HC Deb 29 November 1917 vol 99 cc2330-47

The expenses mentioned above in Parts I., II., and III. of this Schedule, other than personal expenses shall not exceed an amount equal—

Where there are two or more joint candidates at an election, the maximum amount of expenses mentioned in Parts III. and IV. of this Schedule shall, for each of the joint candidates, be the amount produced by multiplying a single candidate's maximum by one and a half and dividing the result by the number of joint candidates.

Mr. GULLAND

I beg to move, after the word "than" ["other than personal expenses"], to insert the words "the fee of the election agent as hereinafter provided and."

This Amendment and the one which follows standing in my name are down with the object of ensuring that the election agent shall have an adequate remuneration for his services at an election. I think everyone is anxious to keep the expenses of an election as low as possible, and I think everybody rejoiced at the decision of the Speaker's Conference that the election expenses should be reduced. At the same time, it is absolutely essential that if an election is to be conducted properly, with due regard to the law and to the safeguards we all feel to be necessary during an election, the agent should be properly remunerated. There was considerable discussion in regard to this point on the Committee stage, and the Amendment that I move is in a rather different form from that of the one that was then proposed. Let me just recall the figures as I think they are. In an existing constituency, say, of an average of 11,000 electors, the maximum expenses for a county division would be £1,250, and for a borough division £650. Under this Bill the number of electors in a somewhat similar constituency would be roughly—nobody knows exactly—24,000, and the maximum for a county division would be £700, and for a borough £500. So you practically double your electorate and reduce your possible expenses very, very, considerably. In ordinary times that would be serious enough in a sense, though it would be delightful in another sense to think that those of us who do stand again will only be allowed to spend considerably less than we have in the past. At the same time, we must remember what really is in front of us. We are all thinking very largely in connection with this Bill of the first election that will take place. At that first election I think it is probably certain that everything will be dearer. Paper will be dearer; printing, advertising, even postages, telegrams and telephones will be dearer. There is one saving—a saving of one postage, but on the basis that I have taken of the constituency of 24,000 the saving of one halfpenny postage means exactly £50, which, after all, is not very considerable in view of these totals that I have named. The only other saving I can think of is that some of the meetings will be held in school rooms where the expenses will be very much less than they have been in the past with regard to halls. Nevertheless, however, you look upon this if any Member will make a sort of test balance-sheet of his expenses at the next election, I think he will find that really on this basis there is practically nothing left for the election agent. I cannot think that that is a satisfactory result. The agent is a most important man in an election, in some ways he is more important than the candidate. The candidate depends on him, for he can easily make a mistake. While the candidate is busy making his speeches the agent is working and making all the arrangements all through the constituency; and especially in connection with a new Bill of this sort, where so many new points are turning up, it is of the utmost importance that for an agent you have a thorough skilled and expert man. You cannot get such a man unless you are prepared to pay for him. It is no use in this or any other sphere of life to get poorly-paid labour, because you get poor results. In connection with this Bill you will get all sorts of extra work put upon the agent, and I think that even since this matter was considered in Committee there are many points that have arisen, such as the absent voters, the proxy voters, and others, that will give the election agent not only more to do but more difficult points to consider and to watch. I think that since this point was considered in the Committee stage some such provision as this has become more important than it was before. The Home Secretary expressed sympathy with this proposal for an additional sum to the agent, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman at present in charge of the Bill will agree with and accept this Amendment. I know there are other Members who are keenly interested in this question, and who will be ready to discuss it from other points of view.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I very heartily support the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gulland). I do not think I can add anything to what he has said, except this: I am quite sure that unless some provision of this kind is made we shall be all forced to use some expedient to retain the men whom we expect to look after our elections. There will be something in the shape of a retaining fee paid during the years of peace—I mean electioneering peace—which will cover what may be expected from the agent as services. I do not think that is satisfactory. It is very much better to say straightforwardly that you may pay a certain amount in certain cases and a lesser amount in other cases. We shall then have a clear cut, and shall know where we are, while we shall not be required necessarily to pay the maximum. The candidate will require greater protection in the future than in the past. This Act is more stringent in some provisions than the old law, and I think we should now give some consideration to the candidate.

