HC Deb 27 March 1908 vol 186 cc1747-56

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. MARNHAM (Surrey, Chertsey) moved the second reading of this Bill, the object of which he explained to be the removal of the present disqualification of electors who, in times of local distress accepted work in the labour yard of a union or in places where able-bodied male paupers might be set to work in a union, the cost of which was provided out of the poor-rate. The fortunes of the ballot in 1906 enabled him to introduce this Bill, but as it happened to be the second Order the House was not able to come to a decision upon it. To-day he found himself in the same position, but having regard to the fact that it was discussed for some time in 1906 in the House he hoped that on this occasion hon. Members would be willing to assent to the principle of the Bill. The objects of the Bill were clearly set forth in the preamble. He thought he might claim that this was not in any sense a party measure, for it had been drafted on the lines of the Medical Relief Act. The Medical Relief Act was passed in 1885 to do away with the disfranchisement of working men who lost their votes if at any time they had received medical relief of any sort. Thy Bill set out that those men might receive medical or surgical aid without losing their votes. Medical aid under the Bill covered not only the actual physic but also the actual nutriment which was often a great deal more necessary than drugs in time of sickness. In the Unemployed Workmen's Act of 1905 there was a provision that temporary work or other assistance should not disentitle a man to be registered or to vote as a Parliamentary, county, or parochial elector, or as a burgess. He need hardly remind the House how difficult it was at the present moment for a working man to get on the register at all. Under the present registration law it took a period of from eighteen months to two years before a man could get on the list, and many working men were not able to register their votes because they had constantly to move from place to place in search of work. The Bill was not framed in the interests of the "won't-works" and the "neer-do-wells," because they passed from place to place and never got on the register at all. Honest poverty, however, was no crime, and yet by our registration law we were punishing men when they were in the very depths of distress by putting them on the same footing as paupers. The Workmen's Unemployed Act only gave relief in great centres of population. In a part of the country in which he took a considerable interest this particular question was brought very forcibly under his notice. In the winter of 1904–5, sixty-four men in a certain Parliamentary Division lost their votes through obtaining temporary work at a labour yard. About twenty-five of them received less than £1 each, twenty less than 10s., ten only Is. 9d. each, and 5s. 4d. worth of bread. Nobody in the House of Commons would suggest for a moment that honest poverty was a crime. Those who had had any experience of this question knew through what agony those who were driven to ask for employment in those labour yards had gone. Their earnings had gradually disappeared, and everything they could raise a little money upon had gone one by one in order to save their families from utter starvation. At an inquest he knew of a case where a man was reprimanded by the coroner for not applying for relief when his child was dying of hunger. The reason the man gave for not applying was that if he had done so he would have lost his rights of citizenship. Many of those men valued their rights of citizens quite as much as hon. Members of the House. The Bill he had the honour to introduce was a very short one. The first Clause dwelt with the title, and the second preserved the right of voting on all occasions except for guardians. He trusted the Bill would not be treated as a Party measure, but would be supported from all quarters of the House. He begged to move.

*MR. CROYDON MARKS (Cornwall Launceston)

seconded. The Bill night fairly be said to be representative. The working man had a right to sell his labour and the consideration was in money or food. The Bill provided in the case of a municipality or parish, which gave that consideration, the man should be under no disability as regarded his citizenship. Men, through no fault of their own, had to seek help from somebody, and they frequently sought it from the parish who paid for the work done, and yet by receiving that payment the man lost his vote in a small place, while in a large one he was not disfranchised. There was another Act which provided that in an emergency, localities could institute relief works, and in that case such work was no disqualification to the man who then did not lose his right of citizenship. In the case of small village industries, relief works could not be instituted in time to be of service, and those localities by providing work caused a man to lose that which any honourable Member would recognise he would not lose if he was living in a larger place. That principle which operated in a large centre where there were relief works ought to be recognised in smaller places where the local authorities themselves did the work. He could not see any difference between men doing relief work and those engaged breaking stones on the roads, because both were endeavouring by the same kind of work to keep their families out of the workhouse, and they were really saving the parish a larger amount than they were actually receiving. The Bill was a small measure which preserved the man's interest in his country and his citizenship. They should try to encourage village industries, and meet village difficulties, otherwise men would necessarily when thrown out of employment become paupers. The Bill gave localities power to institute local work without having to wait for the machinery of the existing law which dealt only with larger areas. Once a man became a pauper and was struck off the list through having received relief he lost self-respect. The Bill would not encourage loafers or the casual man going from place to place, as such an one did not live long enough anywhere for a voter's qualification. Its object was purely to relieve a difficulty which arose in the case of a workman being thrown suddenly out of employment and who was anxious to save his family from the stigma of the Poor Law. It was with the desire to prevent this evil, lessen pauperism, and quicken the interest of a man in his own country that he wished to second the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

SIR F. BANBURY

said the hon. Member had argued that he wished to make the law the same in a small place as it was in a large one. There was no law in a large place which allowed a man to receive relief without being disqualified which did not apply equally to a small place.

