then he sold the same boxes to Hornsey, and afterwards resold them again to Enfield, making a handsome profit in each instance. In one case he hired from the Guildhall a set of fittings kept in stock for all kinds of elections. He paid one guinea for the use of those fittings and charged him, as Liberal candidate, £52 10s. But this gentleman was not content with that, for, having made all these various charges, he took care to send in his account just the day before that on which the account of the election expenses had to be returned. The consequence was, that only three courses were open—to pay and say nothing, to return the account as disputed, or else to have it taxed. Having, after some difficulty, persuaded his opponent to take the matter into the County Court in order to have the account taxed, they asked for vouchers, and the only voucher Mr. Baxter produced was a voucher signed for the full amount by a firm called Baxter & Co., advertising agents. Investigation showed that Baxter & Co. was nothing but Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, who had created himself into a firm for the purpose of supplying the Sheriff with the necessary machinery of the elections. He produced a receipt for the full amount "as agreed," giving no details whatever, and this he had the impudence to tender in Court as a complete voucher for the enormous amount of money which he had overcharged the candidates. On being pressed he was compelled to admit that "Baxter & Co." was no other than himself. The fact was brought out that Mr. Baxter, as Under Sheriff and solicitor, must have advised the Sheriff to make an agreement to pay Baxter, as advertising agent, double the legal maximum. There was a charge of £48 for professional services. On inquiry it was brought out that these professional services were for "advising the Sheriff in the conduct of the election." So that the House would see that he as candidate was called upon to pay his share of the £48 to this person for advising the Sheriff to enter into a contract with Baxter himself, on the pretext of his being an advertising agent. The Registrar of the County Court before whom the matter came characterised the document as a bogus voucher, and the result was that the Returning Officer's charges were cut down by some £670, and he was made to pay the costs besides. He could assure the House that the cheque he received in respect of the over-payments he had been compelled to make to the Returning Officer was the sweetest bit of money he had ever put into his pocket. All that he could say was that he now regretted that when he was asked to pay such outrageous charges he had not proceeded against the Under Sheriff and sued him for the penalty of £500 for extortion. In his opinion, it was quite time that the House should decide that it was the duty of the constituencies to find the money for the necessary expenses for sending their Representatives to the House, as well as they had to defray the expenses of returning Members of County Councils, School Boards, and other Representative Bodies. With regard to the charge that would be thrown upon the country if this proposal were carried into effect, it would not amount to more than five-eighths of a penny per elector per annum. He hoped that the House would carry the proposal by an overwhelming majority, or even without a Division, and he was satisfied that if that were the case the Government would be heartily supported by all sections of the House if they brought in a measure dealing with the subject during the present Session.

* SIR H. JAMES (Bury, Lancashire)