Mr. P. A. HARRIS

I am rather reluctant to differ from the last two speakers, and I do so in no controversial mood. I do, however, feel that, considering the principle involved, the House, and especially an empty House like this, should not be rushed into this kind of legislation. I cannot help remarking that it is rather an unholy combination when the Chairmen of both political parties combine, and especially when both of them are Scottish. I cannot help viewing this Amendment with some suspicion. I always understood that the Scots were a frugal race, but here they are going suddenly towards the end of a very long discussion of this Bill to introduce a new principle into legislation, setting, I venture to think, a very bad precedent. The late Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) always laid it down that it was a bad principle to fix wages. He we are, in a Bill for the first time, fixing wages—it is true a maximum, but it will be very difficult to make it anything of a minimum. We are going practically to say by Act of Parliament that the fee for election agents should be fixed. I am not one of those who for a moment would suggest that it would be a wise thing for a candidate to be frugal in the payment of his agent. On the contrary, I agree that the agent is highly necessary. Much depends upon him, both as to the successful organisation of the election and also on the candidate's freedom from illegal practices. I venture, however, to say that the suggestion is one which, as I understand it—seeing that the elections are all going to be on one day, and that the time will be very much shorter—

Mr. GULLAND

Longer!

Mr. HARRIS

The right hon. Gentleman says longer.

Mr. GULLAND

Longer in the boroughs.

Mr. HARRIS

But not in the counties? I am not in a position to say, but my impression is that the elections will be shorter. I hope certainly the elections will be much more simple and straightforward. I do not believe the public wants, or anyone wants, the amount allowed for election expenses to be such as will allow the complicated elections which under the present law prevail. At any rate, £150 is a very large sum to pay to an election agent. If, for instance, the election drags on for three weeks it is a very large amount to fix by legislation. There is some complaint about the small amount allowed for the total cost of the election. I would remind the House that it is going to be the same for both sides. On both sides the candidates will be limited. Though the amount to be spent will be small, as the expenditure will be limited for all the candidates contesting a division, and as people get accustomed to the idea that elections are going to be very much less costly affairs, the scale of expenditure will be reduced. All those posters and elaborate leaflets, which played such a big part in the old-fashioned election, will, I hope, in time disappear, and the literature of elections will be confined merely to sending out election addresses—the envelopes for which, at any rate on one occasion, will be franked—and the notices of public meetings. I suggest this is a bad principle. The Speaker's Conference decided that one of the most important reforms required was to reduce the cost of elections. You do not want, therefore, any candidate to be precluded from standing for Parliament because of the excessive cost. This is a retrograde step. If it is necessary to increase the expenses or to pay any fees, I would rather add to the total amount. I suggest that what is recommended is excessive.

Mr. NIELD

As one who has had very considerable experience of this particular post in the past, I am bound to say that I do not see the necessity altogether for this proposed Amendment. I have generally in my experience managed to get through the election at less than the usual expenses. Possibly I knew where to resist pressure. What surprised me about this motion is that it is made by a Scotsman and seconded by a Scotsman. I should have thought that both of them would have had a very much better judgment of their fellows' capacity to look after themselves. My own recollection of the methods of Scotsmen—I most respectfully submit to the hon. Members—is of men who take good care that the first work as an agent is to appropriate sufficient funds to make his own quite safe. It has been suggested that a candidate requires a personage of the kind to go about the constituency to make speeches for him. I should prefer to say, to make promises. The candidate, it is said, must necessarily have all this business conducted for him by an agent. I am not going to deprecate the party agent or his payment. Generally he is a most capable man. Whether, however, it is wise to fix his fee at £150 or £100, as the case may be—

An HON. MEMBER

Not exceeding!