MR. CROYDON MARKS

said he was referring to the Workmen's Unemployed Act, which was operative in large centres.

SIR F. BANBURY

said that, so far as he knew, the Unemployed Workmen Act, to which the hon. Member referred, applied all over the country, and not only to large centres. The introduction of this Bill illustrated the mistake which was sometimes made in the House of Commons of allowing a small measure to pass on the ground that it did not do very much harm while doing some good. As soon as such a Bill was passed, somebody came forward and said that it ought to be extended. Thus the hon. Member who introduced the Bill based his case on the Medical Relief Act. The hon. Member claimed that this was not a Party measure, but they all knew that it was brought in because hon. Gentlemen opposite thought they would gain a little additional support at the elections. ["No, no."] The House should take note that this was an alteration of the franchise. It was absurd that such a Bill should be dealt with when there were not more than twenty Members in the House. The old principle of the Liberal Party was that taxation and representation should go together, but he was sorry to see they had departed from it; in fact, he did not know of any old principle of the Liberal Party from which they had not departed. How on earth could it be said that a man in receipt of Poor Law relief had anything to do with taxation? It was said that poverty was not a crime. Of course it was not, but hon. Members opposite must not claim a monopoly in sympathy for people who met with misfortune. But it required a little courage to show sympathy in the right direction. He took exception to the statement of the hon. Member that everybody prized the franchise. Many people said they had business to attend to, they had nothing to do with politics, and they did not intend to vote; and others would not exercise the franchise for fear that they might be put upon the jury list. If 80 per cent. of the electors went to the poll, it was considered a large number. One of the first results of this Bill would be that one of the deterrents to seeking outdoor relief would disappear. It was human nature to be lazy. He wished that hon. Members, particularly on his side of the House, would be more diligent in the discharge of their duty.

MR. JOHN WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)

You are a party of loafers.