said, he thought that the House would not deem it unnatural for him to take some interest in the question raised by the Amendment. The hon. Member for East Finsbury had said that, speaking generally, the efforts made in 1875 to mitigate an existing grievance had not proceeded far enough. If his hon. Friend was aware of the feelings and prejudices that had to be combated in 1875 he would not disparage the efforts made on that occasion. In those old days very heavy charges were made against a candidate, as the right of the Returning Officer to make such charges was almost unlimited. No matter how preposterous the charges might be, the candidate was always advised to pay them, as otherwise he would make himself extremely unpopular in the constituency. He recollected well that in 1875 there was a strong feeling in the House in favour of those over charges. Members who supported the Bill were subjected even to personal abuse, and it was charged against them that they were men of narrow spirit, who were trying to deprive the Returning Officers of their vested interests in elections. But time had progressed since then in many ways, and they had learned a great deal. He was not about to oppose the proposal that had been made for revision of the Act of 1875; on the contrary, he welcomed and supported it. He would remind the House that the Motion involved two questions. The first, and far the more important one, was on whom in the future would the charges of the Returning Officers fall? When the subject of the payment of election expenses out of the rates was brought forward in 1872 he, with his right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—they were young politicians then—opposed that proposal, and told in the Division which resulted in its defeat. But times had changed, and he had altered his opinion. He did not say he was wrong in 1875, but he thought he was right now in thinking that the Returning Officer's expenses should be paid by some Public Body instead of by the individual candidate. It was objected in 1872 that if this were done a great number of bogus candidates would come forward; but, in his opinion, the enlightened public feeling of the present day would easily put down bogus candidatures. The question, however, was upon whom the burden paying these expenses was to fall. His hon. Friend spoke of putting the burden upon the Consolidated Fund, but he protested against that. If the burden were to be removed it ought to be cast upon the locality, and not upon the Consolidated Fund. Where were they to find the public opinion that would be a check against bogus candidates and excessive expenditure if they once threw the burden upon the Consolidated Fund? If the expenses came out of the Consolidated Fund, a great many people would welcome a contested election. There would be a large number of people always willing that the expenditure should be incurred if they could throw the burden upon the general taxpayers, who would know nothing and care nothing about it. Such people would say—"We will get the benefit of the expenditure in the constituency of money which will be provided by general taxpayers. "If, however, Parliament were to say to the locality," You will have to pay the expenses of a contested election, "then the ratepayers, while not objecting to a fair, healthy contest, would not tolerate a sham election. If they removed the burden from candidates, they would be, to a certain extent, opening the ports into which any candidates could enter. But, if they made the constituencies responsible for the costs, the constituents would themselves look after those who sought to enter by the ports, and an impostor would have no chance of success if he became a candidate in a constituency. In making the constituencies bear the cost of their elections would lie the real check against false candidates. He thought he was right in saying that both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian and the late Mr. Fawcett had expressed the opinion that if a change were made— and they thought it ought to be made— the burden of election expenses should be cast upon the local and not upon Imperial taxation. If the Consolidated Fund were made to bear the burden, there would be no one to care about economy. If, on the other hand, each locality were made to pay its own election expenses, everybody in the locality would take an interest in the expenditure and would protest against any excess, and would demand that the election expenses be kept within narrow limits. His hon. Friend the Member for Bradford had referred to charges for professional advice. He would point out that if the cost of the election expenses were thrown upon the local rates, the locality would prevent any undue sum being paid to any legal adviser. The ratepayers would say to the Town Clerk—"You must advise the Mayor as the Returning Officer at elections just as you advise him at other times. "But they would not say that if the burden were thrown on the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, while he hoped the Resolution would be carried, the arrangement should be to throw the