Mr. NIELD

That does not depend upon the ordinary candidate. He may not be of sufficient courage or character to be able to keep within the sum mentioned in the scale. I thought this Act was going to bring about, as the last speaker suggested, a considerable reduction in the cost of elections which would make it less necessary for the candidate to appeal to that benevolent chest which is said to be kept in various quarters, and the key of which is in the possession of certain privileged individuals. I can authority for a prescriptive fee, because, points of view, that those who have the direction of affairs should at least be made secure if they cannot secure themselves. I do think, however, that we ought to be careful before we give any statutory authority for a prescriptive fee, because, whatever you may say, that "it shall not exceed," we all know what that means. A Chancery taxing-master will generally "not exceed," but he will probably go up to the limit of the scale. I think, therefore, it will be a very unwise thing, and perhaps scarcely worth our while, to arrange a sum that shall be the same all round. It will simply mean the increase of election expenses. I should hope that the matter will be left in the Bill as it now stands.

Mr. WATT

I desire, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough, to enter my protest against the Government accepting this Amendment. I think it is a most unfortunate one. I am surprised that it has been brought forward by the hon. Members who have brought it forward. Reference has twice been made to the fact that the Mover and Seconder are Scotsmen. As one of the same nationality I was thunderstruck that extravagance of the kind should be suggested by any hon. Member—for it is extravagance! I am inclined to think that the House has not got hold of the importance of this. There are several Amendments on the Paper. The last is the most important—that the fee to the agent shall be £150 in the counties and £100 in the boroughs. This is to be in excess of the maximum amount allowed for election expenses. For sixty years we have been struggling to keep election expenses down, and, in particular, to get the returning officer's fee withdrawn from the payments made by the candidate. We have now in this measure succeeded in getting that. In my particular division that reduces the expenditure by £125. After sixty years' struggle, and succeeding in getting that £125 down, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries Burghs, and—shall I say? —his accomplice, the hon. Baronet for Ayr Burghs, now suggests that £100 should be added to the expenses for the borough and £150 for the county. That is to say, it has taken all sixty years on the one hand to achieve what I have stated, and at the suggestion of these two hon. Members the amount is to be given to the agents. I have nothing—none of us have!— to say against the valuable services of the agents who help us to fight our elections. But I say that it is a good thing that their fee should be placed in the maximum expenses, particularly in Scotland, where Scotsmen are keen, notwithstanding the extravagance of the two hon. Members, who are not a fair sample!

In Scotland the agent is keen to realise that unless he saves, and scrapes, gathers together, and keeps together, he will not have anything left for himself. That from the candidate's point of view is a wise arrangement, for it keeps the party agent up to the mark to keep down the expenses so that he will have some money at the end. It is a very wise provision indeed. This, however, entirely does away with that tendency to conserve the expenses. What will be the result? Before the election is half over Mr. Agent will have reached the maximum of the expenses, and there will be nothing left to spend, and instead of the election being well worked under that system it will be miserably worked, because the latter part will not be done at all, there being no money left to spend. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries Burghs said it was necessary to have it very carefully and well done. I venture to say this system will not cause the work to be well and thoroughly done. There is another point against it, namely, that this particular proposal was smashed in Committee. My hon. Friend raked it fore and aft, and it sank in a very turbid sea. Now it has been launched again on Report, when we have a very poor House, when not one-sixth of the Members within the precincts of the House are aware of what is passing. I venture to say the majority of the rank and file, humble Back Benchers like the hon. Member for Market Harborough and myself, would strenuously object to a proposal under which the cheapness of elections, for which we struggled so long, is to be absolutely nullified by a proposal of the Chief Whip of the Liberal party, aided by the General Manager of the Tory party.