SIR F. BANBURY

said that was not a polite observation, nor was it correct. But there were plenty of other loafers who should not be supported out of the pockets of the industrious like the hon. Member. A man who was receiving out-door relief would not be prevented from voting at an election. He asked the House to consider a concrete case. A man residing in a village did a certain amount of work in summer, but, being unable to get work in winter, he received relief under the Poor Law. Under this Bill that man would be allowed to vote. Supposing that there was a candidate in the constituency who said he would see that the amount of money given in relief of the poor was increased, and that the work they were asked to perform while in receipt of that relief was reduced, what would be done by the man who was receiving relief? He would support the candidate who appealed to his personal interest, and the consequence would be the creation of a class of voters whose only interest would be in some small matter affecting themselves. Having no stake in the country, they would not care whether it went to pieces. Being kept on money taken out of the pockets of hard working and industrious people, it was absolutely absurd to suppose that they would give an unbiassed vote at the election. That was the worst form of corruption that could be instituted, and human power would be unable to resist the temptation put before those men. It was all very well to say that the Bill was only to apply in the case of men who, owing to unfortunate circumstances, might once or twice be obliged to accept out-door relief, or perform work given by the parish. But it must not be forgotten that, though there were many instances of that sort, there were a great number of people who were continually in the habit of accepting out-door relief. If they were going to make things easier for that class, there would be many more of them. They had only to look back to the state of things which existed in England prior to 1836, when there was a more liberal interpretation of the Poor Law than now, to find that rates ran up to a high figure, and that a very large percentage of the people were in the habit of receiving out-door relief. The Labour Party were clamouring for an extension of the Unemployed Act of two years ago, and for the provision of more money for the administration of that Act. That alone was sure to cause a great increase in the class of men who would come under the Bill, and he was certain that the influence which they would exert would be harmful to the country as a whole. The Bill was one of a very curious description. The Attorney-General would agree with him that an Act of Parliament ought to be clearly expressed, and that it should not afford the Members of the legal profession an opportunity to raise arguments as to what the House of Commons meant when it was passed. A good many cases had arisen out of slipshod legislation, and no one had been benefited except members of the legal profession. He wanted to make quite certain that this Bill would not be subject to any misunderstanding. He understood that the hon. Member who introduced the Bill was in favour of some legislation which would enable any man who, owing to temporary causes, was obliged to accept work from the parish, to retain the franchise. It seemed to him that Clause 2 went very much further than that. It said— (1) Where a person has in any part of the United Kingdom, either himself or by any member of his family, performed work in the labour yard of any union in any such place or places as able-bodied male paupers may be set to work in any union and in consideration thereof has received relief from the guardians of the poor or at the expense of any poor rate, such person shall not by reason thereof be deprived of any right to be registered or to vote either (a) as a parliamentary voter; or (b) as a voter at any municipal election; or c) as a burgess; or (d) as a voter at any election to an office under the provisions of any statute; but nothing in this section shall apply to the election (a) of any guardian of the poor; or (b) of any member of any parochial board in Scotland; or (c) of any other body acting in the distribution of relief to the poor from the poor rate. (2) Every person shall be qualified to be registered as a voter and to vote as aforesaid who would be so qualified of the provisions of this Act had come into force on the fifteenth day of July one thousand nine hundred and seven.' He wished to know from the Attorney-General whether it was right to say that, if this clause was passed, any man who was receiving relief for ten or twelve months, or who had even received it for several years on end, would be qualified to vote. If that was so, it practically came to this, that anybody who received relief in any shape or form would be able to exercise the right of voting. That was a very serious thing. The clause was vague and general, and it might be argued by a clever lawyer that anyone working in the yard of a union would be entitled to go out to give his vote. [An HON. MEMBER: He would not have the qualification.] If the man had only been there for two or three months, it did not follow that he had given up his house. He did not think the clause would prevent that man from voting. Supposing that man was put on the register in July, and that he went out of his house in August, he would be qualified to exercise the vote at an election which took place after the register appeared. The hon. and learned Gentleman should be able to state whether that view was right or wrong. Clause 3 seemed to him an extraordinary clause. He could not understand it at all unless there was going to be a general election. He did not object to general elections, but he did not want Clause 3. His hon. friend behind him said that the Government dare not have one. That might be true, but it would be out of order for him to express his views on that matter at present. He did not wish to be led into the discussion of anything which was not germane to the Bill. Clause 3 said— In the year one thousand nine hundred and eight in England, where the overseers have entered 'objected' against the names of any persons in the list of ownership voters… It appeared that the clause only applied to England, but as a matter of fact the Bill applied to the United Kingdom, which included England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. He presumed that the definition of "United Kingdom" was the same now as it was before the Rill was brought in. Why did not the hon. Member withdraw this Bill and bring in another which would carry out his own intentions? Apparently the hon. Member did not wish to do that. Clause 3 clearly said— Where the overseers have entered 'objected' against the names of any persons in the list of ownership voters or in the old lodger list or have omitted the names of any voters from any list of voters made by them, and such entry or omission has been made on the ground only of those persons having accepted work in the labour yard of a union in such place or places as in this Act are hereinfore mentioned, and such names would not, if this Act had been previously passed, have been so objected to or omitted, the overseers shall make a list of such persons, and such list shall be published, revised, and dealt with in all respects as if it were part of the list of claimants in respect of the occupation of property with the qualifications following," etc. The result of that was that it would alter not only the franchise but the registration law. At present registration was made in September. The overseers made out the list before 31st July; the revising barristers sat in September; the list was finished at the beginning of October and put up on the church doors and came into operation on the following 1st January. But all that was to be altered, and persons who were not on the register before the beginning of October, but had qualified since the list was made up, were to be put on the register. Why should that distinction and advantage be given to a particular class of people? It seemed to him that in one sense the Bill did not go far enough, for it created a privileged class. There again the hon. Member did not know what his own Bill was going to do. First of all, he was extending it not only to England but to Wales, Ireland and Scotland. When he did not intend to do that, then he was creating a privileged class. Therefore, he advised the hon. Member to withdraw this Bill and introduce another which would enable the House of Commons to know what the hon. Member really intended. He asked the Attorney-General if he could give a single instance where anything like Clause 3 had ever been inserted in any Bill before. It had nothing to do with a man being poor or anything of that sort. It was said that the clause only meant to rectify an error, but could the Attorney-General give any instance of a rectification of the register having been made in this fashion?

MR. GOULDING (Worcester)

called attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.

House counted, and forty Members not being present—

The House was adjourned at Two minutes past Four of the Clock till Mon lay next.