HC Deb 29 November 1917 vol 99 cc2277-80

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

5.0 P.M.

Mr. FISHER (resuming)

The proposal is that anyone who has a number of non-residential qualifications shall be com- pelled to give one address, and that it shall be a penal offence if he does not give one address in respect of all those qualifications. The right hon Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) asked what inconvenience that would be to the owner of these qualifications. It would arise in this way: Quite possibly under the Act a man may have six different qualifications in six different parts of England, and he may desire to be registered in respect of those qualifications, not because he hopes to exercise them at a General Election, when all the polls in all the constituencies must be taken on one day, but because he hopes to be able to exercise them when by-elections take place. At all events, he thinks it worth while to be on the register in respect of those different qualifications in view of the fact that a by-election may take place in which he is interested, and in which he would desire to record his vote. After all, if the law—as it does in this Bill—gives the power to be registered in respect of qualifications in, say, six different places, surely we ought not to put difficulties in the way of the exercise of that right. We ought not to take away with the left hand what we give with the right. The right hon. Member for Cleveland says that a man must give only one residence in respect of all these, and that to that residence all communications must be sent relating to all these different elections in those constituencies. That might be most inconvenient. As the Home Secretary says, a man might have a residence quite close to that place for which he gets the non-residential qualification, and that would obviously be the proper place to which to send all communications in regard to that particular vote. Not to do that would be a very great inconvenience and hardship.

We do not share the view that if we do not put this Amendment into the Bill there will be a great abuse of plural voting. On the other hand, we do put forward the argument that it would be exceedingly inconvenient to one who quite legitimately desired to exercise the right to do this in connection with a by-election. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland asks whether we will look into this between now and the time when it goes to another place. That we will do, and we will see if we can block up any holes there may be in the Bill for enabling improper use to be made of the plural vote, while we desire at the same time to protect the interests of those who have the right to record these votes.

Mr. GLANVILLE

I am afraid the Government does not quite realise what a serious necessity there is for putting difficulties in the way on polling day, of those who desire to vote two, three, or four times. As to its being practically impossible to do that, of course, that cannot be sustained for a moment. Everyone knows that in fourteen hours, in a densely-populated district, it would be possible for a man to go from constituency to constituency—a man who has a number of shops, for instance—if he felt inclined to run the risk, and to record as many votes as time and opportunity allowed. Under the Bill the occupier will have to give one residential address, and all that is asked is that he should give that one address for all his qualifications, whatever they are. I want to deal with the hardship which the President of the Local Government Board refers to with regard to by-elections. A man may have a vote in the county of Durham—I think that is far enough away for the right hon. Gentleman's argument—he may be an occupier in London, and have a residence somewhere in Surrey. What is the hardship? A by-election takes place in the county of Durham. He knows there is a by-election in the county of Durham, because he gets the electoral communications early enough from the candidates in the county of Durham at his private address—a week before the election. I agree that the conditions would be different where a telegram was sent out the night before the poll, but a man can get his information in time to go up to Durham if it is posted in Durham the night before. For all the purposes of a by-election he gets all his electoral communications early enough and satisfactorily, and it is a mare's nest to say that it is inconvenient to a man who may have a dozen qualifications in different parts of the country to have his communications with regard to by-elections sent to one address. Our Post Office do not take two, three, or four weeks to deliver a poll card and other election literature. I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman is not more up-to-date than that.

Sir C. SEELY

I think hon. Members opposite might be satisfied with what has been said by the President of the Local Government Board. He said he would see if anything can be done to stop the difficulty which has been pointed out, but I think the method which is proposed in this Amendment is not a very desirable one. It will practically have the effect of creating an offence where no offence is intended, and I cannot help thinking that that is a great mistake. Take the case of the numbers of men—not that it affects business communities much—who live in London but who have a house in the Isle of Wight or in some other place in the South of England. Naturally, a man of that kind will have a vote for that house, and that will be described as being his address. For such men to be the subject of penalties if they put down the houses where they live in August and September because they also have a business in London is making offences too common, and creating offences where there is no need for them. I have no doubt if there is a real difficulty with regard to the description of residence the right hon. Gentleman will find some way out, but I think this particular Amendment goes too far, and I suggest that the matter should be left as it is.

Amendment negatived.