Mr. HEALY

As the sole representative of the Speaker's Conference present at this moment, I rise to protest against this evasion of the recommendation which that body made. Reduced to its elements, this is a proposal to increase election expenses. The existing scale of charges to be found in the Corrupt Practices Act does not distinguish the election agent's fee. It prescribes a scale, and that scale is to cover the election agent's fee. If the former scale covered the election agent's fee, why should not the new scale? I join with the last speaker in surprise at the source from which this Amendment has come. I can very well understand the hon. Baronet for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) proposing it, or I could very well understand it coming from the other side of the House, but coming from the Chief Whip of the Liberal party this proposal is certainly startling. I am sorry we have not a larger Labour element here. I .should like to know what the Labour party think of this proposal. It will affect them, as it will affect everyone else. Are they in favour of having election expenses reduced or increased? One of the most beneficent proposals of the Speaker's Conference was this proposal to cut down expenses. It cannot be said that it hurts any party in particular; all are equally affected by it. If anybody is at a disadvantage, all are at a disadvantage, and I should have supposed all Members in this House, both as individuals and as public representatives, had an equal interest in reducing expenses. The hon. and learned Member opposite said he had often acted as election agent, and I think in all three countries it would probably be found that the best election agents are those who are eager volunteers on the side of the party on which they are fighting. As the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) has ventured into poetry, and expressed a hope that this proposal will be engulfed in a stormy sea, I will wind up with what I hope is even a more appropriate quotation, by hoping that it will go down To the dust, from whence it sprung. Unwept, unhonour'd and unsung.

Mr. SHERWELL

I confess that, on the surface of things, any Amendment of this kind is suspect when its sponsors are the representatives of two political caucuses. I understand, and I quite appreciate, what may be a very generous motive animating both my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries Burghs and the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs. They are intimately concerned with the interests of election agents. We quite appreciate their point of view. We quite appreciate the motive which probably inspires the Amendment. But it will not be an encroachment upon the monetary interests of these election agents to reject this particular Amendment. It is still possible, under the Schedule in the Bill, to secure that the election agent shall have a return commensurate with his services. It only means that in that case, if you establish and maintain a proper standard of remuneration for an election agent, there is less cash available to be spent in much more questionable ways. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. M. Healy) referred to the departure from the Speaker's Conference. I confess frankly, in the light of the proceedings on this measure within the last ten days, I do not believe it is now in its present state entitled to be considered a compromise measure at all. The departure from the Resolutions of the Speaker's Conference, and the departures from the text of the Bill as originally introduced into this House, and the grounds on which it was consistently supported by some who, like myself, disapproved of certain provisions, but voted solemnly for the Bill as originally introduced—the departure from that original structure are so great and so important that we cannot any longer regard it seriously as a compromise measure. If the experience of the last fortnight is to afford a moral to be drawn from attempts at compromise legislation, then I say quite frankly I myself am not prepared to consider in the same spirit any further compromise legislation which the present Government or any succeeding Government may introduce.

The matter concerned in this Amendment is a very serious one. There has been a very strong, a very real, and a very laudable desire on the part of men of all parties to cut down the absurdly extravagant scale of expenditure in connection with Parliamentary elections. Even if the scale under this Bill in its original form be allowed, every practical man must recognise it does put a very serious ba[...] and handicap upon candidates who are poor men, and I am bound to say that, consistently with the spirit in which this legislation has been proposed and supported, we ought to reduce to the most rigid minimum any scale of expenditure that is to be allowed by Statute. I certainly hope that the House will not for one moment give its support to this particular Amendment. I should strongly oppose it, and I shall be prepared to vote for its rejection if it is carried to a Division.

Mr. CHANCELLOR

I hope the House will refuse to consider this Amendment for a moment. The whole object of the Bill is to make this House more democratic and representative, and to enable persons of comparatively small means to put up for election and get to this House. This House has long since ceased to be the preserve of millionaires, and this Amendment will increase the chances of the rich as against the poor. As this proposal is contrary to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, I hope everybody who calls himself a democrat will oppose it. Whatever the limit of expenditure is the election agents will, of course, recommend expenditure to the full extent. This proposal will add —100 to the possible limit allowed under the Bill, and that will make it much more difficult for the independent man, or a comparatively poor man, to come forward who does not depend on party funds. This Amendment will make them more dependent than ever on the party funds, and they will be tied to their party. If the object of this Bill is to make this House more democratic, then this is a proposal which will defeat that object, and I hope the Government will refuse to accept this Amendment.