burden upon the localities themselves. The matter was governed by the common-sense view that those who were in a position to check and were interested in checking the expenditure should bear the burden. If this were done, he did not think they need much mind what charges were set out in the Schedule. If the locality had to pay, the people of the locality would take care that they did not pay too much; and the Returning Officer would not dare to go to the ratepayers and charge them more than he ought to charge them. The Member for Bradford had given the House his reminiscences of a Returning Officer, and he was bound to say that he thought the hon. Member had carried Parliamentary criticism to its utmost limits in the charges which he brought again the Returning Officer in question. If those charges were accurately stated, they did not fairly represent the general state of affairs throughout the country. Still, however, he was of opinion that heavy burdens were cast upon candidates, and that those burdens ought to be and could be lessened. Twenty years ago it was necessary to go by steps and to make concessions in order to carry any Bill at all; but he was satisfied that the maximum charges allowed gave a substantial profit on the expenditure to the Returning Officers. This was a state of things that ought not be allowed to exist. If the House took the course of throwing the expenses on the localities it need not care about the items; but so long as they were to be paid by candidates the items were of importance. If the present arrangement was to be continued, a Bill ought to be introduced and referred to a Select Committee to settle what would be deemed fair charges with our present knowledge and experience; and it was probable that 30 per cent. could safely be taken off the present maximum charge. He thanked the hon. Member behind him for having introduced the matter to the House.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,) Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Perhaps it would be as well if at this comparatively early stage of the Debate I state the views of Her Majesty's Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bury has perhaps a greater right than any other Member to speak upon the subject, because he has by persistent action from 1875 onwards identified himself in a peculiar way with the purification of the various methods by which seats are obtained in this House; and I rejoice that my right hon. Friend has taken the view he has just expressed. The Mover of the Amendment stated his case with great moderation, temperance, and force, though one would wish that he had dealt more with the main objection to throwing the expenses on the public funds— namely, that it would multiply candidates, as to which I will say a few words before I sit down. The important part of the Amendment is the proposal that the official expenses of Parliamentary elections should be cast, as are the expenses of municipal and School Board elections, upon public funds. The question is upon what public funds the charges should be cast; and the view of the Government is that they should be cast upon the locality. Of course, if one thought merely of a popular cry, there is a great deal to be said for casting them upon the Consolidated Fund, because I am afraid that the popular idea of the Consolidated Fund is that it is fed Heaven only knows how, and it is not recognised that it is fed by taxpayers. The extravagance that would result from throwing these charges upon an Imperial fund has been well described by my right hon. Friend, and that is the view of the difficulty taken by Her Majesty's Government. We think it might be no improvement, but possibly a move in the wrong direction, to cast these charges upon that abstraction, the Consolidated Fund. The arguments against that cause are surely conclusive. It is not probable that expenses would be reduced unless the locality is interested in economy; and what those expenses mean has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Bradford in his vigorous and spirited speech, with its illustrations, privileged and otherwise. Then the argument that the payment of the expenses out of a public fund would lead to a multiplication of candidates is more effectually answered if it is the locality itself that has to bear the burden. In the opinion of the Government, the Resolution does not say any more than the truth when it asks the House to affirm that a material reduction of the charges is possible; but in our view that reduction is only possible upon the condition that the localities are interested by having to bear the burden of their own extravagance, and by having the supervision of the whole expenditure. The apprehended evil of a possible multiplication of candidates is no doubt a possible evil. If no expenses are thrown upon candidates it. may be that bogus candidates will spring up. The Mover of the Amendment seemed to be in favour of checking that danger by not exempting a candidate from a share of the expenses unless he stood upon a requisition signed by a certain number or proportion of electors.

* MR. J. ROWLANDS

I only put that forward as one of the suggested means; but I did not particularly endorse it.

MR. J. MORLEY

I know. The second ballot has also been mentioned. There is something to be said for requiring a requisition with a certain number of names upon it, but there is much more to be said against it. What does this requisition mean? It means that the voters must place their names on the paper, so that the secrecy of the Ballot would be violated, and the independence of the voters at an end. I think that the preparation of these requisitions will be by no means an inexpensive process, and that there are other objections which do not render this plan a very effective one in order to gain the end sought. A much preferable plan would be that every candidate who did not poll a certain proportion of votes at the election should not be exempt from some portion of the charges. The question of a second ballot is one that assumes more and more importance every day. I must remind the House that in 1882 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean brought in and carried a Bill to amend the law relating to Parliamentary elections by providing for a second election in certain cases.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

In what year was that?

MR. J. MORLEY

That was in 1882. That Bill was carried, I find, by a majority of two—there being 87 votes against 85—with the assent of the Government of the day. The House assented by a small majority to the proposal to throw the expenses on the rates, but I must admit that there was some difference of opinion as to whether a second election was or was not necessary. The noble Lord voted against the Bill. But the question of the second ballot is, as I have said, one of growing importance. I used, for my own part, to believe that there was a formidable danger that under the operation of a second ballot this House would be split up into groups and sections instead of retaining the two or three broad lines which distinguish the Parties of which it is composed, and I must admit that it is in the case of foreign Parliaments where the second ballot obtains that this system of groups and sections has arisen; but in spite of what happens under foreign constitutional systems, the introduction of the second ballot would not, I think, produce the same results here under our different conditions. I would like to point out what the amount of the charge is which would fall upon the rates if the system were adopted. I know that some hon. Members are alarmed at the idea that there should be any material addition to the rates. No doubt much of the old aversion to and alarm at increased Imperial taxation has been transferred to local rates. My answer to that is that you should look at the maximum of the rate. That sum has been stated earlier in the Debate to be likely to amount to one-eighth of a farthing in the £1 of rateable value in each year. Some hon. Gentleman who has spoken to-night has said that we have an election upon an average once in four years. Since 1885 that average has been reduced, but, taking the average annual rate at one-eighth of a farthing in the £1, if an election occurred once in four years this would mean a charge of half a farthing for the year of the election. The hon. Member for Bradford said that in his case the amount would be five-eighths of a penny. I believe that would be correct, but I would adhere to the statement that generally it would not exceed half a farthing in the £1 on the rates.

MR. CAINE

I meant per head, not in the £1.

MR. J. MORLEY

My figure, which I believe to be a sound one, is half a farthing in the £1 of rateable value. It would be absurd surely for hon. Members to entertain any fears as to what would be the views of constituents on a matter sound in principle at a cost to them of half a farthing in the £1 on the year of election. We all want to see that Chamber as widely representative as possible of all classes and interests. We all believe that it is in the highest degree desirable that there should be a large infusion of direct labour representation in that House. The proposal before us will not only open the doors of the House to workmen, but will facilitate the entrance of men of moderate means of all classes. The easier it becomes for Members to enter this House on their merits, and on the strength of the principles which they profess, the more lofty will become the authority of Parliament and the greater the chance of its counsels being prudent and wise. The feeling of the House is, in my opinion, pretty evident, and I do not believe that there is any material difference of opinion among us. For my part, I shall cheerfully support the proposal.

LORD R. CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

said, if ever there was a charge for which, in his opinion, there was much to be said, it was in connection with the expenses of returning Members at General Elections to the Imperial Parliament. It was the greatest object the State could achieve to get a complete representation of all classes in Parliament, whether they were Labour Representatives, Representatives of the middle classes, Representatives of literature, or science, or art, or law, or even of the landed interest; and therefore it was right that to achieve that end there should be a contribution from the Consolidated Fund. The contribution need not amount to a very large sum. With the proposal that the money should come from the rates he could not agree. The rates were already enormous. Were the Party opposite prepared to throw upon the rates of Loudon, in addition to the expenses of a double registration, the expenses of Returning Officers and other officials? What would those electors of Bury say if the right hon. and learned Gentleman who represented them were to obtain payment of his Returning Officer's expenses out of the rates? Did his right hon. and learned Friend think that in those circumstances he would have the large and overwhelming support which he had enjoyed up to this date? If there was one thing that touched a constituency more than another it was putting charges upon the rates. There was not a Member on his side of the House, he thought, who would not contemplate with a certain friendliness the idea of an Imperial contribution, but he doubted whether any Member on the same side would agree with the plan advocated by the right hon. and learned Member. Coming to the question of the amount of the rate, they found that the Chief Secretary for Ireland placed it at the fourth of a farthing in the £1.

MR. J. MORLEY

I said half a farthing in the £1 would cover it.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