Major BOWDEN

I am afraid that I cannot support this Amendment. I agree with what the last speaker said in regard to fixing a rate for the agent. I might be inclined to support this proposal if the agent took the entire responsibility for his action. Many hon. Members are aware of the result of the action of an agent for which the candidate has to take the entire responsibility. If it is permitted to mention a figure outside the ordinary cost of the election expenses as being justifiable to an agent, I should say that some agents might be worth more than £150 and some of them very much less. The point of view I want to express is that a figure has been fixed as the maximum for future elections, and this Amendment greatly increases that figure. In my conversations with hon. Members I have formed the opinion that this Amendment in a full House would have no possible chance of being carried.

Mr. FISHER

One thing I have learned from this Debate is that my right. hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Gulland) is really actuated by the most ardent desire to make the House of Commons the preserve of millionaires. After all, we have to interpret the decisions of the Speaker's Conference. Undoubtedly the desire expressed by that Conference was that the necessary expenses for obtaining a seat in this House should be materially diminished. The Conference was strongly and unanimously of opinion that the expenses entailed in fighting a contested election were unjustifiable, and should be materially reduced. That object is carried out in this Bill, and anyone who looks at the Schedules of this Bill dealing with the expenses and compares the amount of money which would be allowed under this Bill with the amount allowed under the old system will find that the amount allowed in contesting a constituency is cut down by something like 50 per cent., which is a very material reduction. [An HON. MEMBER: "And with double the number of electors!"] Yes, it is 5d. per head, and, of course, if there are more electors there are more fivepences, while in the counties it is 7d. per head. The amount goes up and down, according to the number of the electors.

I want to point out that in the desire, which I share, to materially reduce the present expenses we must not lose sight of the fact that we must have enough money to put the cause and the issues for which you are fighting distinctly and prominently before the electors. The candidates of the future will be allowed one free postage. But we must get into communication with our electors at least twice. You must also have a very large printing bill, and I rather agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries that, at all events at the next election, the money we shall have to spend in printing is likely to be materially increased and the paper will be very difficult to procure and very expensive. Then there is the hiring of places for public meetings. We are to have an enormous number of electors, many of them women, absolutely new to the game. You must have committee rooms in prominent places, and you cannot always pick and choose them. You must take the first committee rooms which your party desire you to take; otherwise you may give an unfair advantage to your opponent. Then, again, those you place in charge of your committee room must have a certain amount of knowledge and experience, and they have to be paid. I looked into this matter very carefully, and I think the amount allowed is almost the least possible to make the issues for which you are fighting well known to such a large number of electors. There is no Act of Parliament which makes any provision whatever for the amount of money which the candidate may give his agent, because in the past the amount at the disposal of the candidate was so large and liberal that it was perfectly possible for all of us to make provision on quite a liberal and generous scale for our agents; but now, with the money cut down to this extent, it will be extremely difficult and almost impossible, particularly for new candidates who are not very well versed in economy and not very good business men to find out of the money allowed enough to adequately reward a really skilled agent.

I always think the position of an agent is most unusual. He has an immense amount of work to do at one time and can be almost idle at another; but his life is not one to be envied at all. He is either too elated or too depressed. He has very few opportunities of putting by for his old age, and long before he is old it is found by the chairman or by his employers that he is not the man for the position.

Mr. WATT

They are all solicitors in Scotland.

Mr. FISHER

We cannot make our laws for Scotland only, although we always have Scotland in our minds. We are legislating for England as well as Scotland. 1 maintain that I am well within the truth when I say that agents as a rule are badly paid and have very few opportunities of putting by money for their old age, long before which they find themselves out of a job. This Bill does not diminish by a single one the many traps which are laid for candidates. We are to have the same corrupt and illegal practices, and whoever fights an election in the future will fight it with great risks; indeed, instead of finding himself in the House of Commons, he may well find himself in gaol. I dare say by that time that the gaol may be the more preferable place; but, at all events, it is not his ambition. I at least, even although I am an old electioneerng hand, would not think of going in for a really stiff and stubborn contest unless I were guided by an agent of some experience and skill. There may be fortunate candidates—and there evidently are in Scotland—who will be able to get their legal friends to give them all the benefit of their experience for nothing, and who, just for the mere sake of friendship, or possibly relationship, may be willing to see them through all the turmoil and snares of an election. I do not think it will be the ordinary lot of the ordinary candidate. The ordinary candidate will provide himself with a skilful agent, and he will have some difficulty in extracting from these fivepences adequate remuneration for him. I should not be inclined to accept this Amendment if it were compulsory to pay the agent £150 in the case of a county constituency and £100 in the case of a borough constituency.

I know hon. Members will say that if you put in the Act that the agent may be paid this sum it will, become the fee that the agent will demand. There is something in that contention, but I have endeavoured to make inquiries, and I rather fancy that £100 is quite a common fee to give an agent at the present time. A fee of £150 is more rarely given, but it is given when men contest very difficult seats. I want to put before the House an argument which has not yet been used, but which greatly impresses me. If we do not put in some fee and do not give any extra money, but simply allow the agent to work on the chance of being able to save something out of these fivepences, it will inevitably lead to rich men finding some means of evading the Act. A rich man will say, "I have either got to break with my constituency, and I have a conscience as regards my agent, or to break the law. "There would be a real temptation to many men when on the last two or three days of the election they were almost bound to spend the money which they had tried to put aside for the agent. After all, there are different ways of looking at the law, and a rich man in some way or other would evade the Act perhaps by taking the agent temporarily into his employment or raising his salary as registration agent or by some subterfuge of that kind. It would be better to meet this case quite openly and to recognise that the money allowed is not sufficient out of which to pay the agent a reasonable fee. I am not inclined to accept the fees of £150 and £100, but I would suggest £100 for the counties and £75 for the boroughs. My right hon. Friend and I have come to the conclusion that we had better put some fee into the Bill, and, if the House will agree to that compromise we will accept the Amendment in that form, recognising at the same time that it is not absolutely necessary. It is only "may" and not "shall." [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I understood that some Scotsmen now do not pay any money, and that practice may still go on. I have endeavoured to the best of my power to meet the two sides that have taken part in the discussion, and if the House is willing to agree to the Amendment in that form the Government are prepared to accept it.

Mr. T. WILSON

I am absolutely astonished by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. Why has he not made any allowance for motor cars and taxicabs? There is no election agent in the country worth £150, and I say that with a full knowledge of the responsibility I am taking. To insert in an Act of Parliament that a candidate may pay his election agent £150 or £100, as the case may be, is absolutely astounding. The amount allowed under the Bill now is quite sufficient to cover all the expenses of any candidate. In the name of the Labour party I protest strongly against this Amendment. I hope the Government will leave this matter an open question and will not use their influence in whipping Members into the Lobby in favour of the Amendment. I am also astonished that anyone who pretends to be a democrat in any shape or form should bring forward an Amendment of this kind. It is absolutely contrary to the principle of democracy. So far as I and the party with which I am connected are concerned, we shall vote solidly against the proposal. If it is accepted by the House it will be a blemish on what is otherwise a good Bill, although there may be certain things in it which are not altogether good. The proposal lends itself to gerrymandering. There may be a multiplicity of candidates in an election. Some of them will not stand the least chance of getting 2 per cent. of the votes, but they will be allowed to spend £150 on an election agent. The influence of those candidates and of their election agents may, and probably will, be used in support of another candidate altogether. In this Bill we ought to keep clear, so far as we can, of gerrymandering. There is no doubt that the principle of this proposal, which, apparently, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept, does lend itself to gerrymandering. I protest also in the name of the poor man who cannot afford to pay the extra amount which candidates will be allowed to spend if the Amendment is accepted. I hope that the Government will reconsider its decision and will leave out of the Bill a proposal to fix the maximum amount which shall be paid to election agents.