said, the calculation of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was based on the gratuitous assumption that there was an election only once in four years. There were elections that came like thieves in the night—for example, the elections of 1874 and 1886—and no doubt in the future they would be more and more likely to come when least expected. How could a constituency be prepared to pay out of the rates a very considerable sum for which no provision had been made in their annual Estimate? He wondered whether the Secretary of State for India would be prepared to throw upon the local rates this extra expense. He protested as strongly as he could against the proposal to burden the rates with electoral charges. Let the candidate bear his fair burdens. Labour candidates, he hoped, were materially assisted by their friends in bearing the registration charges. It had been said that if this proposal were agreed to there would be bogus candidates, but that was the regular bogey that was always invoked when this subject was brought forward. In his opinion, there would not be bogus candidatures. If the proposal were car-Tied out desirable candidates would come forward, and that House would be far more representative than it was at the present time. The expenses of the Returning Officer, however, ought to be borne by the State and not thrown upon the rates. One mischievous proposal of which they had heard was that of proportional representation. He affirmed that the proposal for a second ballot was a far more mischievous one. He asked the House whether they were going to take their Constitution from France, or from Belgium, or from Hungary? His own answer was, no; never. But that was not a sufficient argument. He did not think that the House of Commons would adopt this plan, which was a foreign importation, to which he objected, and which would be entirely unworkable if the proposal were adopted for holding all elections on one day. He protested alike against second ballots, payment of Members, and proportional representation; but he gave his support to the suggestion that there should be a contribution out of Imperial funds towards the expenses of Returning Officers.

ADMIRAL FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne)

said, he was rather unwilling to intrude himself into the Debate, but, at the same time, he thought that the arguments of those who were opposed to this proposal ought to be laid before the House. Both the right hon. and learned Member for Bury and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary were of opinion that the expenses of the Returning Officer ought not to be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, while the noble Lord who had last spoken was of opinion that they ought not to be thrown upon the rates. In these circumstances, the matter ought to rest where it was. He admitted that, inasmuch as the election expenses of members of the County Council, of the Parish Council, of the Guardians, and of other Local Bodies were paid out of the rates, it was impossible logically to oppose this proposal. At the same time, he was in that House for the purpose of protecting the interests of his constituents, and if he voted for this proposal he should be voting in his own interests. What did Lord Derby say? That when a man entered the field of politics and sought a seat in this House, the first object he should aim at was self-sacrifice for the common good. He subscribed to that sentiment, and, acting in the spirit of it, his duty was to vote against the Motion, and to pay out of his own pocket what he was called upon to pay for Returning Officers' charges rather than that they should be placed upon the rates. If he studied himself alone, he should vote for the Motion; but, as it was his duty to study his constituents, he should vote against it. The Chief Secretary said that the rednction of expenses was only possible if the locality was called upon to bear the expense. He did not see the logic of that. The right hon. Gentleman was supposed to be master of all the logical sophistries which politicians could bring to bear in support of their views, but he did not sec how his statement could be justified when they came to analyse it. If they said reduction was only possible if the locality was called upon to bear the cost, how was it they had had no reform of these charges at the instance of the right hon. Member for Bury? The Chief Secretary said there should be an open door to men of all classes and moderate means to enter that House. They were all agreed as to that. They ought certainly to remove all obstacles to the entry of all classes of men of moderate means. The Member for Bury made an admirable speech, which pleased him very much. The right hon. Gentleman spoke against certain charges they hud all had to smart under for professional advice, but he did not tell them the reasons for putting on the particular charge for mileage under which many Members had smarted. In his Schedule the right hon. Gentleman charged 1s. per mile for travelling in county elections, the object being to pay the cost of mileage where persons had to hire horses to carry ballot boxes. He was quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman meant that where a railway admirably served the situation first-class railway fare would have been adequate, but Returning Officers charged 1s. a mile by railway although the distance was much longer by rail than by road. He knew cases where mileage had been charged to the extent of 24 miles by rail when the distance by road was only nine miles. Not only was this the case, but they had had instances of 1s. per mile being charged for the ballot box, as if it could walk, as well as 1s. to the man who carried it. Whilst he was utterly opposed to these election charges being placed on the public funds, he was in favour of the last part of the Resolution of the hon. Member for Finsbury, which stated that a material reduction was possible in the present scale of charges allowed under the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Expenses Act, 1875. Why did not the hon. Member and his friends try to get the Government to support a Bill to reform the charges under this Schedule? He objected altogether to any further charge at present being thrown upon the rates. The House, he contended, had no moral right to put a new charge on the rates until the taxpayers had been consulted upon this question, and as the question had never yet been before the constituencies it was their duty to oppose it until the electorate had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. Whatever the future might have in store for them public opinion at present was not ripe for the change; therefore, they as practical and sensible politicians were in duty bound to vote against the proposal. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green spoke of needy lawyers and others ambitious of office, but it never seemed to occur to the hon. Member that some people entered this House without ambition at all, except to spend their lives in performing useful work. He should be the last in the world to suggest that the hon. Member himself and his friends entered this House with ulterior aims, and they, on their part, should give the same credit to others. He (Admiral Field) had no ambitious aim. Oh, dear, no! his ambition had been killed long ago, thanks to the legislation of past Radical Governments. Had it not been for that legislation he should not have been there, but on salt water, performing a duty he valued much higher than this. If they passed this Motion they were practically opening the way to the payment of Members. He knew it was said that some of the Colonics had gone in for relieving candidates from all expenses and had substituted payment of Members. But he had it on good authority that the Prime Minister of New South Wales saw the error of his ways and proposed to bring in a Bill to abolish the system of payment of Members, and with the abolition of the payment of Members would go the abolition of the payment of Returning Officers' expenses. If this Motion was passed the charge must fall on the rates, and it was their duty, as moral and not immoral politicians, to vote against what would no doubt be for their own interests, but which would be detrimental to the interests of the taxpayers. He denied that wealth was considered a qualification for Members. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green had said that labour representation ought to have a larger share in that House, and he, therefore, claimed the vote of the hon. Member against the Registration Bill of the present Government, as containing proposals which would greatly increase the expenses candidates would have to pay when they stood for elections, and so bar the way to working men.