There is another consideration. An election agent might probably be the registration agent also. He may be receiving a good salary as registration agent, and if he is made election agent as well—I do not wish to be brutal in my remarks—it will give an opportunity to use the money for other purposes than the election agent's expenses. If this Amendment is put into the Bill it will be an excrescence, and it will not redound to the intelligence or integrity of Members of the Government. It is all very well for the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) to shake his head. I have seen him shake his head before. He is not a poor man, and does not know what £150 means to a poor man, and he does not know what £150 extra spent on an election very often means in connection with an election. From the democratic standpoint, and also in the interest of the honour of candidates who fight an election, this Amendment ought not to be accepted. I would again beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position he seemed to take up, and to say that he will have none of it, that he will not give a rich man who is a candidate for Parliament an advantage over the poor man, which he will have if this Amendment is accepted.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. T. DAVIES

I wish to support the last speaker in his attitude towards this Amendment, and I hope the Government will again consider and not consent to its insertion in the Bill. It is quite true that none of us want to pay our election agents less than the value of their work, but what we want and the whole idea of the Bill is, to reduce election expenses. As the right hon. Gentleman said, if this Bill passes as it stands it will reduce the expenses by 50 per cent. in boroughs and more than 50 per cent. in the counties. The suggestion made in this Amendment is to pay 22 per cent. more on an average election in the boroughs arid 25 per cent. more for an average election in the counties. Under the Bill an average election for boroughs would cost £450, and £100 added to that means £550, while the average election in the counties would cost under the Bill £600, and £150 added to that means £750, or 25 per cent. more. It is quite possible to run an election in large boroughs on £450. I have several times contested a London County Council election with 24,000 voters, and fought th, whole thing for less than £450, and won each time. If a county council election in London with 24,000 voters can be fought for £450, surely £450 is quite sufficient to fight any borough election for Parliament. The expenses of the presiding officer are to be paid by the State. 'Hie sum allowed by the Amendment is too much, and, in view of the attitude of the Labour party, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gulland) will not press it, and that the Government will not accept it.

Mr. GULLAND

Perhaps I may be allowed to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his speech and the strong arguments he put in favour of something like the Amendment. Had the Debate been in the ordinary course I should have gladly accepted the sums he suggested, but it is quite evident to everybody that the feeling of the House is against it. I certainly have no desire to press such a matter against the expression of opinion from every quarter of the House, and I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I beg to move, after the word " register " [" sevenpence for each elector on the register "], to insert the words " in the case of a group of boroughs election, sixpence for each elector on the register."

I argued on the Committee stage that groups of boroughs were in a wholly different position from either single boroughs or divisions in a, large town. It is perfectly impossible in such a group, with places sometimes a considerable distance from one another, to run that election 9, scale which is perhaps suitable enough for a division which is inside a ringed fence. The Amendment on the last occasion was objected to by my right hon. Friend opposite, although he must know quite well that there is an essential difference between the two cases. You cannot use schools as you can at council elections in a town like that. You would have to use the public hall in every case and pay a good deal for it, and you would have other expenses. If you have a biggish town you must have a sub-agent. In the group of boroughs, for example, which I represent at present, 5d. would be a perfect impossibility. It would be bad enough in the new constituency, where you have a pretty large town in addition to the principal borough. One town has 14,000, another 8,000, another 6,000, and so on. You cannot hold an election in a board school. It is quite impossible. You would have to go to the public hall and perhaps pay a £5 note for it or something like that. They always put the price up at election time. In a large? borough it will be higher. I do not see how it oan reasonably be suggested in a case of that. sort that you should stick to exactly the same limit that you allow for a division of a borough. I think, therefore, there ought to be a third scale for groups of boroughs.

Mr. BOYTON

I beg to second the Amendment

Mr.FISHER

I am placed in rather an awkward position by this Amendment being moved, which I have had no opportunity of thoroughly looking at. I should like to know to what extent it would apply. I have had no experience myself, but there seems to be something in my hon. Friend's argument that a group cf boroughs would be more expensive than a single borough. At the same time, I rather think the Amendment was down on the Paper in Committee.

Sir G. YOUNGER

Yes; I moved it.

Mr. FISHER

Then it was not acceptable to the House. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. There may be other opportunities of it being moved in another place where it can be considered. I have had too little time to consider it to advise the House.

Mr. GULLAND

This was moved by the hon. Baronet in Committee, and I for one opposed it, and the Home Secretary concluded the proceedings by saying: I could not possibly accept this Amendment. A group of district boroughs should be treated as a borough and not as a county. The position is no worse under the Bill than it is to-day. This embodies the recommendations of the Commission, and I cannot depart from it.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.