* MR. NAOROJI (Finsbury, Central)

said, that the elections for Municipalities were for the local purposes of the Municipalities, and the election of Members to this House was for national purposes. Everyone in that House was a national servant in that respect; he worked for the nation, and the nation ought to pay. He supposed that the payment of these election expenses must be made from the rates or public funds, but he understood from the Mover that his Resolution did not involve a decision on that point at all, but simply put it on the public funds, and what public funds they should be must be determined hereafter. If that was understood he was entirely in favour of the Amendment, but if it was understood that the charge was to be on the local rates be should vote against it.

* MR. NEWDIGATE (Warwickshire, Nuneaton)

would not have ventured to speak in this Debate but for the statement that had been made that there was practically no opposition to the Resolution. He ventured to think that among the Conservative Members there was a very strong opposition to it. He thought that if the expenses of Returning Officers were to be paid by the nation many bogus candidates would spring up, and as a county Member he protested most strongly against the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bury and of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that the expenses should fall upon the local rates. Hon. Members on the other side seemed to forget the enormous number of rates which land had to bear at the present time—such as the poor, highway, School Board, sanitary and police rates, Income Tax, Land Tax, tithes, and Inhabited House Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to impose fresh burdens upon land, and he (Mr. Newdigate) must protest strongly against the action of those Members of the House of Commons who would support a Resolution to make the expenses of Returning Officers in connection with Parliamentary elections fall upon the local rates.

* MR. PROVAND (Glasgow, Blackfriars)

said, that notwithstanding the remarks that had been made from the other side of the House, there had been a consensus of opinion in favour of these charges being paid by the rates, for the simple reason that if the Local Authorities had to pay them they would look closely after them, while, on the other hand, if they fell on the Imperial funds there would be no adequate supervision of the expenses. At the last General Election the cost of Returning Officers' expenses in England and Wales was £154,000, in Ireland £25,000, and in Scotland £17,000, or a total outlay for the United Kingdom of £ 196,000. There had been four General Elections during the last 14 years, equal to one every three and a-half years, making the average expenses on this head £56,000 per annum. If the Local Authorities had to meet these charges, he was not overstating the case when he said that the £56,000 would be very probably reduced to £25,000 or £30,000, say to little more than one-half that was now paid by the candidates. If it came down to the amount he indicated that would mean an annual average of £45 per constituency, and he was sure that if the whole people could be polled on the question not one in 50 would object to meet that outlay. The hon. Member alluded to the case of Scot-land, and as a few facts were worth a great deal of theory, he might mention the result of the last local and Parliamentary elections which took place in Glasgow, the two comparing exactly. For the Glasgow municipal election there were seven contested seats, and there were seven Members of Parliament for Glasgow, therefore the same number contested each election. The whole cost of the official expenses in the case of the seven Members of the Municipal Council was £893, paid by the Local Authorities, whereas the expenses of the seven Members of Parliament was £1,621, which fell on the Members. Did anyone suppose that if the Municipal Council of Glasgow had also to meet the official expenses of the Members for that city that their expenses would have been more than they were in the case of the Municipal Council? The outlay in such case would have been almost exactly the same. They had an illustra- tion of that in London. The first year the cost of the London County Council election amounted to somewhere about £14,000, but since they had fixed the scale allowed for official expenses the expenses had decreased to between £8,000 and £9,000. This was not a Party question at all, and he was glad to find from the speeches that had been delivered that evening how unanimously in favour Members on both sides of the House were of the proposal that the official expenses should in future be paid out of public funds instead of by the candidates themselves. In 1886 there was a Bill introduced by the Government to settle this question with reference to Scotland, and in Committee an Instruction was carried by three to one in favour of the rates paying these expenses. That was not included in the Bill, and when the measure came back from another place the Schedule put in in the House of Commons had been taken from it. Notwithstanding that, the Sheriff's said they would only charge the rates in the Schedule of the Bill of 1886, although it was not attached to the Bill when it became an Act, and for that reason they had since then had a reduction of the official costs of Parliamentary elections in Scotland to something like one-half what they wore before. He hoped that the House would agree to the Motion without a Division, this question not being in any sense a Party one.

MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

said, he entirely disagreed with the Resolution in whatever light it might be read—whether in the light the proposer had placed upon it or in that of the Chief Secretary. He entirely agreed that increased facilities should be given working men to enter this House, that the possession of wealth pure and simple should not be in itself in any way a special assistance to enter Parliament, and he also agreed that the official costs attendant on election ought to be, and he believed might be, considerably reduced. But he objected to the Motion, because they were only dealing with an infinitesimal portion of the costs attendant on election or the work of getting into this House. If their real object was to facilitate getting into this House on the part of those not well off they should do it by facing the question boldly, and not merely by charging on the Imperial Exchequer or local rates a portion of the expenditure, but by freeing candidates altogether from expenditure except with regard to personal expenditure. He submitted with confidence it was a mere farce to suggest they were going to facilitate working men becoming Members of this House by casting on the Imperial Exchequer or the local rates the Returning Officers' expenditure when the very Minister who had responded for the Government that night was himself responsible for a Bill which would unquestionably have this effect— that those men who were anxious to see that their constituencies were properly looked after would have to spend much more money in the future than they had done in the past therefore, ho said that to advance the Resolution on the score that they were helping working men to become Members of Parliament was to put the fact in by no means the light in which it ought to be presented. But he asked the House, before coming to any decision, to make up their minds what it was they were going to vote upon. The main part of the Resolution said that these expenses of the Returning Officers should be paid out of some fund other than those possessed by the candidate himself. The Resolution said distinctly that they should be defrayed out of public funds. What he wanted to ask the House was, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, did they regard local rates as public funds? [An hon. MEMBER: Yes.] They did. Then he submitted that if the proposer of the Resolution meant that these expenses should be paid out of the local rates he should have said so, and put it plainly in the Resolution. When he saw the Resolution, he inquired what were the proposals in this regard, and he was informed—not by the Mover, but by another hon. Member—that the proposal was to throw it upon the public funds. For his part, he believed that was only trifling with the question, but against it he had not the same objection as he had to any proposal to throw these expenses of Imperial elections upon local rates. He submitted that the average of the General Election was not a fair test to apply if the cost were to be thrown on the local rates. In the Cirencester Division of the County of Gloucester, for instance, his constituency had been put to the trouble of three elections in as many months, for no reasons which they could control. Was it fair that a constituency should be exposed to the risk of having to pay all those expenses? The House had a right to know whether the Government was definitely of opinion that these election expenses ought to be thrown on the local rates or paid out of Imperial funds, or whether they left the question open. He objected to the expenditure being thrown on Imperial funds, and did not believe that there was any demand for it. He did not think that even if the Imperial funds were made liable the deficiency would be made or the risks would be obviated; but that plan was not open to the same objections as the plan of making the rates liable. Hon. Members seemed to forget the professions they had made so loudly outside the Ho use in favour of the ratepayers, to whom they extended so much sympathy. This was not a question whether the amount of the charges would be large or small, but whether the ratepayers were in a condition at the present time to bear extra burdens. After hon. Members had just been made acquainted with the deplorable condition of Essex, could they believe that that or any other agricultural county was in a position to bear any additional burden, however slight? He should certainly vote against any proposal which would still further increase the local rates.

* MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, the Mover of the Resolution had put the matter before the House in a very frank spirit. He had told them what was intended was to reduce the burden of expenses in connection with Parliamentary elections, and to place the Returning Officer's expenses on Public Funds, but he was willing to leave the question of the fund to be charged with election expenses open. Personally, he did not consider himself in any way pledged by anything said by the right hon. Member for Bury or by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He believed that the expenses ought to come out of Imperial funds, because Parliamentary elections were national elections, and the nation had as much obligation to bear the cost of them as boroughs had to defray the cost of municipal elections. Each ward of a borough had not to bear the cost of an election in that ward, but it was borne by the borough as a whole. Again, why should a constituency bear the cost of a re-election forced upon it by its Member accept- ing office in the Government? That was a strong point. At the same time, he could not get over the speech of the right hon. Member for Bury, and he wished to preserve an entirely open mind as to the fund out of which the expenses should ultimately come.

MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

said, the Mover of the Resolution, like himself, represented an East End constituency. East End constituencies differed from others in this respect: they did not contain wealthy politicians who gave subscriptions to defray or reduce a candidate's expenses; and Members for East End constituencies knew that they dare not face their constituents with the proposal that their election expenses should be paid out of the rates. He felt it his duty, as representing an East London constituency, to protest against an increase of taxation in these poor localities, whose burdens were already so heavy by reason of County Council and School Board rates. ["Oh, oh !"] It was all very well for hon. Members to jeer at poor people, but the increased taxation that would be imposed upon them if these expenses were thrown upon the rates was more than they could possibly bear. He should have had no objection if the hon. Member for Finsbury had worded his Resolution that Parliamentary expenses should come out of the Consolidated Fund, but he had unfortunately left it an open question whether the expenditure must be met from that source or out of the ratepayers' pockets. He maintained that every Member of that House should do all in his power to prevent an increase of the rates by any such proposal; and, as representing an East End constituency, he must enter his emphatic protest against it. He should certainly vote against any proposition that the expenses of Parliamentary candidates should be thrown upon the rates. Would the hon. Member answer the plain question, whether he intended those expenses to come out of the rates or out of the Consolidated Fund?

* MR. J. ROWLANDS

said, the hon. Member would have heard it all if he had been present earlier, for it had all been distinctly stated in his opening speech.

MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON

could only say that if the hon. Member stated frankly that he intended the expenses to be borne by the Consolidated Fund, he had no objection whatever, and would vote with him. If the Resolution were to be construed otherwise he should vote against it.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 166.—(Division List, No. 59.)

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the Returning Officers' Expenses and all other Official Charges in connection with Parliamentary Elections should be defrayed out of public funds, and that a material reduction is possible in the present scale of charges allowed under "The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Expenses) Act, 1875.